Improving Organic Animal Farming 1786761807, 9781786761804

Citation preview

Improving organic animal farming

It is widely recognised that agriculture is a significant contributor to global warming and climate change. Agriculture needs to reduce its environmental impact and adapt to current climate change whilst still feeding a growing population, i.e. become more ‘climate-smart’. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing is playing its part in achieving this by bringing together key research on making the production of the world’s most important crops and livestock products more sustainable. Based on extensive research, our publications specifically target the challenge of climate-smart agriculture. In this way we are using ‘smart publishing’ to help achieve climate-smart agriculture. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing is an independent and innovative publisher delivering high quality customer-focused agricultural science content in both print and online formats for the academic and research communities. Our aim is to build a foundation of knowledge on which researchers can build to meet the challenge of climate-smart agriculture. For more information about Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing simply call us on +44 (0) 1223 839365, email [email protected] or alternatively please visit our website at www.bdspublishing.com. Related titles: Achieving sustainable production of milk Volume 1: Milk composition, genetics and breeding Print (ISBN 978-1-78676-044-9); Online (978-1-78676-046-3, 978-1-78676-047-0) Achieving sustainable production of milk Volume 2: Safety, quality and sustainability Print (978-1-78676-048-7); Online (978-1-78676-050-0, 978-1-78676-051-7) Achieving sustainable production of milk Volume 3: Dairy herd management and welfare Print (ISBN 978-1-78676-052-4); Online (978-1-78676-054-8, 978-1-78676-055-5) Achieving sustainable production of pig meat Volume 1: Safety, quality and sustainability Print (ISBN 978-1-78676-088-3); Online (ISBN 978-1-78676-091-3, 978-1-78676-090-6) Achieving sustainable production of pig meat Volume 2: Animal breeding and nutrition Print (ISBN 978-1-78676-092-0); Online (ISBN 978-1-78676-094-4, 978-1-78676-095-1) Achieving sustainable production of pig meat Volume 3: Animal health and welfare Print (ISBN 978-1-78676-096-8); Online (ISBN 978-1-78676-099-9, 978-1-78676-098-2) Achieving sustainable production of sheep Print (ISBN 978-1-78676-084-5); Online (ISBN 978-1-78676-086-9, 978-1-78676-087-6) Improving grassland and pasture management in temperate agriculture Print (ISBN 978-1-78676-200-9); Online (ISBN 978-1-78676-202-3, 978-1-78676-203-0) Ensuring safety and quality in the production of beef Volume 1: Safety Print (ISBN 978-1-78676-056-2); Online (ISBN 978-1-78676-058-6, 978-1-78676-059-3) Ensuring safety and quality in the production of beef Volume 2: Quality Print (ISBN 978-1-78676-060-9); Online (ISBN 978-1-78676-062-3, 978-1-78676-063-0) Achieving sustainable production of poultry meat Volume 2: Breeding and nutrition Print (ISBN 978-1-78676-068-5); Online (ISBN 978-1-78676-070-8, 978-1-78676-071-5) Achieving sustainable production of poultry meat Volume 3: Animal health and welfare Print (ISBN 978-1-78676-072-2); Online (ISBN 978-1-78676-074-6, 978-1-78676-075-3) Chapters are available individually from our online bookshop: https://shop.bdspublishing.com

BURLEIGH DODDS SERIES IN AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE NUMBER 46

Improving organic animal farming Edited by Dr Mette Vaarst, Aarhus University, Denmark; and Dr Stephen Roderick, Duchy College, UK

Published by Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited 82 High Street, Sawston, Cambridge CB22 3HJ, UK www.bdspublishing.com Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, 1518 Walnut Street, Suite 900, Philadelphia, PA 19102-3406, USA First published 2019 by Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, 2019. All rights reserved. This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted material is quoted with permission and sources are indicated. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information but the authors and the publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials. Neither the authors nor the publisher, nor anyone else associated with this publication shall be liable for any loss, damage or liability directly or indirectly caused or alleged to be caused by this book. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher. The consent of Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for creating new works, or for resale. Specific permission must be obtained in writing from Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited for such copying. Permissions may be sought directly from Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing at the above address. Alternatively, please email: [email protected] or telephone (+44) (0) 1223 839365. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks and are used only for identification and explanation, without intent to infringe. Notice No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of product liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. Library of Congress Control Number: 2018967343 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-1-78676-180-4 (Print) ISBN 978-1-78676-183-5 (PDF) ISBN 978-1-78676-182-8 (ePub) ISSN 2059-6936 (print) ISSN 2059-6944 (online) DOI 10.19103/AS.2017.0028 Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

Contents Series list

x

Acknowledgements and dedication

xv

1 Setting the scene: the continued drive to improve organic animal farming 1 Mette Vaarst, Aarhus University, Denmark; and Stephen Roderick, Duchy College, UK 1 Introduction 1 2 Challenges of organic animal farming 2 3 Animals in organic farming 4 4 Organic animal farming and climate change 5 5  Organic smallholder farming in the tropics 6 6 Specific issues addressed for each animal species 7 7 Organic aquaculture 8 8 Organic bee keeping 9 9 Future trends and conclusion 9 10 References 10 Part 1  Concepts in organic animal farming 2 The principles of organic livestock farming 13 Susanne Padel, The Organic Research Centre, UK 1 Introduction 13 2 Foundational principles of organic livestock farming 14 3 Implementing principles of organic livestock farming 17 4 The future of organic principles in livestock farming 25 5 Conclusion 26 6 Where to look for further information 27 7 References 28 3 The effects of organic management on greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency in livestock production 33 L. G. Smith, The Organic Research Centre and Cranfield University, UK; and A. G. Williams, Cranfield University, UK 1 Introduction 33 2  Strategies for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and improving energy efficiency in organic farming 38 3  Examples of innovation in practice: livestock farmers progressing towards greenhouse gas mitigation 45 4  Challenges and opportunities in research and development 48 5 Conclusion and future trends 51 6 Acknowledgements 51 7 Where to look for further information 52 8 References 52

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

vi

Contents

4 Rethinking and engaging with animal health in organic farming 59 Mette Vaarst, Aarhus University, Denmark 1 Introduction 59 2 Animal health as a dynamic and holistic concept of resilience 64 3 How can we ensure animal health in practice? 65 4 ‘One health’ in organic animal farming? 70 5 Engaging in health promotion and care in organic animal herds 72 6 Conclusion 74 7 Where to look for further information 74 8 References 75 5 Enhancing naturalness and human care in organic animal farming 79 Lindsay K. Whistance, The Organic Research Centre, UK 1 Introduction 79 2  Principles and standards of organic farming 80 3 Naturalness 83 4  Mutilations and farming systems 85 5  Measuring welfare 86 6  Human care 91 7  Future trends 96 8  Where to look for further information 97 9 References 98 6 Biosecurity and safety for humans and animals in organic animal farming 103 K. Ellis, Scottish Centre for Production Animal Health and Food Safety, University of Glasgow, UK 1 Introduction 103 2 The challenges of biosecurity risk in organic farming 104 3 Food safety summary 112 4 Controlling infectious diseases 113 5 Conclusions and future trends 114 6 Case studies 115 7 Where to look for further information 118 8 References 119 7 Integrated crop–livestock systems with agroforestry to improve organic animal farming 123 A. J. Escribano, Nutrion Internacional, Spain; J. Ryschawy, University of Toulouse, France; and L. K. Whistance, The Organic Research Centre, UK 1 Introduction 123 2 Types of ICLS 124 3 Environmental and economic benefits of ICLS 126 4 Agroforestry as an ICLS 128 5 Animals in agroforestry systems 131 6 Trees as a source of nutrition and medicine 135 7 Challenges in integrated livestock and forestry systems 140 8 Conclusion 143 9 Where to look for further information 143 10 References 143

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Contentsvii

8 Smallholder integrated organic farming: how can it work in the tropics? 157 Raphael Wahome and Caroline Chepkoech, University of Nairobi, Kenya 1 Introduction 157 2 Overview of tropical animal production and organic and smallholder farming 158 3 Organic standards for animal husbandry in the tropics 162 4 Challenges faced by tropical organic animal farmers 164 5 Conclusion and future trends 169 6 Where to look for further information 170 7 References 170 9 Pastoralism and organic animal farming: are they complementary? 175 Stephen Roderick, Duchy College, UK 1 Introduction 175 2 Pastoral management strategies 178 3 Comparing pastoralism with commercial ranching 182 4 Breeds and breeding strategies 183 5 Opportunities for animal health promotion 184 6 Does pastoralism provide good animal welfare? 187 7 Opportunities for integrated systems 188 8 Impacts on biodiversity 191 9 Conclusion 193 10 Where to look for further information 195 11 References 195 Part 2  Farming of particular species 10 Organic dairy farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges 205 S. Ivemeyer, University of Kassel, Germany; and A. Bieber and A. Spengler Neff, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Switzerland 1 Introduction 205 2 Production, breeds and breeding goals 206 3 Issues surrounding organic dairy farming 207 4 Hot topics in organic dairy farming 214 5 Future trends and conclusion 218 6 References 219 11 Organic dairy farming: towards sustainability 225 Florian Leiber, Adrian Muller, Veronika Maurer, Christian Schader and Anna Bieber, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Switzerland 1 Introduction 225 2 Local and global feed efficiency and ecological sustainability 226 3 Towards solutions 1: longevity and integrated dairy and beef production 228 4 Towards solutions 2: developing roughage-based feeding strategies 229 5  Towards solutions 3: organic dairy breeding 230 6 Towards solutions 4: approaching animal health and welfare 233 7  Research into sustainable organic dairy production 234 8  Future trends and conclusion 236 9  Where to look for further information 237 10 References 237 © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

viii

Contents

12 Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges 245 Isabel Blanco Penedo, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Sweden; and José Perea-Muñoz, University of Córdoba, Spain 1 Introduction 245 2 The whole farming system 248 3 Challenges of organic beef farming 249 4 Advantages of organic beef farming 252 5 Opportunities in organic beef farming 254 6 Future trends and conclusion 261 7 References 262 13 Organic sheep and goat farming: opportunities and challenges 269 Georgios Arsenos, Angeliki Argyriadou, Sotiria Vouraki and Athanasios Gelasakis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece 1 Introduction 269 2 Sheep and goats as species 270 3 Organic sheep and goat farming in Europe 271 4 Key challenges in organic sheep and goat farming 275 5 Key challenges: nutrient deficiencies 276 6 Key challenges: parasitic diseases 278 7 Key challenges: udder diseases, lameness, claw and leg problems 279 8 Future trends and conclusion 281 9 References 281 14 Organic pig farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges 287 Barbara Früh, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Switzerland; and Mirjam Holinger, ETH Zürich, Switzerland 1 Introduction 287 2 Housing systems: challenges and solutions 289 3 The need for suitable organic feeding 291 4  Threats to pig health under organic housing conditions: causes and prevention 292 5 Organic breeding goals 294 6 Entire males: opportunity or threat? 295 7 Case study: potential alternatives or additions in pig feeding 295 8  International collaboration and dissemination to promote implementation of scientific results 299 9 Future trends and conclusion 300 10 Where to look for further information 301 11 References 302 15 Organic poultry farming: opportunities and challenges 307 Mette Vaarst, Aarhus University, Denmark; Klaus Horsted, Danish Centre for Food and Agriculture DCA, Aarhus University, Denmark; and Veronika Maurer, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Switzerland 1 Introduction 307 2 Organic poultry farming 308

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Contentsix

3  Improving organic poultry farming: poultry as part of ecological systems and cycles 4  Improving organic poultry farming: the precautionary principle, naturalness and care 5 Improving organic poultry farming: health and disease 6 Improving organic poultry farming: fairness and good quality of life 7 Future trends and conclusion 8 Acknowledgements 9 Where to look for further information 10 References

311 314 317 320 321 322 322 322

16 The development of organic aquaculture 329 Timo Stadtlander, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Switzerland 1 Introduction 329 2 Negative environmental impacts of aquaculture 332 3 Organic aquaculture: rules and regulation 337 4 The concept of trophic levels 339 5 History of organic aquaculture 339 6 Species produced and volumes 341 7 Culture and production systems in organic aquaculture 341 8 Future trends and conclusion 344 9 Where to look for further information 345 10 References 346 17 Organic and natural beekeeping, and caring for insect pollinators 351 Nicola Bradbear, Bees for Development, UK 1 Introduction 351 2 The need for pollinators 354 3 Encouraging indigenous pollinators 354 4 Management of bees 355 5 Management of honey bees 355 6 Management of bumblebees 368 7 Conclusion 369 8 References 370 Part 3  The future 18 Improving organic animal farming for the future 375 Stephen Roderick, Duchy College, UK; and Mette Vaarst, Aarhus University, Denmark 1 Introduction 375 2 Diversity as a key to the future development of organic farming 377 3 Integration and efficient utilisation of natural resources 379 4 Resilience as the core of health development 380 5 Breeding and breeds providing diversity and resilience 380 6 Human interactions and communication 381 7 Organic principles as an ethical framework for development 382 Index 385 © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Series list Title

Series number

Achieving sustainable cultivation of maize - Vol 1 001 From improved varieties to local applications  Edited by: Dr Dave Watson, CGIAR Maize Research Program Manager, CIMMYT, Mexico Achieving sustainable cultivation of maize - Vol 2 002 Cultivation techniques, pest and disease control  Edited by: Dr Dave Watson, CGIAR Maize Research Program Manager, CIMMYT, Mexico Achieving sustainable cultivation of rice - Vol 1 003 Breeding for higher yield and quality Edited by: Prof. Takuji Sasaki, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan Achieving sustainable cultivation of rice - Vol 2 004 Cultivation, pest and disease management Edited by: Prof. Takuji Sasaki, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan Achieving sustainable cultivation of wheat - Vol 1 005 Breeding, quality traits, pests and diseases Edited by: Prof. Peter Langridge, The University of Adelaide, Australia Achieving sustainable cultivation of wheat - Vol 2 006 Cultivation techniques Edited by: Prof. Peter Langridge, The University of Adelaide, Australia Achieving sustainable cultivation of tomatoes 007 Edited by: Dr Autar Mattoo, USDA-ARS, USA & Prof. Avtar Handa, Purdue University, USA Achieving sustainable production of milk - Vol 1 008 Milk composition, genetics and breeding Edited by: Dr Nico van Belzen, International Dairy Federation (IDF), Belgium Achieving sustainable production of milk - Vol 2 009 Safety, quality and sustainability Edited by: Dr Nico van Belzen, International Dairy Federation (IDF), Belgium Achieving sustainable production of milk - Vol 3 010 Dairy herd management and welfare Edited by: Prof. John Webster, University of Bristol, UK Ensuring safety and quality in the production of beef - Vol 1 011 Safety Edited by: Prof. Gary Acuff, Texas A&M University, USA & Prof. James Dickson, Iowa State University, USA Ensuring safety and quality in the production of beef - Vol 2 012 Quality Edited by: Prof. Michael Dikeman, Kansas State University, USA Achieving sustainable production of poultry meat - Vol 1 013 Safety, quality and sustainability Edited by: Prof. Steven C. Ricke, University of Arkansas, USA Achieving sustainable production of poultry meat - Vol 2 014 Breeding and nutrition Edited by: Prof. Todd Applegate, University of Georgia, USA Achieving sustainable production of poultry meat - Vol 3 015 Health and welfare Edited by: Prof. Todd Applegate, University of Georgia, USA

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Series listxi Achieving sustainable production of eggs - Vol 1 016 Safety and quality Edited by: Prof. Julie Roberts, University of New England, Australia Achieving sustainable production of eggs - Vol 2 017 Animal welfare and sustainability Edited by: Prof. Julie Roberts, University of New England, Australia Achieving sustainable cultivation of apples 018 Edited by: Dr Kate Evans, Washington State University, USA Integrated disease management of wheat and barley 019 Edited by: Prof. Richard Oliver, Curtin University, Australia Achieving sustainable cultivation of cassava - Vol 1 020 Cultivation techniques Edited by: Dr Clair Hershey, formerly International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Colombia Achieving sustainable cultivation of cassava - Vol 2 021 Genetics, breeding, pests and diseases Edited by: Dr Clair Hershey, formerly International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Colombia Achieving sustainable production of sheep 022 Edited by: Prof. Johan Greyling, University of the Free State, South Africa Achieving sustainable production of pig meat - Vol 1 023 Safety, quality and sustainability Edited by: Prof. Alan Mathew, Purdue University, USA Achieving sustainable production of pig meat - Vol 2 024 Animal breeding and nutrition Edited by: Prof. Julian Wiseman, University of Nottingham, UK Achieving sustainable production of pig meat - Vol 3 025 Animal health and welfare Edited by: Prof. Julian Wiseman, University of Nottingham, UK Achieving sustainable cultivation of potatoes - Vol 1 026 Breeding improved varieties Edited by: Prof. Gefu Wang-Pruski, Dalhousie University, Canada Achieving sustainable cultivation of oil palm - Vol 1 027 Introduction, breeding and cultivation techniques Edited by: Prof. Alain Rival, Center for International Cooperation in Agricultural Research for Development (CIRAD), France Achieving sustainable cultivation of oil palm - Vol 2 028 Diseases, pests, quality and sustainability Edited by: Prof. Alain Rival, Center for International Cooperation in Agricultural Research for Development (CIRAD), France Achieving sustainable cultivation of soybeans - Vol 1 029 Breeding and cultivation techniques Edited by: Prof. Henry T. Nguyen, University of Missouri, USA Achieving sustainable cultivation of soybeans - Vol 2 030 Diseases, pests, food and non-food uses Edited by: Prof. Henry T. Nguyen, University of Missouri, USA Achieving sustainable cultivation of sorghum - Vol 1 031 Genetics, breeding and production techniques Edited by: Prof. William Rooney, Texas A&M University, USA

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

xii

Series list

Achieving sustainable cultivation of sorghum - Vol 2 032 Sorghum utilization around the world Edited by: Prof. William Rooney, Texas A&M University, USA Achieving sustainable cultivation of potatoes - Vol 2 033 Production, storage and crop protection Edited by: Dr Stuart Wale, Potato Dynamics Ltd., UK Achieving sustainable cultivation of mangoes 034 Edited by: Professor Víctor Galán Saúco, Instituto Canario de Investigaciones Agrarias (ICIA), Spain & Dr Ping Lu, Charles Darwin University, Australia Achieving sustainable cultivation of grain legumes - Vol 1 035 Advances in breeding and cultivation techniques Edited by: Dr Shoba Sivasankar et al., formerly International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India Achieving sustainable cultivation of grain legumes - Vol 2 036 Improving cultivation of particular grain legumes Edited by: Dr Shoba Sivasankar et al., formerly International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India Achieving sustainable cultivation of sugarcane - Vol 1 037 Cultivation techniques, quality and sustainability Edited by: Prof. Philippe Rott, University of Florida, USA Achieving sustainable cultivation of sugarcane - Vol 2 038 Breeding, pests and diseases Edited by: Prof. Philippe Rott, University of Florida, USA Achieving sustainable cultivation of coffee 039 Edited by: Dr Philippe Lashermes, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), France Achieving sustainable cultivation of bananas - Vol 1 040 Cultivation techniques Edited by Prof. Gert H. J. Kema, Wageningen University and Research, The Netherlands; and Prof. André Drenth, University of Queensland, Australia Global Tea Science 041 Current status and future needs Edited by: Dr V. S. Sharma, formerly UPASI Tea Research Institute, India & Dr M. T. Kumudini Gunasekare, Coordinating Secretariat for Science Technology and Innovation (COSTI), Sri Lanka Integrated weed management 042 Edited by: Emeritus Prof. Rob Zimdahl, Colorado State University, USA Achieving sustainable cultivation of cocoa 043 Edited by: Prof. Pathmanathan Umaharan, Cocoa Research Centre – The University of the West Indies, Trinidad and Tobago Robotics and automation for improving agriculture 044 Edited by: Prof. John Billingsley, University of Southern Queensland, Australia Water management for sustainable agriculture 045 Edited by: Prof. Theib Oweis, ICARDA, Jordan Improving organic animal farming 046 Edited by: Dr Mette Vaarst, Aarhus University, Denmark & Dr Stephen Roderick, Duchy College, UK Improving organic crop cultivation 047 Edited by: Prof. Ulrich Köpke, University of Bonn, Germany Managing soil health for sustainable agriculture - Vol 1 048 Fundamentals Edited by: Dr Don Reicosky, Soil Scientist Emeritus USDA-ARS and University of Minnesota, USA

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Series listxiii Managing soil health for sustainable agriculture - Vol 2 049 Monitoring and management Edited by: Dr Don Reicosky, Soil Scientist Emeritus USDA-ARS and University of Minnesota, USA Rice insect pests and their management 050 E. A. Heinrichs, Francis E. Nwilene, Michael J. Stout, Buyung A. R. Hadi & Thais Freitas Improving grassland and pasture management in temperate agriculture 051 Edited by: Prof. Athole Marshall and Dr Rosemary Collins, IBERS, Aberystwyth University, UK Precision agriculture for sustainability 052 Edited by: Dr John Stafford, Silsoe Solutions, UK Achieving sustainable cultivation of temperate zone tree fruit and berries – Vol 1 053 Physiology, genetics and cultivation Edited by: Prof. Gregory Lang, Michigan State University, USA Achieving sustainable cultivation of temperate zone tree fruit and berries – Vol 2 054 Case studies Edited by: Prof. Gregory Lang, Michigan State University, USA Agroforestry for sustainable agriculture 055 Edited by: Prof. María Mosquera-Losada, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain & Dr Ravi Prabhu, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Kenya Achieving sustainable cultivation of tree nuts 056 Edited by: Prof. Ümit Serdar, Ondokuz Mayis University, Turkey & Emeritus Prof. Dennis Fulbright, Michigan State University, USA Assessing the environmental impact of agriculture 057 Edited by: Prof. Bo P. Weidema, Aalborg University/2.-0 LCA Consultants, Denmark Critical issues in plant health: 50 years of research in African agriculture 058 Edited by: Dr Peter Neuenschwander and Dr Manuele Tamò, IITA, Benin Achieving sustainable cultivation of vegetables 059 Edited by: Emeritus Prof. George Hochmuth, University of Florida, USA Advances in breeding techniques for cereal crops 060 Edited by: Prof. Frank Ordon, Julius Kuhn Institute (JKI), Germany & Prof. Wolfgang Friedt, Justus-Liebig University of Giessen, Germany Advances in Conservation Agriculture – Vol 1 061 Systems and science Edited by: Prof. Amir Kassam, University of Reading, UK Advances in Conservation Agriculture – Vol 2 062 Practice and benefits Edited by: Prof. Amir Kassam, University of Reading, UK Achieving sustainable greenhouse cultivation 063 Edited by: Prof. Leo Marcelis and Dr Ep Heuvelink, Wageningen University, The Netherlands Achieving carbon-negative bioenergy systems from plant materials 064 Edited by: Dr Chris Saffron, Michigan State University, USA Achieving sustainable cultivation of tropical fruits 065 Edited by: Prof. Elhadi Yahia, Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, Mexico Advances in postharvest management of horticultural produce 066 Edited by: Prof. Chris Watkins, Cornell University, USA Pesticides and agriculture 067 Profit, politics and policy Dave Watson Integrated management of diseases and insect pests of tree fruit 068 Edited by: Prof. Xiangming Xu and Dr Michelle Fountain, NIAB-EMR, UK

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

xiv

Series list

Integrated management of insect pests: Current and future developments 069 Edited by: Emeritus Prof. Marcos Kogan, Oregon State University, USA & Prof. Leon Higley, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA Preventing food losses and waste to achieve food security and sustainability 070 Edited by: Prof. Elhadi M. Yahia, Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, Mexico Achieving sustainable management of boreal and temperate forests 071 Edited by: Dr John Stanturf, Estonian University of Life Sciences (formerly US Forest Service), USA Advances in breeding of dairy cattle 072 Edited by: Prof. Julius van der Werf, University of New England, Australia & Dr Jennie Pryce, DEDJTR-Victoria/La Trobe University, Australia Improving gut health in poultry 073 Edited by: Prof. Steven C. Ricke, University of Arkansas, USA Achieving sustainable cultivation of barley 074 Edited by: Dr Glen Fox, University of Queensland, Australia & Prof. Chengdao Li, Murdoch University, Australia Advances in crop modelling for a sustainable agriculture 075 Edited by: Emeritus Prof. Ken Boote, University of Florida, USA Achieving sustainable crop nutrition 076 Edited by: Prof. Zed Rengel, University of Western Australia Achieving sustainable urban agriculture 077 Edited by: Prof Han Wiskerke, Wageningen University, The Netherlands

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Acknowledgements and dedication As editors of this book we are very grateful to all those authors who so willingly contributed their valuable time and expert knowledge – thank you. We also wish to thank all those who reviewed chapters and who offered constructive advice and guidance. In particular, we would like to give special thanks to Gidi Smolders for his continuous support during what has been a long journey and also to author Lindsay Whistance for taking on additional tasks in helping us to bring this book together. We are grateful to Francis Dodds, Amanda Renwick and the team at Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing for their patience, help and encouragement. We would also like to acknowledge Sophie Prache of INRA for the cover image. We dedicate this book to Willie Lockeretz and Vonne Lund, from whom we learned such a lot and with whom we share many great memories.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Chapter 1 Setting the scene: the continued drive to improve organic animal farming Mette Vaarst, Aarhus University, Denmark; and Stephen Roderick, Duchy College, UK 1 Introduction

2 Challenges of organic animal farming



3 Animals in organic farming



4 Organic animal farming and climate change



5 Organic smallholder farming in the tropics



6 Specific issues addressed for each animal species



7 Organic aquaculture



8 Organic bee keeping



9 Future trends and conclusion

10 References

1 Introduction The world has changed dramatically and in so many ways over the past half century, and this has profoundly influenced our farming and food systems. As the human population grows and changes, the way we exploit land, water and natural resources, and the way we produce and transport feed and food across continents, impacts on our behaviour as citizens, and in particular our consumption patterns. In large parts of the world our diets are rapidly changing with regard to, for example, our consumption of meat, wheat and sugar. Impacts such as loss of biodiversity, animal species and breeds, increasing pollution, food- and diet-related diseases, hunger and inequity are inextricably linked to production and consumption (Cook, 2018). Consequently, it is becoming increasingly urgent that we include these broad issues in our discussions of the future of food and farming, including the way in which we perceive, engage with and organize the animals that have such a key role in our food and ecosystems. All the elements of current global development – urbanization, industrialization, population rise, food insecurity, environmental degradation, climate change and other universal issues – call for more equitable and balanced agricultural systems, including new and innovative ways of keeping and integrating animals into our food production systems. These are all big issues, and they will not, of http://dx.doi.org/10.19103/AS.2017.0028.01 © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

2

Setting the scene: the continued drive to improve organic animal farming

course, be addressed and resolved fully in a book about organic animal farming, but they do, nonetheless, warrant proper consideration in any analysis of the future development of organic animal farming. During the twentieth century, organic farming was established throughout the world as one of the leading alternatives to an industrialized farming and food sector based on and dependent on external inputs such as fossil fuels and antibiotics. Organic farming and food systems have continued to develop, driven and carried forward by different factors and motivations across multiple contexts. Certified organic animal produce is booming in many countries, evidenced by an increasing general interest in organic production (Willer and Lernoud, 2018), which is in part likely to be a reaction to ‘unhealthy food’. The negative effects on human and environmental health from food which is processed with sugar, salt and additives (Tilman and Clark, 2014), contaminated with pesticides (Carvalho, 2017) or produced in ways which create risk of antimicrobial residues (Van Boeckel et al., 2015) are now well established and create societal concern. Large parts of our food systems provide us with such foods, and as a response to this globalized farming industry and food trade, organic farming in different forms – certified or not – presents an alternative to a broken food system. In some cases it may include opportunities for closer connections between farmers and consumers in shorter supply chains, with more transparency, and with respectful relationships between humans, animals and the environment.

2 Challenges of organic animal farming As well as the opportunities, organic farming clearly does not come without its challenges. Some of these are highly farm specific, where the animals and farmers are the key actors, whereas others are universal challenges that face all citizens and animals. Organic food has itself become, to a large extent, commercialized and part of transnational food and trading systems involving the movement of feed and food around the world. Fortunately, the organic principles as formulated by IFOAM (2005) express the basic ideas of an otherwise diverse organic movement and are of paramount importance for the future guidance and development of agro-ecological farming practices. In this book, through a selected collection of chapters, a number of expert authors draw on the wealth of recent research and personal experiences to address some of the many challenges, thereby enhancing our understanding and providing a stronger framework for the future of organic farming with animals. A wide range of topics are covered, including chapters that address issues such as providing appropriate animal nutrition, establishing better methods of health promotion and disease management, reducing reliance on antibiotics as well as ways of enhancing animal welfare and more effective integration of animals within farming systems. Many of these are seen within the light of global environmental and food security challenges. We have also incorporated a series of chapters that focus specifically on key species, with a brief to authors to identify the major challenges and opportunities to organic animal farming with respect to the key principles and values that have come to define organic farming globally. Each author was faced with the dilemma of both focusing on the important factors, decisions and choices influencing their particular specialist area, whilst also providing a more holistic perspective that encompasses the multiple objectives of organic farming and the needs and desires of our wider society. Whereas most of the research and published

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Setting the scene: the continued drive to improve organic animal farming

3

experiences of organic animal farming has been of European origin, we are proud of the wider range of issues and perspectives covered in this book. In addition, we have endeavoured to reach out to systems and regions which, although perhaps in their infancy in formal organic development, have a significant future contribution to make towards, and benefit to gain from, more innovative, equitable and responsible methods of animal farming. Many organic farms operate under economic pressure, being parts of the same food system as industrial farming aimed at producing large quantities of cheap food. Furthermore, organic farming operates under huge cultural, geographical, climatic and structural diversity which shapes the way in which farmers and citizens perceive ‘what is organic?’ This particular aspect serves to highlight why it is imperative to have clear organic principles that emphasize holistic ways of thinking which, in turn, provides opportunities for and encourages thoughtful integration of animals into whole farming systems, and communities. This point is one of the major reasons for including a chapter on the guiding organic principles, rather than specifically addressing standards and certification. Organic farming has core guiding values and should not be viewed just as a legal entity that gives consumer confidence and opportunity for adding economic value. Organic standards and certification have a common reference point in the principles, but it is these principles that guide the overall ethos and future development. There is no doubt that in interpreting legal requirements for organic farming, the guiding principles can be severely tested and hence the need to place principles above label, although it is fully accepted that labels, under some market conditions, are a necessary tool. Organic standards are constantly adjusted in accordance with development of new knowledge and changes in external conditions, for example climatic changes, socio-economic demands and political imperatives. The aim of this book is to explore how organic animal production can be further progressed to contribute to protecting our natural resources for the future whilst maintaining the highest ethical standards, as well as providing global food security and sovereignty – goals that are embedded in the organic principles. By exploring the importance of these principles of ecology, health, fairness and care within Chapter 2, Susanne Padel provides us with the initial platform and discusses how the principles contribute to the development of agro-ecological systems that include animals, as well as highlighting the challenges and conflicts that emerge when we endeavour to embed these principles within our farming systems. Moving beyond the principles to the practice of applying organic farming in a range of environments, there is a clear requirement for adaptability. Organic agriculture is very much about robustness and resilience, and the choice of animal species and breeds is challenging and important. Choosing the right species of animals adapted to the environment in which they are kept is a key requirement in organic farming to ensure they are sufficiently robust to cope, for example, with an outdoor life and not to be dependent on the inputs that are commonly found in intensive or industrial farming. More specifically, choosing the right breed of animal for the conditions in which it will live, produce and behave naturally is a crucial determining factor. A good example to illustrate how the principles and the standards are out of step is the issue of ‘designed’ breeds for organic poultry farming, whereby a single breed has been developed to produce a single product that is either eggs or meat, but not both. In this example, breeding may be viewed as having taken us in a direction where animals are no longer viewed as partners within the organic farm, but components designed to meet a single outcome, and the production imperative is not one based on optimizing the efficiency of the farm’s natural resources © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

4

Setting the scene: the continued drive to improve organic animal farming

but on an economic system driven by external inputs. There are other interesting debates around breeds and breeding, including whether or not artificial breeding techniques should be permitted, whether sexed semen provides a positive or negative contribution to animal welfare and whether, and to what extent, gene technologies should be used as breeding tools.

3 Animals in organic farming Many of the chapters highlight the key importance of issues such as adaptation, resilience and disease resistance, which are concepts that can also be applied to our understanding of health. The task of Chapter 4, written by Mette Vaarst, was to question our concept of health; the way we define it and hence the way we deal with it. The way animals are viewed is a key issue that perhaps marks out organic farming as being fundamentally different to other methods of animal farming. ‘Health’ is one of the cornerstones of the organic principles, and is so much more than ‘absence of disease’. Putting this different perception into practice provides organic farmers and veterinarians, researchers and students with inevitable practical and conceptual challenges, but also offers inspiration and opportunity. Applying these concepts to, for example, the One Health approach (Zinsstag et al., 2005) enables us to apply a more holistic approach which goes beyond the more common focus on ‘one disease’. In this book, we have chosen to focus on the concept of health which can be applied across species, and then to address species-specific health issues and disease challenges in separate chapters on beef and dairy cattle, pigs, poultry, sheep, goats, fish and bees. Organic animals are outdoor animals, and their health should be supported as much as possible by providing natural environments and conditions, and good management and care. Keeping stable groups and herds, minimizing transport and managing, for example, common grazing areas through quarantine arrangements are ways of enhancing biosecurity, and supporting animals’ balance and ability to cope with infections. To some extent, this goes hand in hand with the emphasis of keeping local breeds suited to local conditions. Many of these approaches to dealing with animal disease control are also of relevance to non-organic farms, albeit with potentially differing risks and challenges. New disease patterns have occurred during the past decades, as a result of increased regional and global transport of live animals and animal products. Current challenges such as antibiotic resistance and increasing levels of zoonotic diseases may call for new biosecurity strategies. In Chapter 6, Kathryn Ellis provides a balanced analysis of the animal disease and public health risks that may be a consequence of applying organic farming principles and practices, as well as providing practical case studies highlighting real-life solutions. Generally, across the world, the initial focus of organic farming development has been on plant production and soil fertility. Animals have to various degrees been referred to as necessary and relevant system components and, in short, ‘manure producers and roughage eaters’. More recently, in some countries but not all, the focus has shifted to the animals themselves, where it has been increasingly recognized that they are living sentient beings, and they have the right to be viewed as such. Even after being domesticated to an extent that they appear to have lost many of their ‘wild’ traits, it is also recognized that they still maintain their integrity and their species-specific natural needs and that they add to the

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Setting the scene: the continued drive to improve organic animal farming

5

fascinating diversity and treasured richness of the world. In Chapter 5, Lindsay Whistance eloquently explores perspectives on ‘the natural needs and the naturalness’ of our farm animals, as part of an ethical alliance between humans and animals, given that we have chosen to have domesticated animals in our lives. The challenge of giving animals as much of the freedom to meet their ‘natural physiological needs’ as is possible (e.g. ruminants need feed that enables them to ruminate!) is one of the most significant challenges that organic agriculture constantly faces, and the balance needs to be struck with providing human care, attention and intervention. In organic farming, we consider feeding animals in terms of meeting nutritional requirements at various stages of development, optimizing rather than maximizing production and ensuring that behavioural and physiological needs are met. The element of ‘naturalness’ in animals that we strive for is not only about naturally produced feed constituents and natural metabolic processes, but also about feeding behaviours. Whether animals are finding their feed through foraging and rooting, whether they are omnivores naturally eating small animals, worms and insects in addition to plants or whether they are primarily browsers of trees are all behavioural considerations that should be taken into account when we are developing and evaluating how we keep foodproducing animals. For ruminants, holistic approaches to feeding means providing diets based on natural, forage-based feeds grown on the farm that animals can graze naturally, preferably within a closed nutrient cycle to ensure self-sufficiency and sustainability. In a number of the ensuing chapters, various authors tackle key questions concerning the environmental, economic and animal welfare challenges of this approach, and whether this can be applied across species, systems and agro-ecological zones.

4 Organic animal farming and climate change As much as it is important for our target audience of researchers, students and other actors in the organic sector to address the issues about animal keeping and animal lives, we also have to face the fact that animal farming occurs in a world dominated by environmental degradation, and increasingly the animals themselves are viewed as key contributors to this. The overwhelming issue of climate change brought about by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions emphasizes the imperative of developing farming systems, including those involving animals, that are able to meet the challenges of climate change and contribute positively to the future of the planet. This involves us developing a better understanding of the complex relationship between the animals, the way they live and are managed and the likely contribution to, and mitigation of, the factors influencing climate change. In Chapter 3, the scene is set and the evidence evaluated by Laurence Smith and Adrian Williams, who also explore the options for organic animal production. Whereas some experts point to control over emissions through technological solutions, such as keeping animals indoors and breeding for faster growth and higher output efficiency, organic agriculture takes a systems approach that presents us with completely different models as solutions. In Chapter 11, Florian Leiber and colleagues Adrian Müller, Veronika Maurer, Christian Schader and Anna Bieber deal with the issues of sustainability from a dairy farming perspective. They propose innovative solutions and strategies for the resilience of organic milk producing systems typically found in the temperate regions of Europe and the United States, where sustainability is threatened by an overreliance on non-renewable resources, and especially fossil fuels. These strategies are aimed at

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

6

Setting the scene: the continued drive to improve organic animal farming

enabling organic farmers to satisfy the aspiration to feed a natural diet to dairy animals, whilst also dealing with the potential conflicts that inevitably occur when complex farming systems have multiple objectives. Other examples of potential solutions for organic animal farming are explored in Chapter 7, where authors Alfredo J. Escribano, Julie Ryschauwy and Lindsay Whistance discuss how integrated farming in the form of trees and animals could provide significant solutions for more sustainable animal farming as well as other ecosystem services and animal welfare benefits. The focus of the chapter, illustrated with interesting case studies, is on pasture-based systems and the multiple benefits that can be gained through the integration with trees. The natural pastures and rangelands of the earth make a critical contribution to the carbon dynamics of the planet’s ecosystems and the utilization of these vast areas of the planet has the potential for sustainable and animal-friendly farming with significant environmental and societal benefits. The global importance of the rangelands and the pastoral farming that occurs in these areas also play an important role in conserving animal and plant genetic diversity. The apparent naturalness of herds and flocks kept in these regions often results in them being referred to as close to organic, even though there is little integration with crop production and there are also examples of certified commercial rangeland ‘ranches’ that are just focused on producing a single product from a single species. A workshop held by the organic International Animal Husbandry Alliance in Delhi, India, in November 2017 had a specific focus on pastoralist systems, and these were discussed in relation to the organic principles, regulations and methods of farming. Stephen Roderick provides a chapter exploring these issues and discusses the complementarity between typical traditional pastoral approaches to animal keeping with the principles and practices promoted in organic farming, and discusses whether they provide us with a future model for the sustainable exploitation of rangelands.

5 Organic smallholder farming in the tropics Organic farming is diverse and widespread, and increasingly so. It is diverse with regard to the nature of the farming systems, the economies in which they operate, the cultural and political histories that dictate their evolution and current status and, overwhelmingly, the climatic influences that dictate the types of animals and the conditions in which they are kept. Over recent years, much of the research on organic animal farming has tended to focus on European systems that are frequently modelled on the non-organic farming practices from which many of them have evolved, for example dairy farming, or from the market demands of the consumers that purchase the products, as is the case with free-range egg production. In this book, we have also chosen to highlight an example of an organic animal system prevalent in many parts of the world that was perhaps originally modelled on the European but has been adapted to meet the very specific local and regional needs and conditions found in other regions. Raphael Wahome and Caroline Chepkoech describe a system, smallholder dairy farming, that is ubiquitous across much of the tropics and they examine the specific constraints and opportunities for the development of organic smallholder dairying in East Africa. Although certified organic farming has undergone a continuous growth over recent decades in many tropical countries, including in sub-Saharan Africa, the animals on these farms tend to be poorly integrated and are often not viewed as part of valuable elements of the whole organic

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Setting the scene: the continued drive to improve organic animal farming

7

system. Organic farming in these tropical areas has also tended to focus primarily on the production of plant products for export and certified organic animal products has not gained ground. There is a need to emphasize the systems thinking of organic agriculture, and – certified or not – to make sure that animals are integrated elements of a wellbalanced organic farming environment.

6 Specific issues addressed for each animal species Having initially explored the topical, cross-cutting issues that we associate with achieving improved organic animal farming, a series of species-specific chapters have also been included in the book which helps us understand some of the detailed challenges and opportunities that exist for certain species and some systems. Five of these chapters concern the ‘classical’ farm animals: beef cattle, dairy cattle, sheep and goats, poultry and pigs. The expert authors of these chapters were tasked with characterizing and presenting the important features of typical organic systems, in terms of the contribution they make to sustainable farming and the particular challenges they face, but also to illustrate the diversity that we see between farms, regions and countries. Whilst prescriptions for organic animal farming exist in the form of the formal regulations, there are inevitable obstacles and conflicts in the application and achievement of these standards and meeting the demands of the ever-increasing public scrutiny of the use of animals in agriculture. For example, whilst red meat is increasingly highlighted as having significant negative climatic impact, beef cattle also fit into many landscapes and farming systems and, in particular, in marginal lands that provide natural environments that meet animal needs and satisfy a range of ecosystem services. When is beef farming an asset and when is it a burden? Some of the issues are explored by Isabel Blanco Penedo and José Perea-Muñoz in their chapter on the constraints and opportunities for organic beef farming. In many European countries, organic milk production has also provided one of the big drivers for organic development and milk-based products frequently play a significant role in the organic market. Milk from many of these organic herds is often provided by production methods and systems that are highly specialized and ‘conventionalized’. Consequently, this presents us with a range of dilemmas and questions, some of which are highlighted by authors Silvia Ivemeyer, Anna Bieber and Anet Spengler Neff in a detailed chapter on organic dairy farming. The forced early weaning of calves, a very limited selection of breeds and a reliance on purchased feeds, are all examples of issues that provide significant challenges to the aspirations embedded in organic principles. In many regions of the world, dairy production involves goats and sheep and, whilst these systems offer a different set of opportunities than organic cattle herds, in that they often fit more closely with local conditions and environments, they have received less research and some of the obstacles to achieving high standards of organic production are less well understood. Sheep and goats are found in a diverse range of environments and conditions, from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean and beyond to the African Savannahs and the Australian bush. Both species are farmed both intensively and for subsistence purposes, and hence the challenges are diverse and varied. Georgios Arsenos and co-authors Angeliki Argyriadou, Sotiria Vouraki and Athanasios Gelasakis give a description and analyses of the key characteristics and potential barriers to the development of organic sheep and goat farming in Chapter 13.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

8

Setting the scene: the continued drive to improve organic animal farming

Diversity also characterizes organic poultry farming across the world, in terms of flock size and intensity as well as the type of systems that are found in practice. Here, in Chapter 15, which examines organic poultry farming, Mette Vaarst, Klaus Horsted and Veronika Maurer focus primarily on chickens, the dominant organically farmed species. Chickens have the smallest environmental footprint of the common farm animal species in terms of energy and water use per kg of product (meat or eggs). The public image is of small-scale, farmyard-type flocks that roam freely and scavenge for much of their food. Whilst these systems exist in many countries, the organic egg and poultry meat sectors are increasingly dominated by larger specialist flocks, which appear as being very similar to many non-organic free-range farms. Poultry potentially compete with humans for feed, they can be easily industrialized and in so many ways they could be viewed as contravening the organic principles if not the regulations. Earlier, we also highlighted a particular issue in that meat and egg production have evolved as two very different systems, with distinct breeds that have been selected either for their egg laying or meat producing capabilities, and rarely both. Hence, there are numerous opportunities for sustainable development of organic poultry keeping in that they can be well integrated into many types of urban and rural farms, and they can have very positive impacts on rural poverty, particularly on the livelihood of women. Local production provides opportunity for production with minimum transport, and there is increasing interest in dual-purpose breeds, which potentially brings the distinct ‘designed broiler and egg layer breeds’ back to ‘one animal’ again. In many respects organic pig farming is similar to organic poultry with regard to the opportunity for integration within the farming system and yet there is also the threat of specialization and intensification, albeit limited by the need for outdoor access. Traditionally, pigs are animals which fit into all types of farming environments, using household and plant waste and foraging on marginal and woodlands. In organic production they are mostly reared outdoor and there are a number of issues to be considered, including the issue of noseringing, the age of weaning, whether to feed with roughage or imported soya bean as well as the matter of confined fattening. In Chapter 14, Barbara Früh and Mirjam Holinger explore some of the feeding, housing, breeding and husbandry issues in relation to the opportunities for improved organic pig production, as well as tackling the ethical issues associated with practices such as castration.

7 Organic aquaculture In this book we refer to farm animals as animals rather than the more common ‘stock’ or ‘livestock’, which helps move us away from the notion of treating animals merely as commodities and has also liberated our choice of what animals we include as being part of an organic farm. As well as chapters on the ‘classical’ farm species, we are therefore very pleased to include knowledge and discussions on some of those animal species that are rarely covered in the standard farm animal literature, organic or otherwise. Fish and bees offer organic farmers an opportunity to add biodiversity and new levels and dimensions of integration within our farming systems, which in turn can enhance our farm environments and the farm economy whilst also adding to the diversity of our own organic diets. In many tropical regions, a fish pond is a quite normal part of a farm or, for example, fish, along with ducks and vegetables, can be closely integrated in wet rice production. Despite organic agriculture being thought of as a mainly land-based activity,

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Setting the scene: the continued drive to improve organic animal farming

9

with soil being a critical component, the introduction of water-borne animals provides both a valid and important opportunity. Equally, their inclusion also raises a number of discussions and dilemmas that need airing and solving. How do we provide for the welfare needs of fish? What are the ecological consequences of aquaculture innovations within urban farming environments? Although we increasingly see alternative production systems of salt and freshwater shellfish receiving organic certification, the regulations are still unclear and there are still issues around medication, transport and slaughtering and the development of closed recycling systems. In Chapter 16, Timo Stadtlander introduces us to the concept of organic aquaculture and unravels some of the issues, economic, ecological and ethical, that have arisen during the development of this sector, which in turn help us to understand the challenges faced by organic fish farmers, policy makers and consumers.

8 Organic bee keeping Organic beekeeping and natural bee farming are ancient forms of food production, and bees have always been considered central in biodynamic farming. In Chapter 17, Nicola Bradbear provides a comprehensive and engaging introduction to organic and natural beekeeping, illustrating many of the issues and techniques with examples from across the world. Honeybees form only a subgroup among the many species of pollinators, but historically and (agri-)culturally they play a major role in the development of farming, by providing humans with honey and other products and of course by pollinating our crops: more than two-thirds of our human food is dependent on pollinators. While many organic and biodynamic farms keep honeybees naturally as a part of the farm, there are examples of new forms of collaboration arising with ‘bee farmers’ forming contracts with organic farmers and moving their bees to follow crops in the same arrangement as they would do with non-organic farming, which provides significant scope for ethical and legislative debate. There are also interesting and emerging organic farming opportunities for diversification into bee production within urban smallholder situations.

9 Future trends and conclusion Currently, organic animal farming occurs in many places throughout the globe, and has the potential to develop in so many different directions, and to provide inspiration for others. Into the future, the editors and authors involved in this book have a desire to see animals responsibly and fully integrated within organic farming where it is relevant and appropriate to do so. This requires a proper appreciation of all of the ethical, social, environmental, economic and institutional aspects that arise. Yet, looking around the world, we see that many of these aspects are not yet fully understood or implemented, and so there is still a tremendous amount of work to be done. This applies not only to those systems that we are familiar with, and that have been described in this book, but also with regard to other less commonly farmed animal species or species that are not yet effectively integrated within farms, or species that are not traditionally farmed. For example, there is a growing interest in insect production for human consumption, but still much debate to be had regarding

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

10

Setting the scene: the continued drive to improve organic animal farming

the role of insects within organic farming. Many wild animals and insects currently feature amongst the diet of some communities, but often with little regard to the values that are embedded with the organic principles, that is those of fairness, care, ecology and health, in the same way that many of the common industrialized systems frequently fail to consider these principles for the omnipresent farmed species. Over recent decades, in the light of global ethical challenges such as climate change and environmental degradation, it has become more urgent that we rethink animal production towards a less damaging form of farming that also provides us with a more balanced diet with a lower proportion of animal products. Organic animal production should not only be seen as a way of producing food without the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, or with reduced antibiotic usage, or the way it recognizes animals as sentient living beings. It should also be viewed as a means by which we can develop holistic approaches to farming that enable the transition to more sustainable food systems. As editors and on behalf of the authors, we have endeavoured to provide new and relevant material for the neverending exploration and development of organic animal farming systems, and especially ensuring their role within our wider natural ecosystems and food systems. Animals in organic and non-organic agriculture should be given the opportunity to live lives that are worth living, and to play a valuable part not only as providers of food for humans, but also as contributors to the solutions to some of the immediate major environmental and social challenges that we are faced with.

10 References Carvalho, F. P. (2017). Pesticides, environment, and food safety. Food and Energy Security 6(2): 48–60. Cook, S. (2018). The spice of life: The fundamental role of diversity on the farm and on the plate. Discussion Paper. IIED and Hivos, London and The Hague. http://pubs.iied.org/G04305/. IFOAM (2005). Principles of organic agriculture. https​://ww​w.ifo​am.bi​o/en/​organ​ic-la​ndmar​ks/pr​incip​ les-o​rgani​c-agr​icult​ure. Tilman, D. and Clark, M. (2014). Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515, 518–22. Van Boeckel, T. P., Brower, C., Gilbert, M., Grenfell, B. T., Levin, S. A., Robinson, T. P., Teillant, A. and Laxminarayan, R. (2015). Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112(18), 5649–54. Willer, H. and Lernoud, J. (2018). The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends 2018. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick and IFOAM – Organics International, Bonn. https​://ww​w.org​anic-​world​.net/​yearb​ook.h​tml. Zinsstag, J., Schelling, E., Wyss, K. and Mahamat, M. B. (2005). Potential of cooperation between human and animal health to strengthen health systems. The Lancet 366, 2142–5.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Part 1

Concepts in organic animal farming

Chapter 2 The principles of organic livestock farming Susanne Padel, The Organic Research Centre, UK 1 Introduction

2 Foundational principles of organic livestock farming



3 Implementing principles of organic livestock farming



4 The future of organic principles in livestock farming

5 Conclusion

6 Where to look for further information

7 References

1 Introduction Animals form an integral part of many organic farms. A common guiding vision for organic agriculture is the mixed farming system, in which all parts interact for their mutual benefit and where harmony is created between land, animals and people (Vaarst et al., 2004). Indeed, many of the key challenges facing global agriculture and food production indicate a need for better integration of livestock and crops, and better understanding of the fundamental relationships in our food system. These are objectives that organic farming also aspires to: •• Changing dietary patterns for sustainable diets worldwide •• Reducing the direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions from livestock production globally •• Closing nutrient cycles/recycling nutrients in agriculture •• Improving soil fertility •• Utilising the world’s grasslands for human nutrition (UNCTAD, 2013). However, organic livestock farming differs between countries and regions of the world, and some organic farms specialise in livestock production more than others. There are also significant differences between ruminants or herbivores (such as cattle and sheep), and monogastric and mostly omnivorous species (such as pigs and poultry). Sometimes, the concept of ‘organic’ hardly seems to cover livestock at all (Vaarst, 2015). This chapter sets out to explain what makes livestock farming organic, that is, what distinguishes organic livestock farming from other kinds of livestock farming. The ideas behind organic farming were developed more than a century ago, and early landmarks include the foundation of the biodynamic movement in the 1920s, and the Soil and Health http://dx.doi.org/10.19103/AS.2017.0028.02 © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

14

The principles of organic livestock farming

movement in the United Kingdom in the 1940s. One of the most common misconceptions is that organic farming only involves not using certain prohibited ‘chemical’ inputs. However, true organic farming is always practised by intent (Scialabba, 2007). In practical terms, organic farming is defined by its standards, rules and regulations, and these provide a baseline on which the creativity and innovative potential of individual farmers can flourish. These regulations, and access to the organic market, are not the sole purposes of farming organically; they are the means by which more sustainable agriculture can be achieved. The organic idea is not primarily about restricting inputs and practices, or about finding acceptable substitute technologies, but about encouraging the redesign and management of farming systems based on organic principles (Lampkin, 2017). To guide the development of organic agriculture, the international umbrella organisation IFOAM (Organics International) set out the four principles of organic farming: health, ecology, fairness and care (IFOAM, 2005). These are the starting point for this chapter, and they are followed by a summary of EU Regulation principles and rules relevant to livestock farming in Section 2. In Section 3, four key issues that help answer the question of what makes livestock farming organic are examined more closely: the land-related nature of organic livestock farming, which animals should and can be farmed organically, how to sustain animal health and what it means to aim for high animal welfare. I have attempted to cover the practises used by organic farmers, the quality attributes of organic animal products that consumers might expect and societal impacts of organic livestock farming. Finally, we should not forget the animals. In Section 4, I refer to the idea of an ethical contract between humans and animals to ensure that the duty to respect the animal’s interests will not be forgotten. This concept was first introduced by Lund in 2004, and is still relevant today and will be so in future.

2 Foundational principles of organic livestock farming The fact that organic farming is based on principles is often referred to as the one key factor that differentiates it from other farming systems but, in practical terms, day-to-day decision-making is governed by standards and certification, rather than by the principles. Regulations and standards set out the ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ of practical organic farming, such as which housing systems and inputs can be used. The rules can be related back to the principles and objectives on which they are based but, in tracing specific rules back to the principles that underpin them, we might discover some contradictions where compromises have had to be made. Consumer and farmer expectations are not always fully aligned, and this is illustrated by the way organic livestock standards have evolved over time, mostly in response to consumer or citizen concerns (Padel et al., 2004). These different expectations are related to the values reflected in the organic principles, which can mean different things to different people and therefore require interpretation (Padel et al., 2009). Seufert et al. (2017) ranked the importance of organic principles in national organic regulations and observed that, despite similar principle statements in many regulations, the degree to which these principles translate into specific requirements for livestock production differs substantially. For example, all regulations require outdoor access for livestock but many add the clause ‘when conditions allow’. This places the responsibility to ensure that livestock have outdoor access as often as possible on the operator rather than the regulator. These compromises may be necessary when setting standards, so that the rules remain practical and the expectations of different stakeholders can be reconciled © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

The principles of organic livestock farming

15

(Padel, 2018). However, this example demonstrates that following organic principles in day-to-day farming cannot be seen as merely following the rules, but requires active engagement with these principles by farmers, advisers, researchers and regulators.

2.1 The principles of IFOAM The four ‘principles of organic agriculture’ of health, ecology, fairness and care (IFOAM, 2005) are a good reflection of the core values of organic agriculture expressed in the literature (Padel et al., 2009). The IFOAM principles are based on stakeholder consultation and democratic decision-making by IFOAM members internationally (Luttikholt, 2007). The preamble identifies them as ethical principles, acting together to improve agriculture globally (see Box 1). Each principle also contains a set of explanations that refer to the core values. The four individual principles are underpinned by three common values that are particularly important in livestock production: sustainability, a holistic or systems perspective and respecting nature (Lund and Röcklinsberg, 2001). Together, the principles help understand animal health and welfare in organic agriculture. Achieving well-balanced farming systems for different animal species under different conditions can be challenging in practice (Vaarst and Alrøe, 2012). There are many examples of organic producers overcoming challenges with creative and innovative solutions.

2.2 Objectives, principles and rules for organic farming in the EU Regulation EU Regulation 834/2007 for organic farming discusses the objectives and principles of organic farming in its opening paragraphs, and this has contributed to a common understanding of the concept of organic farming since 2007 (Padel et al., 2013b). According to the revised EU Regulation from 2017, organic production should pursue a range of general objectives, some of which are particularly relevant to organic livestock farming. Organic farming should help protect the environment and climate, and maintain long-term soil fertility. It should also promote a high level of biodiversity, a non-toxic environment and high animal welfare standards, specifically, meeting the animal’s speciesspecific behavioural needs. It should also encourage short distribution channels, genetic diversity and the preservation of rare and/or native breeds in danger of extinction, and foster the development of organic plant breeding (EC, 2017, 2018). The EU Regulation also lists general principles for organic production that correspond to the founding IFOAM principles: •• Respecting nature's systems and cycles, and sustaining and enhancing the state of the soil, water and air, and the health of plants and animals, and the balance between them •• Preserving natural landscapes •• Responsible use of energy and natural resources, such as water, soil, organic matter and air •• Producing a wide variety of high-quality foods, and other agricultural and aquacultural products that respond to consumer demands for goods produced in a way that does not harm the environment, or human, plant or animal health and welfare •• Ensuring the integrity of organic production at all stages of food and feed production, processing and distribution

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

16

The principles of organic livestock farming

Box 1 The four principles of organic agriculture and their relevance to organic livestock farming Principle of Health: Organic agriculture should sustain and enhance the health of soil, plant, animal and human as one and indivisible. The principle of health places the soil at the centre of systems health and emphasises the interconnectedness of the health of the different parts of the system. The view that health is more than the absence of disease is also essential. For livestock farming in particular, this implies an obligation to ensure and actively promote the animal’s physical, mental and emotional health through its living conditions. Principle of Ecology: Organic agriculture should be based on living ecological systems and cycles, work with them, emulate them and help sustain them. The principle of ecology emphasises the integration of livestock into agroecological systems in relation to feeding and the use of manures. It also covers aspects of naturalness, that organically farmed animals should be free to express their natural behaviour. Principle of Fairness: Organic agriculture should build on relationships that ensure fairness with regard to the common environment and life opportunities. The principle of fairness points towards the individual animal’s rights and emphasises fair treatment in all life situations, from birth to death, including transport and handling. This principle demands that animals be provided with the appropriate conditions and opportunities for their physiology, natural behaviour and well-being. Principle of Care: Organic agriculture should be managed in a precautionary and responsible manner to protect the health and well-being of current and future generations and the environment. The principle of care places the responsibility to protect the animals in their care on organic livestock farmers and anyone that has contact with organic livestock. They have the responsibility to intervene when necessary, and interact wisely and humanely with the animal. Sources: IFOAM (2014) and Vaarst and Alrøe (2012).

Organic production should, first and foremost, rely on systems design and the appropriate management of biological processes based on ecological systems, using natural resources which are internal to the system and methods that: •• Use living organisms and mechanical production methods •• Practice soil-related crop cultivation and land-related livestock production •• Exclude the use of GMOs and products produced from or by GMOs, with the exception of veterinary medicinal products, and exclude animal cloning and the use of ionising radiation from the whole food chain •• Are based on risk assessment, and the use of precautionary and preventive measures, where appropriate The use of external inputs should be restricted and limited to inputs from organic production, natural or naturally derived substances and low-solubility mineral fertilisers. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

17

The principles of organic livestock farming

Specific principles for farming state that waste and by-products of plant and animal origin should be recycled as inputs for plant and livestock production. Animal breeds should be chosen for their high degree of genetic diversity and capacity to adapt to local conditions, their longevity, vitality and resistance to disease or health problems. Animal husbandry practices should enhance the immune system and strengthen natural defences against disease, in particular by including regular exercise and access to the open air and pastureland. Livestock should be fed organic feed composed of agricultural ingredients from organic production, and natural non-agricultural substances. Organic livestock farming should use animals that have been raised on organic holdings since birth or hatching and throughout their lives (EC, 2007, 2017, 2018). Four different types of detailed rule can be distinguished in organic regulations and standards, illustrated here with examples relevant to organic livestock farming: •• Prohibition of specific inputs and practices (e.g. synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, synthetic amino acids as feed additives, poultry cages, fully slatted floors) •• Restriction on the use of some external inputs that cannot be completely removed (e.g. vitamins and minerals, veterinary inputs) and on some practices (e.g. animal mutilations, tethering cattle) •• Preference for the use of inputs of organic origin (e.g. using only feed materials that originate from organic farms) •• Obligation to use certain ‘good practices’ (e.g. providing access to pasture, with some exceptions) (Padel et al., 2013b) The main advantage of these types of rule is that they can be easily operationalised and verified by the monitoring system. Research into animal welfare standard-setting emphasises the need to adopt output-orientated measures (Main et al., 2014) but these can be more difficult to monitor as part of certification. Other factors emphasised in the principles of organic farming, such as aiming for a good balance between crop and livestock, or respect for the animal, are more difficult to mould into rules.

3 Implementing principles of organic livestock farming 3.1 Land-based organic livestock farming The organic principle of ecology states that production is to be based on ecological processes and recycling. It identified the farm ecosystem as the specific production environment for the animal. This implies that organic animal farming should be landbased, or ideally even farm-based. This relates to the need to build fertility for organic crop production through the use of grassland and temporary leys or clover grass mixtures. A common misconception is that livestock produces nitrogen (N) and fertility for organic cropping, but this is not true. Clovers and other forage legumes fix N through symbiosis with Rhizobium bacteria and, when grown with grasses, sequester carbon in the root system. This, combined with the fact that soils are not cultivated during the grassland phase, increases soil organic matter, building soil fertility for subsequent crops. The forage contains N in the form of protein which is consumed by the livestock, and surplus N is excreted in the manure. Some losses occur through the conversion of feed into milk, meat, eggs and wool, and during manure © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

18

The principles of organic livestock farming

storage and spreading. The essential driver for the N supply to organic crops is therefore biological fixation of N by legumes (e.g. clover grass leys) and not livestock. Fertilitybuilding crops can also be grown as green manures, and it is worth noting that there are stockless organic growers and farmers that do not use any livestock manures, but they are most likely to be successful if they include green manure crops in their rotation. Using ruminant livestock to utilise forage crops ensures a direct financial return through the sale of meat or milk. The principle of land-based livestock production implies that animals on organic farms should be fed mainly forage and feed produced on the farm itself, and farms should make use of all the manure produced. This means that farmers should only raise the number of animals that the land can carry. They should always consider the potential impact in terms of environmental pollution, any non‐renewable energy used, greenhouse gas emissions and the nutritional profile of the resulting animal products (SOAAN, 2013). Land-based livestock production also implies that farm animals have access to pasture, which has positive implications for animal welfare, but farmers also need to prevent animals from overgrazing the land, which can lead to nutrient depletion and soil loss from erosion, especially in arid or sloping areas. According to Voisin, grazing is the meeting between animal and grass, and good grazing means the best satisfaction of the requirements of both the grass and the animal: The two elements are inseparable and must always be studied together to put each in its best possible light. When we think of the cow, we must never forget the requirements of the grass. When we study the grass, we should always bear in mind the requirements of the cow. (Voisin and Lecomte, 1962)

Feeding animals mainly from what the farm can produce can be particularly challenging for systems that rely heavily on purchased feeds. This is common in organic pig and poultry systems, and can lead to pollution from an oversupply of nutrients (see below). Padel et al. (2013b) found a significant lack of detail in the description of the principle of land-based livestock production in European organic farming regulations: the proportion of feed that must be produced by the farm itself is set at a minimum of 60% for herbivores, but only 20% for pigs and poultry (Article 19 of Regulation (EC) 889/2008). Where this is not possible, the Regulation requires the feed to be produced ‘in co-operation with other organic farms primarily in the same region’. The term ‘region’ is not defined, and interpretation varies from a neighbouring region, to the same country, to the whole of the EU. Farms that keep more stock than the farm can carry have to rely on bought-in feed or land elsewhere, which can be costly and also increases the risk of pollution. The impact of reliance on external feed inputs can be illustrated using the farm gate nutrient balance. Padel (2013a) reported NPK balances on 69 European farms with dairy cows, 55 of which were organic: the N balance of the organic farms varied from +533 to −13 kg/ha/year; P balances ranged from +193 to −18 kg/ha/year; and the K balance varied from +88 to −76 kg/ha/year. Further investigation into the practices associated with high or low balances indicated that non-dairy livestock (such as pigs or poultry) on the farm increased the reliance on purchased feed, or very small amounts of feed were purchased but nutrients were exported in the products sold (meat, milk and fibre). Organic farms are not exempt from factors that encourage specialisation and discourage the integration of livestock and cropping systems in farming in general. Farmer workload, and social and organisational issues on the farm, are major challenges that prevent closer © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

The principles of organic livestock farming

19

integration of crop and livestock, but models and case studies demonstrate the clear economic, agronomic, environmental and social benefits of crop/livestock integration (Moraine et al., 2014) in a similar way to the organic principles. The advantages of relying on the farm’s own resources are clearly seen in cost savings, and increased and sustained fertility. In practice, organic livestock farming also has to respect the natural ecology of the land. Over two-thirds of organic agricultural land globally is grassland or grazing (33.1 million ha, an increase of 17% compared to 2014) (Willer and Lernoud, 2017). Farming with ruminant livestock that can utilise grass is therefore likely to be the most common form of organic livestock farming globally. If ruminants are fed a forage-based diet grown mainly on the farm, these systems have the potential to demonstrate landbased organic livestock production that can benefit animal health as well as profitability. Many of the concentrates in dairy cow diets also tend to be grains (such as wheat and soya) that could be consumed directly by humans. One of the main reasons for feeding concentrates is the dietary requirement for protein, calculated by dairy cow rationing programmes. It seems that the dietary protein requirements of dairy cows fed on high-roughage diets, and the specific conditions in which dairy cows can cope with lower dietary protein supplies need to be reassessed, taking rumen function, animal behaviour and health, environmental impacts and product quality into account (Leiber, 2014). Leiber (2014) argues for a substantial research effort, both in the laboratory and on farm, to adapt the current feeding parameters for ruminant production to organic farming systems, and many organic milk producers are already putting these ideas into practice. Using a land-based organic livestock system for monogastric species, such as pigs and poultry, and reducing their reliance on human-edible feeds can be more challenging. Minimising external inputs is especially difficult when feeding piglets, because the highquality protein feed required is not usually available on farm, or at least not in sufficient quantities (Baldinger et al., 2016). On the other hand, research under the ICOPP (Improved Contribution of Local Feed to Support 100% Organic Feed Supply to Pigs and Poultry) project has shown that feeding roughage to pigs is beneficial to their health and that it is possible to cover monogastric protein requirements with early cut leguminous silage such as lucerne, which usually yields much more protein and methionine per hectare than other protein crops, including soya beans. This enables the positive effect of forage legumes on soil fertility and weed control to be incorporated into the rotation for use by species other than ruminants, with potential financial and environmental benefits (Hermansen, 2015). Reducing the use of feedstuffs for animals that could be directly consumed by humans was shown to be one important strategy in a recent study by FIBL (The Research Institute of Organic Agriculture) that modelled the impact of full conversion to organic farming on feeding the world. The study concluded that organic farming could sustainably feed the world if it was combined with a reduction in food-competing feeds from arable land (reducing the production and consumption of animal products proportionally), and with strategies aimed at reducing food waste (Muller et al., 2017). In summary, the principle of land-based organic livestock production encourages practitioners and researchers to question some of the accepted wisdom in animal production and seek new solutions, so that the benefits of closer integration between crops and livestock can be realised. This does not mean returning to the agriculture of the past, but to respect every animal species and the specific contribution it can make to the whole farming system. In particular, ruminants utilise forage legumes and grasses that © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

20

The principles of organic livestock farming

build soil fertility, but omnivorous pigs also benefit if some of their diet comes from forage legumes. In conclusion, organic livestock farming should be land-based, even if this is not actually demanded by the rules. Closer collaboration between crop and livestock producers might be one way to integrate crops and livestock more closely to gain the associated benefits, allowing a level of specialisation on each individual farm and preventing environmental damage. This already works successfully on many organic farms, where forage in arable rotations is grazed by a livestock farmer, or when marketing grain for feed and utilising manure. However, maybe the need for every organic farm to keep livestock needs to be questioned: could an ‘ideal’ organic farm also be stockless and find other ways to recycle nutrients that do not involve animals? Visualising organic livestock farms that do not have the use of land for grazing, outdoor access and spreading manure is, however, more difficult. And there appears to be an ethical obligation for organic livestock producers to reduce their reliance on feedstuffs that could be directly consumed by humans, such as grains and pulses, by focusing more on grass and pasture use.

3.2 Selecting animals for organic breeding Having suitable animals and breeding goals is one of the solutions for disease prevention in organic livestock farming (Lund, 2006). One of the principles of the EU Regulation clearly states that animal breeds should be chosen for their capacity to adapt to local conditions, as well as their longevity, vitality and resistance to disease or health problems (EC, 2007). The 2017 revision of the EU Regulation adds the need to protect genetic diversity in animals (EC, 2017, 2018). However, neither the rules nor the scientific literature fully clarify which breeds an organic farmer should consider, or what breeding goals they should adopt, leading to uncertainty and confusion. Information on the health, reliance on medicines and phenotypic functional characteristics of local/native breeds in organic dairy production in Europe is very limited (Bieber et al., 2016), and there are considerable differences between species and between farming systems. The question of breed choice and breeding goals in dairy cows and poultry is explored below. It is often said that cows bred for high-input milk production are not suitable for organic farming, but the empirical evidence comparing different breeds remains limited. A study in North Carolina compared organic with conventionally managed cows and found breed group differences, with Holsteins producing more than Jerseys in a pasture-based system (Mullen et al., 2015). The results appear counter-intuitive to those who assume that Holstein Friesians (HF) are one of those high-input conventional breeds that can never be suited to organic systems. It is worth noting that HF cows have also been selected under different conditions, for example in grazing systems in Ireland and New Zealand, and there is likely to be considerable genetic variability within the breed that a farm can take advantage of when it converts to organic. In Austria, Germany and the Netherlands, a small number of organic farms keep HF cows, which have been bred especially for high lifetime yield (see Box 2). A cow with a very high lifetime yield, called HFL, should be a very economical, healthy and fertile cow, so breeding for high lifetime yield is a very holistic goal that should help prevent the unintended consequences of breeding for specific traits. Horn et al. (2013) compared these HFL animals with Brown Swiss in a grazing system and found HFL to have a lower milk yield but also less body tissue mobilisation, which resulted in better conception rates. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

21

The principles of organic livestock farming

Box 2 Initiatives breeding Holstein cows for high lifetime yield HFL represents a small but special sub-population of Holstein Friesians in Austria and Germany. These animals have been selected for superior lifetime milk yield in an alternative breeding programme started by Professor F. Bakels and lasting over 50 years. In 1958, four unrelated dairy cow lines which had outstanding lifetime performance and were free of hereditary defects were selected from the American Holstein population. A number of these animals were imported into Europe and introduced into a rotational breeding programme. Within these four lines, the sires were primarily selected for lifetime milk yield and fitness traits (such as productive life span, persistency, fertility etc.), and annual milk yield and conformation traits were of only secondary importance (Haiger, 2006; Horn et al., 2013). The ‘Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Rinderzucht auf Lebensleistung’ (see http://arge-ll. de/) was founded in 1983 as a self-help group of high lifetime yield breeders and now has members in Germany, Austria, Holland, Belgium, Poland and Switzerland. In the Netherlands, the Dutch Organisation for Organic Animal Breeding (http:// www.biologischefokkerij.nl/?page_id=392) aims to increase the availability of organic breeding stock. Organic artificial insemination (AI) has been developed for organic dairy producers, and bulls for organic AI are sourced from working organic dairy farms. Bulls are chosen from the best dams on these farms and semen is collected at the EU-certified AI centre, ‘KI de Toekomst’. The breeding goal is high lifetime production under organic conditions.

Longevity is a holistic breeding goal that is often considered important for ethical reason, but should it be factored in day-to-day decisions on many farms? Using longevity as a breeding goal would require animal lifespans to be recorded at the herd or farm, and breed, level. On many farms, animals are culled for various reasons and there seems to be an inbuilt conflict between breeding for longevity and the quick genetic progress that many farmers seek with their breeding programmes (Röcklinsberg et al., 2016; Nauta et al., 2005). There is a wide range of low-input and organic milk production systems that require livestock to be suited to specific conditions and breeding strategies. And breed choice and breeding goals should be considered from a farm-specific perspective, rather than in the general organic context. Improving profitability in the long term is likely to be an important breeding goal for many organic farmers. For example, a dairy farm should identify the specific strengths and weaknesses of its herd and individual cows, and select sires accordingly from within their existing breed. Whilst crossbreeding may provide an alternative to selection within one breed, it also requires strategic planning and should not be seen as a ‘quick fix’ for management-related problems (Zollitsch et al., 2016). Although there is a strong desire for a more organic breeding approach, one study with dairy cow breeders in the Netherlands did not reach any consensus on what a more organic breeding approach would look like in practice (Nauta et al., 2005), which may be a reflection of the different conditions on each farm. Given the relatively low cow numbers in many countries, organic producers may have to use animals selected from conventional production systems, although they may select for different traits, such as longevity or health (Ahlman et al., 2014). Farm-based regional © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

22

The principles of organic livestock farming

breeding strategies based on kin breeding may also be appropriate for organic dairy farming, but more research into these practices and their uses is required. For poultry production, the EU Regulation makes specific reference to slow-growing broiler breeds and strains, that are breeds with a live weight gain that does not exceed 45 g/day (EC, 2007). This is supposed to prevent the health problems that often occur in conventional poultry production. However, organic poultry producers will also frequently have to rely on traditional poultry breeding companies to supply chicks (Van de Weerd et al., 2009). Breeding companies are adapting to increasing demand for birds suitable for free-range egg production and are selecting for traits such as low levels of floor eggs, ease of management, good feathering and efficient feed conversion, and this may also benefit organic farmers. However, the primary breeding goals for organic farming (such as disease resistance and longevity) are not necessarily at the forefront. There are also examples of integrated supply chains for organic poultry products using different strains or breeds, and attempts to engage with dual-purpose breeds for meat and egg production (Van de Weerd et al., 2009) (see Box 3).

Box 3 Examples of how to solve the chicken and egg question Using cockerels from egg production Worldwide, most males in layer-type poultry are currently killed at hatching, but this does not conform to organic principles. Some organic farmers with laying hens disagree with this practice and are looking for possible solutions. Raising these cockerels is not complicated, but production costs are higher than for specialised broilers because growth rates are slower. Organic broilers reach 2400 g at 12 weeks of age, whereas layer cockerels need about 18 weeks to reach 2000 g. Organic broilers have a feed conversion rate of about 2.1:1, whereas layertype cockerels require at least 3 kg of feed for 1 kg of live weight gain (Leenstra, 2014). The German initiative ‘Bruderhahn’ aims to encourage farmers to raise cockerels from layer farms and promotes the eggs with a specific product label. https://www. bruderhahn.de/. Dual-purpose chicken breeding ‘Verein ökologische Tierzucht’, also in Germany, has been working towards breeding a dual-purpose chicken, particularly suitable for organic production, since 2015. The programme is based on crossing three different breeds and is now selling birds to a small number of organic farms. Farmers using these layers charge 1 cent extra per egg to fund further breeding work. Similar initiatives also exist in other countries, for example, the Netherlands (http://www.oekotierzucht. de/; http://www.biologischefokkerij.nl/?p=438) Swiss research into consumer behaviour found a willingness to pay more for eggs that come from a dual-purpose breed than standard eggs, but this was positively related to knowledge about poultry production and other factors. The researchers saw obvious potential for combination with an organic label (Gangnat et al., 2018).

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

23

The principles of organic livestock farming

Pryce et al. (2004) argue that disease resistance, fertility, longevity, feed efficiency, foraging ability, temperament and moderate production levels are common breeding goals in any species for organic livestock farming. Breeding for moderate levels of production is likely to be a negative reaction to the dominance of production goals in animal breeding. Breeding for high lifetime yield illustrates that production-related breeding goals do not necessarily have a negative effect on other traits. Breeding for any goal will, however, only be possible if performance data in relation to the required trait is collected systematically from both males and females. Given the relatively small scale of organic farming in many countries and the small size of many herds, a separate breeding structure with customised selection indices for organic farmers remains difficult to achieve (Nauta et al., 2005). In conclusion, it is important that organic farmers understand their herd’s strengths and weaknesses very well as the first step in defining the traits that need to be improved under farm-specific conditions, rather than looking for general ‘organic’ breeds or breeding goals. The wide genetic variability within breeds will allow particular animals to be selected for particular situations (Scollan et al., 2017). When choosing a breed, organic farmers will consider their own personal preference for particular animals, an important condition for good stockmanship, and good animal health and welfare. Finally, there is also an ethical dimension to breeding, as the chicken and egg examples illustrate.

3.3 Sustaining good animal health The principle of health demands that organic livestock farming should sustain the health of the animal. A common approach to animal health is to describe it as the absence of disease, or refer to a healthy animal as one that does not require treatment. This works as an everyday guide, especially if an organic farmer is faced with high levels of disease and is looking for the causes, rather than just focusing on treating the symptoms. Looking for prevention rather than a cure stems from the fact that organic livestock production standards place considerable restrictions on the use of many veterinary inputs that are routinely used in conventional production systems (Vaarst et al., 2005). This restriction, combined with the longer withdrawal periods required in organic systems, also reduces the risk of drug residues in organic livestock products and reduces environmental contamination. This topic has recently been given more attention because of resistance problems with antibiotics and some other veterinary drugs, many of which are also used to treat people. However, there are some trade-offs to be considered: the principle of fairness implies that sick animals should be treated, and many organic standards clearly state that animal suffering should be prevented. Restrictions on animal treatment should not be interpreted as an excuse to let animals suffer. In some cases, this can involve treatment with veterinary medicines, which is allowed in the European Union. However, many other measures can be taken to ameliorate suffering and cure a sick animal, and proper care through feeding, housing and disease prevention should always be provided. Disease incidents can help to identify underlying management problems, such as unsuitable diets, housing or husbandry conditions, or inadequate biosecurity. Practices recommended by the European Regulations for organic livestock production to maintain animal health include closed herds and flocks and improved biosecurity on farm. They also include extensive production systems (e.g. free-range production), but these also expose livestock to increased disease challenges. An animal health plan is a good management tool that sets out clear goals and measures to phase out unsuitable practices and improve © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

24

The principles of organic livestock farming

animal management to achieve positive health outcomes, along with any necessary treatments. Organic farming should produce better animal health outcomes with these practices, and this is the case on many farms. However, studies comparing health outcomes on organic and non-organic farms vary in their conclusions. For example, Rutherford et al. (2008) found lameness to be less prevalent on 40 organic dairy farms than 40 non-organic farms. Three studies of udder health in cows (Haskell et al., 2009; Fall et al., 2008; Müller and Sauerwein, 2010) found no difference between organic and conventional herds. Good animal health has traditionally been associated with, or measured in terms of, high performance, fertility, production and yield. But there is a need for caution when applying this in practice, because animals can continue to perform even if they are not healthy. The concept of resilience (Döring et al., 2015) might be one of the most promising ideas when looking for a better definition of health across various parts of the farm system, beyond productivity and the absence of disease. A new definition for human health is the organism’s ability to adapt and self-manage (Huber et al., 2011). In conclusion, organic animal husbandry does strive for a high level of animal health. This is mainly achieved by preventing health problems through good husbandry, herd observation and biosecurity, and creating a stress-free environment for the animal that allows it to self-manage according to its needs.

3.4 Ensuring a high standard of animal welfare Aiming for a high standard of animal welfare is something that few in the organic sector would disagree with. The principle of fairness demands that farmers provide animals with the appropriate conditions and opportunities for their physiology, natural behaviour and well-being from birth to death, and the principle of care clearly places responsibility for animal welfare on the farmer (Vaarst and Alrøe, 2012). Respect for animal welfare is also related to the underlying value of naturalness. Lund (2006) argues that natural living (where an animal can express its natural behaviour, is fed according to its physiology and is living in an environment similar to the one it has evolved to occupy) is a precondition for animal welfare in organic farming. Poor animal welfare in conventional farming is a consumer concern.1 Expectations of better welfare in organic farming is an important motivating factor for consumers that buy organic animal products, even if they are not fully aware of what the organic standards say about animal welfare (Hemmerling et al., 2015). They perceive the elements of outdoor access, lower stocking density and floor type as important factors influencing animal welfare, and some are willing to pay a premium for products from such systems (Janssen et al., 2016a). However, it is also worth noting that a growing proportion of consumers do not buy any meat products because of animal welfare concerns (Janssen et al., 2016b). The EU Regulation provides very detailed rules regarding the impact of animal management on welfare.2 Particularly relevant are specifications on housing design and indoor stocking rates (e.g. at least half of a floor area should be solid floor, not slats), and the Regulation bans the use of flat decks or cages for piglets. Tethering is only permitted on smallholdings, and animals in these situations have to be given regular 1. http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/SPECIAL/surveyKy/2096 2. For example, see Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) 834/2007 and Articles 7 to 25 of Regulation (EC) 889/2008.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

25

The principles of organic livestock farming

exercise, have access to bedded areas, be managed well and have additional monitoring visits. Overall, the animal welfare provisions in organic standards are higher than the requirements of general EU legislation. Schmid and Knutti (2012) found differences from other welfare standards (such as RSPCA-certified in the United Kingdom) related to the prohibition of certain housing systems (e.g. fully slatted floors for cattle) and improvements in existing ones (e.g. access to bedding). Kilbride et al. (2012) concluded that enterprises participating in organic or farm assurance inspections were more likely to comply with welfare legislation during animal health inspections and that this could be incorporated into the risk-based selection of farms for inspection. Langford et al. (2011) found no significant differences in building dimensions or other aspects of cow housing in a study comparing 40 organic and non-organic farms, whereas Rahmann and Godinho (2012) found inadequate respect for animal welfare in some practices, such as temporary tethering, short life expectancy in organic dairy cows in some countries and a considerable reliance of milk production on concentrate feeds (cereal and soya), instead of roughage. The organic production rules already contain many provisions that benefit animal welfare, such as mandatory access to open-air areas and/or pasture, maximum indoor stocking density, flock size, minimum time spent at pasture, and transport and slaughter conditions. Preventive measures can also make a difference: for layers, good feeding management, daily access to the free-range area and improved litter management were found to reduce the incidence of plumage damage and associated injurious pecking, improving organic laying hen welfare (Bestman et al., 2017). In conclusion, the objective of high animal welfare is important for organic livestock farming. Organic farming can potentially provide farm animals with good welfare, but the underlying philosophy of systems health and sustainability causes issues that must be recognised and discussed so that solutions can be found that promote animal welfare within the given framework (Lund, 2006). Further improvements involve discussion and debate, including at the farm level, using training, advice and health/welfare planning to raise farmer awareness of welfare and how to improve it. Research can help to develop appropriate output-based criteria for monitoring and enforcing animal welfare outcomes that can be used by farmers for self-assessment and also form part of monitoring visits (Sanders et al., 2013). Several standard owners and organic farmer associations are actively engaging with this issue, such as by covering animal welfare in regular organic inspections in Germany (AG Tierwohl), and the AssureWel project in the United Kingdom. An improvement-orientated approach during the planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating stages should be included in organic certification, and much more can be done to provide practical information to farmers around the world (Main et al., 2014).

4 The future of organic principles in livestock farming This chapter has shown that the ‘organic-ness’ of livestock farming is mainly about engagement with the principles, and is not only defined by organic rules. There are many encouraging examples, but much more can be done in research and in practice to develop organic livestock farming in line with the principles of organic agriculture, for all species and under a variety of conditions.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

26

The principles of organic livestock farming

Lund et al. (2004) suggested an ethical contract between humans and farm animals to ensure that the duty to respect the animal’s interests are not forgotten, despite the need for compromise between the different human stakeholders involved in setting the standards. Therefore, the farmer, researcher and adviser should look at the farm from the animal’s point of view from time to time, and imagine what it would be like to be a cow, laying hen or pig on that particular farm. Similarly, those who are not directly involved in organic livestock farming should try to look at the practicalities from the farmer’s point of view. Farmers have multiple goals to consider: one important one is to earn a living from farming, and this is one reason why many organic farmers keep animals. This is often dismissed as a profit motive that we should not really talk about, and that is likely to conflict with organic principles, even though the principle of fairness clearly refers to fair rewards. Farmers and researchers also often use the excuse that ‘this cannot be done because it is not economical’ if they do not want to engage with a challenging question. For example, grass is clearly the cheapest feed for ruminants, and grass-based diets tend to outperform high-input diets financially, and have health benefits for cattle, but many producers will argue that they have to feed concentrates for financial reasons. Grass is also a feed resource that is not human-edible and that can be transformed into high-quality protein food by ruminants, an example of a potential win–win situation that can have financial benefits as well as being good for the animal. Other new ideas challenge long-held beliefs, such as letting calves suckle their own mothers, a behaviour common to all mammals, or letting cows keep their horns. Many will argue that this cannot be done, but some organic farmers are exploring ways to do this in practice (for an example, see http://farmadvice.solidairy.eu/wp-content/ uploads/2016/05/SOLID_technical_note8_maternal.pdf). Practising organic livestock farming according to organic principles is likely to involve the observational skills, creativity and dedication of all concerned. Here are some thoughts that seem particularly relevant: •• Debating the philosophical and ethical principles in organic farming and identifying potential conflicts between animal health and welfare and other aims •• Reflecting on the need to reduce our reliance on animal products in the diet and on feeding human-edible feeds to livestock, whilst at the same time respecting the unique role that ruminant livestock has in producing food from land that is unsuitable for cropping, and building soil fertility •• Clarifying which breed and breeding strategies can be considered suitable for organic livestock farming, taking regional differences into account •• Developing clear guidelines for species-appropriate husbandry, housing and transport for all farm animals, taking regional differences into account •• Developing methods to assess animal welfare that can be used by farmers and monitoring bodies, and encouraging continuous improvements in animal welfare on organic farms.

5 Conclusion In trying to answer the question of what makes livestock farming organic, this chapter has presented the principles of organic farming and their application to livestock farming, and discussed a range of issues in organic livestock production that need to be considered. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

27

The principles of organic livestock farming

The four organic principles of health, ecology, fairness and care shape organic livestock farming, even if animals are barely mentioned in the main principle statements. The underlying values of naturalness, sustainability and systems thinking are all highly relevant. These principles and values need to be interpreted and debated, and the ideas need to be actively engaged with on each individual farm to achieve the high-level objectives in daily practice. Livestock is an essential part of many organic farming systems. The land-based nature of organic livestock farming (related to the principle of ecology) implies feeding livestock feed produced on its own farm, or nearby. Growing forage and using livestock manure also benefits soil fertility, but organic farms are subject to the same factors that have led to greater specialisation in farming in general, especially economies of scale and labour. The land-based nature of organic livestock is also related to the principle of fairness; fairness to a growing human population implies reducing animal reliance on human-edible feedstuffs, and fairness to animals means providing each animal species with the conditions that it requires to express natural behaviour. The principles of fairness and care also relate to respect for animals; treating animals fairly implies keeping livestock only under the conditions to which the species are evolutionarily adapted, which overlaps with the question of which animals can and should be farmed organically. Ruminants and pigs can utilise forage legumes and grasses, and contribute to soil fertility. In relation to breeds and breeding goals, it seems to be important that organic farmers have a very good understanding of their herd’s strengths and weaknesses as the first step in defining specific traits in their herd that need to be improved, rather than looking for an ‘organic’ breed or breeding goals. Achieving a high level of animal health (related to the principle of health) can be supported by understanding that animal health is closely related to resilience and can be defined as the organism’s ability to adapt, self-manage and recover. This shifts the focus away from treating disease towards identifying underlying management problems, such as unsuitable diets, housing or husbandry conditions, and poor biosecurity. Organic livestock farming should also safeguard and enhance human health. This means avoiding inputs that can harm humans, both in terms of feed ingredients and veterinary treatments (e.g. preventing drug residues in meat and milk and the build-up of resistance). ‘Highest animal welfare’ is the gold standard, and there are many inspirational examples of organic farmers who have explored new solutions, such as allowing cows to express maternal behaviour by rearing their own calves, or keeping pigs in family groups. However, more can be done to support organic livestock farmers to improving welfare by providing clear parameters, and training on how to observe animals and monitor their welfare using animal-based indicators, which also form part of the certification process.

6 Where to look for further information Many European research projects have examined specific aspects of organic or low-input livestock farming, and these provide some useful reading on the details, if not on the principles. Please remember that the websites of projects that have been completed will not be updated. The results of research on organic livestock farming can also be found by searching by keyword or browsing Organic Eprints (http://orprints.org), where results from many of the projects listed below can also be found.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

28

The principles of organic livestock farming

ICOPP (Improved Contribution of Local Feed to Support 100% Organic Feed Supply to Pigs and Poultry), a three-year project funded by Core Organic, which aims to produce profitable feeding strategies based on 100% organic feed across Europe, supplying poultry and pigs the required level of nutrients during the various production stages, and supporting high animal health and welfare by the following activities: http://www. organicresearchcentre.com/icopp/ SOLID (Sustainable Organic and Low-Input Dairying) involved agro-scientists and farming experts from 25 institutions around Europe, working together in a 5-year research project (2011–16) to develop new knowledge and methods to improve the sustainability of organic and low-input dairy systems in Europe, funded under the Seventh Framework Programme. Results can be found here: http://farmadvice.solidairy.eu/or http://www. solidairy.eu/ The Low-Input Breeds Project (developing integrated livestock breeding and management strategies to improve animal health, product quality and performance in European organic and ‘low-input’ milk, meat and egg production) was also a five-year EU Collaborative Project, running from 2009–14 and funded under the Seventh Framework Programme. Key project outcomes can be found here: http://www.lowinputbreeds.org/ home.html HENNOVATION (practice-led innovation supported by science and market-driven actors in the laying hen and other livestock sectors) was one of the first Thematic Networks projects in Horizon 2020 and ran from January 2015 to August 2017. Using the laying hen sector as a case study, it demonstrated the potential of farmer-led innovation and industry practices for Injurious Pecking and End-of-Lay, during transport and at the abattoir. A wealth of technical results are shared here: http://www.hennovation.eu/ The Farm Health Online website of animal health and welfare was developed by the Duchy College, Animal Welfare Approved and A Greener World. It provides information and supports sustainable livestock farming by bringing together appropriate material from a wide range of recent research and advisory sources and making it accessible to farmers, veterinary surgeons and advisers: http://www.farmhealthonline.com/

7 References Ahlman, T., Ljung, M., Rydhmer, L., Röcklinsberg, H., Strandberg, E. and Wallenbeck, A. 2014. Differences in preferences for breeding traits between organic and conventional dairy producers in Sweden. Livestock Science, 162, 5–14. Baldinger, L., Bussemas, R., Höinghaus, K., Renger, A. and Weißmann, F. 2016. Effect of six 100% organic feeding strategies differing in external input demand on animal performance and production costs of piglets before and after weaning. Organic Agriculture, 7(3), 267–79. Bestman, M., Verwer, C., Brenninkmeyer, C., Willett, A., Hinrichsen, L. K., Smajlhodzic, F., Heerkens, J. L. T., Gunnarsson, S. and Ferrante, V. 2017. Feather-pecking and injurious pecking in organic laying hens in 107 flocks from eight European countries. Animal Welfare, 26, 355–63. Bieber, A., Spengler Neff, A., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Ivemeyer, S., Simantke, C., Stricker, C., Walczak, J., Wallenbeck, A., Winckler, C. and Wojcik, P. 2016. Comparison of native and commercial dairy breeds on organic farms in five European countries. [Vergleich von lokalen und kommerziellen Milchrindrassen auf Biobetrieben in fünf europäischen Ländern.] Book of Abstracts of the 67th Annual Meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science. Wageningen Academic Publisher. Döring, T. F., Vieweger, A., Pautasso, M., Vaarst, M., Finckh, M. R. and Wolfe, M. S. 2015. Resilience as a universal criterion of health. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 95, 455–65. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

The principles of organic livestock farming

29

EC. 2007. Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Official Journal of the European Union, L189, 1–23. EC. 2017. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the council on production and labelling of organic products Interinstitutional Draft. EC. 2018. Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. Official Journal of the European Union, L150(14 June 2018), 1–92. Fall, N., Emanuelson, U., Martinsson, K. and Jonsson, S. 2008. Udder health at a Swedish research farm with both organic and conventional dairy cow management. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 83, 186–95. Gangnat, I. D. M., Mueller, S., Kreuzer, M., Messikommer, R. E., Siegrist, M. and Visschers, V. H. M. 2018. Swiss consumers’ willingness to pay and attitudes regarding dual-purpose poultry and eggs. Poultry Science, 97(3), 1089–98. Haiger, A. 2006. Zucht auf hohe Lebensleistung. 33. Viehwirtschaftliche Fachtagung. Höhere Bundeslehr- und Forschungsanstalt für Landwirtschaft Raumberg-Gumpenstein, Irdning, Austria, 26–27 April 2006, pp. 1–4. Haskell, M., Langford, F., Jack, M., Sherwood, L., Lawrence, A. and Rutherford, K. 2009. The effect of organic status and management practices on somatic cell counts on UK dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science, 180, 3775–80. Hemmerling, S., Hamm, U. and Spiller, A. 2015. Consumption behaviour regarding organic food from a marketing perspective—a literature review. Organic Agriculture, 5, 277–313. Hermansen, J. E. 2015. Overall assessment report D6.1 and D 6.2 of the ICOPP project Tjele. Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University. Horn, M., Steinwidder, A., Gasteiner, J., Podstatzky, L., Haiger, A. and Zollitsch, W. 2013. Suitability of different dairy cow types for an Alpine organic and low-input milk production system. Livestock Science, 153(1–3), 135–46. Huber, M., Knottnerus, J. A., Green, L., Van Der Horst, H., Jadad, A. R., Kromhout, D., Leonard, B., Lorig, K., Loureiro, M. I. and Van Der Meer, J. W. 2011. How should we define health? BMJ: British Medical Journal, 343, d4163. IFOAM. 2005. Principles of Organic Agriculture. Bonn, Germany: International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements. IFOAM. 2014. The IFOAM Norms for Organic Production and Processing. Version 2014. Bonn, Germany: IFOAM. Janssen, M., Roediger, M. and Hamm, U. 2016a. Labels for animal husbandry systems meet consumer preferences: Results from a meta-analysis of consumer studies. Journal for Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 29, 1071–100. Janssen, M., Busch, C., Rödiger, M. and Hamm, U. 2016b. Motives of consumers following a vegan diet and their attitudes towards animal agriculture. Appetite, 105, 643–51. Kilbride, A. L., Mason, S. A., Honeyman, P. C., Pritchard, D. G., Hepple, S. and Green, L. E. 2012. Associations between membership of farm assurance and organic certification schemes and compliance with animal welfare legislation. Veterinary Record, 170, 152. Lampkin, N. 2017. The new EU organic regulation has been agreed – is that it? Organic Research Centre Bulletin. Newbury. Langford, F., Rutherford, K., Sherwood, L., Jack, M., Lawrence, A. and Haskell, M. 2011. Behavior of cows during and after peak feeding time on organic and conventional dairy farms in the United Kingdom. Journal of Dairy Science, 94, 746–53. Leenstra, F. 2014. Raising cockerels as part of free range egg production. LowInputBreeds Technical Note 4-5. Leiber, F. 2014. Resigning protein concentrates in dairy cattle nutrition: A problem or a chance? Organic Agriculture, 4, 269–73. Lund, V. 2006. Natural living—a precondition for animal welfare in organic farming. Livestock Science, 100, 71–83. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

30

The principles of organic livestock farming

Lund, V. and Röcklinsberg, H. 2001. Outlining a conception of animal welfare for organic farming systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14, 391–424. Lund, V., Anthony, R. and Röcklinsberg, H. 2004. The ethical contract as a tool in organic animal husbandry. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 17, 23–49. Luttikholt, L. W. M. 2007. Principles of organic agriculture as formulated by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 54, 347–60. Main, D. C. J., Mullan, S., Atkinson, C., Cooper, M., Wrathall, J. H. M. and Blokhuis, H. J. 2014. Best practice framework for animal welfare certification schemes. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 37, 127–36. Moraine, M., Duru, M., Nicholas, P., Leterme, P. and Therond, O. 2014. Farming system design for innovative crop-livestock integration in Europe. Animal, 8, 1204–17. Mullen, K. A. E., Dings, E. H. A., Kearns, R. R. and Washburn, S. P. 2015. A comparison of production, reproduction, and animal health for pastured dairy cows managed either conventionally or with use of organic principles. The Professional Animal Scientist, 31, 167–74. Müller, U. and Sauerwein, H. 2010. A comparison of somatic cell count between organic and conventional dairy cow herds in West Germany stressing dry period related changes. Livestock Science, 127, 30–7. Muller, A., Schader, C., El-Hage Scialabba, N., Brüggemann, J., Isensee, A., Erb, K.-H., Smith, P., Klocke, P., Leiber, F., Stolze, M. and Niggli, U. 2017. Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nature Communications, 8, 1290. Nauta, W. J., Groen, A. F., Veerkamp, R. F., Roep, D. and Baars, T. 2005. Animal breeding in organic dairy farming: An inventory of farmers' views and difficulties to overcome. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 53, 19–34. Padel, S. 2018. Chapter 14: Setting and reviewing standards for organic farming. In: Kӧpke, U. (Ed.), Improving Organic Crop Cultivation. Cambridge, UK: Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing. Padel, S., Schmid, O. and Lund, V. 2004. Chapter 4: Organic livestock standards. In: Vaarst, M., Roderick, S., Lund, V. and Lockeretz, W. (Eds), Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing. Padel, S., Röcklinsberg, H. and Schmid, O. 2009. The implementation of organic principles and values in the European Regulation for organic food. Food Policy, 34, 245–51. Padel, S., Gerrard, C. L., Leach, K., Smith, L. G., Topp, C. F. E. and Watson, C. 2013a. The devil is the detail: Finding meaning indicators of nutrient management on organic and low-input farms. In: Aspects of Applied Biology, Association of Applied Biologists, Wellesbourne, UK, 121, pp. 83–8. Padel, S., Vieweger, A., Nocentini, L., Devot, A., Schmid, O. and Stolze, M. 2013b. Adequacy of the production rules. In: Sanders, J. (Ed.), Evaluation of the EU Legislation on Organic FarmingStudy Report. Braunschweig, Germany: Thünen Institute of Farm Economics. Pryce, J. E., Conington, K., Soerensen, P., Kelly, H. R. C. and Rydhmer, L. 2004. Breeding strategies for organic livestock. In: Vaarst, M., Roderick, S., Lund, V. and Lockeretz, W. (Eds), Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing. Rahmann, G. and Godinho, D. 2012. Tackling the Future Challenges of Organic Animal Husbandry. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (vTI), Bundesforschungsinstitut für Ländliche Räume, Wald und Fischerei. Röcklinsberg, H., Gamborg, C., Gjerris, M., Rydhmer, L., Tjärnström, E. and Wallenbeck, A. 2016. Chapter 7: Understanding Swedish dairy farmers’ view on breeding goals – ethical aspects of longevity. In: Olsson, I. A. S., Araújo, S. M. and Fátima Vieira, M. (Eds), Food Futures: Ethics, Science and Culture. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers. Rutherford, K., Langford, F., Jack, M., Sherwood, L., Lawrence, A. and Haskell, M. 2008. Lameness prevalence and risk factors in organic and non-organic dairy herds in the United Kingdom. Veterinary Journal, 180, 95–105. Sanders, J., Padel, S., Nocentini, L., Stolze, M., Huber, B., Zander, K., Polakova, J. and Keenleyside, C. 2013. Towards and improved legislative framework for organic farming - Overall conclusions and recommendations. In: Sanders, J. (Ed.), Evaluation of the EU Legislation on Organic FarmingStudy Report. Braunschweig, Germany: Thünen Institute of Farm Economics. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

The principles of organic livestock farming

31

Schmid, O. and Knutti, S. 2012. Outcome-oriented approaches for regulating animal welfare in organic farming. 10th European IFSA Symposium, Producing and Reproducing Farming Systems. New Modes of Organisation for Sustainable Food Systems of Tomorrow. Aarhus, Denmark.. Scialabba, N. E.-H. 2007. Foreword. In: Lockeretz, W. (Ed.), Organic Farming: An International History. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Scollan, N., Padel, S., Halsberg, N., Hermansen, J., Nicholas, P., Rinne, M., Zanoli, R., Zollitsch, W. and Lauwers, L. 2017. Organic and low input dairy farming: Avenues to enhance sustainability and competitiveness in the EU. Eurochoices, 16, 40–5. Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N. and Mayerhofer, T. 2017. What is this thing called organic?–How organic farming is codified in regulations. Food Policy, 68, 10–20. SOAAN. 2013. Best Practice Guideline for Agriculture and Value Chains. Public Version 1.0. Bonn, Germany: SOAAN. UNCTAD. 2013. Wake Up Before It is Too Late. Make Agriculture Truly Sustainable Now for Food Security in a Changing Climate. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Vaarst, M. 2015. The role of animals in eco-functional intensification of organic agriculture. Sustainable Agriculture Research, 4(3), 103–15. Vaarst, M. and Alrøe, H. F. 2012. Concepts of animal health and welfare in organic livestock systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25, 333–47. Vaarst, M., Roderick, S., Lund, V. and Lockeretz, W. (Eds). 2004. Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing. Vaarst, M., Padel, S., Hovi, M., Younie, D. and Sundrum, A. 2005. Sustaining animal health and food safety in European organic livestock farming: Presentation of a European Network Project. Livestock Production Science, 94, 61–9. Van De Weerd, H. A., Keatinge, R. and Roderick, S. 2009. A review of key health-related welfare issues in organic poultry production. World Poultry Science, 65(4), 649–84. Voisin, A. and Lecomte, A. 1962. Rotational Grazing: The Meeting of Cow and Grass. A Manual of Grass Productivity. London, UK: Crosby Lockwood and Sons Ltd. Willer, H. and Lernoud, J. (eds). 2017. The World of organic Agriculture, Statistics and Emerging Trends 2016. Bonn, Frick: IFOAM and FiBL. Zollitsch, W., Ferris, C., Sairanen, A. and Steinwidder, A. 2016. Breeding cows suitable for low-input and organic dairy systems. SOLID Technical Note No 6, Newbury: Organic Research Centre.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Chapter 3 The effects of organic management on greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency in livestock production L. G. Smith, The Organic Research Centre and Cranfield University, UK; and A. G. Williams, Cranfield University, UK 1 Introduction

2 Strategies for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and improving energy efficiency in organic farming



3 Examples of innovation in practice: livestock farmers progressing towards greenhouse gas mitigation



4 Challenges and opportunities in research and development



5 Conclusion and future trends

6 Acknowledgements

7 Where to look for further information

8 References

1 Introduction Agriculture is a major contributor to global warming, with the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighting that farming was responsible for 10–12% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions between 2000 and 2010 (Smith et al., 2014). Moreover GHG emissions from deforestation, due to land conversion to crop or livestock production account for about 12% of global GHG emissions (El-Hage Scialabba and Hattam, 2002; El-Hage Scialabba and MüllerLindenlauf, 2010; Idel, 2013) although emissions from this source have decreased in recent years (Smith et al., 2014). When these elements are combined with food handling and processing activities, it is estimated that the food system is responsible for approximately one-third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions (Olesen, 2009; El-Hage Scialabba and Müller-Lindenlauf, 2010). In addition, agriculture contributes a disproportionate amount of high-impact GHGs: approximately 47% and 58% of total anthropogenic emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), which are considered to be at least 28 and 265 times worse than CO2 over 100 years, respectively (Trottier, 2015). Agricultural CH4 emissions are mainly derived from enteric fermentation within the ruminant livestock sector (see Fig. 1) with dietary composition, in particular the proportion of forage versus http://dx.doi.org/10.19103/AS.2017.0028.08 © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

34

Effects of organic management on GHG emissions and livestock production

Figure 1 Greenhouse gas emissions from the various emission sources associated with dominant forms of livestock production in the EU-27. Emissions caused by direct or indirect land-use change, such as deforestation in Brazil or conversion of pasture and scrubland in Argentina, were not included given the complexity of the processes, drivers and sectors involved. Source: Adapted from Lesschen et al. (2011).

grain, affecting the amount of CH4 produced (the high-forage diets typically found within organic ruminant farming can present a particular challenge in this respect, as explored in more detail below, Lampkin et al., 2015). Stored manures and slurries are also driving GHG emissions from agriculture, and the organic sector’s reliance on these sources of fertility can present challenges in terms of CH4 and N2O losses during storage and application (Novak and Fiorelli, 2009). A reliance on biological nitrogen (N) fixation in organic cropping systems can also lead to greater N2O emissions per kg of product, when compared with conventional systems using manufactured fertiliser, as a result of difficulties associated with the synchronisation of N supply and crop demand (Torstensson et al., 2006; Aronsson et al., 2007; Skinner et al., 2014). The global warming contribution of livestock is set to increase as world populations and food demand continue to grow, and there is a need for more efficient production and consumption (Smith, 2013). As a result, some commentators have called for a shift towards lower-meat diets, although it is recognised that a complete conversion to more-vegetarian or vegan diets could have unintended economic and social consequences, for example in relation to human nutrition and rural livelihoods (Garnett, 2009; Havlík et al., 2014; Hallström et al., 2015). A recent study also found that the most economically efficient GHG mitigation measures for livestock would target emission reductions through productivity increases rather than demand-side measures (Havlík et al., 2014). Livestock systems also provide a range of ecosystem services beyond production, ranging from aesthetic value to employment (Rodríguez-Ortega et al., 2014; Chatterton et al., 2015) and livestock may be grazed on land unsuited for crop production (Mottet et al., 2017a). It is also recognised that soil carbon sequestration under ruminants on such land, through improved grassland management and carbon cycling in manure deposition, may be an effective GHG mitigation option if the net gains exceed increases in CH4 emissions, but there is a finite upper limit to sequestration in © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

35

Effects of organic management on GHG emissions and livestock production

permanent grassland (Mottet et al., 2017b). Developments in this area are pertinent to the 4 per 1000 initiative to promote soil carbon sequestration (Minasny et al., 2017). The role of mixed crop–livestock farming systems in improving environmental efficiencies has also been emphasised within studies exploring the relative performance of specialised and integrated crop–livestock systems, with recent trends towards the separation of these components in agricultural systems exemplifying the need for more integrated approaches (Wilkins, 2008; Lemaire et al., 2014). Within this setting, organic farms represent an approach to production that places a special emphasis on reduced inputs (e.g. with regard to concentrate feed and crop protection products) and mixed farming (Lampkin et al., 2015). These approaches are enforced by organic standards which have been developed in-line with four key organic principles defined by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (i.e. Health, Ecology, Fairness, Care, IFOAM, 2005). As a result of this emphasis, the diverse range of approaches applied on many organic farms can lead to improvements in resourceuse efficiency and increased soil organic carbon concentrations in arable soils (Reganold and Wachter, 2016). Despite these benefits, the environmental performance of organic livestock production relative to conventional/non-organic is still a matter of some debate, and can depend greatly on the livestock type and the unit of comparison (Lampkin et al., 2015). For most organic livestock products, reduced inputs per hectare result in lower GHG emissions and fossil energy use per unit of land area, whereas impacts per unit of product can be worse (see Figs. 2 and 3). This is particularly so for monogastric livestock, where the requirement for essential amino acids (EAAs) presents a particular challenge (unlike ruminants, pigs and poultry are unable to synthesise their own EAA, and certified organic producers are unable to feed the synthetic amino acids used in conventional systems, van de Weerd et al., 2009). Difficulties in this area contribute to less efficient feed conversion and increased mortality rates in organic poultry production and can increase environmental impacts per unit of product compared to fully housed or free-range systems (Leinonen et al., 2012a,b). Similarly, pig production systems can perform worse as a result of inappropriate breeds, lower stocking densities and less output per ha (van der Werf et al., 2007). Reduced milk yields, longer rearing periods and higher feed conversion ratios on organic dairy farms can also lead to worse performance per litre of product (de Boer, 2003; Williams et al., 2006).

180%

100% 90%

160%

80%

140%

70%

120%

60%

100%

50% 80%

40%

60%

30% 20%

40% Beef (3)

Pork (3)

Poultry (4)

Milk (10)

Beef (3)

Pork (3)

Poultry (4)

Milk (10)

Figure 2 Results from a review of life cycle assessment (LCA) studies comparing the global warming potential of organic/non-organic production. Impacts of organic production are expressed as a percentage of non-organic per unit of area (left) and per unit of product (right). Values in parenthesis refer to number of studies within each product category. Source: Adapted from Meier et al. (2015). © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

36

Effects of organic management on GHG emissions and livestock production

Organic energy use GJ per ha–1

Dairy Farms

Beef and sheep

Pigs and poultry

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

0

20

40

60

80

100

140

120

Organic energy use MJ per unit–1 of product

Conventional energy use GJ per ha–1

50 40 30 20 10 0 0

10

20

30

40

50

Conventional energy use MJ per unit–1 of product Figure 3 Fossil energy efficiency of organic and conventional livestock production – results from 21 comparative studies. Organic production performs better below the line, worse above the line. Note the ‘trend-line’ is x = y for the purposes of illustrating the relative performance for each product type and is not a line of best fit. Production units were not constant across the studies compared. Source: Adapted from Smith et al. (2015).

There is also a considerable debate over the most appropriate unit to apply in comparisons of organic and non-organic systems. It has been suggested that a unit of product-based assessment is the most relevant metric, in view of growing populations, increasing demands for food and limited agricultural land areas (Tuomisto et al., 2012). Others suggest that a land-area-based comparison better reflects a farming system’s function as a producer of non-market goods (e.g. biodiversity, van der Werf et al., 2007). Comparing environmental performance on the basis of the amount of product also © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Effects of organic management on GHG emissions and livestock production

37

presents difficulties when dealing with contrasting foods that differ greatly in terms of their water and nutrient content (e.g. meat and milk, Smith et al., 2015) and can create a ‘blind spot’ by hiding the increased impacts and land use associated with imported feed (Salou et al., 2017). Conversely, comparing on a unit of land area basis overlooks the important consumer-demand aspect within a ‘food system’ perspective, that is simply lowering rates of production would, in theory, provide an effective measure for reducing GHG impacts; however, this would ignore the need to meet the nutritional requirements of growing populations (Notarnicola et al., 2017). In addition, the increased agricultural land areas associated with less productive approaches such as organic farming are not considered in most system comparisons, with most studies representing impacts in these areas as mere land occupation in m2, without any consideration of the potential environmental damage that could arise from an expansion in agricultural land following a widespread adoption of such methods (Notarnicola et al., 2017). Data sources and variation in environmental factors and/or typical practices between countries or regions can also lead to wide differences in the estimates of GHGs from livestock. For example, analysts may have applied IPCC Tier 1 (default global or regional emission factors), Tier 2 (regional) or Tier 3 (system specific) approaches in the estimation of global emission (Herrero et al., 2016). With these factors in mind, this chapter provides examples of how the performance of the organic livestock sector compares to non-organic sector, and how this performance varies by system type, the boundary and functional unit applied. For the purpose of this comparison, organic farming is defined as a certified approach to production that aims to create environmentally, socially and economically sustainable farming systems that rely on farm-sourced or local resources and ecological processes (Lampkin et al., 2012). The chapter therefore excludes non-certified ‘organic-by-default’ systems, focussing instead on ‘intentionally organic’ production in the comparison of environmental performance (Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017). Non-organic practices are defined as ‘standard practices’ in a given agricultural sector, although it is recognised that typical practices can vary greatly by farm-system type, country and region. For example, within the conventional ruminant livestock sector in the United Kingdom, ‘pasture-fed’ approaches (i.e. producing ruminant meat without grain) have become increasingly popular in recent years (Brunyee et al., 2016). Such systems are already following organic principles in many respects, although they may not be certified as organic. Differences between ‘organic’ and ‘conventional’ management in such systems may be small, whereas ‘standard practices’ in other countries and regions such as Argentina and the Midwestern US states may entail much more intensive approaches (e.g. feedlotbased rearing) and are therefore more likely to contrast with organic farms focussing on the production of meat and milk from forage (Lampkin et al., 2015). Similarly, the contrast between organic and non-organic monogastric livestock production is likely to be more stark compared to other livestock sectors, with many non-organic systems focussing on indoor production (i.e. animals reared without access to outdoor areas), whereas certified organic systems must provide outdoor access, often at lower stocking rates, and place a greater emphasis on home-produced feed (Lampkin et al., 2015). The context-specific performance of organic farming is highlighted throughout the chapter, with particular regard to the effect of the system type and the unit of comparison. This chapter will also provide examples of innovation in practice through case study portraits of producers in the United Kingdom, adopting measures that are leading to gains in environmental efficiency with respect to GHG mitigation and fossil energy use. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

38

Effects of organic management on GHG emissions and livestock production

2 Strategies for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and improving energy efficiency in organic farming This section gives examples of GHG mitigation and improved energy efficiency through organic livestock farming, and particular challenges related to livestock feeding, soil health and fertility and farm-system design.

2.1 Improved feeding As outlined above, organic systems focus on reduced inputs to create resilient and sustainable systems. This approach distinguishes organic farming from other modes of production that focus on single aspects. In practice, this systems approach leads to the application of production methods that can encourage a good biological balance and create a self-regulating farm with respect to livestock feed supply and demand, although it is recognised that this often cannot be absolutely attained (Lampkin et al., 2015). In livestock farming, these approaches lead to adoption of practices that endeavour to meet physiological needs of animals whilst reducing environmental burdens created through the use of imported feed. The production of meat/milk from forage is therefore a central tenet of the organic approach, and the European Union (EU) organic regulation dictates that at least 60% of the diet (on a dry matter basis) for ruminants shall be forage based. Although many non-organic European cattle production systems are already adopting forage-based diets, an emphasis on pasture-fed livestock within organic production limits the use of crops for feed, and lower-concentrate feed rates are generally found in organic ruminant livestock systems (Lund and Algers, 2003). This approach limits the amount of resource used in the production of feed crops, which currently poses a substantial challenge to global warming and food security whilst contributing to land clearing and subsequent soil degradation (33% of global arable land is used for livestock feed production as a result of the demand from livestock farming, El-Hage Scialabba and Müller-Lindenlauf, 2010; Ripple et al., 2014). The common use of clover and other N-fixing legumes in temporary grassland within organic systems also allows for the avoidance of manufactured N fertiliser, and the associated fossil energy input, leading to substantial improvements in production energy efficiency per unit of product (see Fig. 3) whilst supplying the ruminant animal’s protein and energy consumption requirements in a manner that can help to promote improved animal health (Lund and Algers, 2003). Organic production methods can therefore help to offset the impacts associated with the recent growth in feedlot-based production, particularly evident in South American countries such as Brazil and Argentina (Deblitz, 2012; Malau-Aduli and Holman, 2014), areas where emissions from deforestation are acutely relevant (Deblitz, 2012; Flysjö et al., 2012; Malau-Aduli and Holman, 2014) although it should be noted that highconcentrate feed systems can still outperform organic production in environmental terms, when impacts are expressed per unit of product, as a result of increased outputs, better weight gain efficiency and improved manure and feed management (Peters et al., 2010; Ross et al., 2014). The reliance on forage in organic systems can also lead to higher CH4 emissions per unit of product, as a result of increased dry matter intakes and reduced digestibility compared to systems feeding high levels of concentrate (Williams et al., 2006) although severe difficulties relating to health and longevity can occur in cereal/ © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Effects of organic management on GHG emissions and livestock production

39

concentrate intensive systems (e.g. through increased incidence of acidosis), which may, paradoxically, lead to an increase in herd size and greater emissions overall (Novak and Fiorelli, 2009). However, improved feed digestibility does not necessarily entail an increase in concentrate supplementation, and other measures such as improving the forage quality through the use of legume mixes can lead to substantial improvements in GHG mitigation through increased milk yields, particularly within low-productivity systems (i.e. fewer animals are required for the same amount of product, Mottet et al., 2017b). Lower replacement rates on organic dairy farms can also lead to reduced GHGs if surplus dairy calves produced are used for beef production, with the increased longevity of organic herds reducing or offsetting the emissions associated with the unproductive rearing of dairy cow replacements and the need for suckler cows (Flysjö et al., 2012; Idel, 2013). This does depend on there being demand for milk. The supply from suckler beef and associated GHGs would increase, if the demand for milk falls and the demand for meat increases. As outlined above, organic pig and poultry production can perform worse than indoor or free-range conventional systems, in terms of GHG and fossil energy efficiency, as a result of poorer feed conversion. In particular, this relates to the inability of monogastric animals to produce their own amino acids as part of the digestion process. Although non-organic production systems can overcome this through supplementation with limiting synthetic amino acids (in particular methionine and lysine), their use is currently prohibited in organic systems. An imbalanced supply of amino acids in organic poultry production can therefore result, despite the high protein concentration of soy and approved oilseed meals, as they are still deficient in EAAs. In addition to affecting productive performance, this approach can lead to increased N output in excreta, through overfeeding of protein, and increased N losses in the outdoor run (Steenfeldt and Hammershøj, 2015). Higher mortality rates can also occur in organic systems as a result of increased metabolic energy requirements, predation pressures and greater incidence of feather pecking as a result of untrimmed beaks (Dekker et al., 2012). Similarly, the use of high protein feedstuffs in organic pig production systems can result in increased N losses, whilst limited amino acid supply and increased occurrence of coccidiosis and internal/external parasites through access to an outdoor area reduce feed efficiency and increase NO3 and N2O losses via leaching and denitrification (Hovi et al., 2003; Edwards, 2005; Strid Eriksson et al., 2005; Halberg et al., 2010). Performance in organic pig and poultry production could be improved by making better use of the range (i.e. the outdoor areas where monogastric livestock forage) to supply nutritional requirements, in order to reduce the need for imported feed and excessive protein inputs. Recent work has highlighted that herbage can meet 50% of the maintenance energy of dry sows, with lucerne and other legumes representing particularly promising crops due to their high protein, lysine and methionine contents (Crawley, 2015). Alternative crops such as quinoa also offer potential, with particular regard to the balanced supply of limiting amino acids (Steenfeldt and Hammershøj, 2015). A study of six poultry meat farms in Central Italy also highlighted the potential benefits of slower growing strains, which can better utilise the natural environment through foraging behaviour. The same study highlighted the need for a greater emphasis on the benefits provided by ranging areas with regard to ration formulation (Castellini et al., 2012). However, a lack of suitable breeds hinders developments in this direction, and improvements in this area are likely to be necessary for environmental and animal welfare improvements to be realised within the organic sector (van de Weerd et al., 2009). © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

40

Effects of organic management on GHG emissions and livestock production

Unbalanced diets can also present an issue for ruminant livestock, in particular when animals consuming lush pastures take in amounts of protein far exceeding their requirements, which in turn leads to increased N2O loss following excretion (Eckard et al., 2010). Balancing the high-protein forages often found in organic systems (e.g. red clover and lucerne) with other feedstuffs that have a higher energy-to-protein ratio (e.g. maize or cereal silages) or providing high-energy supplements (e.g. concentrates and sugar processing by-products) could help to reduce losses associated with high-protein diets in organic feeding regimes, although a balance needs to be achieved in order to minimise consumption of human-edible components (Eckard et al., 2010; Dijkstra et al., 2011). A lack of availability of organic low-protein/high-energy processing residues (e.g. sugar beet pulp, brewers grains), a result of the small size of the sector, also limits developments in this area. Breeding animals with improved N-use efficiency could also help to foster improvements in N efficiency, and the use of older animals in dairy farming may help to reduce N excretion per kg of milk, as a greater proportion of the protein consumed is used for milk production, as opposed to maintenance (Børsting et al., 2003).

2.2 Soil health and fertility The development of a healthy, stable and fertile soil is a fundamental objective of the organic approach. Use of farmyard manure is therefore a key element of many organic farming systems (Lampkin et al., 2015). Whilst this approach avoids the emissions and fossil energy use associated with fertiliser manufacture, and can lead to increased soil organic matter contents, it can result in greater impacts on the environment compared to the majority of conventional systems which rely on the use of manufactured N fertiliser, as a result of difficulties in synchronising N availability with crop demand, resulting in nitrate-N leaching, and, in wet soils, N2O emissions due to high concentrations of N and organic C together (Rodrigues et al., 2006). Furthermore, the application of manure incurs high ammonia emissions and is more difficult to use with low loss application systems compared to slurry. The deep litter animal bedding approach commonly applied on organic units can also contribute to greater losses from the system through N2O release as a result of anaerobic conditions created through compaction by animals (Chadwick et al., 2011). Deep litter bedding systems may also result in greater amounts of CH4 compared to slurry systems, due to increased temperatures in the deep litter stack and compaction from animals, which results in anoxic conditions and degradation of organic matter (Monteny et al., 2001). Moving towards slurry-based systems within the sector could help to improve performance with respect to GHG mitigation – particularly where slurry stores are covered. This may present a conflict with the organic principles and standards, which prescribe minimum requirements for the provision of dry-litter and non-slatted floor areas in housing to reduce stress; however, many organic livestock farms are already slurry based, and considerable numbers of organic farmers are relying on supplies of slurry from the conventional sector (Novak and Fiorelli, 2009; Chadwick et al., 2011; Nowak et al., 2013; Nesme et al., 2014). Applying anaerobic digestion on organic farms could also help to improve their N-use efficiency, by providing a readily available N source that can help to meet crop demands at times of peak demand whilst reducing the CH4 emissions associated with the storage of manure (Novak and Fiorelli, 2009). The benefits in terms of N efficiency are maximised with the use of low-loss application methods. Anaerobic digestion, however, converts organic matter into biogas so that less is available to the soil. Although the long-term effect on soil carbon may be minimal compared to the standard © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Effects of organic management on GHG emissions and livestock production

41

practice (e.g. feeding forage to ruminants and applying their manure), such practices may lead to reduced soil fertility through a reduction in microbial activity and an increased presence of nitrophilous weeds on the farm through increased N availability (Stinner et al., 2008; Thomsen et al., 2013). The use of ley-arable rotations on organic cropping farms can also contribute to improved environmental efficiency through the avoidance of manufactured N, in particular through the use of clovers and other legumes, which provide N to the system via biological fixation. It has been highlighted, however, that the amount of N supplied by legumes can vary greatly and is hard to predict, with ranges of 70% HF in NL: Nauta et al. 2005; UK: Marley et al. 2010; DE: Ivemeyer et al. 2017, EU: Ivemeyer et al. 2012; Krieger et al. 2017). While Holstein cattle are predominant in many organic herds, other native breeds (e.g. Ayrshire, Jersey and Shorthorn in the United Kingdom) and cross-breeds also contribute to organic milk production (Marley e al. 2010). In the Alpine countries, Fleckvieh along with Swiss Brown cattle is the most common breed in Switzerland (both generally and in organic dairy farms; e.g., Knaus 2009; Ivemeyer et al. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

207

2012). In the Scandinavian countries, Red Cattle are widespread [Norwegian Red, Swedish Red, Swedish Red and White (Ivemeyer et al. 2012; Krieger et al. 2017)]. In organic farms, cross-breeding of several dairy breeds is a common strategy, with countryspecific differences. In the United States, 60% of organic dairy farms had cross-breeds, while nearly 100% of the conventional dairy farms had Holstein Friesian (Sorge et al. 2016). In Denmark, Slagboom et al. (2016) found a higher proportion of organic herds (23%) than conventional herds (10%) while systematically cross-breeding dairy breeds in their herds. Typically, organic dairy farmers have slightly different breeding goals than conventional dairy farmers (for SE: Ahlman et al. 2014; for CH: Bapst et al. 2005; for DE: Simianer 2007). To ensure the robustness of animals, producers of organic herds tend to target higher genetic gain in functional traits (Bapst et al. 2005) and disease resistance, including mastitis and parasite resistance (Ahlman et al. 2014). The level of milk production was generally less significant: Ahlman et al. (2014) and Simianer (2007) found that organic milk producers ranked milk production as a less important breeding goal compared to conventional milk producers. In a study by Slagboom et al. (2016), farmers were provided several pairwise breeding aims and when asked to rank the breeding aims, it was found that organic farmers in Denmark assigned higher ranks to production traits than conventional farmers. In general, they found that farmers rated specific health traits higher if they faced more problems with the related disease. The organic farmers in that study had lower incidences of disease (based on number of veterinary treatments). Therefore, Slagboom et al. (2016) assumed that the lower disease incidence may have led to a comparable higher ranking of production traits. Interestingly, statements about breeding aims and the actual selections of bulls seem to be not congruent in all farms: Bapst et al. (2005) showed that the genetic merits of the sires in the study were slightly lower for milk yield in organic herds, but no differences in functional traits were found between organic and conventional Swiss Brown cattle herds. Bapst et al. (2005) concluded that organic farmers endorsed an organic breeding strategy; however, this was not clearly reflected by the mating. One possible explanation might be that in daily life, often the inseminators (on farms with artificial insemination, AI) were asked by the farmers for semen recommendations without further specifications. Nauta et al. (2009) found that in many cases, organic dairy farmers in the Netherlands used the same breeding bulls, supplied by AI companies, as the conventional dairy farmers. These animals were selected for and within intensive conventional production systems (with high input and output) where high proportions of concentrates were fed in the diet. Also within different types of organic dairy farms, breeding goals differ. Large, intensive organic dairy farms aimed more for genetically polled cows and functional traits related to udder health, while the less intensive farms with small- to medium-sized herds were more concerned with traits such as dual-purpose suitability (Ivemeyer et al. 2017). Following longevity, milk yield was still found to be the second most important breeding goal for organic farmers in Germany (Ivemeyer et al. 2017).

3 Issues surrounding organic dairy farming 3.1 Housing In many European countries the majority of organic dairy cows are kept in loose-housing systems, but there are still some tied stall housing systems (Krieger et al. 2017; Wallenbeck et al. 2016). Since 2010, except for small herds, all organic dairy cows have been kept © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

208

Organic dairy farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

in loose-housing systems. The threshold for ‘small dairy herds’ has never been defined consistently at the EU level. Instead, it was decided that it should be defined on a national level (Swensson 2008; Barkema et al. 2015). Countries and federal states within countries have defined these cut-offs individually (e.g. DE: 20–35 cows depending on the federal state; SE: 45 cows; Swensson 2008). In tied stalls, use of electric cow trainers is forbidden (e.g. Demeter e.V. 2015; Bioland 2016; BioSuisse 2017). In addition, housing and building dimensions do not differ significantly between organic and conventional dairy farms (UK: Langford et al. 2009) because in many cases, conventional loose-housing systems for dairy cows (in contrast e.g. to fattening bulls or pigs) also fulfil the organic requirement of litter at the laying places and maximum 50% slatted floors and the minimum space requirements of 6 m2/cow.

3.2 Herd health According to the organic principles, prevention has a higher priority within herd health management than treatment of diseased animals. Disease prevention should primarily be ensured by implementing site-adapted breeding, good management, nutrition and housing, appropriate to the animal species (European Commission 2008). It is certain that diseased animals will be treated with medicines to prevent illness and pain. To describe herd health in detail, it may be helpful to combine the following animalbased indicators: 1 disease incidence (or prevalence) or somatic cell count [(SCC); indirect indicator] 2 veterinary treatment incidences and 3 longevity of herds. All three are interrelated and it is possible to compensate one with one of the others (e.g. reducing SCC in the short term with increased slaughtering of chronically ill cows or with enhanced antimicrobial treatments; Ivemeyer et al. 2008; Krieger et al. 2017). In organic, as well as in conventional, dairy herds, the most common and important health traits are mastitis, lameness and infertility [reviewed by Marley et al. (2010)], with mastitis being the most frequently treated veterinary disease (Ivemeyer et al. 2012).

3.2.1 Disease prevalence and preventive management Comparisons of herd health between organic and conventional dairy farms have led to inconsistent results over the last ten years [reviewed by Barkema et al. (2015)]: Some authors found health benefits in organic farming, particularly in relation to mastitis (e.g. Richert et al. 2013b; Levison et al. 2016), lameness, hock lesions (Rutherford et al. 2008, 2009; Bergman et al. 2014) and disease prevalence in general (Slagboom et al. 2016). Other studies reported no differences in mastitis incidence, SCC (Valle et al. 2007; Fall et al. 2008; Haskell et al. 2009) and ketosis (Richert et al. 2013b). Some studies found higher SCC in organic dairy farms (Roesch et al. 2007; Slagboom et al. 2016). As for infectious diseases such as paratuberculosis, a study from the Netherlands found that although the risk of contracting paratuberculosis is associated to the way the farm was managed (e.g., no immediate separation of cow and calf, no artificial milk, allowing calves on pastures that have been fertilised in the same season with cattle or goat manure, buying animals or using manure from a farm with an unknown paratuberculosis status) the number of © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

209

infected farms (36%) or animals (1.4%) was the same for organic and conventional farms (Kijlstra 2005; Kijlstra and Eijck 2006). From this wide-ranging picture, it can be concluded that herd health depends on multiple factors (management, hygiene, etc.) than on an organic certification. Important health issues for dairy cows like mastitis or lameness are multifactorial problems with a number of management-related risk factors (e.g. Rutherford et al. 2008; Ivemeyer et al. 2009; Rutherford et al. 2009) as well as the quality of the human–animal relationship (e.g. Ivemeyer et al. 2011). On the other hand, Ivemeyer et al. (2017) showed that different management strategies (in different types of German organic dairy farms) can lead to similar herd health and longevity despite significant differences in feeding, grazing and preventive health measures. Organic dairy farmers when asked about the importance of different preventive management measures on their farms ranked udder health management on average higher compared to claw health management, which suggests that udder health is more of a problem than claw health (van Soest et al. 2015). Within udder health management ‘prestripping’ and ‘milk (sub) clinical last’ were given a positive utility value. The use of gloves during milking was least preferred. Within claw health management ‘trim hoofs’ was most preferred and ‘place footbath’ least (van Soest et al. 2015).

3.2.2 Use of medicine While differences in herd health have not been consistent, in Europe as well as in the United States the number of veterinary treatments, especially the use of antimicrobial drugs per animal, is lower in organic than in conventional dairy farms (e.g. Bennedsgaard et al. 2010; Zwald et al. 2004). However, beside production method, management intensity in general has an even stronger impact on medicine use. Intensive production systems were found to be closely associated with frequent veterinary medicine usage than conventional versus organic production (Richert et al. 2013a). One reason for reduced drug usage is probably the prohibition of preventive application of allopathic drugs and antibiotics as per the EU organic farming regulations (European Commission 2008). Moreover, complementary treatments such as phytotherapy or homeopathy should be preferred, though the use of chemically synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products or antibiotics is allowed and even mandatory if otherwise animal suffering cannot be avoided. The number of courses of treatments per animal is limited and the withdrawal period is twice the legal withdrawal period. Antimicrobial drugs for dairy cows are primarily used for mastitis treatments during lactation and as ‘drying-off' treatments at the end of this period (Menendez Gonzalez et al. 2010; Ivemeyer et al. 2012). Due to a lower treatment incidence, veterinary visits are less frequent on organic farms than on conventional ones. Veterinarians are responsible for treatment decisions on organic farms, but are typically less involved in animal health and welfare planning processes. (Vaarst et al. 2006; Duval et al. 2016). In summary, the use of veterinary drugs, such as antimicrobials, is on average lower in organic farms, which leads to a lower environmental drug load, but does not automatically mean that the disease incidence in organic farms is higher. Often, organic farmers reach a comparable level of health with fewer veterinary treatments.

3.2.3 Longevity of herds Several animal-based indicators provide information about herd longevity: average lactation number (or age) of living cows and those that have left the farm (through death

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

210

Organic dairy farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

or slaughter) as well as the replacement rate (defined as the share of primiparous calvings within one herd year). Longevity indicators based on cows that have left the farm can give distorted results in small herds, because there might be a high variation from year to year if only a few cows leave the farm. Hence, such indicators are suitable for large herds based on population level or in small herds if it is possible to calculate an average over several years. The comparability of longevity indicators based on lactation numbers is only helpful where the farmers are not aiming for prolonged lactations (1.5 or 2 years). However, to date the majority of organic dairy farmers aim at about one lactation per year (DE: Ivemeyer et al. 2017). The average lactation number of 41 organic dairy farms representing different organic dairy farm types in Germany was 3.4 (Ivemeyer et al. 2017) and of 113 organic dairy farms in seven European countries it was on average 3.1 (Ivemeyer et al. 2012). Müller and Sauerwein (2010) found an average age of 5.7 years in 35 high-yielding German organic dairy farms (7109 kg milk yield). Replacement rates on 192 organic dairy farms in four European countries showed on average 17.2, 25.5, 29.1 and 36.3% replacement rates in Spain, Germany, France and Sweden, respectively (Krieger et al. 2017). Hence, there are differences in average longevity of organic dairy herds between the European countries. From the study of Krieger et al. (2017) a positive correlation between longevity of the herds and %SCC>100 could be derived. Longevity in organic herds has been found to be longer than or equal to that in conventional herds: The results from a study with about 400 organic and more than 5000 conventional dairy farms in Sweden indicated higher longevity (measured by productive days) and consequently a lower replacement rate in organic herds compared to conventional ones (Ahlman et al. 2011). In Denmark, age and productive lifespan were generally found to be low for both organic and conventional herds, but were significantly higher in organic farms (age: 5.1 and 4.8 years; productive lifespan: 2.7 and 2.9 years; Slagboom et al. 2016). In addition, Hardeng and Edge (2001) and Sundberg et al. (2009) found lower replacement rates in organic herds, whereas Bennedsgaard et al. (2003) found similar replacement rates in organic and conventional herds (reviewed by Ahlman et al. 2011). The risk of being culled due to mastitis was, however, higher for organic herds (Ahlman et al. 2011). Farmers’ culling criteria differed slightly between organic and conventional farms: The most common reason for culling in Swedish organic herds was poor udder health (26.7%) followed by low fertility (23.6%). This was the opposite in conventional farms (25.9% due to low fertility, 20.6% due to mastitis; Ahlman et al. 2011). Low production was the third most common reason for culling in both organic (8.3%) and conventional (8.8%) production and no significant difference was found between the systems. Leg problems was the fourth most common reason for culling and was slightly, but significantly, higher in conventional herds (5.9% compared to 5.0% in organic herds; Ahlman et al. 2011).

3.3 Feeding 3.3.1 Concentrate feeding and effects on mineral levels Cows as ruminants are anatomically and physiologically specialised to digest roughage. On the one hand, high amounts of concentrates can lead to low pH values in the rumen and to metabolic disorders [reviewed by Bargo et al. (2003) and Knaus (2009)]. On the

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

211

other hand, the nutrient requirements of lactating dairy cows, especially of modern highyielding breeds such as Holstein Friesian, may require an energy density that might not be adequately supplied by roughage alone. Insufficient supplementation with concentrates may, therefore, increase the risk of undersupply and consequently impair herd health, body condition and fertility [reviewed by Robinson (1996)]. Additionally a chronic undersupply of feed might lead to a latent feeling of hunger, which can be additionally impairing welfare. According to the EU regulations on organic agriculture at least 60% (50% at the beginning of lactation) of the dry feed matter has to be roughage. In Switzerland the ratio of roughage to concentrate feeding is stricter: According to the ‘Bio Suisse’ standards of organic farming in Switzerland the amount of concentrates in the yearly ration for cattle – defined as cereals and grain legumes like soybeans – cannot exceed 10% of the dry matter (BioSuisse 2017). Krieger et al. (2017) showed differences in concentrate feeding levels between organic dairy farms in four European countries: averages were 616, 1200, 1500 and 2373 kg concentrates per cow per year in France, Germany, Spain and Sweden, respectively. Organic dairy farms in the United Kingdom used on average 1800 kg concentrates per year, while equivalent conventional dairy farms used on average 2700 kg per cow per year (Langford et al. 2009). Different ways to reduce concentrates in organic dairy cow rations were analysed during a two-year advisory study regarding feeding and herd health under Swiss-roughage-based dairy production conditions. A significant reduction in concentrate use was achieved without significant losses in the cows’ body condition scores and without impairing health and fertility. Milk production was also not significantly reduced, but the absolute level of concentrate feeding was a predictor for milk yield (Ivemeyer et al. 2014). However, achieving a high milk yield in organic dairy herds also requires a high input, not only in terms of feed with high energy density such as maize or concentrates, but also in terms of preventive health measures (Ivemeyer et al. 2017). Organic dairy farmers (71 French, 60 German, 28 Spanish and 57 Swedish) when asked to rank feeding management measures on their farms mentioned ‘rotational grazing’ and the ‘provision of sufficient feed for at least 12 h per day’ as the most important within pasture and barn management (van Soest et al. 2015). Blanco-Penedo et al. (2014) investigated the levels of essential elements in organic and conventional dairy farms in Sweden. No significant differences were found in mineral levels between organic and conventional herds and no severely deficient concentrations of essential elements (Cu, Co, Se, Zn, Mn, Mo, I and Fe) were observed in organic herds.

3.3.2 Pasture use Fresh and conserved forage from grassland is the primary source of animal feed for organic ruminants supplemented by concentrate feedstuffs as an additional source of protein and energy (Meredith and Willer 2016). From the point of naturalness, grazing only on pasture enables cattle to perform their natural and ‘species-specific’ feeding behaviour as a synchronised feed intake during locomotion. According to EU regulations cows should be provided with pasture, but the percentage of the dry matter feed ratio coming from pasture is not specified. In some European countries like for example, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland or the Netherlands, pasture is mandatory for

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

212

Organic dairy farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

organic dairy farms (but can be satisfied by ‘outdoor run’ with the majority of feeding being conserved roughage indoors), while, for example, in Germany or Austria pasture access in summer can be replaced by access to an outdoor yard the whole year around. In Switzerland, winter access to an outdoor yard (on at least 13 days per month) is mandatory in addition to summer pasture access (Bundesrat 2015, 2017; BioSuisse 2017). Krieger et al. (2017) found from a total of 192 organic farms in four European countries that in Spain and Sweden all farms provided pasture access, in France almost all (except one out of 54) and in Germany only 76% of the farms provided pasture access for the cows. Based on a literature review, pasture access was found to have beneficial welfare effects in the context of cow comfort, providing a suitable lying and standing surface, improving gait and associated traits and reducing integument alterations, infectious claw diseases and often, but not necessarily, mortality risk (Ortlieb 2016). On the other hand, although grazing allows the cows to perform their natural feeding behaviour, pasture access in studies partly resulted in under-conditioned cows and a higher softness of faeces [reviewed by Ortlieb (2016)]. It can be concluded that with and without pasture a proper management is of major importance for dairy cows’ welfare. Grazing is advantageous in cases where pasture is well managed, for example, by providing pasture with a dense sward of good quality, nonslippery and non-stony passageways, by avoiding heat stress (e.g. through shade provision or nighttime pasture access) and very wet conditions, as well as by ensuring feed rations fulfil the cows’ nutrient demands according to their production potential. March et al. (2017) compared 124 organic dairy farms in Germany with no pasture access (11% of the farms) with farms allowing different grazing intensities (pasture mainly as outdoor run, 32%; pasture both for outdoor run and for feed intake, 25%; pasture mainly for feed intake, 32%). Farms using pasture especially for grazing (>75% feed intake) had a lower prevalence of lameness and fewer cows with dirty hind legs compared to farms with less or no time on pasture and lower or no feed intake from it. However, the grazing strategy had no effect on udder health state or metabolic disorders. The results further suggested that organic dairy farms using pasture mainly as outdoor runs and less for roughage feed intake produce milk more intensively and typically have higher milk yields and larger herds (March et al. 2017) (Fig. 1).

3.4 Calf rearing In a survey of more than 200 French, German, Spanish and Swedish organic dairy farmers rating the importance of different management measures, improved calf management was mentioned most frequently as the important one (compared to barn, pasture, udder and claw management). Within calf management the measure ‘colostrum supply’ was most referred to (van Soest et al. 2015). Bergman et al. (2014) compared calf management (in traditional rearing systems) on organic and conventional farms in the United States. The age of weaning was significantly greater for organic calves compared with calves on conventional grazing (on average 11.6 versus 8.3 weeks) and conventional non-grazing farms (8.0 weeks). Organic calves were fed with significantly more milk, on average 5.5 l per day compared to 4.8 l on conventional dairy farms. No noticeable differences in the level of internal parasitism were found in calves and young cattle in organic and conventional dairy herds in Scotland (Magg et al. 2008). With respect to the objective of keeping animals under species-appropriate and ‘natural’ conditions, the rearing of calves has been increasingly discussed in organic © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

213

Figure 1 Grazing allows the cows to perform their natural feeding behaviour. Photo: Silvia Ivemeyer (location: Switzerland).

dairy farming (reviewed by Kälber and Barth 2014; Johnsen et al. 2016). Natural weaning does not commonly occur before six months to one year of age (Newberry and Swanson 2008). Suckling represents the cornerstone of maternal care (Val-Laillet et al. 2004) and therefore the most natural way to rear calves is to let them stay with the mother to suck freely until natural weaning occurs (Lidfors et al. 2005). However, common practice, even in organic dairy systems, is to separate the cow and her calf within the first 24 h after birth and raise the calf away from its mother. Although pioneers implementing alternative rearing systems with mother–infant contact are often organic farmers, the majority of dairy calves on organic farms are still reared artificially with restricted amounts of milk. Despite hints of improved calves’ health and welfare, feeding increased levels of milk is still not widely recommended. However, increasing numbers of organic dairy farmers are interested and motivated to introduce more natural calf-rearing systems. Many different types of dam rearing systems can be found. Some farmers have worked out sophisticated farm-specific dam rearing systems, for example, with a multistep weaning procedure to reduce weaning stress, and with daily contact to the calves in order to control milk amounts and avoid fearfulness of calves towards humans (Ivemeyer et al. 2016). Milk amounts fed in such systems are higher than those in common restricted bucket feeding systems, but on a comparable rate with ad-libitum feeding systems by bucket or automated milk feeders (Ivemeyer et al. 2016). The total number of organic farms in most European countries practising dam rearing is unknown (Kälber and Barth 2014). In Norway and Sweden, 18% and 22%, respectively, of the organic dairy farmers let the calves suckle beyond the mandatory sucking period of three days (now one day for Sweden) mostly for one week, but some for an extended period up to the age of 13 weeks (Ellingsen et al. 2015; Johnsen et al. 2016). A Dutch survey showed that 30% of their biodynamic dairy farmers allow cow and calf to remain together for between 2 and 4 months (Wenker 2016) (Fig. 2).

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

214

Organic dairy farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

Figure 2 Pioneers among organic dairy farmers have developed different innovative, farm-specific calf-rearing systems [e.g. (a) with restricted twice daily cow–calf contact before milking for one hour each] to enable natural suckling behaviour (b). Photo: Silvia Ivemeyer (location: Germany).

4 Hot topics in organic dairy farming 4.1 Animal health and improvement strategies Various studies showed that udder health in organic herds in several European countries was on a level implicating necessary improvements (Ivemeyer et al. 2012; Krieger et al. 2017). Herd health differed slightly between countries: in a study by Ivemeyer et al. (2012) Norwegian, Swiss and Austrian organic dairy farms reached an average SCS of 2.42, 2.75 and 2.80, followed by NL and DK with 3.29 and 3.35, respectively, whereas German organic dairy farms had a relatively high average SCS of 3.47. These differences might be partly explained by the use of different breeds. Fleckvieh particularly is known to have lower cell counts on average than Holstein Friesian cows (Ivemeyer et al. 2011; Brinkmann and March 2010). Other German studies found similar results like an average SCS of 3.4 in 106 farms (Barth et al. 2011) and 3.1 in 41 farms (Ivemeyer et al. 2017). According to Brinkmann and March (2015) farmers should aim for ≤25% of elevated SCCs (≥100 000 cells/mL) in the milk recording data over one year. Krieger et al. (2017) found in 192 farms on average 44.1, 55.5, 53.6 and 57.5 %SCC ≥ 100 in Sweden, France, Germany and Spain, respectively, indicating that none of the countries reached the target expressed by Brinkmann and March (2015). Also Ivemeyer et al. (2017) found a %SCC ≥ 100 of 51% in 41 German organic dairy herds. With 42.5%SCC ≥ 100 southern German organic farms with a higher share of Fleckvieh cows were slightly better. Also the national German average of all dairy farms showed 44% elevated SCC test day results in 2015 (DLQ 2015). A part of organic dairy farmers feel veterinarians are inappropriate advisers and often exclude them when considering herd health improvements (Vaarst et al. 2007). Veterinarians, for their part, express frustration when farmers do not implement their advice, while farmers sometimes reject veterinary advice because they consider it is impractical (Anneberg et al. 2016). A cooperative approach is needed by both organic dairy farmers and private veterinary practitioners to maintain an ongoing dialogue promoting animal health (Duval et al. 2016).

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

215

Effective short- to medium-term preventive measures to improve udder health without larger investments are for example from the areas of milking management (e.g. udder preparation time between 30 and 90 sec, performing fore-stripping before teat cleaning, avoiding air adsorption during teat cup application), milking hygiene (e.g. using fresh cleaning material for each cow), housing hygiene (e.g. lime or higher litter amounts at the lying place) and rearing (no feeding of mastitis milk to rearing calves) (e.g. Ivemeyer et al. 2009; Dufour et al. 2011). These preventive measures combined with farmers having an increased awareness of herd health and a good human–animal relationship can lead to udder health improvements within 1–2 years (Ivemeyer et al. 2008, 2011, 2012). Nevertheless, suitable and promising preventive measures should be chosen farm-specifically. Farmers’ attitude and attention towards their herds and their investment in the animal health and welfare planning process appear to be crucial factors for success in herd health and welfare. Research studies on organic dairy farms with ‘stable schools’ showed improvements regarding specific project aims on the majority of participating farms (Vaarst et al. 2007; Ivemeyer et al. 2012; March et al. 2014). Farmers and facilitators were convinced by the approach and the benefits for dairy herds. In some European countries, this method has been implemented on an advisory basis and in other regions, there are promising opportunities to do so (Ivemeyer et al. 2015).

4.2 Self-sufficiency of concentrated feed Data for selected European countries, accounting for 70% of organic cattle in Europe, showed a total dry matter demand of 1 923 000 t for organic concentrates in total and 300 000 t for crude protein. About 50% of both were fed to organic bovine animals. The total self-sufficiency rate of the European countries studied was 69% and 56% for concentrate feed and crude protein, respectively (Früh et al. 2015; Meredith and Willer 2016). Self-sufficiency rates of organic concentrate feed and crude protein differ between European countries from less than 10% in the Netherlands, and less than 15% in Switzerland up to more than 100% in Finland. Self-sufficiency rates of organic crude protein in countries such as Germany, Denmark and Austria range between 50% and 75% and those of concentrate feeds range between 60% and 90% (Früh et al. 2015; Meredith and Willer 2016). Due to the lack of home-grown or regional organic concentrates, they have to be imported, which is a highly critical point in terms of sustainability. The challenge is highest for countries with a high share of permanent grassland of the agricultural area like Switzerland or a high livestock density like the Netherlands. According to Früh et al. (2015) great advances could be made in self-sufficiency rates if part of the concentrates fed to ruminants could be used to feed non-ruminant organic animals. Nicholas et al. (2014) asked supply chain participants (consumers, producers, processors and retailers) in Belgium, Finland, Italy and the United Kingdom regarding their attitudes towards innovations within organic and low-input dairy supply chains. In addition to improving animal welfare, a majority of organic dairy supply chain members, especially the producers, perceive the improvement of forage quality and reduced demands for purchased concentrate feed (beside animal welfare improvements) as the most important innovation step in order to improve sustainability of organic dairy farming (Nicholas et al. 2014).

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

216

Organic dairy farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

4.3 Whereabouts of male calves In contrast to female calves targeted to become replacement heifers, the majority of males leave the organic dairy farms as young calves. Figures regarding the whereabouts of sold calves from organic dairy farms are quite rare. In Germany, on average only 10% of bull calves are raised for fattening or as breeding bulls on the farm where they were born (Ivemeyer et al. 2017). In Switzerland, 24% of all (female and male) calves leave the organic farm where they were born within the first 21 days of life. Only 23% of calves born on organic farms were slaughtered as organic calves, in contrast to the majority of cows which are born and slaughtered as organic cows (69%; Hürner 2016). Most organic bull calves go into conventional veal or young bull beef production (for Denmark: Nielsen and Thamsborg 2002; Nielsen and Thamsborg 2005). Most organic beef originates from beef suckler herds or culled organic dairy cows, because bull calves from dairy-type breeds such as Holstein Friesian have poorer fattening properties on roughage-based feeding systems than typical beef cattle breeds (Nielsen and Thamsborg 2005). This can be regarded as a weakness of organic dairy production considering the ideals of sustainability and high animal welfare standards (Vaarst and Alrøe 2012). Health and other welfare problems of veal calf fattening or young bull production (including a higher use of antibiotics) (EFSAAHAW 2012) are transferred from the organic to the conventional sector.

4.4 Dehorning and polled cattle Zoo-technical interventions are not legalised to be performed routinely in organic farming (European Commission 2008). Dehorning is recommended to be avoided, but is allowed with exceptional permission. Dehorning is performed less frequently in organic farms compared to conventional farms (Cozzi et al. 2015). The principal argument of German organic farmers for keeping horned cows was respect for the animals and their physical integrity. They believed that farming conditions, on the one hand, should be adapted to the cows’ needs and their characteristics rather than adapting the cows to the farming conditions by dehorning them (Kling-Eveillard et al. 2015), while on the other hand, agonistic interactions can lead to severe injuries in horned cows (Bouissou et al. 2001). Some farmers prefer to keep animals with horns, either for traditional or practical reasons, such as ease of handling, for example, when catching them with a rope (KlingEveillard et al. 2015). Bio-dynamic dairy farms, in particular, favour keeping cows with horns, but in some countries there is a growing concern that in a few decades the main dairy breeds will be largely and irreversibly polled (Scheper et al. 2017). In 2009 a majority of farmers (57 out of 94 in Italy, France and Germany, 20 of them organic) were already prepared to begin or continue using polled cattle, but they frequently complained that the available quality was unsatisfactory and that there was a lack of genetic diversity within the polled breeds due to a selection based only on a small number of polled sires. They chose animals for production and reproduction and only considered polled bulls if their production traits equalled those of genetically horned bulls. Additionally, some farmers felt strongly that they should not be obliged to have polled animals but have the right to choose the type of animal they want to rear, without restriction (KlingEveillard et al. 2015). While in 2009 the use of polled dairy cattle was quite rare in many European countries, intensified selection of genetically polled animals and their crossbreeding with naturally horned cattle has recently gained popularity as an alternative to routine dehorning (Scheper et al. 2016). In a survey conducted in 2015 on German © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

217

organic dairy farms, the selection criteria ‘polledness’ was mentioned most frequently as the most important breeding goal (in 24% of the farms) followed by ‘milk yield’ (15%). The answers contained 18 traits in total and ignoring their order, ‘longevity’ was the most frequently mentioned. Polledness was a breeding goal in all types of organic dairy farms, but most frequently mentioned in large, high-yielding farms with mainly Holstein cows (Ivemeyer et al. 2017). Current simulations have shown that the Holstein Friesian population might be completely polled on the sire side as early as between 2022 and 2027, and the Fleckvieh population between 2025 and 2035. Brown Cattle, Jersey and native breeds are currently at less risk (Scheper et al. 2017). Due to the limited number of polled animals, groups of polled Holstein and Fleckvieh cattle currently show lower average breeding values and a higher average kinship than horned individuals (Scheper et al. 2016).

4.5 Breeds on organic farms Organic standards recommend: ‘the choice of breeds should take account of their capacity to adapt to local conditions’ and local breeds should be preferred (Art. 8 and 9 (EG) Nr. 889/2008). Nevertheless, most organic farms use the same breeds and strains as conventional farms (Bapst 2005; Nauta 2005, 2009). Local/native breeds might be better adapted to local and especially organic conditions characterised by a stronger dependency on local feed resources, higher levels of pasture-based feeding, lower amounts of concentrates, as well as more stringent controls on the use of medicine. Bieber et al. (2016, 2017) conducted a study comparing local and commercial dairy breeds on organic farms with the aim of mapping the suitability of local breeds for organic farms in the respective countries. The study included data from organic herds in Austria (AT; Swiss Brown versus Grey Cattle), Germany (DE; Holstein versus Original Red Angler Cattle), Poland (PL; Holstein versus Polish Red, Polish Black & White and Polish Red & White) and Switzerland (CH; Swiss Brown versus Original Braunvieh, Grey Cattle). Data from AT, PL and CH included all cows of the selected breeds managed organically, while data from DE consisted of all organic farms of the local breed and a limited number of organic dairy farms with a commercial dairy breed of the same farm type in terms of herd size, production level and overall management (for farm type description: Ivemeyer et al. 2017). Preliminary results reveal lower milk yields for most local breeds (in Germany differences were not significant). The DE local breed and most PL local breeds had – typically for the studied breeds – a higher fat and protein content, but not so in CH and AT where fat content was lower in the local breeds studied and protein content was either no different between local and commercial breeds (AT) or even lower in the local breeds studied (Original Braunvieh in CH). Fertility (calving interval, interval from first to successful service) was better in local breeds in PL and AT and partly in CH, but no significant difference to the commercial breed was found in DE. In AT and CH local breeds on organic farms showed lower rates of milk samples with %SCC > 100 than commercial breeds. There were no differences in DE, and lower %SCC > 100 were found in the commercial breed in PL. Local breeds of AT, CH and PL had a longer useful lifetime, whereas commercial breeds showed a higher lifetime production (kg ECM; data only available from AT and CH). There is little evidence about the use of native breeds in organic compared to conventional production. In CH, the proportion of organic dairy cows of native breeds versus the total number of dairy cows of the same breeds (both participating in official milk recording schemes) was 19% for Original Braunvieh and 46% for Grey Cattle (compared to © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

218

Organic dairy farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

9% for commercial Swiss Brown Cattle) in 2014/15. The proportion of Original Red Angler Cattle kept as dairy cows in Germany and tested in milk recording schemes was about 90% between 2011 and 2015 and is currently 100% (2017). In Austria, the proportion of organic dairy cows of the popular breed Brown Cattle was 16%, whereas the proportion of organic dairy cows of the native breed Grey Cattle was 29% (unpublished data from CORE Organic Plus project OrganicDairyHealth). The state control association of the South German federal state Baden-Wuerttemberg (LKVBW) responsible for the official milk recording scheme reported 38% of dairy cows of both native breeds Vorderwald and Hinterwald Cattle being kept on organic farms in 2016, while in the same region the proportion of organic dairy cows of the commercial breeds Fleckvieh and Holstein Friesian was 10% and 8%, respectively (LKVBW 2016). These figures from different breeds and regions suggest that native breeds form a higher proportion in organic than in conventional production systems, even though the majority of organic dairy farms keep commercial (internationally bred) breeds. In addition, Slagboom et al. (2016) found that in Denmark organic farmers used more Danish Red semen than conventional farmers (not primarily to produce pure bred Danish Red cows but mostly for cross-breeding). Spengler Neff et al. (2012) showed that by adapting their breeding scheme to local conditions organic farms in CH had a lower number of veterinary treatments per cow, shorter calving intervals and a longer useful lifetime than farms which took no account of local conditions. The background to site-related dairy cow breeding is explained at: www.biorindviehzucht.ch and www.elevagebovinbio.ch. It may be important that organic farms use bulls from organic herds with similar local conditions to ensure well-adapted offspring (Nauta 2009; Spengler Neff and Ivemeyer 2016). For this purpose, an initiative called ‘Bio-KI’ was started by Wytze Nauta in 2011 in the Netherlands (http://www. biologischefokkerij.nl): selling semen from well selected bulls from organic farms. Semen is collected at the EU-certified AI centre ‘KI de Toekomst’. So far around 7000 doses of semen from nine organic bulls – most of them still living on organic farms – have been sold. Consumers can ‘adopt a bull’ and thus give financial support to Bio-KI.

5 Future trends and conclusion Organic dairy farming has great potential for sustainable grassland-based farming and for innovative improvements in animal welfare but also faces challenges demanding improvement. The general herd health on organic dairy farms is often little better than on conventional farms. Udder health, in particular, clearly needs improvement in many countries. However, the use of drugs is on average lower in organic farms than in conventional farms while achieving a comparable level of general health. Hence, in the light of pressure to decrease the use of antimicrobials and hormones well-managed organic farms may serve as models for conventional farms. Nevertheless, in many countries there is a need to improve animal health by preventive measures. Within Europe there are many different types of organic farms and production conditions. The implementation of organic farming principles as well as the improvement of animal welfare is a process and sometimes a struggle, because beside economic pressures there are lots of different opinions and conditions within the organic sector. Management strategies like minimised drug use, limited concentrate feeding, pasture access and calf rearing with cow–calf contact have the potential to emphasize the benefits of organic dairy

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

219

farming, but often organic certification alone does not automatically guarantee higher levels of animal welfare and sustainability. Solutions should be discussed and found for ‘open flanks’ like the lack of organic crude protein combined with the need for concentrates purchased outside Europe, the animal health and welfare situation on certain farms, the whereabouts of male calves from dairy breed herds, especially Holstein Friesian herds and the narrowing of breed diversity. Differences between countries and regions regarding those hot topics should be realised. On the one hand, site-specific solutions have to be found due to the wide range of regional production conditions, while on the other hand, regions with successful farms might serve as models for organic dairy farmers in other regions as well as for conventional farmers.

6 References Ahlman, T., Berglund, B., Rydhmer, L. and Strandberg, E. 2011. Culling reasons in organic and conventional dairy herds and genotype by environment interaction for longevity. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 1568–75. doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3483. Ahlman, T., Ljung, M., Rydhmer, L., Röcklinsberg, H., Strandberg, E. and Wallenbeck, A. 2014. Differences in preferences for breeding traits between organic and conventional dairy producers in Sweden. Livestock Science 162, 5–14. 10.1016/j.livsci.2013.12.014. Anneberg, I., Ostergaard, S., Ettema, J. F. and Kudahl, A. B. 2016. Economic figures in herd health programmes as motivation factors for farmers. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 134, 170–8. 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.10.007. Bapst, B., Bieber, A. and Haas, E. 2005. Untersuchungen zur Zuchtstrategie in Schweizer BioBraunviehbetrieben [Analysis of breeding strategies on Swiss organic Braunvieh-farms]. In: Heß, J. (Ed.), Ende der Nische, Beiträge zur 8. Wissenschaftstagung Ökologischer Landbau, Kassel, 1–4 März 2005. Kassel Univ. Press, Kassel. Bargo, F., Muller, L. D., Kolver, E. S. and Delahoy, J. E. 2003. Invited review: Production and digestion of supplemented dairy cows on pasture. Journal of Dairy Science 86(1), 1–42. doi: 10.3168/jds. S0022-0302(03)73581-4. Barkema, H. W., Keyserlingk, M., von Kastelic, J. P., Lam, T. J. G. M., Luby, C., Roy, J.-P., LeBlanc, S. J., Keefe, G. P. and Kelton, D. 2015. Invited review – Changes in the dairy industry affecting dairy cattle health and welfare. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 7426–45. Barth, K., Brinkmann, J. and March, S. (Eds). 2011. Gesundheit und Leistungsfähigkeit von Milchkühen im ökologischen Landbau interdisziplinär betrachtet – eine (Interventions-) Studie zu Stoffwechselstörungen und Eutererkrankungen unter Berücksichtigung von Grundfuttererzeugung, Fütterungsmanagement und Tierhaltung [Health and performance of dairy cows in organic farming from an interdisciplinary point of view - an (intervention-) study on metabolic disorders and mastitis with regard to forage production, feeding management and husbandry practices]. Final Report, Bundesprogramm Ökologischer Landbau, BLE, Bonn, Germany. Bennedsgaard, T., Thamsborg, S., Vaarst, M. and Enevoldsen, C. 2003. Eleven years of organic dairy production in Denmark: Herd health and production related to time of conversion and compared to conventional production. Livestock Production Science 80(1–2), 121–31. 10.1016/ S0301-6226(02)00312-3. Bennedsgaard, T. W., Klaas, I. C. and Vaarst, M. 2010. Reducing use of antimicrobials – experiences from an intervention study in organic dairy herds in Denmark. Livestock Science 131, 183–92. Bergman, M. A., Richert, R. M., Cicconi-Hogan, K. M., Gamroth, M. J., Schukken, Y. H., Stiglbauer, K. E. and Ruegg, P. L. 2014. Comparison of selected animal observations and management practices used to assess welfare of calves and adult dairy cows on organic and conventional dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 97(7), 4269–80.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

220

Organic dairy farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

Bieber, A., Spengler, A., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Ivemeyer, S., Simantke, C., Stricker, C., Walczak, J., Wallenbeck, A., Winckler, C. and Wójcik, P. 2016. Comparison of native and commercial dairy cattle breeds on organic farms in five European countries. In: Strandberg, E., Van Duinkerken, G., Spoolder, H., Sauerwein, H., Tichit, M., Klopčič, M., Conington, J., Lauridsen, C., Santos, A. and Pollott, G. (Eds), Book of Abstracts of the 67th Annual Meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science, Belfast, 29 August – 2 September 2016, 307pp. Bieber, A., Spengler, A., Fuerst-Waltl, B., Ivemeyer, S., Simantke, C., Stricker, C., Walczak, J., Winckler, C. and Wójcik, P. 2017. Comparison of native and commercial dairy cattle breeds on organic farms in five European countries. In: 3rd Workshop of the Organic Dairy Health Consortium, Aarhus, 12–13 June 2017 (unpublished). Bioland. 2016. Bioland-Richtlinien [Production-Guidelines of the German private organic label ‘Bioland’], 56pp. URL: http://www.bioland.de/fileadmin/dateien/HP_Dokumente/Richtlinien/ Bioland_Richtlinien_22_Nov_2016.pdf. BioSuisse. 2017. Richtlinien für die Erzeugung, Verarbeitung und den Handel von Knospe-Produkten [Guidelines for Production, Processing and Retailing of products of the Swiss private organic label ‘BioSuisse’], p. 288. Blanco-Penedo, I., Lundh, T., Holtenius, K., Fall, N. and Emanuelson, U. 2014. The status of essential elements and associations with milk yield and the occurrence of mastitis in organic and conventional dairy herds. Livestock Science 168, 120–7. Bouissou, M. F., Boissy, A., Le Neindre, P. and Veissier, I. 2001. The social behaviour of cattle. In: Keeling, L. J. and Gonyou, H. W. (Eds), Social Behaviour in Farm Animals. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, pp. 113–45. Brinkmann, J. and March, S., 2010. Tiergesundheit in der ökologischen Milchviehhaltung - Status quo sowie (Weiter-) Entwicklung, Anwendung und Beurteilung eines präventiven Konzeptes zur Herdengesundheitsplanung [Animal health in organic dairy farming - Health state as well as development, application and evaluation of a preventive herd health planning concept]. Dissertation, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, p. 29. Brinkmann, J. and March, S. 2015. Kapitel 5.2.3: Rinder – Tiergesundheit [Cattle – Animal Health]. In: Bachinger, J. and Becherer, U. (Eds), Faustzahlen für den Ökologischen Landbau. Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft, Darmstadt, pp. 472–7. Cozzi, G., Gottardo, F., Brscic, M., Contiero, B., Irrgang,N., Knierim, U., Pentelescu, O., Windig, J. J., Mirabito, L., Eveillard, F. K., Dockes, A. C., Veissier, I., Velarde, A., Fuentes, C., Dalmau, A. and Winckler, C. 2015. Dehorning of cattle in the EU Member States: A quantitative survey of the current practices. Livestock Science 179, 4–11. DBV. 2017. Situationsbericht 2016/17 - Trends und Fakten zur Landwirtschaft [Report 2016/17 – trends and facts to agricultural situation in Germany]. Deutscher Bauernverband (DBV), Berlin. http:// www.bauernverband.de/16-oekologischer-landbau-683376. Demeter e.V. 2015. Erzeugung – Richtlinien für die Zertifizierung ‘Demeter’und ‘Biodynamisch’ [Production – Guidelines of the private organic label ‘Demeter’ and ‘Biodynamisch’], p. 79. DLQ. 2015. Ergebnisse MLP-Jahresabschluss 2015 [Results of milk recording data 2015], p. 3. Dufour, S., Fréchette, A., Barkema, H. W., Mussell, A. and Scholl, D. T. 2011. Invited review: Effect of udder health management practices on herd somatic cell count. Journal of Dairy Science 94(2), 563–79. Duval, J. E., Bareille, N., Fourichon, C., Madouasse, A. and Vaarst, M. 2016. Perceptions of French private veterinary practitioners’ on their role in organic dairy farms and opportunities to improve their advisory services for organic dairy farmers. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 133, 10–21. EFSA-AHAW. 2012. Scientific Opinion on the welfare of cattle kept for beef production and the welfare in intensive calf farming systems: Panel on Animal Health and Welfare. EFSA Journal 10(5), 2669. Ellingsen, K., Johnsen, J. F., Schjøll, A., Grøndahl, A. M. and Mejdell, C. M., 2015. Kalvestell blant produsenter av økologisk melk i Norge og Sverige – Resultater fra en spørreundersøkelse: Rapport 16 2015. Veterinærinstituttets rapportserie, Oslo, p. 65. http://www.vetinst.no/rapporter-og-publikasjoner/

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

221

rapporter/2015/kalvestell-blant-produsenter-av-kologisk-melk-i-norge-og-sverige-resultater-fraen-sprreunderskelse/_/attachment/download/7d1b1981-062b-459c-9ce4-d0e05676ec90:1c46 e23a92bc7b5ddd1d25fdb8e0b305f68f650c/2015_16_Kalvestell%20blant%20produsenter%20 av%20%C3%B8kologisk%20melk%20i%20Norge%20og%20Sverige-Resultater%20fra%20 en%20sp%C3%B8rreunders%C3%B8kelse_rez.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2017. European Commission. 2008. Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control. (OJ L 250. 18 September 2008, p. 1). European Commission, 2013. Facts and figures on organic agriculture in the European Union. DG Agriculture and Rural Development. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-area-economics/ index_en.htm. Accessed 5 May 2017. EUROSTAT. 2016. Share of organic livestock in all livestock by country. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/ eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Share_of_organic_livestock_in_all_livestock,_by_ country,_2015.png#file. EUROSTAT. 2017a. Organic livestock of animals (from 2012 onwards). http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ web/products-datasets/product?code=org_lstspec. Last update: 15 November 2017, accessed 05 January 2018. EUROSTAT. 2017b. Organic farming: Number of farms, areas with different crops and heads of different types of animals by agricultural size of farm (UAA) and NUTS 2 regions [ef_mporganic]. http:// appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ef_mporganic&lang=en (accessed13 July 2017). Fall, N., Emanuelson, U., Martinsson, K. and Jonsson, S. 2008. Udder health at a Swedish research farm with both organic and conventional dairy cow management. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 83(2), 186–95. 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2007.07.003. Früh, B., Schlatter, B., Isensee, A., Maurer, V. and Willer, H., 2015. Report on Organic Protein Availability and Demand in Europe. FiBL, Frick, p. 134. Hardeng, F. and Edge, V. L. 2001. Mastitis, ketosis, and milk fever in 31 organic and 93 conventional Norwegian dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 84(12), 2673–9. Haskell, M. J., Langford, F. M., Jack, M. C., Sherwood, L., Lawrence, A. B. and Rutherford, K. M. D. 2009. The effect of organic status and management practices on somatic cell counts on UK dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 92(8), 3775–80. Hughner, R. S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C. J., II and Stanton, J. 2007. Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 6, 94–110. Hürner, M. 2016. Jede dritte Kuh verlässt den Biokanal vor der Schlachtung [Every third cows leaves the organic sector before slaughter]. Bioaktuell, 7 September 2016, p. 11. Ivemeyer, S., Maeschli, A., Walkenhorst, M., Klocke, P., Heil, F., Oser, S. and Notz, C. 2008. Auswirkungen einer zweijährigen Bestandesbetreuung von Milchviehbeständen hinsichtlich Eutergesundheit, Antibiotikaeinsatz und Nutzungsdauer [Effects of a two-year dairy herd health management programme on udder health, use of antibiotics and longevity]. Schweizer Archiv f Tierheilkunde 150(10), 499–505. Ivemeyer, S., Walkenhorst, M., Heil, F., Notz, C., Maeschli, A., Butler, G. and Klocke, P. 2009. Management factors affecting udder health and effects of a one year extension program in organic dairy herds. Animal 3(11), 1596–604. Ivemeyer, S., Knierim, U. and Waiblinger, S. 2011. Effect of human-animal relationship and management on udder health in Swiss dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 94(12), 5890–902. Ivemeyer, S., Smolders, G., Brinkmann, J., Gratzer, E., Hansen, B., Henriksen, B. I. F., Huber, J., Leeb, C., March, S., Mejdell, C., Nicholas, P., Roderick, S., Stoeger, E., Vaarst, M., Whistance, L. K., Winckler, C. and Walkenhorst, M. 2012. Impact of animal health and welfare planning on medicine use, herd health and production in European organic dairy farms. Livestock Science 145(1–3), 63–72.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

222

Organic dairy farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

Ivemeyer, S., Walkenhorst, M., Holinger, M., Maeschli, A., Klocke, P., Spengler Neff, A., Staehli, P., Krieger, M. and Notz, C., 2014. Changes in herd health, fertility and production under roughage based feeding conditions with reduced concentrate input in Swiss organic dairy herds. Livestock Science 168, 159–67. Ivemeyer, S., Bell, N. J., Brinkmann, J., Cimer, K., Gratzer, E., Leeb, C., March, S., Mejdell, C., Roderick, S., Smolders, G., Walkenhorst, M., Winckler, C. and Vaarst, M. 2015. Farmers taking responsibility for herd health development – stable schools in research and advisory activities as a tool for dairy health and welfare planning in Europe. Organic Agriculture 5(2), 135–41. Ivemeyer, S., Kenner, A., Knösel, M. and Knierim, U. 2016. Milk intake of dairy calves in a dam rearing system. In: Huesmann, K. (Ed.), Aktuelle Arbeiten zur artgemäßen Tierhaltung 2016. Proceedings of the 48th international conference of applied animal ethology of the German Veterinary Medical Society (DVG), 17–19 November 2016, Freiburg. KTBL, Darmstadt, pp. 81–91. Ivemeyer, S., Brinkmann, J., March, S., Simantke, C., Winckler, C. and Knierim, U. 2017. Major organic dairy farm types in Germany and their farm, herd, and management characteristics. Organic Agriculture, 1–17. Published online. doi: 10.1007/s13165-017-0189-3. Johnsen, J. F., Zipp, K. A., Kälber, T., de Passillé, A. M., Knierim, U., Barth, K. and Mejdell, C. M., 2016. Is rearing calves with the dam a feasible option for dairy farms?: Current and future research. Applied Animal Behaviour science 181, 1–11. Kälber, T. and Barth, K. 2014. Practical implications of suckling systems for dairy calves in organic production systems – a review. Landbauforsch/Appl Agric Forestry Research 1(64), 45–58. Kijlstra, A. 2005. No difference in paratuberculosis seroprevalence between organic and conventional dairy herds in the Netherlands. In: Proceedings of the 3rd SAFO Workshop; Enhancing Animal Health Security and Food Safety in Organic Livestock Production, Reading, UK, pp. 51–6. Kijlstra, A. and Eijck, I. 2006. Animal health in organic livestock production systems: A review. NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54(1), 77–94. Kling-Eveillard, F., Knierim, U., Irrgang, N., Gottardo, F., Ricci, R. and Dockes, A. C., 2015. Attitudes of farmers towards cattle dehorning. Livestock Science 179, 12–21. Knaus, W. 2009. Dairy cows trapped between performance demands and adaptability. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 89(7), 1107–14. 10.1002/jsfa.3575. Krieger, M., Sjöström, K., Blanco-Penedo, I., Madouasse, A., Duval, J. E., Bareille, N., Fourichon, C., Sundrum, A. and Emanuelson, U., 2017. Prevalence of production disease related indicators in organic dairy herds in four European countries. Livestock Science 198, 104–8. Langford, F. M., Rutherford, K. M. D., Jack, M. C., Sherwood, L., Lawrence, A. B. and Haskell, M. J. 2009. A comparison of management practices, farmer-perceived disease incidence and winter housing on organic and non-organic dairy farms in the UK. Journal Dairy Research 76, 6–14. Levison, L. J., Miller-Cushon, E. K., Tucker, A. L., Bergeron, R., Leslie, K. E., Barkema, H. W. and DeVries, T. J. 2016. Incidence rate of pathogen-specific clinical mastitis on conventional and organic Canadian dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 99(2), 1341–50. Lidfors, L., Berg, C. and Algers, B. 2005. Integration of natural behavior in housing systems. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 34(4), 325–30. LKVBW. 2016. Jahresbericht 2016 [Annual report 2016]. Accessed 1 August 2017. http://www.lkvbw. de/services/files/jahresberichte/A%20Jahresbericht%202016_web.pdf. Magg, L. A., Athanasiadou, A., Sherwood, L. and Haskell, M. J. 2008. Levels of parasitism on organic and non-organic dairy farms in Scotland. Veterinary Record 162, 345–6. March, S., Brinkmann, J. and Winckler, C. 2014. Improvement of animal health in organic dairy farms through ‘stable schools’ - Selected results of a pilot study in Germany. Organic Agriculture 4, 319–23. March, S., Brinkmann, J., Müller, J. and Winckler C., 2017. Welchen Einfluss hat der Weidegang auf die Gesundheit von Milchkühen? Erste Ergebnisse von Auswertungen umfangreicher Praxiserhebungen in der ökologischen Milchviehhaltung [Effects of grazing on health of dairy cows - first results from surveys in organic dairy farms]. In: Proceedings of the 14th Scientific Conference of Organic Agriculture (Wissenschaftstagung Ökologischer Landbau), 7–10 March 2017, Weihenstephan, pp. 546–9. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

223

Marley, C. K., Weller, R. F., Neale, M., Main, D. C. J., Roderick, S. and Keatinge, R. 2010. Aligning health and welfare principles and practices in organic dairy systems: A review. Animal 4, 259–71. Menendez Gonzalez, S., Steiner, A., Gassner, B. and Regula, G. 2010. Antimicrobial use in Swiss dairy farms: Quantification and evaluation of data quality. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 95(1–2), 50–63. 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.03.004. Meredith, S. and Willer, H. (Eds). 2016. Organic in Europe: Prospects and Developments 2016. IFOAM EU Group and FIBL, Brussels. http://www.ifoam-eu.org/sites/default/files/ifoameu_organic_in_ europe_2016.pdf. Müller, U. and Sauerwein, H. 2010. A comparison of somatic cell count between organic and conventional dairy cow herds in West Germany stressing dry period related changes. Livestock Science 127(1), 30–7. Nauta, W. J. 2009. Selective breeding in organic dairy production. Dissertation, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands. URL: orgprints.org/15761/1/2113.pdf Nauta, W. J., Groen, A. F., Veerkamp, R. F., Roep, D. and Baars, T. 2005. Animal breeding in organic dairy farming: An inventory of farmers' views and difficulties to overcome. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 53(1), 19–34. Newberry, R. C. and Swanson, J. C. 2008. Implications of breaking mother–young social bonds. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 110(1–2), 3–23. Nicholas, P. K., Mandolesi, S., Naspetti, S. and Zanoli, R. 2014. Innovations in low input and organic dairy supply chains – what is acceptable in Europe? Journal of Dairy Science 97(2), 1157–67. Nielsen, B. and Thamsborg, S. 2002. Dairy bull calves as a resource for organic beef production: A farm survey in Denmark. Livestock Production Science 75, 245–55. Nielsen, B. K. and Thamsborg, S. M. 2005. Welfare, health and product quality in organic beef production: A Danish perspective. Livestock Production Science 94(1–2), 41–50. Ortlieb, E., 2016. Effects of pasture access on dairy cow welfare – a review. Master Thesis, Farm Animal Behaviour and Husbandry Section, University of Kassel, Witzenhausen, p. 128. Richert, R. M., Cicconi, K. M., Gamroth, M. J., Schukken, Y. H., Stiglbauer, K. E. and Ruegg, P. L. 2013a. Management factors associated with veterinary usage by organic and conventional dairy farms. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 242(12), 1732–43. Richert, R. M., Cicconi, K. M., Gamroth, M. J., Schukken, Y. H., Stiglbauer, K. E. and Ruegg, P. L. 2013b. Risk factors for clinical mastitis, ketosis, and pneumonia in dairy cattle on organic and small conventional farms in the United States. Journal of Dairy Science 96(7), 4269–85. Robinson, J. J. 1996. Nutrition and reproduction. Animal Reproduction Science 42, 25–34. Roesch, M., Doherr, M. G., Schären, W., Schällibaum, M. and Blum, J. W., 2007. Subclinical mastitis in dairy cows in Swiss organic and conventional production systems. Journal of Dairy Research 74, 86–92. Rutherford, K. M. D., Langford, F. M., Jack, M. C., Sherwood, L., Lawrence, A. B. and Haskell, M. J. 2008. Hock injury prevalence and associated risk factors on organic and nonorganic dairy farms in the United Kingdom. Journal of Dairy Science 91(6), 2265–74. Rutherford, K. M. D., Langford, F. M., Jack, M. C., Sherwood, L., Lawrence, A. B. and Haskell, M. J. 2009. Lameness prevalence and risk factors in organic and non-organic dairy herds in the United Kingdom. Veterinary Journal 180(1), 95–105. Scheper, C. 2017. Horntragende Rinderzucht sichern [Ensuring horned cattle breeding]. Lebenige Erde, 1 Ausgabe 2017, http://www.lebendigeerde.de/index.php?id=feld_stall_171. Scheper, C., Wensch-Dorendorf, M., Yin, T., Dressel, H., Swalve, H. and König, S. 2016. Evaluation of breeding strategies for polledness in dairy cattle using a newly developed simulation framework for quantitative and Mendelian traits. Genetics Selection Evolution 48, 50. Schweizerischer Bundesrat 2015. Verordnung über die biologische Landwirtschaft und die Kennzeichnung biologisch produzierter Erzeugnisse und Lebensmittel: Bioverordnung des Bundes. DZV, Bern, Switzerland, p. 54. Schweizerischer Bundesrat 2017. Verordnung über die Direktzahlungen an die Landwirtschaft: Direktzahlungsverordnung. DZV, Bern, Switzerland, p. 152.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

224

Organic dairy farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

Simianer, H. (Ed.). 2007. Final Report of the research project ÖKUH ‘Ökologische Milchviehzucht: Entwicklung und Bewertung züchterischer Ansätze unter Berücksichtigung der Genotyp × Umwelt-Interaktion und Schaffung eines Informationssystems für nachhaltige Zuchtstrategien [Organic dairy cattle breeding]. URL: http://www.orgprints.org/11222/ (30 March 2017), p. 121. Slagboom, M., Kargo, M., Edwards, D., Sørensen, A. C., Thomasen, J. R. and Hjortø, L. 2016. Organic dairy farmers put more emphasis on production traits than conventional farmers. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 9845–56. Sorge, U. S., Moon, R., Wolff, L. J., Michels, L., Schroth, S., Kelton, D. F. and Heins, B. 2016. Management practices on organic and conventional dairy herds in Minnesota. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 3183–92. Spengler Neff, A. and Ivemeyer, S. 2016. Differences between dairy cows descending from artificial insemination bulls vs. dairy cows descending from natural service bulls on organic farms in Switzerland. Livestock Science 185, 30–3. Spengler Neff, A., Pedotti, R. and Schmid, A. 2012. Assessment of site related breeding of dairy cattle on organic farms in a Swiss mountain region. In: 2nd Organic Animal Husbandry Conference, Hamburg, 12–14 September 2012, pp. 360–4. Sundberg, T., Berglund, B., Rydhmer, L. and Strandberg, E. 2009. Fertility, somatic cell count and milk production in Swedish organic and conventional dairy herds. Livestock Science 126(1–3), 176–82. Sutherland, M. A., Webster, J. and Sutherland, I. 2013. Animal health and welfare issues facing organic production systems. Animals: An Open Access Journal from MDPI 3(4), 1021–35. Swensson, C. 2008. Towards loose housing in Swedish organic dairy production. Poster at: Cultivating the Future Based on Science: 2nd Conference of the International Society of Organic Agriculture Research ISOFAR, Modena, Italy, 18–20 June 2008. URL: http://orgprints.org/12534/. Vaarst, M. and Alrøe, H. F. 2012. Concepts of animal health and welfare in organic livestock systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25(3), 333–47. Vaarst, M., Bennedsgaard, T. W., Klaas, I., Nissen, T. B., Thamsborg, S. M. and Østergaard, S. 2006. Development and daily management of an explicit strategy of nonuse of antimicrobial drugs in twelve Danish organic dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 89(5), 1842–53. Vaarst, M., Nissen, T. B., Ostergaard, S., Klaas, I. C., Bennedsgaard, T. W. and Christensen, J. 2007. Danish stable schools for experiential common learning in groups of organic dairy farmers. Journal of Dairy Science 90(5), 2543–54. Val-Laillet, D., Simon, M. and Nowak, R. 2004. A full belly and colostrum: Two major determinants of filial love. Developmental Psychobiology 45(3), 163–73. Valle, P. S., Lien, G., Flaten, O., Koesling, M. and Ebbesvik, M. 2007. Herd health and health management in organic versus conventional dairy herds in Norway. Livestock Science 112, 123–32. van Soest, F. J. S., Mourits, M. C. M. and Hogeveen, H 2015. European organic dairy farmers’ preference for animal health management within the farm management system. Animal 9(11), 1875–83. Wallenbeck, A., Bieber, A., Spengler Neff, A., Fuesrt-Waltl, B, Winckler, C., Ivemeyer, S., Simantke, C., March, S., Brinkmann, J., Rousing, T., Sorensen, J. T., Walczak, J., Wojcik, P. and Ribikauskas, V. 2016. Characteristics of organic dairy farm types in seven European countries. In: Book of Abstracts of the 67th Annual Meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science. Wageningen Academic Publisher, Book of abstracts, pp. 306. Wenker, M., 2016. Kalfjes bij de koe op Demeter-melkveebedrijven? [Calves with cows on Demeterdairy farms?]. Stichting Demeter, http://www.stichtingdemeter.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ Stage-verslag-Extern-website.pdf (27 March 2017). Zwald, A. G., Ruegg, P. L., Kaneene, J. B., Warnick, L. D., Wells, S. J., Fossler, C. and Halbert, L. W. 2004. Management practices and reported antimicrobial usage on conventional and organic dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 191–201.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Chapter 11 Organic dairy farming: towards sustainability Florian Leiber, Adrian Muller, Veronika Maurer, Christian Schader and Anna Bieber, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Switzerland 1 Introduction

2 Local and global feed efficiency and ecological sustainability



3 Towards solutions 1: longevity and integrated dairy and beef production



4 Towards solutions 2: developing roughage-based feeding strategies



5 Towards solutions 3: organic dairy breeding



6 Towards solutions 4: approaching animal health and welfare



7 Research into sustainable organic dairy production



8 Future trends and conclusion



9 Where to look for further information

10 References

1 Introduction Livestock is a key element of organic agriculture. The concept of closed nutrient cycles requires the close integration of crop and livestock systems whenever possible within a farm, or at least within regions (e.g. IFOAM, 2014; Bioland, 2016; Bio Suisse, 2016). Ruminants play a particularly important role in integrated organic systems, since they can efficiently utilize grassland resources, legume forages from crop rotations and crop residues, and they provide valuable manure for the soil. However, large amounts of concentrates are still fed to organic cattle, requiring the transport of soya bean on a large scale across the globe (Früh et al., 2014) with severe ecological and social consequences (Pellentier and Tyedmers 2010; Semino et al., 2009). Furthermore, the demand for arable land areas to produce cereals for organic ruminant production is still very high. This is a status quo that should be overcome against the background of the environmental and social claims of organic agriculture (IFOAM, 2014). On the other hand, it is particularly the ruminal digestion of fibre which produces methane, thus directly impacting climate change dynamics in a most problematic way (Beauchemin et al., 2008). In this context, a dilemma of contemporary ruminant production becomes obvious, which is of particular relevance for the targets of organic systems as there seem to be serious contradictions between some of the key aspects of sustainable livestock production. These can be summarized as follows: a) Globally, it appears unavoidable http://dx.doi.org/10.19103/AS.2016.0005.34 © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

226

Organic dairy farming: towards sustainability

to make efficient and ecologically sustainable use of the large permanent grassland resources for animal source food production, thereby lowering the demand for livestock feed from arable land (Wilkinson, 2011; O’Mara, 2012; Schader et al., 2015). b) Ruminants, as important providers of dairy and meat products, are the most efficient livestock species to utilize fibrous grassland swards (Clauss et al., 2010), and are, compared to poultry and pigs, less efficient in utilizing human-edible feedstuffs, when these are fed in high proportions (Wilkinson, 2011). c) The digestion of fibre is the most prominent source of enteric methane production in ruminants (Johnson and Johnson, 1995). This results in the apparent dilemma that the more a ruminant production system is based on roughages and avoids concentrates, the higher the methane emission is per unit of product (Beauchemin et al., 2008; Grandl et al., 2016), a challenge which is even more relevant for organic dairy production, due to lower yields. Possible options to deal with this dilemma are more holistic and systemic views on agricultural production systems, the integration of milk and meat production in dual-output production systems (Zehetmeier et al., 2012), the integration of feeding systems with breeding schemes (Spengler Neff et al., 2007) and critically assessing what level of demand for animal products is reasonable and responsible (Schader et al., 2015). Furthermore, organic principles aim at high animal welfare, based on choice of suitable breeds, species-appropriate management, housing and feeding conditions. This implies space requirements, animal-friendly barn systems, explicit framing of the human–animal relationship and, again, the principle that ruminant grazers such as cattle and sheep should be predominantly fed on roughages, while high proportions of concentrates are considered inappropriate for these species. This is another reason why organic principles include restrictions on supplying ruminants with concentrates. Animal health is a further key target of organic dairy systems. Currently, the average productive lifetime of dairy cows in conventional systems is clearly lower than three lactations in many industrialized countries (Knaus, 2009; Stiglbauer et al., 2013). The most common reasons for culling are fertility problems, diseases of the mammary gland or lameness (Pritchard et al., 2013), which may all be considered to be potentially related to metabolic problems due to high yields and inappropriate feeding (Knaus, 2009). There is no general evidence that the figures are better for organic cows, but the high significance of animal welfare in organic standards requires farmers to pay particular attention to this problem. This is further reinforced by the fact that realizing a long productive lifespan integrates higher animal welfare with environmental and production efficiency (Zehetmeier et al., 2012; Grandl et al., 2016). In conclusion, the main issue requiring a solution for sustainable organic dairy production is the proper fit of regionally available feed resources, feeding systems and breeding strategies with the target of optimal roughage utilization, low emissions and healthy long-living cows. The implied contradictions represent big tasks for research and system development and are a core challenge for achieving sustainable food systems.

2 Local and global feed efficiency and ecological sustainability Globally, the environmental goals of organic dairy production are not unequivocally defined. In most organic standards the geographic origin of feedstuffs for dairy production is not regulated (EC, 2008), although the principles of organic agriculture aim for the ideal © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming: towards sustainability

227

of an almost autarchic production system (Köpke, 1995) and regional nutrient cycles with low-import proportions (IFOAM, 2014). Furthermore, the forage-to-concentrate ratio is not defined in global organic standards. Nevertheless, public regulations (EC, 2008) as well as various private organic standards (e.g. Bio Suisse, 2016) define minimum proportions of roughage and maximum proportions of concentrates in the average feeding ration of dairy cattle and their offspring. Regardless of the legal and factual degree of implementation, if based on the IFOAM principles (IFOAM, 2014) and different regulations of national bodies (EC, 2008) or organic production associations (Bio Suisse, 2016; Bioland, 2016), the main environmental goals of organic dairy production can be described as follows: a) utilization of regionally available feedstuffs and reduction of nutrient imports; b) optimal utilization of available fibrous feedstuffs by ruminant systems, thereby diversifying crop rotations with grass-clover mixtures; and c) positive contribution to landscape ecology, biodiversity and mitigation of any emissions. These goals are realized to varying degrees and to a certain extent they are in conflict with each other, as laid out above for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These conflicts appear especially severe when conventional views on efficiency and productivity are applied. Environmental efficiency expresses the relation between either commodity or non-commodity outputs (OECD, 2011) and environmental impacts (e.g. eutrophication) or natural resource consumption (e.g. non-renewable energy demand). Life cycle assessments (ISO, 2006a; ISO, 2006b) and footprinting approaches (Rotz et al., 2010) have become the dominant measures for judging environmental efficiency (Finkbeiner et al., 2010) which is often understood as a synonym for sustainability without considering impacts on biodiversity, soil fertility and socio-economic aspects. In livestock production, feed efficiency is often seen as the key driver for improving environmental efficiency, as both parameters are strongly correlated (Gerber et al., 2013; Monteny et al., 2006). Nevertheless, this view has its shortcomings, especially in the context of organic agriculture. The possible occurrence of lower feed efficiency in organic dairy production, compared to conventional production under comparable locations and with comparable breeds, can be explained by the presence of different proportions of concentrates and roughages in the feeding ration, due to restrictions defined in the organic standards (EC, 2008; Bio Suisse, 2016; Bioland, 2016). On a per-kg basis, concentrate-rich diets can result in higher milk yields per feed unit than concentratepoor diets, especially with high-performance dairy cattle breeds. However, for organic systems on moderate performance levels, it was shown that this effect can be small or absent (Sehested et al., 2003; Leiber et al., 2015a). Taking into account that arable crops should be primarily consumed by humans (Cassidy et al., 2013; Schader et al., 2015) or at least by monogastric livestock species significantly changes the efficiency determinations. Calculating feed efficiency on the basis of minimized use of arable crops per unit of animal protein results in advantages for grassland-based above concentrate-based feeding systems for ruminants (Wilkinson, 2011; O’Mara, 2012). If utilization of roughage-sourced nutrients is seen as the main target of ruminant production, efficiency can also be assessed with regard to the conversion of nutrients from these feedstuffs. It has been shown that utilization of roughage-sourced protein increases if the dietary concentrate proportion is reduced (Leiber et al., 2015a). Lower feed efficiency increases the amount of feed that needs to be produced. Environmental efficiency decreases if this feed production is accompanied by increased direct and indirect environmental impacts. Lower organic yields may tend in this direction (Beauchemin et al., 2008; Schader et al., 2014a). However, this is not so much the case if production is based on naturally available sources like permanent grasslands, rangelands © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

228

Organic dairy farming: towards sustainability

and forages from crop rotations, which avoid land-use changes for livestock production and deliver important ecosystem services (O’Mara, 2012). The role of (in-) direct landuse change is often difficult to identify and its valuation strongly depends on how this is accounted for (Hörtenhuber et al., 2010). A significant factor determining the ecological impact of any ruminant production system is enteric methane production from fibre digestion in the rumen (Kirchgessner et al., 1995). Ruminal methane production is the main factor which challenges the environmental sustainability of roughage-based ruminant production. Concentrates provide carbohydrates in the form of starch, which causes less methanogenesis due to different breakdown pathways in the rumen (Johnson and Johnson, 1995; Beauchemin et al., 2008). Combined with higher yields per kg of feed in concentrate-based systems, the methane production rate per unit of milk can be disadvantageous for roughage-based systems (Grandl et al., 2016). This adds to the dilemma for systems which are aiming at low external nutrient inputs and high proportions of direct human food production from arable lands, with corresponding low-concentrate diets for ruminants. However, some recent studies revealed that methane emissions per unit of product are not necessarily higher with roughage-only diets (Klevenhusen et al., 2011; Hart et al., 2015). A further important aspect is that the conversion rate of roughage-sourced protein can increase when concentrates are reduced (Leiber et al., 2015a), which implies lower N emissions per unit of milk. It was modelled that improved N efficiency of organic and conventional dairy systems also contributes to mitigation of GHG emissions (Olesen et al., 2006). Whether or not this holds true also within moderate- to low-intensity systems still needs to be assessed. These findings do not necessarily prove a general advantage for low-concentrate diets, but they show that feed efficiency and its relationship to environmental efficiency largely depends on system intensity and frame definitions included in evaluation models. This is particularly relevant if organic and conventional ruminant production systems are compared.

3 Towards solutions 1: longevity and integrated dairy and beef production The productive lifespan of dairy cows has considerably decreased over the past decades and has currently reached levels as low as 2.5 lactations in many industrialized countries (Knaus, 2009; Stiglbauer et al., 2013). Besides animal welfare issues, this has two basic consequences: a) the maximum yield per lactation, which increases approximately until the 6th lactation (Leiber, 2001; Grandl et al., 2016) is not reached and b) the relative weight of the unproductive rearing period in the productive life of a cow increases. This includes lower feed efficiency and higher relative emissions if calculated for the whole lifespan of the cow. It is obvious that the shrinking lifespan of dairy cows is due to increased production intensity (Knaus, 2009). With its explicit commitment to animal welfare and the tendency to moderate production intensity, organic dairy production may contribute to better longevity of the cows (Leiber, 2016). Although there is not enough data to prove an advantage for the organic dairy sector in this respect, the animal welfare requirements in organic guidelines encourage adoption of any measure to reduce health-related culling. Aside from the animal welfare aspect, increased longevity would confer a clear environmental benefit because the yield per day of life increases with every additional lactation (Leiber, 2001). © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

229

Organic dairy farming: towards sustainability

A further advantage of a prolonged productive lifespan is that it provides the opportunity to produce more calves for fattening systems out of dairy production. This is only reasonable, if cows are sired by bulls from beef breeds, or if dual-purpose breeds are used. But it has been shown that combined dairy and beef production systems have clear advantages when it comes to GHG emissions per unit of product, mainly because the GHG emission for beef can be reduced if calves originate from dairy systems (Zehetmeier et al., 2012). The use of dual-purpose breeds has the additional advantage that they are usually more robust and less susceptible to the nutrient gaps which potentially emerge from roughage-based diets. Thus, one of the most promising measures to solve the dilemmas discussed above and to achieve a high sustainability performance with regard to multiple indicators is to improve dairy cows’ longevity and realize a high integration of beef into dairy production systems. To achieve progress towards these targets and solutions to the conflicts of organic dairy production, it requires research and development efforts in roughage-based feeding management and in breeding and selection to identify and promote robust and well-performing multi-purpose breeds. Furthermore, advances in health management should reduce early involuntary culling reasons and thus increase longevity.

4 Towards solutions 2: developing roughage-based feeding strategies If one goal for a sustainable organic dairy production is to reduce dietary concentrate proportions, it is necessary to develop differentiated and regionally adaptable roughagebased feeding systems. Such systems should increase roughage-sourced nutrient efficiency based on smart management of different forage qualities. The implication of concentrate reduction is not only a lower nutrient density, but also gradual lack of opportunities to balance the ration, because fewer components can be used. This problem could be counteracted by targeted production of more variants of forages, and consequently a more differentiated forage offering to the cows. An important aspect of forage management concerns the timing and sequence of feeding. For instance, ruminants’ preference for legumes alters during the day, which may have physiological and digestion implications (Rutter, 2010). This means that the offering of forages with nutrient compositions adjusted to the diurnally altering intake needs and digestive processes of ruminants could be one measure to improve intake and utilization of forages without the disproportionate help of concentrates. Given that ruminants have a certain ability to regulate their own rumen metabolism by intentional ingestion of plants with desired concentrations of nutrients or active plant compounds (Provenza et al., 2007; Villalba et al., 2010), it could be important to provide the animals with a broader diversity and choice of feedstuffs at any one time. As an example, sequential offers of forages instead of total mixed rations were shown to influence intake behaviour positively (Leiber et al., 2015b). These factors are relevant in barn feeding and on pastures (Rutter, 2010). A further element of smart roughage-based nutrition concepts could be the targeted use of herbal feedstuffs, which contain high amounts of plant secondary compounds (PSC), able to influence ruminal fermentation processes (Leiber, 2014). Herbs with higher PSC concentrations have been repeatedly shown to influence product quality in a positive way, while providing reasonably good quality for milk production parameters © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

230

Organic dairy farming: towards sustainability

(Kälber et al., 2011; Petersen et al., 2011). The repeatedly demonstrated lipid quality advantage of organic ruminant products (Średnicka-Tober et al., 2016) is likely to be due to pasture and roughage-based diets and the influence of the PSC (Khiaosa-ard et al., 2015). PSC, in particular tannins, influence the rumen metabolism via different mechanisms. Besides positive effects on lipid metabolism, resulting in increased concentrations of omega-3 fatty acids (Jayanegara et al., 2011; Kälber et al., 2011), the ruminal protein metabolism may also be affected in a positive direction. Several individual tannin-rich plant species have been investigated for their effects on ruminant protein metabolism in recent years. Sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia), a legume containing high concentrations of condensed tannins, was prominently and exhaustively investigated in different Swiss and European projects. Certain effects on protein metabolism have been shown, although not always unequivocally (Scharenberg et al., 2007; Niderkorn et al., 2014). Another promising legume is bird’s-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), which also contains considerable amounts of condensed tannins (Eriksson et al., 2012). Studies with tropical feed plants (Jayanegara et al., 2011) and with buckwheat herb and grain (Amelchanka et al., 2009; Kälber et al., 2012) showed positive in vitro and in vivo effects on ruminants’ protein metabolism, which seemed to be related to plant compounds other than tannins. PSC are also of great interest in phytotherapeutic and prophylactic use (Heckendorn et al., 2006; Dorn et al., 2016) and can contribute to improved herd health. It appears very likely that many different PSC have desirable and undesirable modulating effects on rumen functions (Bodas et al., 2012), and an important field of future research will be to identify indications and dosages at which such herbs could be fed to cattle for the sake of high nutrient conversion efficiency, better product quality and improved animal health. Thus, feeding dairy cows on high proportions of regionally available roughages is not just an issue of omitting concentrate supplements. Rather, several crucial issues remain – in particular related to forage diversity – which have to be solved by research and practice in order to achieve healthy animals, efficient nutrient use and high quality products.

5  Towards solutions 3: organic dairy breeding Organic breeding emphasizes the importance of functional traits, as it aims at healthy, fertile, robust, vivacious and long-lived cows, which are able to cope with local conditions while maintaining a persistent milk production with little change in body condition throughout lactation (Nauta et al., 2012). According to organic regulations, preference should be given to local breeds (EC, 2008). However, organic dairy farms mostly use the same breeds as conventional farms (e.g. Hörning et al., 2004; Kalm et al., 2003; Nauta, 2009; Sundberg et al., 2009), although the use of (local) dual-purpose breeds or crossbred cows might be more feasible for organic farms (Nauta et al., 2012; Spengler Neff and Ivemeyer, 2016). Therefore, tools to estimate and ameliorate the dependency of dairy cow breeding and husbandry on specific sites, as developed by Spengler Neff et al. (2007, 2012) should be more widely adapted for a larger number of countries. Organic regulations ban embryo transfer, and recommend natural mating as a reproduction technique, while allowing artificial insemination (AI) (EC, 2008). © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming: towards sustainability

231

Considerable to very extensive use of AI has been reported for organic dairy farms (e.g. Bieber, 2004; Hörning et al., 2004; Nauta et al., 2001; Rozzi et al., 2007). The use of semen from conventional breeding programmes entails further genetic gain for milk yield. Selection of bulls with high genetic merit for functional traits and further promotion of alternative organic breeding initiatives are feasible strategies to overcome this challenge. The presence of genotype by environment interactions (G × E) between organic and conventional systems has been discussed frequently (e.g. Ahlmann et al., 2011; Boelling et al., 2003; Nauta et al., 2006; Pfeiffer et al., 2016). The existence of strong G × E interactions would underline the necessity of separate organic breeding programmes (Boelling et al., 2003), but most studies found weak G × E interactions and therefore conclude that a separate organic breeding programme is currently not justified. Nevertheless, some relevant G × E interactions were reported for some health and fertility traits (Bapst and Stricker, 2007; Simianer et al., 2007), and traits with moderate to low heritability are expected to reveal G × E interactions when further investigated (Yin et al., 2014). Table 1 summarizes current scenarios for organic dairy breeding based on those from Nauta et al. (2001), which have been updated due to the introduction of genomic selection in dairy breeding. Several surveys (e.g. Haas and Bapst, 2004; Rozzi et al., 2007; Steininger et al., 2012) reported on organic farmers’ wish to breed for functional traits, for example, conformation and fitness traits. Some countries therefore developed and partly introduced specific organic selection indices at the beginning of the twenty-first century (Bapst, 2001; Switzerland; Krogmeier, 2003, the state of Bavaria in Germany, and Rozzi et al., 2007, Ontario-Canada) (Scenario 3, Table 1). The indices allow ranking of bulls, giving higher weight to functional traits than in traditional total merit indices. Although some simulation studies concluded that classical separate organic breeding programmes (Scenario 4a) are not able to compete with current conventional programmes in terms of genetic gain (Kalm et al., 2003; Schmidko, 2007), the availability of genomic breeding tools offers new opportunities to investigate functional traits relevant to the organic sector. Simulation studies on different organic genomic breeding programmes by Yin et al. (2014) suggest that the implementation of such tools (Scenario 4b +c) might be feasible. Initiatives promoting so-called family or kinship breeding based on natural mating are documented for Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Switzerland (Schmidtko, 2007; Spengler Neff et al., 2015) (Scenario 5 a +b). Basically, farms have different genetic lines and cows are systematically bred with bulls from one of the lines not closely related to hers to control inbreeding at a bull: cow ratio of 1:10 (Nauta et al., 2005; Spengler Neff et al., 2015). The diverse scenarios produced by organic dairy breeding reveal a dynamic development within the sector. Future discussion and research should address these questions: a) Which of the available (reproduction) techniques are acceptable for the organic sector? b) How should the increasing number of phenotypes on functional traits be exploited for the organic sector? c) How should suitable local or dual-purpose breeds for differing organic dairy production systems be identified? d) How should national and international cooperation among dairy farmers, breeding organizations and researchers in the field of organic dairy breeding be further improved? © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

232

Organic dairy farming: towards sustainability

Table 1 Scenarios for organic dairy breeding (source: Nauta et al., 2001, modified and updated) Scenario

Description and examples

Selected implications

Conventional breeding

Use of AI bulls from current conventional breeding schemes

Implies indirect use of reproduction techniques critical to organic stakeholders (e.g. ovum pick up, in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer) and use of bulls selected within conventional systems

Conventional breeding without embryo transfer (ET)

Use of conventional breeding schemes, but no AI bulls originating from ET or animals issued from ET are allowed on organic farms For example, Swiss organic standards of BioSuisse do not allow use of semen from ET bulls

Arguments regarding breeding techniques from Scenario 1 still apply but for ET Cooperation between representatives of organic dairy breeders and breeding companies needed Breeding organizations have to offer a sufficiently large pool of ET-free AI bulls

Conventional breeding adapted to organic farming

Breeding is based on performance data from conventional animals, but additional information is used for the selection of breeding stock for organic farming, and breeding objectives are adapted to organic farming For example, development and publication of organic selection indices, cloverleaf label for bulls recommended for organic farms in Switzerland

Arguments regarding breeding techniques as in Scenario 1 and 2) Cooperation between representatives of organic dairy breeders and breeding companies needed, organic being a comparatively small market

Separate organic breeding schemes

‘Classical’ organic breeding scheme: All animals involved (bulls, dams, daughters) are managed according to organic standards and selection of AI bulls is based on classical pedigree information

- Only feasible for breeds without genomic selection scheme in place yet - Realization hampered by small organic population sizes - Cooperation between representatives of organic dairy breeders and breeding companies needed, organic being a comparatively small market

Organic genomic breeding scheme with AI: selection of AI bulls within organic farms is based on genomic breeding value estimation

Need of sufficiently large phenotyped ‘organic’ calibration groups in order to estimate reliable breeding values, even more so when traits with moderate to low heritabilities are targeted Realization hampered by small organic population sizes Cooperation between representatives of organic dairy breeders and breeding companies needed, organic being a comparatively small market Control of inbreeding due to shortening of generation interval is an issue

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

233

Organic dairy farming: towards sustainability Scenario

Description and examples

Selected implications

Organic genomic breeding programme based on natural mating: selection of natural mating bulls is based on genomic breeding value estimation Family or kinship-breeding schemes

At regional level: A selected group of breeders practices family or kinship breeding and provides breeding stock and semen for reproduction to organic farms

- Inbreeding levels have to be carefully controlled

At farm level: Family or kinship breeding is practised by each organic farm. Each farm has its own stock of breeding bulls and frozen semen from these bulls. Cows are served naturally or inseminated artificially

- Inbreeding levels have to be carefully controlled - Would require every organic dairy farmer to be a devoted breeder

6 Towards solutions 4: approaching animal health and welfare The IFOAM standards for animal husbandry state that ‘Organic management practices promote and maintain the health and well-being of animals through balanced organic nutrition, stress-free living conditions and breed selection for resistance to diseases, parasites and infections’ (IFOAM, 2014, p. 50). Application of conventional veterinary drugs is permitted under certain conditions. However, preventive application of these drugs is prohibited, and withdrawal periods are twice the legal withdrawal period. The reduction of antibiotic use is an important aim of organic cattle husbandry. This has been partially achieved in the past decades: fewer antimicrobial drugs per animal are used in organic dairy herds in Europe and in the United States (Bennesgaard et al., 2010; Pol and Ruegg, 2007; Zwald et al., 2004). Still, the amount of antibiotics used in organic dairy production is considerable and research in veterinary science is being conducted aiming at developing alternative phytogenic therapeutics (Mullen et al., 2014; Ayrle et al., 2016) or preventive herd management (Ivemeyer et al., 2012; 2014, 2015) in order to reduce the need for antibiotic applications. Although animal welfare and health are highly ranked targets in organic livestock production, the situation is not generally better than in conventional herds (e.g. Lund and Algers, 2003; Sundrum, 2001). Positive effects of organic systems on udder health were reported for Nordic European countries (Hamilton et al., 2006; Vaarst et al., 2006) and Canada (Levison et al., 2016). However, other studies showed no difference in udder health status between organic and conventional herds (Sato et al., 2005; Stiglbauer et al., 2013). Besides mastitis, fertility problems and metabolic disorders are the main health issues affecting dairy cattle (Stärk et al., 1997). These are typical multi-factorial diseases which are not expected to be controlled by medical treatments alone. Animal welfare planning and herd management (Ivemeyer et al., 2009; 2012; 2015) are therefore required. A further important factor is the © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

234

Organic dairy farming: towards sustainability

high production level based on respective breeds and diet formulations (Knaus, 2009). A holistic herd management approach would integrate husbandry, breeding and feed sources. During the past decade some projects demonstrated that extension work and dialogue with farmers regarding these questions (e.g. through stable schools) can achieve certain improvements in the health situation on the farms involved (Brinkmann et al., 2012; Ivemeyer et al., 2009; 2012; 2015). In a European intervention study using such tools on organic dairy farms, Vaarst et al. (2006) found a significant reduction of the total number of treatments including udder and metabolic treatments, while somatic cell counts improved significantly. Reduction of stress as a precondition of animal welfare is a further important goal in organic livestock husbandry. In order to reduce stress, organic standards require several animal welfare-related conditions, for example, sufficient space and the possibility of animals expressing normal behaviour, natural daylight, grazing for ruminants and protected resting areas (EC, 2008; Bioland, 2016; Bio Suisse, 2016); mutilations are prohibited, but exemptions are foreseen (e.g. de-horning in cattle). In order to better understand stress and stress factors in cows, research is being carried out regarding the human–animal relationship (Boissy and Lee, 2014; Ivemeyer et al., 2011; Probst et al., 2012, 2013). A critical issue for animal welfare is stress during separation, transport and slaughter (Probst et al., 2014). If animals are slaughtered in conventional abattoirs and transported over the same distances, no ethical advantage can be claimed in this respect for organic systems. However, a lot is known about stress factors during transport and slaughter (Grandin, 2013), but also about earlier factors affecting the animals’ stress at abattoirs (Probst et al., 2012; 2013). Based on this existing scientific evidence, it is possible to reduce these factors systematically, and the development of respective standards and requirements seems to be achievable and necessary, in order to reach global goals of animal welfare in organic livestock systems.

7  Research into sustainable organic dairy production 7.1  Case study: the ‘Feed-no-Food’ project Reduction of feeding intensity in organic agriculture should serve three goals, realizing a production system, which a) is based on local feed resources, b) lowers the feed–food competition and c) is more appropriate for a healthy and robust ruminant. Such systems require sound herd management and a good fit between genotypes and available feed quality and they may be supported by preventive health management with veterinarians. The Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) in Switzerland conducted the ‘Feedno-Food’ project, which aimed to 1) develop an extension strategy to promote the above and 2) to assess the effects of a very low-concentrate feeding system. Sixty-nine commercial organic dairy farms initially participated in the study. All farms were organized within the Swiss association for organic agriculture ‘Bio Suisse’, whose standards restrict concentrate use for ruminants to 10% of the total yearly diet (Bio Suisse, 2012). The farmers had to agree to be part of an extension programme (Ivemeyer et al., 2014), and they were free to choose the degree of concentrate reduction to be realized in the course of two years. Nine of the participating farms already practiced concentrate–free feeding systems before the start of the study, 10 farms decided to reduce their concentrate supplements to zero during the project, and 34 farms decided to reduce part of their © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

235

Organic dairy farming: towards sustainability

concentrate inputs (Notz et al., 2013). Sixteen farms without reduction of concentrate supplementation were included as a control. In a first project year the status quo was assessed; in the following year farms reduced their concentrate inputs according to their previous choice, and in the third year data were assessed again. Follow-up data collection was conducted in the sixth year on 42 remaining farms. Data on milk production and milk composition, as well as calving intervals as a proxy for fertility, were obtained from the breeders’ associations. Animal health was assessed by somatic cell counts and by veterinary treatments, which must be documented on all Swiss dairy farms. The first assessment, with 69 farms in the third project year, revealed that neither milk yields nor fertility, body condition or health status were affected by the reduction of concentrate supplements (Ivemeyer et al., 2014). Moreover, the comparison of the status in year six and in year one from 42 assessed farms revealed no significant changes in the health and fertility parameters. Decreases in milk yields were not significant and numerically between 0.9 and 1.4 kg milk per kg of omitted concentrate (Leiber, 2016). The project demonstrated the feasibility of a roughage-based feeding strategy in the context of moderate-input organic production systems. A similar result was achieved in a much shorter, but experimentally controlled sub-study of the project at one organic dairy farm (Leiber et al., 2015a). Here, it could be shown that the omission of protein-rich concentrates, on the one hand, led to average milk yield decreases of 1.25 kg per kg concentrate, but, on the other hand, to an improved utilization of the forage-sourced feed proteins. However, the more intensive farms of the project, which kept higher yielding breeds and had higher concentrate input achieved higher milk yields in comparison to the other farms (Ivemeyer et al., 2014). These were the farmers who decided not to reduce concentrates. From these studies, conclusions on the effects of concentrate reductions can so far be drawn only for farms of moderate to low production intensity.

7.2  Case study: the ‘LowInputBreeds’ project The integrating EU-FP7 project ‘LowInputBreeds’ aimed at developing integrated livestock breeding and management strategies to improve animal health, product quality and performance in European organic and ‘low-input’ milk, meat and egg production systems by means of research, dissemination and training activities. In dairy cattle, one focus was to develop and evaluate the potential of genomic breeding tools for organic and ‘low-input’ dairy production systems. Approximately 1500 Brown Swiss dairy cows from 40 low-input and organic farms in Switzerland were genotyped and also phenotyped for a comprehensive set of partly novel functional traits. Random regression methodology revealed considerable fluctuation of genetic parameters such as heritabilities and genetic correlations across test days and/or between lactations (Yin et al., 2012). Kramer et al. (2013a, b) showed that a genomic prediction appears promising for many of the functional traits investigated and can provide estimated breeding values with an improved accuracy. Kramer et al. (2014) compared different methods of calculating the accuracy of genomic breeding values for different functional traits sampled within the LowInputBreeds project. The accuracy of genomic breeding values for the same traits differed considerably (e.g. for general temperament 0.63 vs. 0.37, for milking temperament 0.73 vs. 0.20, for aggressiveness 0.69 vs. 0.19, for rank order in herd 0.65 vs.0.27, for milking speed 0.69 vs. 0.48, for udder depth 0.71 vs. 0.45, for position of labia 0.66 vs. 0.36 and for days to © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

236

Organic dairy farming: towards sustainability

first heat 0.74 vs. 0.12) not only as a function of heritability and size of data set for the respective trait investigated, but also depending on the method chosen as a measure for accuracy. These findings underline the need to further investigate appropriate and reliable methods applicable to small sample sizes, as characteristics of the organic dairy sector. Kramer et al. (2013a) showed low heritability for milk composition per udder quarter, but medium to high repeatability, especially between quarter variability of the lactose and protein content. Hence, such traits are not very suitable for breeding purposes, but may be useful indicators in farm management of low-input dairy herds. Estimated heritabilities for the novel functional traits ranged from high (e.g. milking speed h2 = 0.42 ± 0.06, udder depth h2 =0.42 ± 0.06) to low estimates (e.g. milking temperament h2 = 0.04 ± 0.04, days to first heat h2 = 0.02 ± 0.04). Remarkable heritabilities could partly be estimated for behaviour traits (e.g. general temperament h2 = 0.38 ± 0.07, aggressiveness h2 = 0.12 ± 0.08, rank order in herd h2 = 0.16 ± 0.06). A moderate heritability of h2 = 0.28 ± 0.06 was estimated for position of labia as a potential indicator trait for pathological urovagina (Kramer et al., 2013a). Analysis of the haplotype inventory revealed no major differences between the haplotype and linkage disequilibrium characteristics of the low-input Brown Swiss sample and the high-input Brown Swiss populations and the German Holstein Friesian population used as reference (Qanbari et al., 2011). Furthermore, a simulation study on the impact of natural service bulls on genetic gain and inbreeding in organic dairy cattle genomic breeding programmes concludes that in a wide range of scenarios the use of genomically selected AI bulls is the most beneficial strategy under low-input or organic conditions (Yin et al., 2014). Results suggest that, in terms of genetic gain, the use of genotyped organic natural service bulls in organic or low-input herds is only an alternative to scenarios based on AI in case of pronounced G × E (rg  = 0.5) interactions and when highly accurate genomic breeding values for natural service bulls (rmg  > 0.90) can be estimated. Furthermore, selection strategies for young bulls relying on genomic breeding values instead of those based on pedigree information showed lower inbreeding coefficients. In conclusion, project results showed that there is considerable potential in the exploitation of innovative breeding tools for the organic dairy sector. The practical implementation of these findings will depend on decisions of breeding organizations, and can be encouraged through continued dialogue between organic breeders, researchers, breeding organizations and breeding companies.

8  Future trends and conclusion The main cornerstones for enhancing the credibility of the organic dairy sector are: a) to realize an efficient roughage-based production, which requires significantly less inputs from arable land than conventional systems without producing more GHG emissions per unit of products as a whole; b) to enhance dairy cows’ health and welfare, indicated by a clearly improved longevity; and c) to develop the right matches between local conditions (in particular available feed sources) and cow genotypes, in order to achieve functioning systems with the lowest possible need for external nutrient sources. To accomplish these tasks, the desired contributions from research and development are primarily the development of organic breeding schemes and forage-based, diversified © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

237

Organic dairy farming: towards sustainability

feeding strategies. For these purposes, both a clear potential and a need are essential, as is apparent from a lack of implemented concepts and solutions. With regard to breeding, the challenge will be to identify genotypes suitable for different environmental and feeding conditions in terms of robustness and efficiency. Large global breeds may not be adequate in many cases, thus requiring genetic developments within smaller populations. The combination of advanced genomic characterization and selection with site-related herd development will be the main challenges for future organic dairy breeding activities. As long as the productive lifespan of organic cattle is as short as in conventional systems, huge efforts in breeding are required. This may also include a significant shift of paradigms regarding breeding goals, size and diversity of populations. With regard to roughage-based feeding systems, a significant issue will be developing strategies of diversification in forage production, in order to enable optimal dietary balance of carbohydrates and proteins even in the absence of concentrates. This should ensure efficient utilization of roughage-based nutrients while at the same time guaranteeing the metabolic health of the animals. Sound knowledge about botanical occurrence and ruminal impacts of PSC should play a role in these developments. Moreover, feeding behaviour, including feed selection, should be addressed by future research, thus integrating the requirements of the animals themselves as important indicators of physiological needs. In summary, interdisciplinary research which integrates a diverse range of good approaches is needed from research communities in order to achieve significant progress towards sustainable organic dairy production with healthy and robust animals.

9  Where to look for further information http://www.organic-research.net This homepage provides a detailed overview of research institutions working on organic agriculture, events, projects (mainly funded by the EU and CoreOrganic) and networks of the organic sector.

10 References Ahlman, T., B. Berlund, L. Rydhmer and E. Strandberg (2011): Culling reasons in organic and conventional dairy herds and genotype by environment interaction for longevity. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 1568–75. Amelchanka, S. L., M. Kreuzer and F. Leiber (2010): Utility of buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) as feed: effects of forage and grain on in vitro ruminal fermentation and performance of dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 155: 111–21. Ayrle, H., M. Mevissen, M. Kaske, H. Nathues, N. Gruetzner, M. Melzig and M. Walkenhorst (2016): Medicinal plants – prophylactic and therapeutic options for gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases in calves and piglets? A systematic review. BMC Veterinary Research 12: 89. Bapst, B., and C. Stricker (2007): Schätzung der Genotyp × Umwelt- Interaktionen zwischen ökologisch und konventionell wirtschaftenden Betrieben anhand Schweizer Populationsdaten; Ökuh-Projekt, Abschlussworkshop, June 2007, Kassel. Bapst, B. (2001): Swiss experience on practical cattle breeding strategies for organic dairy. In Proceedings of the Fourth NAHOWA Workshop: Breeding and feeding for animal health and welfare in organic livestock systems, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 44–50.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

238

Organic dairy farming: towards sustainability

Beauchemin, K., M. Kreuzer, F. O’Mara and T. McAllister (2008): Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review. Animal Production Science 48 (2): 21–7. Bennedsgaard, T. W., I. C. Klaas and M. Vaarst (2010): Reducing use of antimicrobials – Experiences from an intervention study in organic dairy herds in Denmark. Livestock Science 131: 183–92. Bieber, A. (2004): Bulleneinsatz bei Herdbuchkühen des Schweizer Braunviehs in biologisch und konventionell wirtschaftenden Betrieben (Bachelor thesis). Institut für Nutztierwissenschaften. Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Germany. Bioland (2016): Bioland Standards. Bioland- Verband für organisch-biologischen Landbau e.V., Mainz, Germany. Available online at: http://www.bioland.de/fileadmin/dateien/HP_Dokumente/ Richtlinien/Bioland_Standards_2016-03-14.pdf (accessed 28 October 2016). Bio Suisse (2016): Richtlinien für die Erzeugung, Verarbeitung und den Handel von Knospe-Produkten, Bio Suisse, Basel, Switzerland, available online at: http://www.bio-suisse.ch/media/VundH/ Regelwerk/2016/DE/rl_2016_1.6_d_auszug_ii_14.07.2016.pdf (accessed 28 October 2016). Bodas, R., N. Prieto, R. Garcia-Gonzalez, S. Andres, F. J. Giraldez and S. Lopez (2012): Manipulation of rumen fermentation and methane production with plant secondary metabolites. Animal Feed Science and Technology 176: 78–93. Boelling, D., A. F. Groen, P. Sørensen, P. Madsen and J. Jensen (2003): Genetic improvement of livestock for organic farming systems. Livestock Production Science 80: 79–88. Boissy, A., and C. Lee (2014): How assessing relationships between emotions and cognition can improve farm animal welfare. Revue scientifique et technique – international office of Epizootics 33: 103–10. Brinkmann J., S. March and C. Winckler (2012): Stable schools to promote animal health in organic dairy farming: first results of a pilot study in Germany. Agriculture and Forestry Research. Special Issue No. 362. Braunschweig. Cassidy, E. S., P. C. West, J. S. Gerber and J. A. Foley (2013): Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare. Environmental Research Letters 8: 034015. Clauss, M., I. D. Hume and J. Hummel (2010): Evolutionary adaptations of ruminants and their potential relevance for modern production systems. Animal 4: 979–92. Dorn, K., F. Leiber, A. Sundrum, M. Holinger, P. Mayer and M. Walkenhorst (2016): A field trial on the effects of pure sodium propionate and a combination with herbal extracts on short term development of subclinical ketosis. Livestock Science 187: 87–95. EC (2008): Commission Regulation (EC) No 404/2008 of 6 May 2008 amending COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs, 1991R209 (14.05.2008), 102 pages. Eriksson, T., L. Norell and N. Nilsdotter‐Linde (2012): Nitrogen metabolism and milk production in dairy cows fed semi‐restricted amounts of ryegrass–legume silage with birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) or white clover (Trifolium repens L.). Grass and Forage Science 67: 546–58. Finkbeiner, M., E. Schau, A. Lehmann and M. Traverso (2010): Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2 (10): 3309–22. Früh, B., Schlatter, B., Isensee, A., Maurer, V. and Willer, H. (2015): Report on organic protein availability and demand in Europe. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick, Switzerland. Gerber, P. J., H. Steinfeld, B. Henderson, A. Mottet, C. Opio, J. Dijkman, A. Falcucci and G. Tempio (2013): Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock – A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO. Grandin, T. (2013): Making slaughterhouses more humane for cattle, pigs, and sheep. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences 1: 491–512. Grandl., F., S. L. Amelchanka, M. Furger, M. Clauss, J. O. Zeitz, M. Kreuzer and A. Schwarm (2016): Biological implications of longevity in dairy cows: 2. Changes in methane emissions and efficiency with age. Journal of Dairy Science 99: 3472–85. Haas, E., and B. Bapst (2004): Swiss organic dairy milk farmer survey: which path for the organic cow in the future? In: Organic Livestock Farming: Potential and Limitations of Husbandry Practice to

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming: towards sustainability

239

Secure Animal Health and Welfare and Food Quality. Proceedings of the 2nd SAFO Workshop, Witzenhausen, Germany. pp. 35–41. Hamilton, C., U. Emanuelson, K. Forslund, I. Hansson and T. Ekman (2006): Mastitis and related management factors in certified organic dairy herds in Sweden. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 48: 11. Hart, K. J., J. A. Huntington, R. G. Wilkinson, C. G. Bartram and L. A. Sinclair (2015): The influence of grass silage-to-maize silage ratio and concentrate composition on methane emissions, performance and milk composition of dairy cows. Animal 9(6): 983–91. Heckendorn, F., D A. Häring, V. Maurer, J. Zinsstag, J., W. Langhans and H. Hertzberg (2006): Effect of sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia) silage and hay on established populations of Haemonchus contortus and Cooperia curticei in lambs. Veterinary Parasitology 142: 293–300. Hörning, B., E. Aubel and C. Simantke (2004): Ökologische Milch- und Rindfleischproduktion: Struktur, Entwicklung, Probleme, politischer Handlungsbedarf. Organic Dairy and Beef Production: Structure, Development, Problems, political Need for Action. Bonn, p. 217. Hörtenhuber, S., T. Lindenthal, B. Amon, T. Markut, L. Kirner and W. Zollitsch (2010): Greenhouse gas emissions from selected Austrian dairy production systems – model calculations considering the effects of land use change. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 25 (4): 316–29. IFOAM (2014): The IFOAM NORMS for Organic Production and Processing. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements. Bonn, Germany. ISO (2006a): Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework. Geneva, Switzerland, International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO (2006b). Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland, International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Ivemeyer, S., N. J. Bell, J. Brinkmann, C. Kornel, E. Gratzer, C. Leeb, S. March, C. Mejdell, S. Roderick, G. Smolders, M. Walkenhorst, C. Winckler and M. Vaarst (2015): Farmers taking responsibility for herd health development – stable schools in research and advisory activities as a tool for dairy health and welfare planning in Europe. Organic Agriculture 5 (2): 135–41. Ivemeyer, S., M. Walkenhorst, M. Holinger, A. Maeschli, P. Klocke, A. Spengler Neff, P. Staehli, M. Krieger and C. Notz (2014): Changes in herd health, fertility and production under roughage based feeding conditions with reduced concentrate input in Swiss organic dairy herds. Livestock Science 168: 159–67. Ivemeyer, S., G. Smolders, J. Brinkmann, E. Gratzer, B. Hansen, B. I. F. Henriksen, J. Huber, C. Leeb, S. March, C. Mejdell, P. Nicholas, S. Roderick, E. Stöger, M. Vaarst, I. K. Whistance, C. Winckler and M. Walkenhorst (2012): Impact of animal health and welfare planning on medicine use, heard health and production in European organic dairy farms. Livestock Science 145: 63–72. Ivemeyer, S., U. Knierim and S. Waiblinger (2011): Effect of human-animal relationship and management on uder health in Swiss dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 94 (12): 5890–5902. Ivemeyer, S., M. Walkenhorst, F. Heil, C. Notz, A. Maeschli, G. Butler and P. Klocke (2009): Management factors affecting udder health and effects of a one year extension program in organic dairy herds. Animal 3: 1596–1604. Jayanegara, A., E. Wina, M. Kreuzer and F. Leiber (2011): Significance of phenolic compounds in tropical forages for the ruminal bypass of polyunsaturated fatty acids and the appearance of biohydrogenation intermediates as determined in vitro. Animal Production Science. 51: 1127–36. Johnson, K. A., and D. E. Johnson (1995): Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73: 2483–92. Kälber T., M. Kreuzer and F. Leiber (2012): Silages containing buckwheat and chicory: quality, digestibility and nitrogen utilisation by lactating cows. Archives of Animal Nutrition 66: 50–65. Kälber, T., J. S. Meier, M. Kreuzer and F. Leiber (2011): Flowering catch crops used as forage plants for dairy cows: Influence on fatty acids and tocopherols in milk. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 1477–89.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

240

Organic dairy farming: towards sustainability

Kalm, E., W. Junge and B. Harder (2003): Ökologische Tierzucht: Status Quo, Möglichkeiten und Erfordernisse in der Rinder- und Schweinezucht. BLE, p. 69. Khiaosa-ard, R., M. Kreuzer and F. Leiber (2015): Apparent recovery of C18 polyunsaturated fatty acids from feed in cows’ milk: a meta-analysis of the importance of dietary fatty acids and feeding regimes in diets without fat supplementation. Journal of Dairy Science 98: 6399–6414. Kirchgessner, M., W. Windisch, H. Müller, W. V. Engelhardt, S. Leonhard-Marek, G. Breves and D. Giesecke (1995): Nutritional factors for the quantification of methane production. Ruminant physiology: digestion, metabolism, growth and reproduction. Proceedings 8th International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology, Delmar Publishers, pp. 333–48. Klevenhusen, F., M. Kreuzer and C. R. Soliva (2011): Enteric and manure-derived methane and nitrogen emissions as well as metabolic energy losses in cows fed balanced diets based on maize, barley or grass hay. Animal 5: 450–61. Knaus, W. (2009): Dairy cows trapped between performance demands and adaptability. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 89: 1107–14. Köpke, U. (1995): Nutrient management in organic farming systems: the case of nitrogen. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture 11 (1–4): 15–29. Kramer, M., M. Erbe, F. R. Seefried, B. Gredler, B. Bapst, A. Bieber and H. Simianer (2014): Accuracy of direct genomic values for functional traits in Brown Swiss cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 97 (3): 1774–81. Kramer, M., M. Erbe, B. Bapst, A. Bieber and H. Simianer (2013a): Estimation of genetic parameters for individual udder quarter milk content traits in Brown Swiss cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 96 (9): 5965–76. Kramer, M., M. Erbe, B. Bapst, A. Bieber and H. Simianer (2013b): Estimation of genetic parameters for novel functional traits in Brown Swiss cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 96 (9): 5954–64. Krogmeier, D. (2003): Der Ökologische Gesamtzuchtwert für Fleckvieh, Braunvieh und Gelbvieh [Biological total merit index for Simmental, Brown Swiss and Gelbvieh cattle]. In: Forschung für den ökologischen Landbau in Bayern, Ökolandbautag der LfL. Schriftenreihe der Bayerischen Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft 3/03. Bayerische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft (LfL), Freising, Triesdorf, pp. 77–86. Leiber, F. (2016): Eiweiss für CH-Biotiere: klare Optionen beim Rind, offene Fragen bei Huhn und Schwein. ETH-Schriftenreihe zur Tierernährung, 39: 21–8. Leiber, F., K. Dorn, J. K. Probst, A. Isensee, N. Ackermann, A. Kuhn and A. Spengler Neff (2015a): Concentrate reduction and sequential roughage offer to dairy cows: effects on milk protein yield, protein efficiency and milk quality. Journal of Dairy Research 82: 272–8. Leiber, F., J. K. Probst, N. Zehner and A. Spengler Neff (2015b): Fress- und Wiederkäuverhalten von Milchkühen bei verschiedenen Fütterungsregimes. Agrarforschung Schweiz 6: 462–9. Leiber, F. (2014): Resigning protein concentrates in dairy cattle nutrition: a problem or a chance? Organic Agriculture 4: 269–73. Leiber, F. (2001): Diploma Thesis. Analyse der Dauerleistungskühe in der deutschen Holstein Population. Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der ‘100.000-Liter-Kühe’. Humboldt Universität Berlin, Landwirtschaftlich-Gärtnerische Fakultät, Institut für Nutztierwissenschaften, Fachgebiet Züchtungsmethodik. 14.05.2001. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2629.5841 Levison, L. J., E. K. Miller-Cushon, A. L. Tucker, R. Bergeron, K. E. Leslie, H. W. Barkema and T. J. DeVries (2016): Incidence rate of pathogen-specific clinical mastitis on conventional and organic Canadian dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 99: 1341–50. Lund, V., and B. Algers (2003). Research on animal health and welfare in organic farming: a literature review. Livestock Production Science 80: 55–68. Monteny, G.-J., A. Bannink and D. Chadwick (2006): Greenhouse gas abatement strategies for animal husbandry. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 112 (2): 163–70. Mullen, K. A. E., K. L. Anderson and S. P. Washburn (2014): Effect of 2 herbal intramammary products on milk quantity and quality compared with conventional and no dry cow therapy. Journal of Dairy Science 97: 3509–22.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming: towards sustainability

241

Nauta, W., A. Spengler Neff, J. Conington, T. Ahlman, P. Løvendahl and L. Rhydmer (2012): Organic Animal Breeding 2012- a Position Paper from the European Consortium for Organic Animal Breeding, Eco AB. In G. Rahmann and D. Godinho (Eds), Trackling the Future Challenges of Organic Animal Husbandry. Proceedings of the 2nd IFOAM/ISOFAR International Conference on Organic Husbandry, Hamburg/Trenthorst, Germany, 12–14 September 2012. Nauta, W. J. (2009): Selective Breeding in Organic Dairy Production. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 160pp. Nauta, W. J., R. F. Veerkamp, E. W. Brascamp and H. Bovenhuis (2006): Genotype by environment interaction for milk production traits between organic and conventional dairy cattle production in The Netherlands. Journal of Dairy Science 89 (7): 2729–37. Nauta, W. J., T. Baars and C. H. Cazemier (2005): Kinship-breeding as a foundation for organic dairy production. 15th Organic World Congress of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) ‘Unites the Organic World’, 20–24 September, Adelaide, Australia, p. 6. Nauta, W. J., T. Baars, A. F. Groen, R. F. Veerkamp and D. Roep (2001): Animal breeding in organic farming. Discussion Paper. Louis Bolk Institute, Driebergen. Niderkorn, V., and D. Macheboeuf (2014): Identification of bioactive grassland plants for reducing enteric methane production and rumen proteolysis using an in vitro screening assay. Animal Production Science 54: 1805–9. Notz, C., A. Maeschli, M. Walkenhorst, P. Staehli and S. Ivemeyer (2013): ‘Feed no Food’ – Auswirkungen einer kraftfutterreduzierten Fütterung auf Tiergesundheit, Leistung und Fruchtbarkeit von Milchkühen. Tierärztliche Umschau 68: 307–10. OECD (2011): Multifunctionality. towards an analytical framework. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), p. 26. Olesen, J. E., K. Schelde, A. Weiske, M. R. Weisbjerg, W. A. H. Asman and J. Djurhuus (2006): Modelling greenhouse gas emissions from European conventional and organic dairy farms. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 112 (2–3): 207–20. O’Mara, F. P. (2012): The role of grasslands in food security and climate change. Annals of Botany 110 (6): 1263–70. Pelletier, N., and P. Tyedmers (2010): Forecasting potential global environmental costs of livestock production 2000–2050. PNAS 107: 18371–4. Petersen, M. B., K. Søegaard and S. K. Jensen (2011): Herb feeding increases n-3 and n-6 fatty acids in cow milk. Livestock Science 141: 90–4. Pfeiffer, C., C. Fuerst, H. Schwarzenbacher and B. Fuerst-Waltl (2016): Genotype by environment interaction in organic and conventional production systems and their consequences for breeding objectives in Austrian Fleckvieh cattle. Livestock Production Science 185: 50–5. Pol, M., and P. L. Ruegg (2007): Treatment practices and quantification of antimicrobial drug usage in conventional and organic dairy farms in Wisconsin. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 249–61. Pritchard, T., Coffey, M., Mrode, R. and E. Wall (2013): Genetic parameters for production, health, fertility and longevity traits in dairy cows. Animal 7: 34–46. Probst, J. K., A. Spengler Neff, E. Hillmann, M. Kreuzer, M. Koch-Mathis and F. Leiber (2014): Relationship between stress-related exsanguination blood variables, vocalisation, and stressors imposed on cattle between lairage and stunning box under conventional abattoir conditions. Livestock Science 164: 154–8. Probst, J. K., E. Hillmann, F. Leiber, M. Kreuzer and A. Spengler Neff (2013): Influence of gentle touching applied few weeks before slaughter on avoidance distance and slaughter stress in finishing cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 144: 14–21. Probst, J. K., A. Spengler Neff, F. Leiber, M. Kreuzer and E. Hillmann (2012): Gentle touching in early life reduces avoidance distance and slaughter stress in beef cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 139: 42–9. Provenza, F., Villalba, J. J., Haskell, J., MacAdam, J. W., Griggs, T. C. and R. D. Wiedmeier (2007): The value to herbivores of plant physical and chemical diversity in time and space. Crop Science 47: 382–98.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

242

Organic dairy farming: towards sustainability

Qanbari, S.; D. Gianola; B. Hayes, F. Schenkel, S. Miller; S. Moore; G. Thaller and H. Simianer (2011): Application of site and haplotype-frequency based approaches for detecting selection signatures in cattle. BMC Genomics 12 (1): 318. Rotz, C. A., F. Montes and D. S. Chianese (2010): The carbon footprint of dairy production systems through partial life cycle assessment. Journal of Dairy Science 93 (3): 1266–82. Rozzi, P., F. Miglior and K. J. Hand (2007): A total merit selection index for Ontario organic dairy farmers. Journal of Dairy Science 90 (3): 1584–93. Rutter, S. M. (2010): Review: Grazing preferences in sheep and cattle: Implications for production, the environment and animal welfare. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 90: 285–93. Sato, K., P. C. Bartlett, R. J. Erskine and J. B. Kaneene (2005): A comparison of production and management between Wisconsin organic and conventional dairy herds. Livestock Production Science 93: 105–15. Schader, C., A. Müller, N. El-Hage Scialabba, J. Hecht, A. Isensee, K.-H. Erb, P. Smith, H. P. Makkar, P. Klocke, F. Leiber, P. Schwegler, M. Stolze and U. Niggli (2015): Impacts of feeding less foodcompeting feedstuffs to livestock on global food system sustainability. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 12: 0891, pp. 1–12. Schader, C., K. Jud, M. S. Meier, T. Kuhn, B. Oehen and A. Gattinger (2014a): Quantification of the effectiveness of greenhouse gas mitigation measures in Swiss organic milk production using a life cycle assessment approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 73: 227–35. Schader, C., A. Muller, N. El-Hage Scialabba, J. Hecht and M. Stolze (2014b): Comparing global and product-based LCA perspectives on environmental impacts of low-concentrate ruminant production. LCAFood, 8–11 October 2014, San Francisco, USA, pp. 1203–9. Scharenberg, A., Y. Arrigo, A. Gutzwiller, U. Wyss, H. D. Hess, M. Kreuzer and F. Dohme (2007): Effect of feeding dehydrated and ensiled tanniferous sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia) on nitrogen and mineral digestion and metabolism of lambs. Archives of Animal Nutrition 61: 390–405. Schmidtko, J. (2007): Zuchtplanerische Bewertung verschiedener Strategien für die nachhaltige Zucht ökologischer Milchrinder. PhD thesis, Georg August Universität, Göttingen. Sehested, J., T. Kristensen and K. Soegaard (2003): Effect of concentrate supplementation level on production, health and efficiency in an organic dairy herd. Livestock Production Science 80: 153–65. Semino, S., H. Paul, J. Tomei, L. Joensen, M. Monti and E. Jelsoe (2009): Soybean biomass produced in Argentina: Myths and realities. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth and Environmental Science 8: 12006. Simianer, H., F. Augsten, B. Bapst, E. Franke, R. Maschke, F. Reinhardt, J. Schmidtko and C. Stricker (2007): Ökologische Milchviehzucht: Entwicklung und Bewertung züchterischer Ansätze unter Berücksichtigung der Genotyp-Umwelt- Interaktionen und Schaffung eines Informationssystems für nachhaltige Zuchtstrategien. BLE, ed. Geschäftsstelle des Bundesprogrammes Ökologische Landwirtschaft des Bundesamtes für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, p. 125. Spengler Neff, A., and S. Ivemeyer (2016): Differences between dairy cows descending from artificial insemination bulls vs. dairy cows descending from natural service bulls on organic farms in Switzerland. Livestock Science 185: 30–3. Spengler Neff, A., M. Haugstätter and C. Metz (2015): Kuhfamilienzucht. Eine Methode für die biologische Milchviehzucht, 20pp. Spengler Neff A., R. Pedotti and A. Schmid (2012): Assessment of site-related breeding of dairy cattle on organic farms in a Swiss mountain region. In G. Rahmann and D. Godinho (Eds), Trackling the Future Challenges of Organic Animal Husbandry. Proceedings of the 2nd IFOAM/ ISOFAR International Conference on Organic Husbandry, Hamburg/Trenthorst, Germany, 12–14 September 2012. Spengler Neff, A., P. Klocke, S. Ivemeyer and B. Bapst (2007): Einführung eines Hilfsmittels zur Einschätzung der Standortgerechtheit der Milchviehzucht und -haltung auf ökologischen Betrieben. [Introduction of an estimating tool for site related husbandry and breeding of dairy cows.] Presentation at: Zwischen Tradition und Globalisierung – 9. Wissenschaftstagung Ökologischer Landbau, Stuttgart, 20.-23.03.2007.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming: towards sustainability

243

Średnicka-Tober, D., M. Baranski, C. J. Seal, R. Sanderson, C. Benbrook, H. Steinshamn, J. GromadzkaOstrowska, E. Rembialkowska, K. Skwarlo-Sonta, M. Eyre, G. Cozzi, M. K. Larsen, T. Jordon, U. Niggli, T. Sakowski, P. C. Calder, G. C. Burdge, S. Sotiraki, A. Stefanakis, S. Stergiadis, H. Yolcu, E. Chatzidimitriou, G. Butler, G. Stewart and C. Leifert (2016): Higher PUFA and n-3 PUFA, conjugated linoleic acid, α-tocopherol and iron, but lower iodine and selenium concentrations in organic milk: a systematic literature review and meta- and redundancy analyses. British Journal of Nutrition 115: 1043–60. Stärk, K. D., C. Frei-Stäheli, P. P. Frei, D. U. Pfeiffer, J. Danuser, L. Audigé, J. Nicolet, M. Strasser, B. Gottstein and U. Kihm (1997): Häufigkeit und Kosten von Gesundheitsproblemen bei Schweizer Milchkühen und deren Kälbern (1993–4). Schweizer Archiv fuer Tierheilkunde 139: 343–53. Steininger, F., B. Fuerst-Waltl, C. Pfeiffer, C. Fuerst, H. Schwarzenbacher and C. Egger- Danner (2012): Participatory development of breeding goals in Austrian dairy cattle. Acta Agriculturae Slovenica 01/2012 (3): 143–7. Stiglbauer, K. E., K. M. Cicconi-Hogan, R. Richert, Y. H. Schukken, P. L. Ruegg and M. Gamroth (2013): Assessment of herd management on organic and conventional dairy farms in the United States. Journal of Dairy Science 96: 1290–1300. Sundberg, T., L. Rydhmer, W. F. Fiske, B. Berglund and E. Strandberg (2010): Gentoype by environment interaction of Swedish dairy cows in organic and conventional production systems. Acta Agriculturae Scand Section A. 60: 65–73. Sundrum, A. (2001). Organic livestock farming. A critical review. Livestock Production Science 67 (3): 207–15. Vaarst, M., T. W. Bennedsgaard, I. Klaas, T. B. Nissen, S. M. Thamsborg and S. Ostergaard (2006): Development and daily management of an explicit strategy of nonuse of antimicrobial drugs in twelve Danish organic dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 89: 1842–53. Villalba, J. J., F. D. Provenza. and X. Manteca (2010): Links between ruminants’ food preference and their welfare. Animal 4: 1240–7. Wilkinson, J. M. (2011): Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock. Animal 5: 1014–22. Yin, T., M. Wensch-Dorendorf, H. Simianer, H. H. Swalve and S. König (2014): Assessing the impact of natural service bulls and genotype by environment interactions on genetic gain and inbreeding in organic dairy cattle genomic breeding programs. Animal 8(6): 877–86. Yin, T., B. Bapst, U. von Borstel, H. Simianer and S. König (2012): Genetic parameters for Gaussian and categorical traits in organic and low input dairy herds based on random regression methodology. Livestock Science 147: 159–69. Zehetmeier, M., J. Baudracco, H. Hoffmann and A. Heissenhuber (2012): Does increasing milk yield per cow reduce greenhouse gas emissions? A system approach. Animal 6: 154–66. Zwald, A. G., P. L. Ruegg, J. B. Kaneene, L. D. Warnick, S. J. Wells, C. Fossler and L. W. Halbert (2004): Management practices and reported antimicrobial usage on conventional and organic dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 87: 191–201.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Chapter 12 Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges Isabel Blanco Penedo, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Sweden; and José Perea-Muñoz, University of Córdoba, Spain 1 Introduction

2 The whole farming system



3 Challenges of organic beef farming



4 Advantages of organic beef farming



5 Opportunities in organic beef farming



6 Future trends and conclusion

7 References

1 Introduction The importance and characteristics of organic beef production vary widely across the different countries of Europe (Hovi et al., 2003) since it is practised in a wide variety of agroecological conditions and production systems. This diversity is related to the type of feed available and the use of forage resources which form part of the feeding regime. The organic sector is largely based on traditional extensive regional systems which have their own breeds and management systems (Nielsen and Thamsborg, 2005; Pauselli, 2009). The situation is further complicated by different rules regulating production and certification (Perea et al., 2014; Gerber et al., 2015). Organic cattle systems based on grazing and silage in low-input agroecosystems are the most common systems in Europe, although notable regional differences exist, especially in the Mediterranean Basin and in Central and Northern Europe. In recent years, organic production has increased in non-western countries such as Argentina and Brazil, which have a long-established tradition of cattle farming. In these regions, organic beef farming has great growth potential. These are agroecosystems where the original system is closely linked to the land and use grazing and crop feed for the cattle. Production in these areas has traditionally been efficient, and with a few minor changes in the system, it would be possible to implement eco-certification (Lobato et al., 2014; Rearte and Pordomingo, 2014). From an environmental point of view, organic conversion should be a viable option to ensure sustainability for agroecosystems where cattle farming contributes significantly to the overall resilience of the system (Bignal and McCracken, 1996; Bernués et al., 2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.19103/AS.2017.0028.13 © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

246

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

These are mainly fragile agroecosystems, whose equilibrium is currently threatened by globalization and where there is a need to place economic performance before sustainable development. The Spanish Dehesa region and the Argentine Pampas are two examples of this type of at-risk agroecosystem. The main risk for the Dehesa region is that livestock activity will be abandoned or reduced, while the risks for the Argentine Pampas include industrial agriculture and its impact on soils (Pariani, 2005; Gaspar et al., 2009; Rearte and Pordomingo, 2014; Escribano et al., 2016). In both cases, organic cattle farming should help improve local sustainability. Dehesa and the Argentine Pampas are presented as the major examples (Boxes 1 and 2).

Box 1 Breeding system in the Spanish Dehesa The agroecosystem of the Dehesa in south-west Spain has developed from the Mediterranean forest which is home to arboreal species of the genus Quercus. This wooded pasture of holm oaks and cork oaks, with shrub stratus, is used mainly for extensive cattle raising, hunting and harvesting of forest products. The Mediterranean climate and the lack of diagnostic horizon in the soil limit the agricultural activity and hence pasture production is very seasonal and variable (Gaspar et al., 2009; García et al., 2010). Extensive multifunctional livestock farming is common in the area, where cattle breeding is usually associated with fattening Iberian pigs and/or small ruminants. The low-input cattle breeding system in the Dehesa has high ecological value as the poverty of the soils and the climatic conditions have not favoured the development of more intensive and industrially viable alternatives. The main production systems are traditional, making the organic conversion of this type of farm relatively straightforward; only minor changes are necessary for successful production under organic standards. If the objective is to preserve and value this ancient agroecosystem, organic farming is the most rational alternative as, without livestock, it would be replaced by Mediterranean forest (Escribano et al., 2016; Horrillo et al., 2016). The aim of the breeding model in the Dehesa is to obtain calves weighing 200– 250 kg at weaning for later fattening at other farms, usually feedlots. The system produces calves that are purebred local breeds (i.e. retinta, berrenda, etc.) or crossbred with French breeds (mainly limousine). In fact, one of the keys to success of the model is the use of local breeds suited to local conditions that calve with ease and are resistant to periods of food shortage (Milán et al., 2006). The system largely depends on the seasonal availability of grasses, which is influenced by rainfall and other soil and climatic conditions. Pastures are abundant in spring, and cows normally have enough food for their maintenance and lactation needs. However, from July to February, unless autumns are mild, it is necessary to supplement their feed with straw, hay and commercial concentrates. If feasible, complementary forage crops may also be used. Forage involves continuous grazing on large farms with very low stocking rates (0.2–0.4 LU/ha). Reproduction is characterized either by continuous seasonal breeding or by concentrated mating from January to June, in order to match calving with greater forage availability. Continuous seasonal breeding improves fertility, reduces the need for external feeding and tends to delay weaning until 6–8 months. Seasonal mating tends to shorten weaning to 4–5 months (Perea et al., 2014).

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

247

Box 2 Traditional wintering system in the Pampas region (Argentina) In the Argentine Pampas region, a traditional mixed cattle–agriculture system employing a rotating scheme of land use has been developed. This system is characteristic of the northeast of La Pampa and is part of the agroecosystem of the Caldén Forest, widespread in Argentina, unique in the world and seriously threatened by the expansion of industrial agriculture. It is a semi-arid and temperate region with limitations in productivity largely due to soil characteristics, such as subsoils with superficial tosca, conditions of salinity and a phreatic layer obstructing the use of quality crops. The devaluation of the currency and the expansion of industry have resulted in soy farming becoming more economically attractive than cattle farming; this has unbalanced the traditional mixed system towards a monoculture farming. Currently, the Pampa region is facing the environmental consequences of its monoculture practices and the intensive use of agrochemicals. Intensive monoculture is reducing the fertility and the thickness of the soils, leading to the need to return to a mixed farming system which is less profitable in the short term but necessary for the soils to recover and to protect them from erosion in the long term (Giorgis, 2009). The traditional farming system consists of breeding and fattening, is based on grazing and is complemented by agriculture. Normally, breeding and fattening take place on different farms, rationalizing the resources available at each stage of the production cycle. Breeds of British origin, namely Aberdeen Angus and Hereford, are predominant (Castaldo, 2003). The aim of the breeding model is the production of calves, with the ideal objective of weaning one calf per cow per year. Weaned calves are transferred to other farms to complete the fattening cycle. Weaning occurs at 5–7 months of age, at 140– 160 kg in females and 160–180 kg in males. The most traditional model of breeding involves large herds that use pastures and natural resources such as alfalfa in relatively uncontrolled conditions, with very low stocking rates, and without supplementation or a reproductive control. Breeding usually occurs over a period of no more than 90 days which coincides with greater fodder supply. Pregnancy diagnosis and culling of empty cows are also usually performed (Pariani, 2005). The wintering model closes the fattening cycle. The system is mainly characterized by grazing and slow growth, where the animals are never confined. Wintering can close the cycle with calves and discard cows, with steers being the main alternative. The main supply of calves is concentrated from March to May, which is the main weaning season in the breeding area of the region, while cows available for fattening become available from May to June, which is the main time for discarding surplus cows. The aim of wintering is to achieve optimal slaughter weights in the shortest time and without using external resources. Wintering requires a correctly planned forage chain to ensure high-quality pastures and available fodder. Perennial pasture is the basis of wintering, which is normally supplemented with summer and winter crops and/or external foods to improve weight gain and to adjust the duration of fattening. Seasonal weather fluctuations during winter and summer require the use of surplus pastures and there is also a need to have crops in reserve, generally silage and hay. The most common grazing method, although less recommended, is continuous grazing, which consists of grazing the same plot for a period of more than 90 days using the existing pasture. Intermittent or rotational grazing allows greater use of forage, although it requires more technology and labour. The traditional fattening cycle lasts from 17 to 23 months, with stocking rates of 1.76 to 1.77 animals per ha, average daily gains between 0.393 and 0.537 kg and a yield of 223–385 kg/ha (Castaldo et al., 2006; García et al., 2007).

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

248

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

At market level, organic beef farming meets the consumption and animal welfare preferences of western consumers. However, prices continue to be higher than what most are willing to pay (Napolitano et al., 2010; Naspetti and Zanoli, 2012). The potential growth of the market varies among regions, as do the tools needed to increase the demand.

2 The whole farming system In conformity to the Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007 on organic production, animal health should be promoted mainly through the use of appropriate housing conditions, feeding practices and choice of breeds. Housing and management conditions are important factors affecting the health and other aspects of animal welfare, partly through housing and equipment and partly through management and handling practices. These standards require major changes in the attitudes and practices of converting livestock producers and call for a systems-based approach to health and welfare management on the farm. The scientific community is also moving towards farm systems-based approach since it is essential to understand the conditions under which farmers are operating. In light of the complexity of production diseases, it is reasonable to consider the farm as an ecosystem and to define animal health as an emergent property of a farm system (Sundrum et al., 2007). Animal health can be used as an indicator of sustainability within the farm system. There are key periods in which the loss of cows is more likely and will have the greatest impact on farm productivity and sustainability. Some of these situations are to a large extent avoidable if practices that support animal health are applied, which also link ‘healthy cows’ with ‘healthy food’. This comes from an understanding of the whole farm system. The status of animal health and welfare can have a major influence on product quality. So improving the living conditions of the animals increases not only their welfare, but also the quality of the product, especially from a nutritional standpoint (Sundrum, 2001). Thus, in order to improve the quality of the final product, the production chain from breeding to processing should be considered. This farm system approach will generate a greater understanding of the ways in which to use farm resources to produce quality products under different operational conditions. Management with the different operations of organic farming provides added value products with a higher quality derived from the higher standards of welfare and health of animals in organic farms (Sundrum, 2001). Also, it provides other attributes of value, as representing an agro-livestock system where the animals graze on grass and can express their natural behaviour, while contributing to the preservation of the territory (including grasslands). The main goal of competitive organic beef farming is the standardization of the management processes and optimization of farm resources. This goal requires a whole system approach with the introduction of improvements to all processes (pastures management, animal handling and product quality) to obtain a quality final product for the consumer that represents agroecological system attributes. From the perspective of the whole farm system, this is made possible through improvements to the grazing system, local resource management, animal welfare and animal health.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

249

3 Challenges of organic beef farming 3.1 Better understanding of farming systems Organic beef-cattle systems are difficult to evaluate and characterize. By definition, the principles of organic agriculture are guidelines for tailoring organic practices to each individual farming location. The interrelationships between livestock and the ecosystem are dynamic and complex and depend to a great extent on the specific features of each farm (e.g. terrain, altitude) and on difficult-to-control factors such as climate. Moreover, farms tend to differ markedly in terms of structure and production. Unlike intensive systems, in which production processes are to some degree standardized, organic systems are adapted to specific local environmental conditions and to individual farmer preferences (Benoit and Veysset, 2003). Typifying existing farm models provides a useful starting point for the examination of the sector, in that it gives a clearer idea of the various types of production systems in use, and above all, because it provides a more suitable framework for assessment. Farms can be classified as belonging to specific agroecosystems depending on their main features (Toro-Mujica et al., 2012). Unfortunately, organic beef production systems have not been widely studied and are as yet poorly characterized. Although more information is available in Europe, there are still not sufficient data to allow for an in-depth examination of organic beef farms in all their aspects or of most of the agroecosystems in which they tend to be found. The production system alone does not account for observable differences in yield, quality and profitability, although it does dictate the management framework and the strategies to be adopted. Certain situations undoubtedly favour successful farm operations, while others hamper farm performance and in some cases may even make it impossible to achieve acceptable yields and quality (Nielsen and Kristensen, 2007; Veysset et al., 2009). The farm stock-keeper is responsible for identifying any measures to be taken with a view to improving farm yields, and those measures will have a marked impact on the final success of the farm enterprise. Decisions regarding the operative areas to target, the timing of measures and the technology to be used are specific to each farm (Le Gal et al., 2011). Decision-making in organic beef farming requires a systemic and dynamic approach. The interactions between different elements of the system must be taken into account, and production must be organized in a market-driven manner (Blanco-Penedo et al., 2012b; Toro-Mujica et al., 2012). Management requires a thorough knowledge of beef farming, of the sector as a whole and of the people involved in it. The stock-keeper of an organic beef farm must deal, among other things, with various aspects of farm competitiveness (Angón et al., 2015), production costs (Fernández and Woodward, 1999), the maintenance of resources for future generations (Bernués et al., 2011), environmental issues (Nguyen et al., 2010) and the relationship between human resources and technology (Morison et al., 2005). Moreover, the process of observation, decision-making and action is highly variable and therefore requires a specific framework of analysis in order to identify the reasons for success and to adopt appropriate measures (Nuthall, 2010). To ensure the efficient operation of an organic beef farm, the manager must identify and control a number of interrelated and interacting processes. The outcome of one process often serves directly as the starting point for the next. Given the large number of factors and

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

250

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

interactions involved, any attempt to examine farm performance must be multidimensional and must also be underpinned by a detailed analysis of the specific production system with a focus on the structure and production strategies to be implemented. In addition to environmental affairs, a thorough scrutiny of technical and production-related questions is required – these issues being the most primary among the farmers’ concerns. At present, some of these concerns remain unaddressed in most agroecosystems.

3.2 Monitoring health schemes and providing assurance of animal welfare Organic agriculture clearly demands that priority is given to management practices which encourage the disease resistance of the animals, thus preventing disease outbreaks. However, there is little information available on the diseases registered in organic farms on which to base prevention programmes. Ensuring animal health and welfare is pivotal in organic farming and various review papers have proposed that the lack of effective monitoring and feedback mechanisms jeopardizes the health status of the animals in organic beef farms (see in López-Alonso et al., 2012). The evaluation of the farms for their conformance with respect to animal welfare is a critical component of certification schemes that meet consumer expectations (Blanco-Penedo, 2008). It is crucial to be able to determine whether animal welfare is being adequately addressed in organic farms. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements includes animal welfare as a key component, but it is not necessarily true that these standards exceed the legal requirements. Only in some countries do the certification bodies require assessment of animal welfare as part of the inspection process. Some private organizations (i.e. Bioland in Germany, KRAV in Sweden) use rules that are, to some extent, stricter than the European Regulations for organic production. The only way of knowing if the regulations and methods of animal handling provide an optimum degree of well-being is by the in situ evaluation of the animals. However, this remains incomplete since there is no common monitoring of disease levels (Sundrum, 2014).

3.3 Farmer practices to promote health at the organic beef farm Conceptually, health status is the output of the combat between disease pressure (the presence of germs and parasites) and the resistance (immune system and self-healing powers) of the animal. In practice, the farmer can influence both sides of this balance: by reducing the quantity of germs by maintaining good hygiene and by strengthening the animal’s ability to cope with germs. Organic animal husbandry has its focus on improving the living conditions of the animals and on strengthening their immune system. The farmer should think about why the immune system of the animal was not able to fight the disease or the parasite infection and determine ways to improve the animals’ living conditions and hygiene in order to build up their defences (García Romero et al., 2003). For many organic farmers, ensuring high levels of animal health and welfare is a top priority. The selection of suitable breeds for the local environment will also safeguard animal health and welfare. Breeding is the second key factor in animal health and welfare in organic systems. The principle in organic beef-cattle breeding is to adapt the cow towards the local and natural production system, and not the other way around. Traditional breeds

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

251

may be a good starting point. Local/native breeds are more resilient to climatic stress, more resistant to local parasites and diseases and are better able to utilize lower-quality feed (Van Diepen, 2007). The key principle is to conserve, develop and utilize local breeds in the specific agroecosystem because they are genetically adapted to their environment. This principle starts by keeping suitable breeds (rather than those which have a high performance but are very susceptible to diseases) and ensuring high-quality feed, and continues with good husbandry management practices including exercise (e.g. grazing), appropriate stocking density and appropriate housing (sufficient space, light and air and dry and clean bedding) maintained in hygienic conditions. Adequate provision of suitable feed is one of the primary requirements to ensure the health of livestock (Lund, 2006; Manteca et al., 2008). Any mismatch in the formulation of the ration could be translated into more or less immediate illnesses through its impact on the functioning of the immune system. This issue is even more important for the organic movement, which aims for more natural and better animal welfare livestock production and improved immunity and resistance to disease through appropriate nutrition (Padel et al., 2004). For example, low protein induces more intense parasitoses and rations with less fibre can block immune functions; acidosis and stinging may also occur due to nutritional imbalances (Blanco-Penedo et al., 2012a). Feeding commercial concentrates, which make animals grow faster and produce more, but which may increase the risk of liver abscesses, has been observed in intensive farms more than in organic farms (Blanco-Penedo et al., 2012b). Differences in animal health related to the variety of feeds could in addition also occur due to other more chain-related factors such as the harvesting, storage and further processing of products (Kijlstra and Eijck, 2006). In conclusion, it is hard to estimate how far differences in feed affect the health of organically produced animals since there are limited chunks of data available on this topic.

3.4 Productivity versus conservation of genetic diversity Farming intensification per se is a main cause of biodiversity losses. Organic farming is considered an environmentally friendly form of production and organic farmers do receive subsidies for the protection of diversity (Rahmann, 2011). The debate will continue as to whether organic farming is advantageous for biodiversity, especially in the context of organic farming intensification where opinions differ. The reduction of the number of local breeds (partly due to the pressure exerted by industrial beef production) and consequently of genetic diversity has occurred despite indigenous cattle breeds being more efficient in their use of local resources and more sustainable over the long term (Beja-Pereira et al., 2003). The general baseline of breeding in organic farming is to optimize the overall performance of the animal, emphasizing functionality, robustness and longevity. More specifically, organic beef smallholder farmers might have different goals than a farmer with a focus on higher production, and they may require breeds with different characteristics. In this sense, breeding strategies in organic farming should be improved by selecting animals that are especially suitable for organic conditions, to combine the positive aspects of traditional breeds with meeting performance traits. On a holistic level, breeding strategies in organic farming should seek new traits related to the working conditions of the breeder (dual purpose or not), animal welfare (health traits, behaviour, longevity, fertility), environmental aspects [feed intake and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions] and the quality of the product. In daily practice, important traits © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

252

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

for organic production include ease of calving, forage conversion and suitability for conservation grazing. Traits related to the product are marketability of the meat and finishing within 24–30 months (Roderick and Burke, 2003). As mentioned, there are different farm business types (with a focus either on maximum production efficiency per animal/hectare or on product quality). In the case of beef performance, there is some research that shows the value of some breeds in optimizing the production system and the quality needed for the market. Livestock breeds may also differ in SEUROP classification, carcass performance, carcass fat (Blanco-Penedo et al., 2012b) and fat composition under organic production (Scollan, 2003). However, breeding programmes have to focus on what the market wants (mass or niche market), although other factors have to be taken into account. In the case of organic beef production with lower productivity than conventional production, the goal would be to narrow this yield gap. The development and application of reproductive techniques is one of the main catalysts for the increased production. However, several requirements regarding animal selection and the use of reproductive techniques have been introduced into the laws and guidelines of organic farming organizations. Practitioners of organic farming are required to demonstrate a high level of care and an ethical awareness of organic farming principles in terms of the careful stewardship of nature and the environment (Spengler and Augsten, 2011). New breeding techniques are available, but neither these techniques nor their principles have been embraced by the organic farming movement. There are three main ethical objections to modern reproduction technology in organic farming: (1) Regarding techniques such as artificial insemination and embryo transfer, arguments against them highlight that both techniques lift reproduction out of its natural context. (2) The second category of concerns relates to the estimated breeding value. Animals can be compared and selected at a young age on the basis of ancestry which might lead to a preference in the selection process for early maturing animals. Quantitative genetics reduces an animal to a number of quantitative traits where farmers select on the basis of an animal’s own lifetime production instead of thinking more holistically. (3) The third area of concern is the awareness of the interaction of genotype with the environment (G x E) with respect to functional characteristics, given the differences between organic and conventional types of production (Nauta et al., 2001). In conclusion, acting in accordance with the core principles of organic farming, each farm has to select its own animals for breeding towards the ultimate goal of animals which are optimally adapted to the specific conditions of the farm (Nauta et al., 2001), although concerns about inbreeding and biodiversity also exist (Nauta et al., 2001). A balance is needed between the profitability of the farm and the focus on conserving genetic diversity, development and utilization of local breeds that are genetically adapted to their environment (Van Diepen et al., 2007).

4 Advantages of organic beef farming 4.1 Easy conversion to organic farming In the global context, the switch to organic production is aligned with the strong and growing demand for organic meat production and a better understanding of the motives

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

253

and barriers for farmers to convert from conventional to organic farming is of great interest to policymakers and academia. According to most review papers, it seems that the main driver for conversion is economic benefit, which appears to have grown in recent years, followed by non-economic motives such as food quality and professional challenge (Flaten et al., 2006). If most studies agree that the average profitability of organic farming is comparable to or better than that in conventional farming, other reasons must explain the low participation rate. For instance, in the reverse operation (quitting organic), it seems that economics and regulations were the main issues (Flaten et al., 2010). As a starting point, the conversion process requires a restructuring of the farm business. The feasibility and success depend greatly upon the structure and context of the previous (conventional) farm. Ruminant pasture-based farms, such as those located in southwestern Europe and in the Mediterranean basin (especially those oriented to meat production), may easily be converted into organic farms since conventional and organic farms are quite similar, as shown by the two examples presented in Boxes 1 and 2, respectively. Other examples have been cited elsewhere (Blanco-Penedo, 2008; Nardone et al., 2004; Escribano et al., 2014). When this is not the case, the farmer may face a lot of additional costs related to necessary investments, information gathering, learning new techniques and the lower yields stemming from errors during the learning process. Altogether, these factors lead to a period where the product cannot be sold for the organic price premium (Knudsen Sterte, 2011). Organic beef production has experienced a significant growth driven by the current consumer demand for quality products that are safe and environmentally friendly, and with a care for animal welfare. There is now a wealth of research to support the conversion from conventional to organic production. This knowledge transfer is the keystone. To date, a number of scientific studies have addressed farmers’ use of knowledge, stressing that farmers rely on a mix of several kinds of knowledge in their practice (e.g. Morgan and Murdock, 2000; Ingram, 2008; Kaup, 2008). Organic farming, because its practitioners have been forced to relearn ways of farming that are in closer relation to the ecosystems and rhythms of nature, is dominated by ‘local knowledge’. However, there is limited scientific information on the way organic farmers perceive and assess technologies (Lassen and Myles Oelofse, 2016).

4.2 From a standard-oriented to an output-oriented approach Research suggests that feed has an important impact on the quality of the end product and that meat from animals fed a grass-based diet may have lower saturated fats and cholesterol. The main difference is that organic animals are fed mainly or exclusively on grass and other forage, whereas in conventional production, cereal grains are the principal source. Consequently, organically fed animals generally grow more slowly and take longer to attain market weight (Blair, 2011) and their carcasses show a relatively poor muscular development and a reduced fat content (Russo and Preziuso, 2005). Grazing and increased animal activity, which are inherent components of an organic beef production system, may affect the eating quality due to the darker meat colour, risk of off-flavour, yellow fat and a higher content of PUFA, including CLA. This altered profile of the fat is favourable in terms of human health. Other findings have shown that the vitamin E content of the meat is higher in animals fed by semi-natural rough grazing than in those feeding on improved pastures (Fraser et al., 2006). Vitamin E plays an important role in the colour and stability of meat and is an important factor affecting shelf life and appearance. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

254

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

It is well known that a better health status does reflect on carcass performance, where breed and dietary factors are also very important (Blanco-Penedo et al., 2012b). To improve meat quality, it is necessary to examine the whole production chain, from breeding to meat processing. The farm must be more efficient in the revalorization of its products in order to be more competitive. The choice of animal to produce a particular type of meat is fundamental in organic production. It seems that organic producers need to place more emphasis on the sensorial quality of the meat, which is closely related to high levels of intramuscular fat.

5 Opportunities in organic beef farming 5.1 Integrative livestock farm systems The production of meat from grass-based systems over the next 20 years is likely to be affected by three key drivers: (i) a general increase in the global demand for meat (increasing in parallel with the world population); (ii) concern about the environmental impact of agricultural practices; and (iii) an increasing concern by consumers about food quality, including food safety and animal welfare, especially in the developing world. The environmental impacts of grazing systems vary considerably depending on the climatic conditions, but are likely to be an increasingly important factor. Food quality, food safety and animal welfare will also probably continue to be important aspects in the meat market in developed countries, providing an opportunity for producers of meat from grass-based systems (Wright et al., 2002) and other farm systems that care about added value in the production chain. The principles of organic agriculture are guides to tailor organic practices to each individual farming location (Kristiansen, 2006). It is often assumed that organic farming is synonymous with sustainable agriculture. The broad goals of sustainable agriculture include economic profitability, environmental stewardship and community vitality (Goldberger, 2011). Indeed, organic food production has sustainability among its core principles. However, since farms vary in practice and therefore in product quality, there is also a great variety in how these principles are currently applied and how cattle are reared on farms. Thus, it is important to distinguish between organic and sustainable production. The major criticism about the unsustainability of organic production comes from the raising of dairy cows in large confinement facilities only able to meet the bare minimum requirements for organic certification. Grazing offers an excellent opportunity for animals to exercise, to strengthen their legs and to manifest their natural behaviour in search of food. When analysing which is better for the environment (organic or nonorganic production), organic methods are found to be an environmentally mixed bag – sometimes slightly better, sometimes a little worse and often the same as inorganic methods. Furthermore, there is no point in drawing any single conclusion on this matter since animal protein needs more times the energy, water and land to produce than plant protein. From this perspective, any modest gains from raising animals organically may be irrelevant (Pimentel and Pimentel, 2003). There is also an overlap between organic and all-natural systems. Both represent a dedication to raising healthier, less chemically contaminated cows and reared with full

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

255

expression of their natural behaviour. However, not every cow raised on the pasture is certified as organic, and not every organic cow is fed with a 100% grass diet or allowed full grazing. A lot of small businesses and grass-fed cattle farmers really do care about quality and raise their animals under conditions that could be considered organic but they cannot afford the certification. It is necessary to assess the possibilities for making small-scale organic beef production economically viable by designing coherent grazing land from pastures and forest mosaics; that is, use ecosystem services as tools for production improvement in organic production (Rämert et al., 2005) via a true multidisciplinary approach with economic, forestry, agriculture, biology and soil science competences included. Although the term ‘organic’ is often associated with free-range livestock (Mesías et al., 2008), the regulations on organic production – Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 – allow not only the use of extensive production systems based on free grazing, but also feedlot rearing with organic concentrates. Obviously, while any production system that meets EU Organic Regulation will produce organic certified meat, the quality is most likely to differ from one system to another. In southwestern Europe, organic beef production is based on traditional, extensive, grassland systems (rangelands known as the Dehesa in Spain), with a diet relying on free grazing, and which have been transformed into organic production systems. Another term that is confusing for consumers is ‘local food’. Organic farming relies largely on locally available resources and is dependent upon maintaining an ecological balance and developing biological processes to their optimum. Furthermore, the goal of local circulation and closeness between the producer and the consumer is a good example of how food should be produced. In fact, not only should animals experience good animal welfare and be fed with home-grown or at least local feedstuffs, but the whole production process should also be organized to minimize transport and ensure careful treatment of the product (Vaarst et al., 2005). From studies about consumer preferences, it has been observed that the meaning of the term ‘local food’ is strongly influenced by the sociocultural context and the region in which people live. However, findings have shown a high market potential and promising opportunities for successful product differentiation in the area of local supply chains, especially for small-scale farmers who already have local production chains (Wägeli and Hamm, 2016). One way of meeting such ambitions could be on-farm slaughtering, but this is not covered by the legislation of the majority of the European countries. In terms of other attributes, consumers are concerned about animal welfare and are willing to pay for improved animal welfare. More than nine out of ten EU citizens believe that it is important to protect the welfare of farmed animals (94%) (Eurobarometer, 2016). However, despite a number of surveys on animal welfare, there are little data available on the meaning consumers attach to the term ‘animal welfare’ (Harper and Makatouni, 2002). Among the main features of agroecosystem sustainability, resilience, associated with economic and social stability, should be regarded as the trigger for the continuity or discontinuity of farm systems. Organic production and demand are still on the rise; however, competition in the market is also becoming fiercer with alternative integrative livestock farm systems. Overall, previous studies suggest that a combined label for organic–local products could be a strategy to strengthen the commercialization of these farm systems.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

256

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

5.2 Benefits of organic agriculture in relation to climate change mitigation The agricultural sector in Europe faces significant challenges in curbing GHG emissions while maintaining food security and sustainability in a changing climate. Under the current global changes, all types of agricultural systems have responsibilities. To meet these challenges, such systems need to be more efficient, more resilient to environmental change and more helpful in reducing GHG emissions and nutrient losses associated with production. Organic agriculture is also part of the solution, as an adaptation strategy to climate change and variability. As a mitigation strategy, organic agriculture (in line with a core principle) avoids nutrient exploitation and increases organic soil matter content and soil capture and stores more water than conventional approaches (Wani et al., 2013). Livestock farming is one of the most significant contributors to global environmental damage. EU countries aim to reduce their emissions of GHG by 80–95% by 2050 (EC, 2011) and meat production is a major contributor to climate change. The continued growth of this sector will represent a major obstacle for reaching the ambitious climate change targets, and the substantial environmental and climate costs of this increase have been recognized by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. However, mitigation of GHG emissions from ruminants has not received adequate attention in negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Ripple et al., 2014). The proportion of organic meat and milk sold in developed countries is increasing, partly due to an increase in demand, and in some cases partly due to financial incentives from governments to persuade farmers to convert to organic production because of the environmental benefits. Briefly, a strategy for organic farmers to mitigate GHG emissions and to simultaneously adapt to climate change is lifetime elongation and stabilization of animal health by promoting robustness of the animals. Novel traits for breeding might provide solutions to the impact of farming on the environment, including suggestions to improve overall farm management (feeding strategies, pasture management strategies, etc.). Overproduction together with overconsumption of meat is a vital problem for the environment. The greatest potential for reducing GHG emissions from agriculture is through consumer behaviour via dietary changes. The European Commission has denied making funds available to promote meat consumption in the EU, saying the aim is instead to promote sustainable food production, in line with its promotion of eat less meat but of a higher quality. Maintaining meat quality is a major issue in organic farming, and this production system emphasizes product quality rather than quantity (Hermansen and Zervas, 2004). Furthermore, quality will become a more important influence on consumer choice (Henchion et al., 2014). In conclusion, there is a need – at least in Europe – to reflect on the long-term sustainability of the organic sector. For development to achieve a lower climate impact from organic agriculture, further monitoring and technology, implemented to reduce emissions of nitrous oxide, methane and carbon dioxide, are required. More efficiency in acquiring nutrients, energy and land use, as well as shifting the focus from producing animal food towards more legumes as a priority and other crop products are also needed (Sundberg et al., 2013).

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

257

5.3 Consumer attitudes and preferences Consumers are increasingly concerned about the way food is produced and the environmental effect of farm production. Europeans believe that the welfare of farmed animals should be better protected than it is now (82%) with similar views for companion animals (74%) (Eurobarometer, 2016). There is also a growing consumer awareness of food production methods that do not use chemicals and that are more in harmony with the natural environment. This, together with promotion of the importance of healthy food, has contributed to the recent rapid development of organic farming in the European Union. Illichmann and Abdulai (2013) analysed German consumer willingness to pay for beef produced with 100% organic farm-grown feed, beef produced with 100% organic feed, of which 50% was purchased from other sources, and beef produced with 95% organic feed and 5% conventional feed. The highest willingness to pay was recorded for beef produced with 100% organic farm–grown feed. In developed countries, where many consumers have high levels of disposable income, consumer concerns about food safety and quality and concerns about the environment have led to a constant rise in the production of organic or ‘biological’ farming. Consumers expect substantially higher quality in meat produced in organic and pasturebased systems, which is perceived as better not only in terms of how it was produced, but also in terms of its ‘healthiness’ and ‘eating quality’ (Lopez-Alonso et al., 2012). More than 70% of Europeans say that they trust organic products. However, nearly 60% would favour an improvement of the control system. In order to preserve the credibility of organic agriculture and the confidence of the consumers in organic products, there is a need for more transparency and for a change in the paradigm, as previously mentioned, from a standard-oriented to an output-oriented approach (Sundrum, 2007). The current demand for animal products is supported by two pillars: final quality and sustainability of both the environment and the animals. In spite of a lack of information, the available data suggest that consumption preferences in developing countries have evolved in a similar way to those in developing countries. Organic foods have started to be recognized in the domestic market, due to the increase in household incomes and concerns regarding food security (Scherer, 2013). For example, Ecuador is a Latin American country with a high growth potential in the organic sector. In the Ecuador Political Constitution, the sustainable development principles are defined within a social and political context. The country has implemented different sector policies and actions to strengthen agroecological types of production (Flores, 2015). Consequently, organic production has increased in recent years, with around 40 000 ha and 9000 farmers, mainly smallholders (Lernoud et al., 2015). Although Ecuadorian organic production has a strong orientation towards export markets, mainly in Europe and the United States, many farmers are focusing on local markets as a growth strategy. Export requirements are complex and vary among markets due to poor international harmonization of the legislative framework; this situation represents a real obstacle for trade (Scherer, 2013). In other developing countries with a strong tradition of beef farming, such as Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, an even greater potential exists to develop a fully competitive organic bovine sector, focused on export or local markets. In Argentina quality bovine meat has been produced on the basis of pastoral systems to supply the local market, though this has come under pressure from more intensive feedlot systems. The most traditional systems (shown in Box 2) have the opportunity, in the organic sector, to differentiate their

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

258

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

production and to guarantee the supply of meat to a certain consumer base willing to pay a higher price. The organic label on meat not only assures safety to the consumer, but also implies other factors such as animal welfare and environmental care. Indeed, these factors can also be regarded as an added value to the quality of products of animal origin (Bauer et al., 2013). However, labelling has certain limitations. For example, the EU Regulation focuses on detectable differences in regard to the process of production; however, it does not include specific demands regarding locally sustainable production which consumers consider to be important. In addition, labels do not offer information regarding the traceability of organic products. From these perspectives, it seems that traceability and the labelling of the origin of the product are important. The issues of traceability and transparency are indeed particularly pertinent in relation to genetically modified (GM) foods. Organic labels that are in accordance with EU Regulations do not allow the use of GM ingredients in food products. The majority of Europeans (90%) believe that the term ‘organic’ by definition means ‘GMO-free’ (non-genetically modified organisms). But GMOs are not traceable in derived products such as oil or sugar and are not declared. It is nonetheless important to most consumers of organic foods that they are able to avoid such products.

5.4 Strengthening the interaction among facultative labels A lot of small business holders and grass-fed cattle farmers really do care about quality and raise their animals in conditions that would be certified as organic, but they cannot afford the label. One of the most commonly used instruments for influencing sustainable consumer choices is voluntary labelling, which has expanded to more products and countries in recent years. As was explained earlier in this chapter, when combining different attributes, products labelled as ‘local’ are also often produced with imported feed. At the point of purchase, animal products are not usually labelled with any information regarding the feed that was used to produce them. Therefore, it remains unclear what consumers think about the use of imported feed, in particular in the case of products labelled as ‘local’ (Wägeli and Hamm, 2016). The development of certified meat products has revitalized local meat production. This new tendency, along with improved livestock sustainability and a coherent grazing land of pastures and forest mosaics, will drive the implementation of conservation measures which are essential to assure the survival of local breeds as well. An advantage in this system is to assess the possibilities for making small-scale organic beef production economically viable by designing labels by the ecosystem services the farming system embraces.

5.5 Increasing the added farm-gate value Although the quality attributes of organic beef are highly prized by consumers, prices tend to exceed what the consumer is willing to pay. Studies published on pricing suggest that organic beef commands a price premium of around 50% with respect to conventional beef (Naspetti and Zanoli, 2012; Napolitano et al., 2010). Conventional beef is in itself a highend product, both in terms of price and consumer attitudes. As a result, differentiated marketing and certification systems play a major role in the success of organic beef, whose market share depends in part on the credibility and reliability of such systems (Hjelmar, © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

259

2011; Tranter et al., 2009; Kamihiro et al., 2015). The growth of this market is currently constrained by high retail prices and a very low degree of organoleptic differentiation. In Europe, organic beef accounts for barely 1% of total beef sales, a share clearly insufficient to sustain a production sector of any size. Given this situation, few producers, at least in Southern Europe, manage to obtain additional benefits from organic certification, since most of their output is targeted at conventional marketing channels (Perea et al., 2014; Horrillo et al., 2016). In Europe, available data suggest an ‘organic bubble’ in the beef sector: supply is several times greater than demand. It seems that the market is now showing signs of maturity (Table 1) and any further growth will depend on the ability of farms to increase the added farm-gate value by two main options. One is to strengthen the role of organic beef farmers in the value chain, partly by enhancing cooperation between producers with a view to agreeing common measures and reinforcing the farmers’ ability to influence the value chain (Willer and Kilcher, 2010). The other is to focus on optimizing production costs in order to bring down the retail price to a level acceptable to more consumers. The limited research carried out to date suggests that organic production costs are considerably higher than conventional production costs, although the immense variety of systems hinders the comparison of production systems and alternative strategies (Fernández and Woodward, 1999; Hrabalová and Zander, 2006; Veysset et al., 2009; Gillespie and Nehring, 2013). Organic conversion affects both fixed and variable costs. In some developing countries with a tradition and culture rooted in bovine meat, such as Argentina or Uruguay, an inverse process takes place. Currently, there is a bovine meat demand from traditional pastoral systems that the market cannot guarantee. On the one hand, traditional pastoral systems are being substituted by industrial agriculture models (like the example provided in Box 2). On the other hand, a certification system for organic Table 1 Data on organic cattle and organic beef in some European countries (2015) Organic cattle slaughtered

Organic beef produced

Country

Heads

% of total cattle

% of growth over 2010

Tonnes

% of total beef

% of growth over

Czech Republic

82 096

5.5

48.4

10 382

15.2

8.8

Denmark

82 096

17.8

Missing data

5175

4.3

4.4

Estonia

19 088

49.1

42.1

1945

20.2

10.8

France

151 602

3.2

128.5

18 906

1.3

Missing data

Italy

103 299

3.8

32.4

25 264

3.2

Missing data

Latvia

20 018

23.2

−6.7

2368

13.6

11.8

Spain

177 164

7.6

45.8

18 072

2.9

2.6

Slovakia

14 346

45.8

−33.2

128

1.5

2.6

Sweden

39 081

8.4

−43.9

18 887

13.1

Missing data

United Kingdom

93 064

3.5

−1.0

25 300

2.9

Missing data

Source: Eurostat.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

260

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

products would be strategically important in differentiating this product and generating confidence in the consumer. Furthermore, in traditional Pampas grazing systems, organic conversion does not imply such a cost overhead as in other systems. For these reasons, organic cattle farming has great potential in Argentina or Uruguay.

5.6 Optimization of production costs Organic conversion affects both fixed and variable costs. The main variable cost in any organic cattle farm is feed. Cattle are able to digest fibrous food that cannot be used directly by humans or by other animals. Crop residue, by-products and forage grown on non-arable land could be used more efficiently in organic systems. This food source is of particular importance in marginal areas with natural pasture land of great ecological value, where few other options are available (Bernués et al., 2011; Gerber et al., 2015). It is in these low-input systems that organic beef farming can make more rational and environmentally sustainable use of resources (Pauselli, 2009; Horrillo et al., 2016). Beefcattle farming is noted for its low efficiency of conversion of natural resources to meat. GHG emissions and water and land requirements for beef-cattle production tend to be higher than those of any other livestock farming systems (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2012; Opio et al., 2013). However, in low-input systems, cattle farming could be made more environmentally efficient and feeding costs could be reduced (Bignal and McCracken, 1996). The main limitation of organic beef production is still the finishing period. Since conventional feeds cannot be used, and the organic feed sector is still small and inefficient, feeding costs continue to be extremely high. Moreover, production is less efficient: growth rates are lower and carcasses contain less fat cover, so the finishing period has to be extended in order for the end product to meet current market demands (Fernández and Woodward, 1999; Benoit and Veysset 2003; Nielsen and Kristensen, 2007; Gillespie and Nehring, 2013). The feeding strategy, feed quality and the way grazing is carried out vary considerably from farm to farm and are largely governed by specific agroecological conditions (Menzi and Gerber, 2006; de Vries and de Boer, 2010). In systems where finishing requires considerable use of concentrates, production costs will be substantially higher. Cattle do not make efficient use of high-protein diets, and it is difficult to attain an adequate fattening level with a diet based solely on forage. Moreover, summer forage does not usually provide adequate nutritional quality for final fattening. Of course, other options, including maize silage, are available, but these are costly and require a certain degree of intensification. The development of optimal feeding practices for each agroecosystem enhances technical efficiency and thus reduces feeding costs; even so, this does not allow all systems to achieve competitive production costs for the organic market. It may therefore be necessary to adopt other production strategies (Sahm et al., 2013). In most European cattle-rearing systems, calves are born in winter-spring and weaned in late summer, when they are sufficiently able to consume forage. One useful strategy in these systems is that of compensatory growth, a practice which reduces the need for stored or off-farm feed over the winter (Nielsen and Thamsborg, 2005; Veysset et al., 2009). Carcass conformation and cattle growth rates vary both by sex and among breeds; higher yields are obtained with females and with early maturing breeds. Local biotypes have a competitive advantage over specialized breeds, and they also increase the value © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

261

of organic beef-cattle farming as a means of conserving biodiversity. One of the most successful strategies is the crossing of indigenous-breed females with specialized-breed males (Perea et al., 2014; Ripoll-Bosh et al., 2013). Castration, which is normally allowed under organic regulations, also increases carcass fat cover, although growth rates are lower. Castration may be a more viable option than raising intact calves where pasture is of poor quality and the market accepts lighter carcasses. Keeping weight gain at low-to-medium levels and slaughtering at a later age may also help to achieve competitive carcasses (Nielsen and Kristensen, 2007).

6 Future trends and conclusion The decision to produce organic beef basically depends on the expected benefit and the level of risk involved in obtaining that benefit (Gocsik et al., 2015a). Risk is strongly conditioned by the irreversibility of the system changes. The alternatives to the original system that mainly affect variable costs are easily interchangeable and allow a short-term return to the original system with no great associated expense. Furthermore, options requiring substantial changes to farm structure can increase fixed costs over a period of 10–25 years and are therefore long-term decisions. Thus, although a return to the initial system may be feasible, the cost of investment amortization needs to be taken into consideration (Pindyck, 1991). Organic conversion is usually a long-term decision, and its reversibility will depend on the magnitude of the fixed costs involved in implementing structural changes; these in turn will depend on the nature of the original system. Obviously, the more closely the organic system resembles the original agroecosystem, the lower the fixed costs will be; this will enhance the farm’s competitive position (Sahm et al., 2013). Recent years have seen an expansion of market initiatives demanding beef which, though not meeting organic standards, still exceeds minimum legal requirements. The distinctive quality-based properties of these products are linked to the production system: e.g. improved animal welfare practices, use of certain breeds or GMO-free production (Tsourgiannis et al., 2011; Olaizola et al., 2012). Together, they form an intermediate market sector which generates added value from some of the attributes associated with organic certification, with no need for major changes to the original production system. As a result, these alternatives have brought retail prices more into line with what the market is willing to pay for improved production conditions (Gocsik et al., 2015b; Risius and Hamm, 2017). At farm level, the emergence of this intermediate sector has substantially broadened the range of options open to the producer; in many cases, moreover, intermediate strategies are likely to prove more competitive than organic options. For example, in agroecosystems where organic conversion represents a long-term investment although the intermediate sector requires only changes affecting variable costs. As the intermediate sector gains market share, the farms supplying it will record better results, with predictable consequences for organic cattle farming. However, risk and return on investment are strongly influenced by farm location: in Europe, the expected costeffectiveness of organic conversion is far greater than that in other regions of the world where such large subsidies are not available. For the same reason, the uncertainty inherent in conversion is less marked, while regions with greater market share in the rewards system

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

262

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

strengthen the advantage of the intermediate sector over the organic sector (Hrabalovà and Zander, 2006; Veysset et al., 2009; Gillespie and Nehring, 2013). More research needs to be done on the economic sustainability of organic beef farming by ensuring animal health and welfare in this pasture-fed livestock systems. It also needs to focus on differentiating the ‘climate benefit’ versus burden and the fitness of beef cattle into many landscapes and farming systems, and in particular in marginal lands. Organic beef farming needs to be more competitive in the short term. Competitiveness depends on two major challenges: to achieve a clear differentiation from other ‘sustainable’ alternatives and to reduce the differential between the current prices and the prices that consumers are willing to pay. In this context, the systems approach should be a successful framework for achieving an accurate knowledge of the relationships between environment, productive factors and products.

7 References Angón, E., Perea, J., Toro-Mujica, P., Rivas, J., de Pablos-Heredero, C. and García, A. (2015), ‘Pathways towards to improve the feasibility of dairy pastoral system in La Pampa (Argentine)’, Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 14, 643–9. Bauer, H. H., Heinrich, D. and Schäfer, D. B. (2013), ‘The effects of organic labels on global, local, and private brands: More hype than substance?’, J. Bus. Res. 66(8), 1035–43. Beja-Pereira, A., Alexandrino, P., Bessa, I., Carretero, Y., Dunner S. and Ferrand, N., Jordana, J., Laloe, D., Moazami-Goudarzi, K., Sanchez, A. and Cañon, J. (2003), ‘Genetic characterization of southwestern European bovine breeds: A historical and biogeographical reassessment with a set of 16 microsatellites’, J. Hered. 94, 243–50. Benoit, M. and Veysset, P. (2003), ‘Conversion of cattle and sheep suckler farming to organic farming: Adaptation of the farming system and its economic consequences’, Livest. Sci. 80, 141–52. Bernués, A., Ruiz, R., Olaizola, A., Villaba, D. and Casasús, I. (2011), ‘Sustainability of pasture based livestock farming system in the European Mediterranean context: Synergies and trade-offs’, Livest. Sci. 139, 44–57. Bignal, E. and McCracken, D. (1996), ‘Low-intensity farming systems in the conservation of the countryside’, J. Appl. Ecol., 33, 413–24. Blair, R. (2011), ‘Nutrition and Feeding of Organic Cattle’, CABI International. University of British Columbia, Canada. Blanco-Penedo, I. (2008), Situación actual de las granjas ecológicas de ganado vacuno de Galicia: Comparación con los sistemas de explotación tradicional e intensivo. Doctoral Thesis, University of Santiago de Compostela. Santiago de Compostela. Spain. Blanco-Penedo, I., Fall, N. and Emanuelson, U. (2012a), Effects of Turning to 100% Organic Feed on Metabolic Status of Swedish Organic Dairy Cows, Livest. Sci. 143(2–3), 242–248. Blanco-Penedo, I., López-Alonso, M., Shore, R. F., Miranda, M., Castillo, C., Hernández, J. and Benedito, J. L. (2012b), ‘Evaluation of organic, conventional and intensive beef cattle farm systems in Spain; health, management and animal production’, Animal 6(09), 1503–11. Castaldo, A. (2003), Caracterización de los sistemas de producción bovina (invernada) en el Nordeste de la provinca de La Pampa (Argentina). Modelos de gestión. Doctoral Thesis, University of Córdoba. Córdoba, Spain. Castaldo, A., Acero, R., Perea, J., Martos, J., Valerio, D., Pamio, J. and García, A. (2006), ‘Typology of cattle fattening systems in the Pampa region, Argentine’, Arch. Zootec. 55, 183–93. de Vries, M. and de Boer, I. J. M. (2010), ‘Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments’, Livest. Sci. 128, 1–11. Escribano, A. J., Gaspar, P., Mesias, F. J., Escribano, M. and Pulido, A. F. (2014), ‘Challenges and future perspectives of different organic beef cattle farms of Southern Europe’, In Proceedings of the © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

263

Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production (65th EAAP), 25–29 August 2014, Denmark. EAAP, Copenhagen, p. 248. Escribano, A. J., Gaspar, P., Mesías, F. J. and Escribano, M. (2016), ‘The role of the level of intensification, productive orientation and self-reliance in extensive beef cattle farms’, Livest. Sci. 193, 8–19. Eurobarometer (2016). Special Eurobarometer 442. Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare. Survey requested by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety and co-ordinated by the Directorate-General for Communication Special Eurobarometer 442 – Wave EB84.4. – TNS opinion & social. European Commission (2007), Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91. European Commission (2011), A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050. Brussels, 8 March 2011. COM (2011) 112 final. Fernández, M. I. and Woodward, B. W. (1999), ‘Comparison of conventional and organic beef production systems I. feedlot performance and production cost’, Livest. Sci., 61, 213–23. Flaten, O., Lien, G., Ebbesvik, M., Koesling, M. and Valle, P. S. (2006), ‘Do the new organic producers differ from the ‘old guard’? Empirical results from Norwegian dairy farming’, Renew. Agr. Food Syst. 21, 174–82. Flaten, O., Lien, G., Koesling, M. and Loes, A. K. (2010), ‘Norwegian farmers ceasing certified organic production: Characteristics and reasons’, J. Environ. Manage. 91, 2717–26. Flores, P. (2015), ‘Organic agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean’, In The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2015. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Frick; IFOAM–Organics International, Bonn, pp. 226–32 Fraser, M. D., Davies, D. A., Vale, J. E., Nute, G. R., Hallett, K. G., Richardson, R. I. and Wright, I. A. (2006), ‘Performance and meat quality of native and continental cross steers grazing improved upland pasture or semi-natural rough grazing’, Livest. Sci., 123(Issue 1), 70–82. García, A., Ceular, N., Caridad, J. M., Acero, R., Perea, J. M. and Martín, M. E. (2007), ‘Determination of production functions and efficiency analysis of wintering in La Pampa, Argentina’, Arch. Zootec., 56, 23–32. García, A., Perea, J., Acero, R., Angón, E., Toro, P., Rodríguez, V. and Gómez – Castro, A. G. (2010), ‘Structural characterization of extensive farms in Andalusian Dehesas’, Arch. Zootec. 59, 577–88. García Romero, C., Bidarte Iturre, A., Caballero Luna, I., Arroyo Valverde, F. C., Díaz Gaona, C., Fernández Ortiz, E. and Mata Moreno, C. (2003), ‘Sanidad y Bienestar en las explotaciones bovinas ecológicas’, Bovis 110, 79–101. Gaspar, P., Mesías, F. J., Escribano, M. and Pulido, F. (2009), ‘Sustainability in Spanish extensive farms (Dehesas): An economic and management indicator-based evaluation’, Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 62, 153–62. Gerber, P. J., Mottet, A., Opio, C. I., Falcucci, A. and Teillard, F. (2015), ‘Environmental impacts of beef production: Review of challenges and perspectives for durability’, Meat Sci. 109, 2–12. Gillespie, J. and Nehring, R. (2013), ‘Comparing economic performance of organic and conventional U.S. beef farms using matching examples’, Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 57 (2), 178–92. Giorgis, A. (2009), Factores que afectan la competitividad de las empresas agropecuarias de la zona norte de la provincia de la Pampa (Argentina). Doctoral Thesis, University of Cordoba. Cordoba, Spain. Gocsik, E., Oude Lansink, A. G. J. M., Voermans, G. and Saatkamp, H. W. (2015a), ‘Economic feasibility of animal welfare improvements in Dutch intensive livestock production: A comparison between broiler, layinghen, and fattening pig sectors’, Livest. Sci. 182, 38–53. Gocsik, É., Vander Lans, I. A., Oude Lansink, A. G. J. M. and Saatkamp, H. W. (2015b), ‘Willingness of Dutch broiler and fattening pig farmers to convert to production systems with improved welfare’, Anim. Welf. 24, 211–22. Goldberger, J. R. (2011), ‘Conventionalization, civic engagement, and the sustainability of organic agriculture’, J. Rural Stud. 27(3), 288–96.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

264

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

Harper, G. C. and Makatouni, A. (2002), ‘Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare’, Brit. Food J. 104(3/4/5), 287–99. Henchion, M., McCarthy, M., Resconi, V. C. and Troy, D. (2014), ‘Meat consumption: Trends and quality matters’, Meat Sci. 98(3), 561–8. Hermansen, Z. E. and Zervas, G. (2004), ‘Round Table discussion of the organic animal production session’, Livest Sci., 90, 63–5. Hjelmar, U. (2011), ‘Consumers’ purchase of organic food products. A matter of convenience and reflexive practices’, Appetite 56, 336–44. Horrillo, A., Escribano, M., Mesias, F. J., Elghannman, A. and Gaspar, P. (2016), ‘Is there a future for organic production in high ecological value ecosystems?’, Agric. Syst. 143, 114–25. Hovi, M., Sundrum, A. and Thamsborg, S. M. (2003), ‘Animal health and welfare in organic livestock production in Europe: Current state and future challenges’, Livest Sci., 80, 41–53. Hrabalová, A. and Zander, K. (2006), ‘Organic beef farming in the Czech Republic: Structure, development and economic performance’, Agric. Econ. UZPI 52(2), 89–100. Illichmann, R. and Abdulai, A. (2013), Analysis of consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for organic food products in Germany. Selected Paper presented at the AAEA & CAES Joint Annual Meeting, Washington, DC. Ingram, J. (2008), ‘Agronomist–farmer knowledge encounters: An analysis of knowledge exchange in the context of best management practices in England’, Agr. Hum. Values 25(3), 405–18. Kamihiro, A., Stergiadis, S., Leifert, C., Eyre, M. D. and Butler, G. (2015), ‘Meat quality and health implications of organic and conventional beef production’, Meat Sci. 100, 306–18. Kaup, B. Z. (2008), ‘The reflexive producer: The influence of farmer knowledge upon the use of Bt corn’, Rural Sociol 73 (1), 62. Kijlstra A. and Eijck, I. A. J. M. (2006), ‘Animal health in organic livestock production systems: A review’, NJAS – Wagening. J. Life Sci. 54(1), 77–94. Knudsen Sterte, Å. (2011), Barriers to convert to organic farming and the role of risk- An empirical application on Swedish data. Master’s thesis, Advanced level Degree thesis No 685. ISSN 1401– 4084, Uppsala 2011. Kristiansen, P. (2006), ‘Overview of organic agriculture’, In Kristiansen, P., Taji, A. and Reganold, J. (Eds), Organic Agriculture A Global Perspective. CSIRO Publishing, 484p. Lassen, J. and Oelofse, M. (2016), ‘Knowledge and precaution. On organic farmers assessment of new technology’, Sociol Ruralis. doi:10.1111/soru.12157. Le Gal, P. Y., Dugué, P., Faure, G. and Novak, S. (2011), ‘How does research address the design of innovative agricultural production systems at the farm level? A review’, Agric. Syst. 104, 714–28. Lernoud, J., Willer, H. and Schlatter, B. (2015), ‘Latin America and the Caribbean: Current statistics’, In The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2014. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Frick; IFOAM–Organics International, Bonn, pp. 233–8. Lobato, J. F. P., Freitas, A. K., Devincenzi, T., Cardoso, L. L., Tarouco, J. U., Viera, R. M., Dillenburg, D. R. and Castro, I. (2014), ‘Brazilian beef produced on pastures: Sustainable and healthy’, Meat Sci. 98(3), 336–45. López-Alonso, M., Miranda, M. and Blanco-Penedo, I. (2012), ‘Evaluating the whole production chain: A need for organic production research’, In Mendes, R. E. (Ed.), Ruminants: Anatomy, Behaviour, and Diseases. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York, pp. 55–70. ISBN: 978-1-62081-064-4. Lund, V. (2006), ‘Natural living: A precondition for animal welfare in organic farming’, Livest. Sci. 100, 71–83. Manteca, X., Villalba, J. J., Atwood, S. B., Dziba, L. and Provenza, F. D. (2008), ‘Is dietary choice important to animal welfare?’, J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 3(Suppl. 5), 229–39. Mekonnen, M. M. and Hoekstra, A. Y. (2012), ‘A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products’, Ecosystems 15(3), 401–15. Menzi, H. and Gerber, P. J. (2006), ‘Nutrient balances for improving the use-efficiency of nonrenewable resources: Experiences from Switzerland and Southeast Asia’, Geological Society, 266, 171–81. Special Publications, London.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

265

Mesías, F. J., Escribano, M., Gaspar, P. and Pulido, F. (2008), ‘Consumers’ attitudes towards organic, PGI and conventional meats in extremadura (Spain)’, Arch. Zootec. 57, 139–46. Milán, M. J., Bartolomé, J., Quintanilla, R., García – Cachán, M. D., Espejo, M., Herráinz, P. L., Sánchez – Recio, J. M. and Piedrafita, J. (2006), ‘Structural characterization and typology of beef cattle farms of Spanish wooded rangelands (dehesas)’, Livest. Sci. 99, 197–209. Morgan, K. and J. Murdoch (2000), ‘Organic vs. conventional agriculture: Knowledge, power and innovation in the food chain’, Geoforum 31(2), 159–73. Morison, J., Hine, R. and Pretty, J. (2005), ‘Survey and analysis of labour on organic farms in the UK and republic of Ireland’, Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 3(1), 23–43. Napolitano, F., Braghieri, A., Piasentier, E., Favotto, S., Naspetti, S. and Zanoli, R. (2010), ‘Effect of information about organic production on beef liking and consumer willingness to pay’, Food Qual. Prefer. 21, 207–12. Nardone, A., Zervas, G., Ronchi, B. (2004), ‘Sustainability of small ruminant organic systems of production’, Livest. Sci. 90, 27–39. Naspetti, S. and Zanoli, R. (2012), ‘Organic meat production in Europe: Market and regulation’, In Ricke, S. C., Van Loo, E. J., Johnson, M. G. and O`Bryan C. A. (Eds), Organic Meat Production and Processing. IFT Press, Wiley – Blackwell, New Delhi, India, pp. 53–66. Nauta, W. J., Baars T., Groen A. F., Veerkamp R. F. and Roep, D. (2001), Animal breeding in organic farming. Discussion paper, Louis Bolk Institute, Hoofdstraat 24, 3872 LA Driebergen, The Netherlands. Nguyen, T. L. T., Hermansen, J. E. and Mogensen, L. (2010), ‘Environmental consequences of different beef production systems in the EU’, J. Clean. Prod. 18, 756–66. Nielsen, B. K. and Kristensen, A. R. (2007), ‘Optimal decisions in organic beef production from steers – Effects of criterion of optimality and price changes’, Livest. Sci. 110, 25–32. Nielsen, B. K. and Thamsborg, S. M. (2005), ‘Welfare, health and product quality in organic beef production: A Danish perspective’, Livest. Sci. 94, 41–50. Nuthall, P. (2010), ‘Farm Business Management: The Human Factor’, CAB International, Lincoln, New Zealand, p. 232. Olaizola, A., Bernués, A., Blasco, I. and Sanz, A. (2012), ‘Perspectivas de una carne de calidad diferenciada: Análisis exploratorio para la carne de vacuno ‘Serrana de Teruel’, ITEA 108(4), 546–62. Opio, C., Gerber, P. J. and MacLeod, M. (2013), ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global Ruminant Supply Chains – A Live Cycle Assessment’, Rome: FAO. Padel, S., Schmid, O. and Lund, V. (2004), ‘Organic livestock standards’, In Vaarst, M., Roderick, S., Lund, V. and Lockertz, W. (Eds), Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Agriculture. CABI, Wallingford, pp. 57–72. Pariani, A. (2005), Optimización de producciones complementarias y competitivas en el noroeste de la provincia de La Pampa. Doctoral Thesis, University of Córdoba. Córdoba, España. Pauselli, M. (2009), ‘Organic livestock production systems as a model of sustainable development’, Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 8, 581–7. Perea, J., Blanco-Penedo, I., Barba, C., Angón, E. and García, A. (2014), ‘Organic beef farming in Spain: Typology according to livestock management and economic variables’, Revista Cientifica FCV-LUZ 24, 347–54. Pimentel, D. and Pimentel, M. (2003), ‘Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment, AJCN 78(3), 6605–35. Pindyck, R. S. (1991), ‘Irreversibility, uncertainty, and investment’, J. Econ. Lit. 29, 1110–48. Rahmann, G, (2011), ´Biodiversity and organic farming: What do we know?´. Landbauforschung-vTI Agr. For. Res. 2(61), 189–208. Rämert, B., Salomonsson, L. and Mäder, P. (Eds), (2005), ‘Ecosystem Services as a Tool for Production Improvement in Organic Farming – The Role and Impact of Biodiversity’, Ekologisktlantbruknr 45. ISSN 1102–6758. Rearte, D. H. and Pordomingo, A. J. (2014), ‘The relevance of methane emissions from beef production and the challenges of the Argentinean beef production platform’, Meat Sci. 98(3), 355–60.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

266

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

Ripoll-Bosch, R., Joy, M. and Bernués, A. (2013), ‘Role of self-sufficiency, productivity and diversification on the economic sustainability of farming systems with autochthonous sheep breeds in less favoured areas in southern Europe’, Animal 4, 1–9. Ripple, W. J., Smith, P., Haberl, H., Montzka, S. A., McAlpine, C. and Boucher, D. H. (2014), ‘Ruminants, climate change and climate policy’, Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 2–4. Risius, A. and Hamm, U. (2017), ‘The effect of information on beef husbandry systems on consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay’, Meat Sci. 124, 9–14. Roderick, S. and Burke, J. (2003). Organic Farming in Cornwall: Results of the 2002 Farmer Survey. Duchy College, Organic Studies Centre. Russo, C. and Preziuso, G. (2005), ‘Carcass and meat quality of organic beef: A brief review. Conference paper’, Stocarstvo 59(1), 23–9. Sahm, H., Sanders, J., Nieberg, H., Behrens, G., Kuhnert, H., Strohn, R. and Hamm, U. (2013), ‘Reversion from organic to conventional agriculture: A review’, Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 28 (3), 263–75. Scherer, A. (2013), ‘The organic market in Latin America and the Caribbean’, In ECLAC (Ed.), Organic Food Market in the United States. Market Access Opportunities for Latin American and Caribbean Producers. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, United Nations, Washington, pp. 25–8. Scollan, N. (2003), Strategies for Optimising the Fatty Acid Composition of Beef. IGER INNOVATION 2003. Spengler, N. A. and Augsten, F. (2011), Assessing reproductive and breeding techniques in organic agriculture using cattle breeding as an example. Discussion Paper, Organic Animal Breeding Network. Sundberg, C.; Röös, E.; Salomon, E. and Wivstad, M. (2013), ‘How can organic agriculture contribute to long-term climate goals?’, In Løes, A.-K.; Askegaard, M.; Langer, V.; Partanen, K.; Pehme, S.; Rasmussen, I. A.; Salomon, E.; Sørensen, P.; Ullvén, K. and Wivstad, M. (Eds), Organic Farming Systems as a Driver for Change, NJF Report, no. 9(3), Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientists, Bredsten, Denmark, pp. 37–8. Sundrum, A. (2001), ‘Organic livestock farming: A critical review’, Livest Sci. 67, 207–15. Sundrum, A. (2007), ‘Conflicting areas in the ethical debate on animal health and welfare’, In Zollitsch, W., Winckler, C., Waiblinger, S. and Halsberger, A. (Eds), Sustainable Food Production and Ethics. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 257–62. Sundrum, A.; Dietze, K. and Werner, C. (2007), ‘System approach to improve animal health’, In Zollitsch, W., Winckler, C., Waiblinger, S. and Halsberger, A. (Eds), Sustainable Food Production and Ethics. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 360–4. Sundrum, A. (2014), ‘Organic livestock production’, In Alfen, N. K. van (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems. Academic Press, Oxford, pp. 287–303. Toro-Mujica, P., García A., Gómez-Castro, A., Perea, J., Rodríguez-Estévez, V., Angón, E. and Barba, C. (2012), ‘Organic dairy sheep farms in south – central Spain: Typologies according to livestock management and economic variables’, Small Rumin. Res. 104, 28–36. Tranter, R. B., Bennett, R. M., Costa, L., Cowan, C., Holt, G. C., Jones, P. J., Miele, M., Sottomayor, M. and Vestergaard, J. (2009), ‘Consumers’ willingness-to-pay for organic conversion-grade food: Evidence from five EU countries’, Food Policy 34, 287–94. Tsourgiannis, L., Karasavvoglou, A. and Florou, G. (2011), ‘Consumers’ attitudes towards GM free products in a European Region. The case of the Prefecture of Drama–Kavala–Xanthi in Greece’, Appetite 57, 448–58. Vaarst, M., Padel, S., Hovi, M., Younie, D. and Sundrum, A. (2005), ‘Sustaining animal health and food safety in European organic livestock farming’, Livest. Sci. 94, 61–9. Van Diepen, P., McLean, B. and Frost, D. (2007), ‘Livestock Breeds and Organic Farming Systems’, ADAS Pwllpeiran. Organic Eprints. http://orgprints.org/10822/1/breeds07.pdf Veysset, P., Bécherel, F. and Bébin, D. (2009), ‘Organic suckling cattle farming system in the Massif Central: Technical and economic results’, INRA Prod. Anim. 22, 189–96.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic beef farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

267

Wägeli, S. and Hamm, U. (2016), ‘Consumers’ perception and expectations of local organic food supply chains’, Org. Agr. 6(3), 215–24. Wani S. A., Chand, S., Najar, G. R. and Teli, M. A. (2013), ‘Organic farming: As a climate change adaptation and mitigation strategy’, Curr. Agri. Res. 1(1), 45–50. Willer, H. and Kilcher, L. (2010), ‘The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends’, IFOAM, http://www.organic-world.net/yearbook-2010.html. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Frick; IFOAM–Organics International, Bonn Wright, I. A., Zervas, G. and Louloudis, L. (2002), ‘The development of sustainable farming systems and the challenges that face producers in the EU’, In Kyriazakis, I. and Zervas, G. (Eds), Organic Meat and Milk from Ruminants. EAAP Publication, No. 106. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 27–37.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Chapter 13 Organic sheep and goat farming: opportunities and challenges Georgios Arsenos, Angeliki Argyriadou, Sotiria Vouraki and Athanasios Gelasakis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece 1 Introduction

2 Sheep and goats as species



3 Organic sheep and goat farming in Europe



4 Key challenges in organic sheep and goat farming



5 Key challenges: nutrient deficiencies



6 Key challenges: parasitic diseases



7 Key challenges: udder diseases, lameness, claw and leg problems



8 Future trends and conclusion

9 References

1 Introduction Organic goat and sheep farming is a highly diverse type of production throughout Europe and other continents, and is intended to achieve a number of objectives, including sustainability and high standards of animal welfare. Like all other types of organic production, goat and sheep farming in Europe is regulated either directly through relevant European Union (EU) regulations, or indirectly through the need of producers to access the EU market. Organic production is also governed by standards set out by national organizations and other bodies. However, achieving these objectives within the regulatory framework set out for organic farming remains challenging, partly because there is such a broad diversity of farming systems incorporating sheep and goats. Organic farming in Europe ranges for example from sheep producing wool and meat on extensive grazing areas in mountains in Scotland and northern England, to intensive sheep milk production systems in The Netherlands, Italy and France, and huge herds of milking goats in South European countries such as Greece. If we move outside Europe, the diversity becomes even larger. Although animals are rarely included in many organic regulations or certification, these certified and non-certified types of organic production also include small ruminants, for example tropical smallholder production where goats provide families with meat, milk and manure in rural and peri-urban areas in Africa and India (Nyong et al., 2007; Padkumar et al., 2016). http://dx.doi.org/10.19103/AS.2017.0028.17 © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

270

Organic sheep and goat farming: opportunities and challenges

The potential interaction with and inclusion of pastoralism into organic farming is discussed in Chapter 9 in this book. However, one common characteristic of organic farming with small ruminants in all types of systems is grazing, often in areas that are not suited for other types of agriculture. In this way, these systems contribute to maintaining biodiversity and landscapes. This creates some specific opportunities as well as significant challenges for these production systems, irrespective of whether they are organic or non-organic. On the one side, grazing animals do not have health and welfare problems which may be observed in permanently housed animals on intensive farm systems or in confined animal systems, as can be observed in many African organic farms with goats (as discussed in Chapter 8 in this book). On the other hand, if pasture is poor, grazing exposes animals to the potential risk of parasitic infections as well as possible nutrient deficiencies. Organic livestock regulations are restrictive about medication for prevention, treatment and withdrawal times of milk and meat, which can add to the challenges of keeping animals free of parasitic and other diseases. Grazing animals may also be vulnerable to climate change since production traditionally occurs in marginal areas or/and under semi-arid conditions where other types of agriculture are not feasible. Small ruminants have features (body size, digestion of fibre, heat tolerance) that provide competitive advantages against other livestock species in the face of a changing climate. Indigenous peoples have long exploited this adaptability in coping with periods of drought in challenging environments such as the Sahel (Nyong et al., 2007). It has been suggested that goats in particular may be able to adapt best to climate change because of their optimal use of natural resources as well as their comparatively lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to other livestock species (Darcan and Silanikove, 2018). Whilst some studies suggest pasture-based systems are associated with higher GHG emissions compared to those using feed concentrates, it has been argued that their overall environmental performance is better once the broader ecosystems services they deliver are taken into account (Mariono et al., 2016). However, even these systems may be vulnerable to extreme weather events related to climate change such as prolonged drought (Mariono et al., 2016). It is therefore very important to identify how organic sheep and goat farmers can adapt to the expected changes in climate across different bio-climatic areas. This chapter aims to characterize organic goat and sheep farming and illustrate the diversity of systems, with a special focus on European countries. A range of challenges faced by organic sheep and goat production will be discussed together with some of the ways these challenges can be addressed.

2 Sheep and goats as species Modern domesticated small ruminants in Europe came with nomadic tribes more than 6000 years ago from Asia, and many pastoral communities and nomadic as well as transhumance systems throughout the world continue to farm both types of animal. Whilst anatomically similar, and classified together as small ruminants, sheep and goats are a different genus and species: Ovis aries (sheep, hence the adjective ‘ovine’) and Capra hircus (goats, hence the adjective ‘caprine’). Recent research on the sheep genome, for example, has begun to identify the evolutionary differences between the two species including in rumen function (Yu et al., 2014). Sheep, for example, evolved as grazers

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic sheep and goat farming: opportunities and challenges

271

in converting herbage efficiently into milk, meat or wool. In contrast, goats evolved as selective browsers in resource-poor, semi-arid or humid ecological environments. These different evolutionary paths have made goats more robust than sheep in their metabolism and tolerance of poor quality and potentially toxic nutrients, and particularly important in their ability to convert low-quality forage into milk and meat. While globally sheep have adapted to a range of agro-climatic conditions where there are large and extensively managed pasture lands, goats have remained more concentrated in dry tropical and subtropical areas, particularly marginal land with low-quality forage to which they are more adapted (Morand-Fehr and Boyazoglu, 1999). However, both sheep and goat have been bred into higher-yielding milking animals, with grazing supplemented with concentrate feed and living part of their lives in indoor systems, for example in The Netherlands, Germany, England, France and Spain. These evolutionary differences also mean that, whilst sheep and goats share a number of respiratory, food and diarrhoeal diseases, there are important differences. It has been suggested that sheep, for example, have evolved better resistance to pasture-based parasites compared to goats (Hoste et al., 2010; Sargison, 2018). Social behaviour is also different, with sheep displaying a much stronger flock mentality which can lead to significant distress if individuals are separated from the group (Nowak, 2018). The dynamics of goat behaviour have been less well researched up until comparatively recently. Studies have found they are characterized by stricter rank relationships which can significantly affect issues such as aggression within flocks, as well as feeding and resting opportunities for lower-ranking members (Barroso et al., 2000; Miranda-de la Lama and Matiello, 2010). There are now a number of studies assessing goat behaviour and appropriate management strategies to minimize aggression between individuals, for example by avoiding competition for feed and space. Aschwanden et al. (2008) looked at how factors such as social bonds, age and rank differences affected social distance and aggression during feeding. Patt et al. (2013) and Szabo et al. (2013) found that separation of individual goats can impact their welfare and that re-integration into a group requires careful management. Andersen et al. (2011) have reviewed the impact of group size on aggression in housed goats, whilst Jørgensen et al. (2007), Nordmann et al. (2011) and Bøe et al. (2013) have looked at differences in spatial requirements between individuals during feeding and resting and their implications in such areas as feed barrier design.

3 Organic sheep and goat farming in Europe Throughout the world, there are many sheep and goat systems which, in many ways, live up to organic principles and are either certified or non-certified organic types of farming. Many nomadic and transhumance communities in Asia and Africa live with small ruminants, which play a key role in their lives and traditions, and upon which they base their livelihoods, as also discussed in Chapter 9. This chapter focuses mainly on Europe and EU regulations which govern organic production in much of Europe. Different sheep and goat farming systems play key roles in many rural areas, particularly grassland and mountain areas to which they are particularly suited. Sheep and goats also play a key role in nature conservation and pastoral systems in Europe (see for example http://www.efncp. org/), as part of farming systems with diversified or specialized production.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

272

Organic sheep and goat farming: opportunities and challenges

Sheep (42%) and cattle (34%) are the main types of organic animal farming in the EU with goats a much smaller sector (7%) (EU, 2016). It has been estimated that there are almost 4.5 million sheep and just over 700 000 goats farmed organically in the EU. Organic sheep farming in the EU was dominated by three countries in 2016: the UK, Italy and Greece, which accounted for 50% of the entire sector (EU, 2016). Other significant producers include Spain and France. In the case of countries such as the UK and Spain, the focus is on meat production, whilst in countries such as Greece and Italy the focus is more on milk production, particularly for cheese. Organic goat farming is mainly concentrated in Greece, Italy, France and Spain, with a focus particularly on the production of milk for cheese, with potential in other countries with a significant goat farming sector such as Bulgaria and Romania (EU, 2016). Organic sheep and goat farming, like all other organic systems of farm management and food production, is based on systems that respect natural life cycles and minimize human impact on the environment (European Parliamentary Research Service, 2015). A key aim of organic animal production systems is to incorporate best environmental practices, preservation of natural resources and high levels of biodiversity. This means, for example, avoiding over-grazing of natural grazing areas and maximizing the contribution of animals to the overall health and biodiversity of grasslands. Other objectives include promoting animal health and welfare (IFOAM, 2017) as well as meeting consumer demand for organic products. Common to many of these systems are potential socioeconomic benefits as they promote development and environmental sustainability in rural areas (EC No 834/2007). The organic farming minimum standards for the European Union are defined by Council regulations (EC No 889/2008; EC No 834/2007). For animal production, regulation 834/2007 has some general standards that are valid for all animal species reared under organic conditions. EU regulation (EC) No 889/2008 includes detailed guidance about organic farming standards for specific animal species, including small ruminants. This guidance covers issues related to processing of food and feeds, record keeping of livestock, simultaneous production of organic and non-organic animals, control of organic holdings and specific conversion rules in different cases. The requirements of organic sheep and goat systems set out by these regulations are summarized in Table 1 and discussed in more detail in the following sections.

3.1 Breeding and origin of animals Natural mating with rams and bucks is still the normal practice in many extensive organic sheep and goat farming systems, although artificial insemination is allowed by EU regulations, and is gaining popularity in many central European sheep and goat farms, which are mostly focused on production of milk and meat. Organic sheep and goats must be born and raised on organic farms and managed separately from non-organic sheep and goats. Non-organic lambs and kids can be used in farms, which are newly established as organically certified, but they need to be less than 60 days old and reared as organic immediately after weaning. Non-organic animals may also be brought onto the farm for breeding purposes but only when there are not enough organic animals available, but in this case, the number of nulliparous females per year must not exceed 20% of adult females of the holding. Their products can be considered organic after the required conversion period. Finally, local breeds should be preferred over imported breeds. This means that in extensive areas, high-yielding breeds used in intensive farming should not be bought in, © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic sheep and goat farming: opportunities and challenges

273

Table 1 Implementing Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 (http​s://e​ur-le​x.eur​opa.e​u/leg​al-co​ ntent​/EN/T​XT/PD​F/?ur​i=CEL​EX:32​008R0​889&f​rom=E​N): summary of sections and articles in Chapter 2 Organic livestock production with specific relevance to organic sheep and goat farming Theme

Section, article no. and main points

Origin of animals

Section 1: Articles 8 and 9: animals should originate from organic farms, be brought up in accordance with organic rules, unless organic animals are not available, and then kids and lambs can be max 60 days of age.

Housing and access to open-air areas; stocking density

Section 2: Articles 10–11: Indoor areas with smooth, non-slippery floor, bedding material and so on. Indoor area 1.5 m2/sheep/goat, 0.35 m2 lamb/kid and 2.5 resp. 0.5 m2 outdoor exercise area. Stocking density 13.3 ewes/goats/ha.

Common grazing and transhumance

Section 2: Article 17: Common grazing areas and transhumance is possible, if the land and the fellow animals derive from farms which live up to the regulation and have not been treated with non-permitted products for 3 years and max 10% of the feed/grass uptake is from non-organic sources.

Management of animals

Article 18: Application of elastic band on tails and tail docking not allowed, castration only when using appropriate anaesthesia or analgesia.

Feed

Section 3: Articles 19–22: 60% feed should be roughage. Feed from own holdings or farm or local area at least 50%, except transhumance periods. 45 days of maternal milk feeding for sheep and goats. 30% can be in conversion.

Disease prevention and veterinary treatment

Section 4: Articles 23–25: No medicine for prevention, and only for treatment if efficient, and when homoeopathy or herb medicine do not work. Withdrawal time after treatment prolonged 2X. Not allowed: >3 treatments in one animal. Vaccinations ok. Documentation needed.

but selection should be for breeds which are well-adapted to local conditions and resistant to diseases that are common in the area.

3.2 Animal husbandry and housing Personnel handling animals must have the necessary skills and basic knowledge for animal health and welfare and there are special rules concerning specific handling operations. Tethering or isolating livestock is prohibited unless it is for veterinary purposes or for the safety and welfare of individual animals and for short periods. Tail docking and dehorning are not allowed as a rule. These operations may be approved by competent authorities in special cases and only when they are expected to improve animal health, welfare, hygiene and/or safety. Physical castration is permitted to maintain the quality of product but should be done at the most appropriate age and by qualified personnel only. In such cases, adequate anaesthesia and/or analgesia is necessary to reduce suffering of the animals. Loading, unloading and transporting of the animals must be done without the use of electrical stimulation or allopathic tranquillizers. The duration of transport should be minimized to ensure animal welfare. As organic systems are land-oriented, animals should have access to open-air and grazing areas whenever possible. Where needed, indoor housing should provide animals with a sufficient, comfortable and clean environment. Natural ventilation should ensure air © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

274

Organic sheep and goat farming: opportunities and challenges

circulation, low dust levels, appropriate temperature and relative humidity. Research has focused on ways on enriching indoor housing for small ruminants. Hansen and Lind (2008) tested an innovative wooden lying area on two levels for sheep on Norwegian organic farms, though they found no particular preference for this kind of enrichment in the sheep they studied. In contrast, Andersen and Bøe (2007) found that size and organization of lying spaces for goats (e.g. separation of lying and resting areas and incorporating different levels) did affect levels of displacement and aggression. Aschwanden et al. (2009) also found that loose-housing pens with partitions and lying niches as well as elevated platforms positively affected goat feeding, resting and agonistic behaviour. Loretz et al. (2004) have also identified differences in spatial requirements in lying and feeding between horned and hornless goats.

3.3 Nutrition Sheep and goat production is approved and labelled as organic when farmers manage their own (or rented) agricultural land for grazing in accordance with organic standards and regulations. For transhumance farms, when flocks are moved, animals may graze on non-organic land. In that case, the uptake of non-organic feeds that animals graze must be less than 10% of the total feed ration per year (percentage of dry matter of feeds from agricultural origin). Organic flocks are also permitted to graze on communal land, under certain conditions. However, during this time the products produced after processing their milk must not be labelled as organic. Apart from grazing, organic sheep and goats must be fed with organic feedstuffs to cover their nutritional requirements at every developmental or production stage. Other substances, feed materials and feed additives are included in a list of EU regulations (Article 16, EC No 889/2008); growth promoters and synthetic amino acids are not allowed. Lambs and kids must be fed on natural milk, preferably maternal – but this can also include organic milk replacer, for a minimum time period of 45 days.

3.4 Disease prevention and veterinary treatment Disease prevention is based on regulations for efficient rearing of the animals. These include optimal design of holdings, regular cleaning and disinfection of buildings, appropriate stocking density, application of good husbandry practices, maintenance of high welfare standards, high nutrition quality and appropriate breed selection. Facilities and equipment should be properly and routinely cleaned and disinfected using designated products according to EU regulation (EC No 889/2008). Biosecurity is a very important measure to prevent disease outbreaks and occurrence in organic herds, as discussed in Chapter 4. This could be particularly important for sheep and goat farms, where transport over large distances to reach grazing areas, or as parts of transhumance or nomadic communities are characteristic of many systems. Screening tests and quarantine periods can be important elements of biosecurity measures. Veterinary products such as vaccines to boost the immune systems are allowed. Chemically synthesized allopathic veterinary medicinal products or hormones to control reproduction are prohibited as a standard practice. When sick or injured animals need to be treated, priority is given to phytotherapeutic and homeopathic products (EC No 889/2008, Annex V/part 3 and Annex VI/part 1.1). When the latter are ineffective, ordinary veterinary drugs should be used subject to extended withdrawal periods (Article 11 of Directive 2001/82/ EC; Athanasiadou et al., 2001). © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic sheep and goat farming: opportunities and challenges

275

4 Key challenges in organic sheep and goat farming Rahmann (2009) and Lu et al. (2010) have highlighted challenges in organic goat farming such as grazing systems with seasonal changes in roughage quality and limits on concentrate feeding, with consequent challenges for nutritional management, as well as disease prevention and management given limits on preventative veterinary interventions. Benoit and Veysett (2003) have highlighted the particular challenges involved in making the transition from conventional to organic sheep farming, including a potential decrease in productivity per ha and the need to produce cereal feed which need to be offset by achieving premium prices for organic produce. Toro-Mujica et al. (2011, 2012) analysed the viability of different types of organic dairy sheep farms in Spain, suggesting a range of types: •• Subsistence family farms with small flocks (average flock size: 24.9 livestock units (LU) amongst the farms studied) •• Larger family farms (average flock size: 138.7 LU) •• Semi-intensive commercial farms (average flock size: 72.6 LU) They found the first group to have the lowest efficiency in terms of measures such as labour per animal, whilst the third group were found to be most efficient in sustainable resource use. The authors highlighted a common weakness for all three types, with stocking rates exceeding carrying capacity. This required reliance on supplementary feed which increased costs and led to low profitability, increasing reliance on subsidies for the first two groups. Darcan and Silanikove (2018) have reviewed the range of types of goat farming in Turkey which has 11 million goats, the largest number in Europe. They identified five main types of farming operation (including conventional and organic systems): •• •• •• •• ••

Extensive Semi-intensive Intensive Nomadic Mixed livestock

At one end of the spectrum, extensive systems typically involved family farms with herds of 50–500 animals. These were characterized by relatively low profitability, a reliance on local breeds well adapted to local conditions but with relatively low milk or meat yields, the use of traditional, sometimes poor types of winter housing and inability by some farmers to afford concentrates to supplement deficiencies in grazing. In contrast modern, non-organic intensive systems (with herds of up to 1000 animals) were characterized by advanced selection and breeding techniques (focused on improving genetic traits such as meat and milk yield), use of indoor housing, reliance on concentrate feeds, high levels of veterinary monitoring and intervention, as well as semi- or fully automated milking systems. The authors identified a number of general challenges in improving goat farming in more traditional farming, including improvements in breeding techniques and better training in husbandry to optimize input use and improve welfare.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

276

Organic sheep and goat farming: opportunities and challenges

Echoing these findings, Nardone et al. (2004) have identified a number of challenges in implementing and improving organic farming of small ruminants such as sheep and goats. These include: •• appropriate breeding strategies (e.g. to improve traits such as disease resistance, forage intake capacity and longevity) •• feed management •• disease control •• levels of technical knowledge among farmers •• farm size and access to resources •• marketing and market access to secure premiums for organic produce Hoffmann (2010) has emphasized the importance of preserving and building on the characteristics of local breeds adapted to their particular environments. The challenges and opportunities for organic farming of small ruminants can be seen in case of Romania. Romania has a population of 9.5 million sheep and 1.2 million goats mainly in mountainous and other less-favoured areas (LFAs) (Sauer et al., 2015). Farming is typically in extensive, low-input systems using local breeds such as the Carpatina breed of goat, which is well adapted to local conditions and has good resistance to disease, but has relatively low growth rates and milk yield compared to other European breeds. Figures suggest that organic farming is under 1% of overall production with, for example, just over 85 000 sheep farmed organically (EU, 2016). However, Sauer et al. (2015) have found that organic goat production compares well to conventional production in terms of measures such as pasture yields and kg of kid meat produced per ha. They identify a number of priorities in improving the sector, including crossbreeding to improve meat and milk yield, improving reproductive performance, improved pasture management (e.g. introduction of legumes) and improvements to animal health and welfare. Some of these key challenges are discussed in more detail in the following sections. Underpinning any improvement is the need to continuously monitor animal welfare, both as a key organic principle and as an indicator for problems such as nutrient deficiency and disease. Standard welfare indicators are the AWIN Welfare Assessment Protocols for Sheep and Goats (AWIN, 2015a,b). The range of welfare indicators for adult ewes is summarized in EFSA (2014) and Beausoleil and Mellor (2018). Napolitano et al. (2009) have discussed the feasibility and effectiveness of on-farm welfare monitoring schemes, finding little difference between organic and extensive conventional farms, though they highlighted the need for more training in areas such as detection of lesions. Šimpraga et al. (2013) have highlighted the need to establish better reference standards to assess the health status of organically farmed sheep.

5 Key challenges: nutrient deficiencies Organic sheep and goats regulations require that animals mostly graze or are fed homegrown feeds. Well-managed sheep grazing can help to develop varied, species-rich grasslands (Nardone et al., 2004). These regulations mean that the quality of the feeds depends on the quality of the soil in the region. Where this is poor, nutrient deficiencies, mostly minerals and vitamins, have been reported in some organic sheep and goat farms, although minerals can be provided in accordance with organic regulations. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic sheep and goat farming: opportunities and challenges

277

Some of the challenges in grazing for sheep have been shown by Skapetas et al. (2004) who showed how seasonal fluctuations in temperature and rainfall could significantly reduce herbage yield and nutritional value and lead to overgrazing in mountain pastures in Greece. This reflects the problems faced by regions such as the Mediterranean basin where high temperatures and low rainfall limit pasture growth in the summer. The grazing capacity of mountainous grassland declines significantly during the autumn, requiring animals to be moved to lowland pasture and increasing reliance on feed from winter cereals (Nardone, 2000). The challenges in ensuring continuity of food supply remains one the major constraints in extensive small ruminant systems. Solutions include identifying optimal stocking rates, including balancing grazing pressure and rest periods. Lu (2011) has assessed ways of optimizing nutrition in organic goat production. Sustainable production relies on high forage systems, requiring understanding of factors such as plant biomass accumulation, eating behaviour, seasonal fluctuations in nutrient supply and changing nutrient requirements associated, for example, with pregnancy, parturition and lactation. Both Lu (2011) and Hoste et al. (2005a,b) recommend legumes to improve protein uptake, which enhances animal immunity and resistance to endoparasites and diseases, as well as secondary plant compounds with anthelmintic properties to improve disease resistance and nutrient digestion. It has also been suggested that legumes contribute to lower GHG emissions (Mariono et al., 2016). Nardone et al. (2004) suggest that feed management requires a transition from monocultural systems to a ‘mosaic’ with multiple components. Where possible, this might include integrated crop-livestock systems, ideally incorporating legume-based rotations and intercropping (Howiesson et al., 2000; Ronchi and Nardone, 2003). As noted earlier, good nutrition is also a key factor in improving reproductive success. It has been found that perinatal mortality in organic sheep flocks and goat herds in Greece range between 10% and 30% (Arsenos et al., 2004). High perinatal mortality can be prevented through management practices such as balanced nutrition to ensure proper body condition score (BCS) of ewes and does during pregnancy, supervision of periparturient ewes to prevent dystocia and early feeding of lambs with sufficient amounts of colostrum (Arsenos et al., 2004). Another key element is reproductive intensity. According to Benoit et al. (2009) one lambing per ewe per year is more sustainable compared to three lambings in 2 years practised on many farms, both in terms of management time, animal health and overall cost. A key problem is that symptoms of nutrient deficiencies only become obvious over time, often only after animal body reserves have been exhausted, thus exposing animals to distress and the risk of disease (Arsenos et al., 2004; Athanasiadou et al., 2001). The difficulty in early identification of nutrient deficiency and treatment means that farmers should focus on preventing any form of deficiency, both in terms of securing balanced feed rations, and in terms of ensuring that the animals get sufficient supplements of minerals, vitamins and trace elements. A detailed analysis of soil and vegetation is highly recommended, especially in areas where this is not already known or mapped. In addition, blood sampling of animals can detect possible deficiencies at an early stage (Athanasiadou et al., 2001). Nutrient deficiencies can be indirectly identified using on-farm welfare indicators to assess the condition of individual animals, for example hair coat, claws and body condition. Nutrient deficiencies affect body reserves so assessing BCS can be a good indicator of nutritional status. It provides a measurement of the balance between feed intake and nutrient requirements (AWIN, 2015a). BCS can be affected by many factors such as food © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

278

Organic sheep and goat farming: opportunities and challenges

availability, productive status, parasites, dental problems and other chronic diseases. Thus, for the interpretation of the results, such factors must also be taken in account. Another welfare indicator that can be used to assess feeding and nutrient sufficiency in ewes and does is lamb and kid mortality, respectively. The weight of lambs and kids at birth is a key factor for their survival and is directly associated with the nutritional status of their mothers. Information how to assess welfare indicators are detailed by the AWIN Welfare Assessment Protocol for Sheep (AWIN, 2015a).

6 Key challenges: parasitic diseases Grazing and browsing are natural behaviours of sheep and goats and potentially expose them to parasitic infections (Sevi et al., 2009), depending on various conditions such as rain, temperature and previous use of the field and pasture. Endoparasites affect animal productivity (growth, milk, meat and wool production) and reduce farm profit. Furthermore, parasitism is associated with anorexia, diarrhoea, anaemia, loss of body condition, predisposition to secondary infections or in severe cases, death (Knox et al., 2006). A number of welfare indicators indicative of parasitic diseases are available (e.g. AWIN Welfare Assessment Protocol for Sheep and Goats, AWIN, 2015a,b), and can help the farmers to early detection and intervention when relevant. Some studies have suggested that parasite infection may be higher in organic compared to conventional farms, possibly related to the lower frequency of anthelmintic treatments on organic farms (Cabaret et al., 2002). Other studies, however, have suggested that certified organic sheep farms may have lower levels of infection (measured by faecal egg counts per gram of faeces (EPG)) than both noncertified and conventional farms (Mederos et al., 2010). Caberet et al. (2015) have highlighted limits in farmers’ knowledge in controlling parasitic infections and the need for better communication and a more integrated approach to gastrointestinal nematode control. Anti-parasitic treatments are allowed in organic systems. Susceptibility to parasites has been linked in dairy sheep to age (e.g. younger primiparous ewes), suggesting the possibility of more selective treatments targeting the more susceptible animals within a flock (Hoste et al., 2005a,b). However, the growing concern about drug resistance, drug residues in food and environmental pollution directed interest to alternative approaches sometimes described as ‘integrated parasite management’ (Ronchi and Nardone, 2003; Athanasiadou et al., 2001; Karlsson and Grief, 2012). Such approaches include (Nardone et al., 2004): •• breeding for genetic resistance to nematode infection •• grazing management •• forage including species with anti-parasitic properties proanthocyanidins) •• biological control of parasites by encouraging predators •• use of homeopathic treatments and plant extracts

(e.g.

polyphenolic

Some of these are discussed below. Breeding for genetic resistance has potential to prevent parasites in sheep (Karlsson and Greef, 2012). Organic principles emphasize the importance of use of local breeds, which

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic sheep and goat farming: opportunities and challenges

279

are suited to the local environment and context, so efforts to strengthen their resistance should be a starting point for organic small ruminants. Some quantitative trait loci (QTL) in the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) of sheep have been associated with nematode resistance in several breeds (Bishop and Morris, 2007; Dukkipatti et al., 2006). Selection for resistant genotypes may be the solution to reduce nematode infections and minimize the use of anti-parasitic treatments. Organic farmers have also used phenotypic markers (e.g. related to anaemia, diarrhoea or weight gain) to target more selective anthelmintic treatments for parasite control (Cabaret et al., 2009). The organic principles call for a holistic view on health, so programmes targeted towards single diseases should of course be balanced with overall health strategies. All techniques – including reproduction techniques – should of course be in accordance with principles, rules and regulations. There are different types of grazing management strategies, which can help minimizing parasitic infections: •• evasive grazing strategies •• diluting grazing strategies Evasive strategies involve animals moving from contaminated to clean pastures. Diluting strategies involve diluting the infectivity of pasture. The latter strategies include reduction of stocking density and rotational grazing of different species on the same pastures (Rahmann and Seip, 2007). Depending on the farming system, these strategies have different challenges. On farms where there are possibilities for crop rotation and ‘clean’ grazing areas, it is easier to plan than when herds move over large areas of extensive grazing and browsing areas, where patterns of moving in some cases can be planned to comprise diluting strategies, for example mimicking holistic grazing strategies, and by all means avoid overgrazing. Alternative plants, and plants containing condensed tannins have also been proved effective against nematodes in goats (Hoste et al., 2005a,b). Similarly, the use of sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia), which is a tanniferous plant, has been proved to be effective against gastrointestinal nematodes in sheep (Heckendorn et al., 2006). However, such approaches are not always successful and their results are characterized by variability, among others related to factors such as weather and other local conditions which vary between years. Further information on active compounds, mode of action on parasites and optimal conditions of application is needed (Hoste and Torres-Acosta, 2011). A metaanalysis by Mederos et al. (2012) found the use of legumes and other plants containing nutraceuticals were most effective in treating gastrointestinal nematodes, together with breeding more resistant animals, compared to other treatments such as homeopathic remedies or biological control to enhance predators of parasites.

7 Key challenges: udder diseases, lameness, claw and leg problems Milk production is important for the profitability of dairy sheep and goat farms and requires high quality and hygiene standards, including udder health (Gelasakis et al., 2016). Clinical mastitis (CM) causes pain and discomfort and subclinical mastitis (SM) modifies the normal behaviour of sheep (Gelasakis et al., 2015a). Despite the absence of clinical signs, SM can © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

280

Organic sheep and goat farming: opportunities and challenges

adversely affect milk yield and quality (Gelasakis et al., 2016). At flock/herd level, a holistic approach is needed to reduce the incidence of mastitis, including breeding, good hygiene and effective monitoring. Some studies indicated that the incidence of CM is lower than 5% but the prevalence of SM is generally above 10%, although it can rise to 50% or more (Barillet, 2007; Bergonier et al., 2003). Intramammary infections in small ruminants are common reasons for involuntary culling of females. It has been found that resistance to mastitis has a genetic basis (Bergonier et al., 2003). In particular, heritabilities for high somatic cell counts (SCC) and other mastitisrelated traits have been estimated (ranging between 0.1 and 0.2). The latter suggest that genetic improvement against mastitis is feasible in both sheep and goats (Bishop, 2015; Bergonier et al., 2003). This was confirmed by experiments on sheep which showed that selection based on decreased SCC reduced the risk of CM (Bishop, 2015). Furthermore, genome analysis for mastitis-related traits proved that genomic selection based on single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) is possible in the future (Psifidi et al., 2014). Again, with reference to organic principles and regulations, a holistic view of health management and the emphasis on the use of local and robust breeds should guide the overall approach, together with good general animal and herd management, including a high level of hygiene in preventing intramammary infections. Long-acting antibiotics during the dry period have been a standard prevention strategy, in conventional farms, although increasingly discouraged and prohibited in most European countries nowadays, due to the increasing risk of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). This strategy, however, has never been an option for organic farmers, who can only use antibiotics for treatment of sick animals. This further emphasizes the importance of maintaining good hygiene on the farm, particularly in the milking parlour. Routine monitoring of animals’ health condition, frequent udder inspection and regular testing for SCC can further contribute to prevention by appropriate action every time irregularities are observed (Arsenos et al., 2004; Athanasiadou et al., 2001). Lameness is a deviation from the normal gait caused by lesions, defects, injuries, diseases and/or other factors located somewhere in the limb or the rest of the body. Lameness causes pain and discomfort (Beusker, 2007). As a result, lameness severely compromises welfare and productivity of the affected animals (Gelasakis et al., 2010, 2015b). Lameness has been studied extensively mainly on sheep, but most of the findings also apply to goats. In sheep the incidence and severity of lameness depends on many genetic and/or environmental factors. Environmental factors include husbandry system, housing conditions and hygiene, nutrition and hoof care practices (trimming, bathing) (Gelasakis et al., 2009). In contrast to some intensive systems, animals in organic systems spend many hours grazing outdoors and hooves are usually trimmed naturally. This makes them less exposed to factors associated with poor housing conditions, such as increased humidity, insufficient ventilation, accumulation of manure and urea on the floor, high stocking density and inappropriate floor material, which increase the humidity of hooves with adverse consequences. Nutritional deficiencies (e.g. insufficient amounts of sulphur, carbon, zinc, cuprum and vitamins), and imbalanced forage concentrate ratio and excess energy intake, can also predispose to hoof defects and lameness (Gelasakis et al., 2009). More information on how to assess on-farm welfare indicators associated with lameness and leg problems is available in the AWIN Welfare Assessment Protocols for Sheep and Goats (iSAGE, 2017; AWIN, 2015a,b).

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic sheep and goat farming: opportunities and challenges

281

8 Future trends and conclusion Many farming systems involving animals face future challenges related to climate change (Hoffmann, 2010). However, organic sheep and goat systems can potentially help deal with the challenge, in part because their environmental impact is relatively low and in part because they may be better able to adapt to the effects of climate change. However, it is also true that sheep and goat farming often takes place in mountainous and other marginal areas which are particularly vulnerable to climate change, especially high temperatures and low rainfall and droughts during dry season, which have direct negative effects on animal health and well-being (e.g. heat stress and dehydration) and on pasture quality and the quantity of the biomass grazed. Higher temperature and reduced water intake may lower feed intake and metabolic rate and alter the endocrine status of animals. Fertility and production of animals may also be adversely affected (Nardone et al., 2010). Indirect effects include adverse welfare status and increased incidence of vector-borne and other diseases (Taylor, 2012). In this challenging environment, adaptation of animals and sustainability of the available resources are of major importance. Breeding for resilience under adverse conditions including, heat stress, degraded pasture quality and major disease pressure, will be some of the future challenges for organic systems (Hoffmann, 2010). For this reason, genetic diversity should be preserved in order to tackle potential changes. Organic sheep and goat farming has not attracted as much research as conventional farming. The sector requires more research on how to manage all aspects of farm management, including animal welfare. Another important issue is profitability. If organic farms are not profitable then farmers are less likely to invest in strategies that will improve health and welfare of livestock. Organic farms need to be viable with sufficient markets and realistic costs of production to ensure that farmers are inclined to invest. In this respect, research should focus on exploring the genetic potential of indigenous and rare breeds in order to benefit from their adaptation to harsh environments and low-input management. Breeding for resilience and adaptability, within the existing organic farming systems, will render organic sheep and goats more productive, less susceptible to diseases and more resistant to climate-induced stress, whereas it will ensure the sustainability of organic sheep and goat farming.

9 References Andersen, L. and Bøe, K. (2007), ‘Resting pattern and social interactions in goats: The impact of size and organization of lying space’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 108, 89–103. Andersen, I., Tønnesen, H., Estevez, I., et al. (2011), ‘The relevance of group size on goats’ social dynamics in a production environment’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 134, 136–14. Arsenos, G., Banos, G., Valergakis, G. E., et al. (2004), ‘Proposed husbandry practices to ensure animal health and product quality in organic sheep and goat production systems’, Proceedings of the 2nd SAFO Workshop, Witzenhausen, Germany, http:​//org​print​s.org​/3148​/1/ho​vi-et​-al-2​ 004-2​nd-SA​FO-pr​oceed​ings.​pdf#p​age=1​07 (accessed 09 June 2017). Aschwanden, J., Gygax, L. Wechsler, B., et al. (2008), ‘Social distances of goats at the feeding rack: Influence of the quality of social bonds, rank differences, grouping age and presence of horns’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 114, 116–31.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

282

Organic sheep and goat farming: opportunities and challenges

Aschwanden, J., Gygax, L., Wechsler, B., et al. (2009), ‘Loose housing of small goat groups: Influence of visual cover and elevated levels on feeding, resting and agonistic behaviour’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 119, 171–9. Athanasiadou, S., Arsenos, G. and Kyriazakis, I. (2001), ‘Animal health and welfare issues arising in organic ruminant production systems’, Organic Meat and Milk from Ruminants: Proceedings of a Joint International Conference Organised by the Hellenic Society of Animal Production and the British Society of Animal Science, EAAP publication No. 106 Athens, Greece, 4–6 October 2001, Wageningen Pers, Wageningen. AWIN (2015a), ‘AWIN welfare assessment protocol for sheep’, doi:10.13130/AWIN_SHEEP_2015. AWIN (2015b), ‘AWIN welfare assessment protocol for goats’, doi:10.13130/AWIN_GOATS_2015. Barillet, F. (2007), ‘Genetic improvement for dairy production in sheep and goats’, Small Ruminant Research, 70(1), 60–75. Barroso, F., Alados, C. and Boza, J. (2000), ‘Social hierarchy in the domestic goat: Effect on food habits and production’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 69, 35–53. Beausoleil, N. and Mellor, D. (2018), ‘Validating indicators of sheep welfare’, in Greyling, J. (Ed.), Achieving Sustainable Production of Sheep, Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, Cambridge, UK. Benoit, M. and Veysett, P. (2003), ‘Conversion of cattle and sheep suckler farming to organic farming’, Livestock Production Science, 80, 141–52. Benoit, M., Tournadre, H., Dulphy, J. P., et al. (2009), ‘Is intensification of reproduction rhythm sustainable in an organic sheep production system? A 4-year interdisciplinary study’, Animal, 3(5), 753–63. Bergonier, D., Crémoux, R. D., Rupp, R., et al. (2003), ‘Mastitis of dairy small ruminants’, Veterinary Research, 34(5), 689–716. Beusker, N. (2007), ‘Welfare of Dairy Cows: Lameness in Cattle – A Literature Review’, Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover, http://d-nb.info/98788509X/34 (accessed 09 June 2017). Bishop, S. (2015), ‘Genetic resistance to infections in sheep’, Veterinary Microbiology, 181(1–2), 2–7. Bishop, S. and Morris, C. (2007), ‘Genetics of disease resistance in sheep and goats’, Small Ruminant Research, 70(1), 48–59. Bøe, K., Ehrlenbruch, R, Jørgensen, G., et al. (2013), ‘Individual distance during resting and feeding in age homogeneous vs age heterogeneous groups of goats’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 147, 112–16. Cabaret, J., Mage, C. and Bouilhol, M. (2002), ‘Helminth intensity and diversity in organic meat sheep farms in the centre of France’, Veterinary Parasitology, 105, 33–47. Cabaret, J., Benoit, M., Laignel, G., et al. (2009), ‘Current management of farms and internal parasites by conventional and organic meat sheep French farmers and acceptance of targeted selective treatments’, Veterinary Parasitology, 164, 26–9. Caberet, J., Chylinski, C., Meradi, S., et al. (2015), ‘The trade-off between farmers’ autonomy and the control of parasitic gastro-intestinal nematodes of sheep in conventional and organic farms’, Livestock Science, 181, 108–13. Council Directive 98/58/EC Concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes (1998), http:​ / /eur​ - lex.​ e urop ​ a .eu/ ​ l egal ​ - cont ​ e nt/E ​ N /TXT ​ / PDF/ ​ ? uri= ​ C ELEX ​ : 3199 ​ 8 L005 ​ 8 &fro ​ m =EN (accessed 09 June 2017). Darcan, N. and Silanikove, S. (2018), ‘The advantages of goats for future adaptation to climate change: A conceptual overview’, Small Ruminant Research, 163, 34–8. Daskiran, I., Savas, T., Koyuncu, M., et al. (2018), ‘Goat production systems of Turkey: Nomadic to industrial’, Small Ruminant Research, 163, 15–20. Dukkipati, V., Blair, H., Garrick, D., et al. (2006), ‘“Ovar-Mhc”– Ovine major histocompatibility complex: Role in genetic resistance to diseases’, New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 54(4), 153–60. Dunn, T. G. and Moss, G. E. (1992), ‘Effects of nutrient deficiencies and excesses on reproductive efficiency of livestock’, Journal of Animal Science, 70(5), 1580. EFSA (2014), ‘Scientific opinion on the welfare risks related to the farming of sheep for wool, meat and milk production’, EFSA Journal, 12, 1–128. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic sheep and goat farming: opportunities and challenges

283

EU Legislation in Progress: Organic Farming Legislation PE 569.036 (2015), http:​//www​.euro​parl.​ europ​a.eu/​RegDa​ta/et​udes/​BRIE/​2015/​56903​6/EPR​S_BRI​(2015​)5690​36_EN​.pdf (accessed 09 June 2017). EU (2016), Facts and figures on organic agriculture in the European Union, http:​//ec.​europ​a.eu/​agric​ ultur​e/ric​a/pdf​/Orga​nic_2​016_w​eb_ne​w.pdf​. European Commission (2008), ‘EC No 889/2008’, http:​//eur​-lex.​europ​a.eu/​LexUr​iServ​/LexU​riSer​v.do?​ uri=O​J:L:2​008:2​50:00​01:00​84:en​:PDF (accessed 09 June 2017). European Council (2007), ‘EC No 834/2007’, http:​//eur​-lex.​europ​a.eu/​LexUr​iServ​/LexU​riSer​v.do?​ uri=O​J:L:2​007:1​89:00​01:00​23:EN​:PDF (accessed 09 June 2017). Fraser, D. (2008), ‘Understanding animal welfare’, Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 50(Suppl. 1), S1, doi:10.1186/1751-0147-50-s1-s1. Gelasakis, A. I., Valergakis, G. E. and Arsenos, G. (2009), ‘Predisposing factors of sheep lameness’, Journal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society, 60(1), 63–74. Gelasakis, A. I., Arsenos, G., Valergakis, G. E., et al. (2010), ‘Effect of lameness on milk production in a flock of dairy sheep’, Veterinary Record, 167, 533–4. Gelasakis, A. I., Arsenos, G., Hickford, J., et al. (2013), ‘Polymorphism of the MHC-DQA2 gene in the Chios dairy sheep population and its association with footrot’, Livestock Science, 153(1–3), 56–9. Gelasakis, A. I., Mavrogianni, V., Petridis, I., et al. (2015a), ‘Mastitis in sheep – The last 10 years and the future of research’, Veterinary Microbiology, 181(1–2), 136–46. Gelasakis, A. I., Arsenos, G., Valergakis G. E., et al. (2015b), ‘Association of lameness with milk yield and lactation curves in Chios dairy ewes’, Journal of Dairy Research, 82(2), 193–9. Gelasakis, A. I., Angelidis, S. A., Giannakou, R., et al. (2016), ‘Bacterial subclinical mastitis and its effect on milk yield in low-input dairy goat herds’, Journal of Dairy Science, 99(5), 3698–708. Hansen, I. and Lind, V. (2008), ‘Are double bunks used by indoor wintering sheep? Testing a proposal for organic farming in Norway’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 115, 37–43. Heckendorn, F., Häring, D. A., Maurer, V., et al. (2006), ‘Effect of sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia) silage and hay on established populations of Haemonchus contortus and Cooperia curticei in lambs’, Veterinary Parasitology, 142(3–4), 293–300. Hoffmann, I. (2010), ‘Climate change and the characteristics, breeding and conservation of animal genetic resources’, Animal Genetics, 41(Suppl. 1), 32–46. Hoste, H. and Torres-Acosta, J. (2011), ‘Non chemical control of helminths in ruminants: Adapting solutions for changing worms in a changing world’, Veterinary Parasitology, 180(1–2), 144–54. Hoste, H., Rulie, A., Prevot, F., et al. (2005a), ‘Differences in receptivity to gastrointestinal infections with nematodes in dairy ewes: Influence of age and the level of milk production’, Small Ruminant Research, 63(2), 150–5. Hoste, H., Torres-Acosta, J., Paolini, V., et al. (2005b), ‘Interactions between nutrition and gastrointestinal infections with parasitic nematodes in goats’, Small Ruminant Research, 60(1–2), 141–51. Hoste, H., Sotiraki, S., Landau, S., et al. (2010), ‘Goat-nematode interactions: Think differently’, Trends in Parasitology, 26(8), 376–81. Howiesson, J., O’Hara, G. and Carr, D. (2000), ‘Changing roles for legumes in Mediterranean agriculture: Developments from an Australian perspective’, Field Crops Research, 65(2/3), 107–22. IFOAM-The Principle of Health (2017), https​://ww​w.ifo​am.bi​o/en/​princ​iples​-orga​nic-a​gricu​lture​/prin​ ciple​-heal​th (accessed 09 June 2017). iSAGE (2017), WP1, http://www.isage.eu/work-packages/wp1/(accessed 09 June 2017). Jørgensen, G., Andersen, I. and Bøe, K. (2007), ‘Feed intake and social interactions in dairy goats – the effects of feeding space and type of roughage’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 107, 239–51. Karlsson, L. and Greef, J. (2012), ‘Genetic aspects of sheep parasitic diseases’, Veterinary Parasitology, 189(1), 104–12.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

284

Organic sheep and goat farming: opportunities and challenges

Knox, M., Torres-Acosta, J. and Aguilar-Caballero, A. (2006), ‘Exploiting the effect of dietary supplementation of small ruminants on resilience and resistance against gastrointestinal nematodes’, Veterinary Parasitology, 139(4), 385–93. Loretz, C., Wechsler, B., Hauser R., et al. (2004), ‘A comparison of space requirements of horned and hornless goats at the feed barrier and in the lying area’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 87, 275–83. Lu, C. (2011), ‘Nutritionally-related strategies for organic goat production’, Small Ruminant Research, 98, 73–82. Lu, C., Gangyi, X. and Kawas, J. (2010), ‘Organic goat production, processing and marketing: Opportunities, challenges and outlook’, Small Ruminant Research, 89, 102–9. Mariono, R., Atzori, A., D’Andrea, M., et al. (2016), ‘Climate change: Production performance, health issues, greenhouse gases and mitigation strategies in sheep and goat farming’, Small Ruminant Research, 135, 50–9. Mederos, A., Fernández, S., VanLeeuwen, J., et al. (2010), ‘Prevalence and distribution of gastrointestinal nematodes on 32 organic and commercial sheep farms in Ontario and Quebec, Canada (2006–2008)’, Veterinary Parasitology, 170, 244–52. Mederos, A., Waddell, L., Sanchez, J., et al. (2012), ‘A systematic meta-analysis of primary research investigating the effect of selected alternative treatments on gastro-intestinal nematodes in sheep under field conditions’, Preventative Veterinary Medicine, 104, 1–14. Miranda-de la Lama, G. and Matiello, S. (2010), ‘The importance of social behavior for goat welfare in livestock farming’, Small Ruminant Research, 90, 1–10. Morand-Fehr, P. and Boyazoglu, J. (1999), ‘Present state and future outlook of the small ruminant sector’, Small Ruminant Research, 34, 175–88. Napolitano. F., De Rosa, G., Ferrante, V., et al. (2009), ‘Monitoring the welfare of sheep in organic and conventional farms using an ANI 35 L derived method’, Small Ruminant Research, 83, 49–57. Nardone, A. (2000), ‘Weather conditions and genetics of breeding systems in the Mediterranean area’, in Anon. (Ed.), Proceedings of the XXXV SIPZ International Symposium, Societa Italiana per il Progresso della Zootecnica, Rabusa, Italy. Nardone, A., Zervas, G. and Ronchi, B. (2004), ‘Sustainability of small ruminant organic systems of production’, Livestock Production Science, 90(1), 27–39. Nardone, A., Ronchi, B., Lacetera, N., et al. (2010), ‘Effects of climate changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock systems’, Livestock Science, 130(1–3), 57–69. Nordmann, E., Keil, N., Scheid-Wagner, C., et al. (2011), ‘Feed barrier design affects behaviour and physiology in goats’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 133, 40–53. Nowak, R. (2018), ‘Understanding sheep behaviour’, in Greyling, J. (Ed.), Achieving Sustainable Production of Sheep, Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, Cambridge, UK. Nyong, A., Adesna, F. and Osman Elasha, B. (2007), ‘The value of indigenous knowledge in climate change mitigation and adaption strategies in the African Sahel’, Mitig Adapt State Global Change, 12, 787–97. Padkumar, V., Baltenweck, I. and Weber, C. (2016), Commercializing the Smallholder Goat Sector in India, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya. Patt, A., Gygax, L., Wechsler, B., et al. (2013), ‘Factors affecting the welfare of goats in small established groups during the separation and reintegration of individuals’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 144, 63–72. Psifidi, A., Bramis, G., Arsenos, G., et al. (2014), ‘Genetic parameters and genomic markers associated with mastitis resistance in dairy sheep’, Proceedings, 10th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. Rahmann, G. (2009), ‘Goat milk production under organic farm standards’, Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 11, 105–8. Rahmann, G. and Seip, H. (2007), ‘Alternative management strategies to prevent and control endo-parasite diseases in sheep and goat farming systems – a review of the recent scientific knowledge’, Landbauforschung Völkenrode, 57(2), 75–88.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic sheep and goat farming: opportunities and challenges

285

Ronchi, B. and Nardone, A. (2003), ‘Contribution of organic farming to increase sustainability of Mediterranean small ruminants livestock systems’, Livestock Production Science, 80(1–2), 17–31. Sargison, N. (2018), ‘Maintaining sheep flock health: An overview’, in Greyling, J. (Ed.), Achieving Sustainable Production of Sheep, Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, Cambridge, UK. Sauer, M., Padeanu, I., Dragomir, N., et al. (2015), ‘Organic goat meat production in less favoured areas of Romania’, Landbauforschung Applied Agricultural and Forestry Research. doi:10.3220/ LBF1439881037000. Scortichini, G., Amorena, M., Brambilla, G., et al. (2016), ‘Sheep farming and the impact of the environment on food safety’, Small Ruminant Research, 135, 66–74. Scott, E. M., Nolan, A. M. and Fitzpatrick, J. L. (2001), ‘Conceptual and methodological issues related to welfare assessment: A framework for measurement’, Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science, 51(Suppl. 30), 5–10. Sevi, A., Casamassima, D., Pulina, G., et al. (2009), ‘Factors of welfare reduction in dairy sheep and goats’, Italian Journal of Animal Science, 8(Suppl. 1), 81–101. Šimpraga, M., Šmuc, T., Matanović, K., et al. (2013), ‘Reference intervals for organically-raised sheep: Effect of breed, location and season on hematological and biochemical parameters’, Small Ruminant Research, 112, 1–6. Skapetas, B., Nitas, D., Karalazos, A., et al. (2004), ‘A study on herbage mass production and quality for organic grazing sheep in a mountain pasture in northern Greece’, Livestock Production Science, 87, 277–81. Szabo, S., Barth, B., Grami. C., et al. (2013), ‘Introducing young dairy goats into the adult herd after parturition reduces social stress’, Journal of Dairy Science, 96, 5644–55. Taylor, M. (2012), ‘Emerging parasitic diseases of sheep’, Veterinary Parasitology, 189(1), 2–7. Toro-Mujica, P., García, A., Gómez-Castro, A. G., et al. (2011), ‘Technical efficiency and viability of organic dairy sheep farming systems in a traditional area for sheep production in Spain’, Small Ruminant Research, 100, 89–95. Toro-Mujica, P., García, A., Gómez-Castro, A. et al. (2012), ‘Organic dairy sheep farms in south-central Spain: Typologies according to livestock management and economic variables’, Small Ruminant Research, 104, 28–36. Yu, J., Xie, M., Chen, W., et al. (2014), ‘The sheep genome illuminates biology of the rumen and lipid metabolism’, Science, 344(6188), 1168–73.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Chapter 14 Organic pig farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges Barbara Früh, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Switzerland; and Mirjam Holinger, ETH Zürich, Switzerland 1 Introduction

2 Housing systems: challenges and solutions



3 The need for suitable organic feeding



4 Threats to pig health under organic housing conditions: causes and prevention



5 Organic breeding goals



6 Entire males: opportunity or threat?



7 Case study: potential alternatives or additions in pig feeding



8 International collaboration and dissemination to promote implementation of scientific results



9 Future trends and conclusion



10 Where to look for further information

11 References

1 Introduction Organic pig production remains a niche occupation in most parts of the world. The share of organic pigs in EU28 is very limited, representing 0.5% of total pig production (Meredith and Willer, 2016). Figure 1 presents the number of breeding sows per European country in 2015 (FiBL, 2017). Compared to 2011, there are some countries with a significant increase, while others show a decrease. The way in which organic pigs are produced in Europe, and to an even greater extent worldwide, is extremely heterogeneous. Regulations concerning organic animal husbandry and breeding range from being quite wide and general [International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) regulations], to being more specific and detailed [European Union (EU) organic farming regulation]. However, although all production of organic pork in the EU is governed by regulation (EC) no. 834/2007 and commission regulation (EC) no. 889/2008, the housing systems for organic pigs vary between countries. This is as a result of differences in former or current national legislation, certification body standards, and climate conditions. Certain countries http://dx.doi.org/10.19103/AS.2017.0028.16 © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

288

Organic pig farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

Figure 1 Number of breeding sows per country. Grey bars show data from 2015, and white bars show data from 2011. Italy and Greece were excluded from this graph because reliable data was not available. Based on data from FiBL (2017).

or certification bodies require, for example, that some or all types of pig are kept on pasture or arable land (e.g. the UK, Sweden, France) while others only require a concrete outdoor run without automatic access to pasture (e.g. Switzerland, Austria, Germany) (Früh, 2011b). In the following text these systems are referred to as ‘outdoor’ and ‘indoor’ for reasons of simplicity. The significant differences between systems also mean that the main challenges for organic pig production in terms of housing, health and welfare differ greatly. Pigs housed outdoors are exposed to more extreme weather conditions and endoor ectoparasites. However, pigs housed mainly indoors show more signs of respiratory diseases and abnormal behaviour (Rudolph, 2015). Similarly, the environmental impact differs for system-inherent reasons. While the amount of greenhouse gas emissions is comparable among systems, the source may vary (e.g. manure storage, feed production, or outdoor runs) (Rudolph, 2015). However, a common issue for nearly all systems is finding a sustainable, ideally locally-grown feed consisting of 100% organic ingredients which does not compete directly with food production for direct human consumption. The feed has to meet the pig’s nutrient requirements, and should promote a healthy digestive tract. Pigs should also be able to display certain behaviours towards or with feed, like grazing, rooting or chewing. Concentrated feed based on grains, legumes and by-products of oil production cannot fulfil all these demands across all systems. Consequently, there isn’t one solution suitable to all conditions. Future solutions will need to focus on more diverse feed sources which are better adapted to local conditions for growing feed or the availability of by-products or waste. However, current breeds may perform less well if existing, well-optimized diets are not changed carefully. Already, there is some evidence © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic pig farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

289

that conventional genetics, which are also a standard for organic producers in most countries, are not always well suited to the specific organic conditions. Organic conditions include free farrowing, access to outdoor runs or pasture, no preventive treatments with antibiotics, or an absence of synthetic amino acids. High average litter sizes, have been found to correlate with high piglet mortality on organic farms (Prunier, 2014b). Local, traditional breeds, on the other hand, often show very low performance parameters. These are therefore only attractive to a few producers focused on direct marketing or production for a specific product. Castration of piglets is routinely performed in most countries on organic as well as conventional farms, to prevent male pigs from developing an offensive odour called boar taint. EU regulation requires the use of analgesia and/or anaesthesia for castration of organic piglets [commission regulation (EC) no. 889/2008; Art. 18]. Performing surgery to increase meat quality might be regarded as a contradiction to the principles of organic farming, which aim to increase animal welfare and minimize any measures that lead to pain or stress. However, the development of boar taint in meat and fat of non-castrated male pigs is still an unsolved issue. Only a small percentage of all males develop boar taint. The detection of boar taint at the slaughter line cannot be automated yet because the interactions of the various relevant substances and metabolic products that lead to the undesirable odour are still unclear. Even if the farmers are in favour of raising intact males, most of the slaughterhouses are not willing to cover the additional costs for odour control with the human nose technique, and for separate processing of tainted carcasses. In some regards, organic pig production might face increased problems during fattening and marketing entire male pigs than conventional production. Often organic pigs are slaughtered at higher ages and weights, and are thus more at risk of developing boar taint. Organic pig production needs to find its role within organic farming – a role that has to be sustainable and sets high standards in terms of animal welfare. In the following subsections we will discuss challenges and possible solutions on the way to establishing this role.

2 Housing systems: challenges and solutions 2.1 Housing systems and impact on welfare There is no one uniform housing system of organic pig production worldwide. They range from semi-wild systems with minimum human interference (e.g. Agroforestry systems in Italy) to rather intensive pig production units (as found in Central and Northern Europe). However, there are some common requirements. The major differences compared with conventional pig husbandry, as defined by IFOAM, are the following: free-farrowing, group housing (except for lactating sows and breeding boars), provision of litter to enable rooting behaviour and prohibition of tail-docking (IFOAM, 2017). The EU regulation on organic farming [commission regulation (EC) no. 889/2008] is more specific and prohibits flat-decks or cages for piglets. It also requires a minimum 40-day suckling period and the provision of roughages to all pig categories, and defines the minimum space allowances for pigs kept indoors with an outdoor run or for free-range pigs. Most countries have additional specific requirements on a national level or by organic farming associations. Due to this diversity, research data on organic pig production is difficult to obtain. Often © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

290

Organic pig farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

studies involve only one certain type of system, or compare organic systems with each other (e.g. Rudolph, 2015). The diversity of systems also results in a slow implementation of scientific results or consumer expectations into regulations. Changes to regulations at an EU level can have serious implications for some countries depending on their current housing system, whereas others are less affected. Rooting, grazing, nosing, manipulating and extended locomotion are, next to feeding, resting and social interactions, the most dominant behaviours in pigs’ natural behavior (Stolba and Wood-Gush, 1989). Pig production systems on pasture or arable land offer an environment which allows pigs to display all these behaviours as well as potential wallowing. Being able to express normal patterns of behaviour has been stated by the English Farm Animal Welfare Council as one of the ‘Five Freedoms’ which ensure good animal welfare (FAWC, 2009). Abnormal behaviours like tail or ear biting or excessive pen manipulation, are generally regarded as signs of impaired welfare, caused by stress or by an environment that does not fulfil intrinsic behavioural needs (Schroder-Petersen and Simonsen, 2001; Taylor, 2010). Although few studies have looked at this aspect, there is evidence that free-range pigs show less tail biting than indoor-housed organic pigs and therefore have fewer tail lesions (Presto, 2008; Rudolph, 2015). The most prevailing system is indoor housing with a concrete outdoor run (Früh, 2011b). EU regulation [commission regulation (EC) no. 889/2008] requires the provision of litter in resting areas and the addition of roughages to concentrated feed. Both measures are known to increase material-directed behaviour and to decrease damaging behaviour directed towards pen mates (reviewed by Schroder-Petersen and Simonsen, 2001). However, tail biting is still a relevant problem on organic farms (Holinger, 2015b; Rudolph, 2015) as it has multiple causes such as social stress or draught (Schroder-Petersen and Simonsen, 2001).

2.2 Environmental impact of housing systems In recent years there has been increasing discussion about the environmental impact of animal husbandry systems. Organic agriculture is based on the principles of health, ecology, fairness and care (IFOAM, 2017). It is therefore essential to carefully analyse interactions between the environment and animal housing systems. Again, as organic housing systems are diverse, so are the consequences for their environment. Intensive annual free-range production is characterized by a high risk of nutrient leaching (Eriksen, 2006; Salomon, 2007). As pigs tend to defecate in certain spots, there is a significant excess of nutrients in some places, which can lead to problems in a subsequent crop growing on this field (Salomon, 2007). Leaching nutrients may contaminate groundwater (Girotto, 2013; Michalopoulos, 2014). Compared to an indoor system where manure is collected and spread targeted to the crops’ need, free-range systems cannot use the nutrients as effectively. Therefore, there is a need for future research focusing on how manure could be collected in the preferred excretion areas, how pigs could be more optimally integrated into crop rotation, and how stocking rate can be adapted to the amount of feed consumed (Miao, 2004; Salomon, 2007). Concrete outdoor runs on the other hand are the preferred dunging area of indoor-housed pigs, and are therefore a source of ammonia losses (Salomon, 2012; Olsson, 2014), especially when urine and faeces can react with each other (De Vries, 2013; Wang, 2017). Providing the pigs with a large rooting yard in the outdoor run, which is covered with peat, has been found to improve hygiene and reduce ammonia emissions (Olsson, 2016a,b). Estimated greenhouse gas emissions © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic pig farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

291

(mainly methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) did not differ between indoor, partly outdoor and outdoor organic pig farms across Europe (Rudolph, 2015). Feed conversion and N-use efficiency have a very strong influence on environmental impact (Dolman, 2012; Reckmann and Krieter, 2015; Rudolph, 2015), which will be discussed in the next section.

3 The need for suitable organic feeding Traditionally, pigs were kept on organic farms to transform household waste or by-products from food production into meat. Today, organic pig feeding is based on concentrated feedstuff, which mainly consists of cereals and oilseeds and their by-products, regardless of their housing system. The ban on feeding kitchen waste and leftovers to animals has been in force since 2006 [regulation (EC) no. 1774/2002 of the European parliament and of the council]. The feeding of processed animal protein (PAP) was prohibited in the EU in 2001 due to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis. Both restrictions led to a feeding practice that competes directly with the production of food for human consumption. The demand for high-quality organic feed, especially protein components, is in some European countries higher than self-sufficiency (Früh, 2015). The EU commission still allows 5% conventional protein feed for monogastric animals [commission regulation (EC) no. 889/2008; Art. 43]. Furthermore EU regulations allow up to 80% of pig feed to be imported from other farms without restricting whether this is from other parts of the world [commission regulation (EC) no. 889/2008; Art. 19]. This contradicts the basic idea that organic farming should work towards closed nutrient cycles. This has resulted in countries with a large amount of imported feed, and countries with a large amount of exports (Früh, 2015). Consequently, there is also a increased movement in nutrients from one part of the world to another, associated with nutrient depletion and reduced fertility on one side, and nutrient accumulation on the other (Pelletier and Tyedmers, 2010). The amino acid pattern and lysine content are particularly important when feeding lactating sows or piglets. Organic sows and piglets usually receive diets with ingredients which are of lower (protein) digestibility compared to conventional ingredients. Due to the ban on synthetic amino acids, organic diets contain more crude protein and a more unbalanced amino acid pattern. The total crude protein content often exceeds the demand of the animals in order to meet the demand in essential amino acids. This might lead to higher nitrogen emissions and to higher metabolic stress. Research is investigating other feed alternatives to substitute soybean as the most important protein component. Promising components include grass or pea seeds and roughages (ICOPP Consortium, 2014; Baldinger, 2016a,b; Wustholz, 2017). Through searching for alternative feed components of plant origin, the call for components of animal origin emerged. Feeding organic PAP for pigs and poultry would be consistent with organic principles in terms of closing nutrient cycles, and feeding species-specific feed. Article 22 of the European organic regulation states that animal products from animal origin may be used, provided they are of organic quality and among the specified allowed animal products [commission regulation (EC) no. 889/2008]. The feeding of PAP is not allowed by a superior law [regulation (EC) no. 1774/2002 of the European parliament and of the council]. Even if this was to be changed, feeding PAP from organic chicken to pigs would require an enormous effort, because cannibalism (feeding pigs with PAP of pigs) has to be entirely excluded for safety reasons. Consequently, PAP of poultry would then © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

292

Organic pig farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

have to be produced in a separate feed mill, only producing feed for pigs or fish. Poultry slaughtering would have to be centralized to reach the required volume. Organic farms feeding poultry meal would not be allowed to have bovine or poultry species, to prevent feeding of PAP to herbivores and cannibalism. Due to the often small farm structures in organic farming, PAP as an alternative protein source would only be suitable for a small number of farms. Using insect protein as an alternative protein source is currently being studied extensively (Veldkamp, 2012; Makkar, 2014; Sanchez-Muros, 2014; Henry, 2015; Maurer, 2016; Spranghers, 2017). The use of insects as a sustainable, high-protein feed ingredient in pig diets is technically feasible. The insect’s larvae including black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens), common housefly (Musca domestica), house crickets (Acheta domesticus) and the yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) can be reared on low-grade bio-waste, thereby turning this bio-waste into high-quality protein (Veldkamp, 2012), and showing an efficient feed conversion (van Huis, 2013). Commission regulation (EU) 2017/893 opened up the possibility to implement insect PAP for feeding aquaculture animals in 2017. However, the current regulations do not allow the feeding of insects to pigs. Regulation (EC) 999/2001 considers processed insects as PAPs due to the fact that insects are presently not specifically exempt. Therefore, considering the current transmissible spongiform encephalopathy regulation, it is not acceptable to feed them to pigs. The production of insect protein on waste products could represent a sustainable solution to solve the problem of feeding protein to organic monogastric animals. Organic associations have to agree whether insect larvae have to be fed with organic feedstuff, which would mean that the waste products themselves have to be of organic origin. Generally, the sources of feedstuff for insect larvae are limited. The use of ruminant proteins, catering waste, meat-and-bone meal and manure as a feed for insects is prohibited (regulation (EC) no. 2017/893; Annex II, 2c). Under discussion are food production leftovers or vegetable waste as possible alternative feedstuff for insect larvae. Several processing steps are necessary to convert insect larvae into insect meal for feed. Therefore, the development of cost-effective, automated mass-rearing facilities, that provide a reliable, stable and safe product is essential for future advances (van Huis, 2013). If solely based on organic input material, industrial plants for insect protein production may struggle to run efficiently. Additionally, the energy demand of the processing technology, and the greenhouse gas emissions during insect production should be assessed and evaluated. Many of the possible novel or reactivated protein components are based on energyintensive processes. Considering the good availability on most organic farms, the low degree of processing, and some potential positive health and welfare aspects, roughage feeding seems to be a promising approach to find local solutions, and to reduce the input of feedstuff competing with human nutrition. Section 7 discusses the significance of roughage for pig feeding.

4 Threats to pig health under organic housing conditions: causes and prevention Outdoor pig production implies some challenges for animal health, partially with zoonotic infections, which are more specific to this environment. Free-range pigs have been found to be more frequently infected with Toxoplasma gondii than indoor-housed pigs (van der Giessen, 2007; Djokic, 2016; Wallander, 2016), and there is also a risk of transmission © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic pig farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

293

of Brucella suis and other diseases from wild boars (Roost, 2010; Wu, 2012). It remains unclear, however, if organic pigs with access to an outdoor run but not to pasture, are also at risk from these infections. Comparisons have been made between outdoor pigs and conventional indoor pigs without outdoor runs. Additionally, some studies suggest that joint lesions, mainly osteochondrosis, and joint condemnation at slaughter, are more prevalent in free-range pigs than in conventionally housed pigs (Etterlin, 2014, 2015; Lindgren, 2014). However, a study from Sweden found more osteochondrosis in finishing pigs from outdoor herds, although not an increase in clinical lameness (Etterlin, 2015). Thus, the authors suggested that the additional exercise of outdoor pigs had a positive effect on muscle growth, and can therefore compensate for joint lesions to a certain degree (Etterlin, 2015). The fact that free-range pigs have more joint lesions is possibly due to the fast weight gain in modern genotypes, but needs to be investigated more closely. In a comparison of organic and conventional indoor fattening pigs, Gareis (2016) found less auxiliary bursae and no claw injuries in organic pigs (opposed to 26.5%), which might be due to more litter and a solid (non-slatted) lying area in organic environments. A widespread problem in outdoor housing, (but also to a lesser extent with indoor housing,) are infections with different types of endoparasites, predominantly Ascaris suum, Trichuris suis and Oesophagostomum spp. (Carstensen, 2002; van der Giessen, 2007; Lindgren, 2014). As organic pigs are provided with either litter or access to pasture, they are more prone to infections with endoparasites (van der Giessen, 2007), while treatment with anthelmintics is restricted to three times a year [commission regulation (EC) no. 889/2008; Art. 24]. Therefore, there is a need for alternative prevention or treatment strategies. In outdoor systems, good grazing management including a 5- to 10-year rotation scheme, and regular surveillance of helminth infection in soil and faeces is recommended (reviewed by Roepstorff, 2011). Furthermore, there is evidence that heritability of resistance against helminths is quite high and might possibly be used in breeding programmes (Nejsum, 2009). Promising results have also been found with providing feedstuff rich in fermentable carbohydrates like sugar beet pulp or chicory roots (Roepstorff, 2011). Also, certain types of microfungi like Duddingtonia flagrans can inactivate helminth eggs in stored manure or on pasture (Nansen, 1996; Roepstorff, 2011). Piglet mortality has been reported to be higher on organic than on conventional farms (Wallenbeck, 2009; Leenhouwers, 2011). Identified risk factors are large litters, high standard deviation of litter size at birth within a farm, elevated sow parity, excessive or insufficient ambient temperature, draught, grouping sows during lactation, insufficient protection against predators, and degraded pastures for outdoor farms (Prunier, 2014a,b). Although crushing by the sow is an important hazard as well, free-farrowing (as is the standard organic practice,) when compared to keeping sows in crates, does not increase the risk of piglet mortality throughout the suckling period (reviewed by Wechsler and Weber, 2007). Age at weaning is higher in organic pig production. The minimum weaning age specified by the commission regulation (EC) no. 889/2008 is 40 days. Some organic associations request a longer suckling period. A study in Germany showed that an extended suckling period of 63 days resulted in an improved growth rate, and in a reduced number of medically treated piglets. Also, the extension did not negatively affect the body and teat condition of the sow (Bussemas and Weissmann, 2008). At weaning, piglets usually have to adapt to separation from the mother, new feed, a change in environment and new pen mates. These combined stressors often increase the risk for weaning diarrhoea, which is on conventional farms often prevented with antibiotics. As concerns regarding antibiotic resistance in bacteria are growing, several countries promote campaigns to reduce usage © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

294

Organic pig farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

of antibiotics also in conventional animal production. Alternative prevention strategies include, for example, a prolonged suckling period (Bussemas and Weissmann, 2008) or vaccination, if necessary with farm-specific vaccines (Gleeson and Collins, 2015). Certain plant species like Allium sativum L., Mentha × piperita L. and Salvia officinalis L., or their components, may be promising alternatives for either prevention or treatment of diarrhoea, as found in a systematic review by Ayrle (2016).

5 Organic breeding goals Article 8 of the commission regulation (EC) no. 889/2008 states ‘In the choice of breeds or strains, account shall be taken of the capacity of animals to adapt to local conditions, their vitality and their resistance to disease. In addition, breeds or strains of animals shall be selected to avoid specific diseases or health problems associated with some breeds or strains used in intensive production. These include porcine stress syndrome, PSE Syndrome (pale-soft-exudative), sudden death, spontaneous abortion and difficult births requiring caesarean operations. Preference is to be given to indigenous breeds and strains’. Despite this regulation, breeds used in organic farming are mainly conventional breeds. For example, in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland, organic pig farms mainly use Large White, Landrace, Duroc, Pietrain and Hampshire breeds. In Italy, half of the farms work with local breeds like Mora Romagnola and Cinta Senese. In the UK, special outdoor lines are being bred (Früh, 2014). These lines are bred by international breeding companies for the conventional outdoor market. The sows typically contain 50% or 25% of Duroc genes, with the other percentage being Landrace and/or Large White. There has been limited research investigating the genotype × production system interaction for pig performance and health. A German study concluded that both genotypes from commercial breeding programmes, (under conventional as well as organic housing conditions,) performed better than indigenous breeds. Therefore, no special breeding programme for organic pork production is necessary (Brandt, 2010). However, these findings only relate to the performance of growing/fattening pigs, and the situation. The situation for sows and piglets might be different. An analysis of production protocols in a survey showed the detrimental effect of high farm average litter size at birth, a common conventional breeding goal, on piglet mortality (Prunier, 2014b). Litter sizes that exceed the number of functional teats are more difficult to handle under organic conditions. Organic farms are not allowed to wean piglets early and raise them with artificial milk. Additionally, it is often not possible to cross-foster surplus piglets as not enough sows farrow at the same time, due to smaller herd sizes in organic pig farming. In terms of health, an organic breeding programme may on one hand focus on specific organic topics like good leg health for outdoor pigs, or resistance against endoparasites (see Section 4) but on the other hand also focus on general health and welfare. Some health and welfare issues which are due to high prolific sows and fast growing pigs, include thin sows, leg problems, high piglet mortality due to high litter size and low-weight piglets. Even if some of these issues are similar for organic and conventional pig farming, the high consumer expectations as well as regulations demand a steady improvement, and adapting breeding goals could be part of it. Breeding programmes should also take into account that there are different housing systems within organic pig production. Genotypes that are suitable for indoor housing with outdoor runs might not be the most suitable for fully outdoor housing, and vice versa. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic pig farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

295

Moreover, breeding goals might differ depending on feed basis, (high feed conversion for concentrate feed versus high ability to digest roughages or by-products from the food industry,) and marketing and required meat quality, (direct marketing, production of regional specialties versus selling to retailers).

6 Entire males: opportunity or threat? Most male piglets in organic as well as in conventional farming are castrated during the first days after birth. Castration is performed to prevent the development of ‘boar taint’ in meat and fat of uncastrated male pigs. Organic farmers in Europe have to use anaesthesia or analgesia [commission regulation (EC) no. 889/2008]. Nevertheless, it remains a surgery that causes pain and also changes the pigs’ hormonal status and consequently its behaviour and performance. This conflicts with the intended high level of animal welfare in organic animal husbandry. Entire (uncastrated) male pigs show more aggressive and sexual behaviour (Thomsen, 2012; Holinger, 2015b), better feed conversion, lower feed intake, higher lean meat content and less intramuscular fat (reviewed by Xue, 1997). Waiving castration would save time and a considerable amount of feed due to the higher feed conversion efficiency. The increased aggression might be less of a problem in organic housing compared to conventional, as results have shown that enriched housing does not necessarily reduce aggressive interactions (Tallet, 2013) but reduces the prevalence of skin lesions (Prunier, 2010). It remains unknown whether additional measures such as structuring the pen or provision of roughages may be suitable for reducing aggression and/or skin lesions in groups of entire males. It is also unknown whether the increased aggression and activity in groups of entire male pigs results in a condition of chronic stress in those pigs collectively, or in single subordinate pigs. A high potential to influence boar taint levels is attributed to feeding. Several organiccompatible feeds have been proven successful in reducing certain boar taint compounds, for example chicory roots (Hansen, 2006b) or sugar beet pulp (Knarreborg, 2002). Also promising are the achievements regarding selection against boar taint (Squires, 2006; Windig, 2012). A challenge for organic farming might be the fact that boar taint increases with age and sexual maturity (Bonneau, 2006). Pigs used to produce regional specialties, or pigs that are fed extensively, are slaughtered later and are therefore at higher risk of developing boar taint. On the other hand, organic labels could actively advertise a ban on castration and thus display to consumers that organic products are produced in a more animal friendly manner.

7 Case study: potential alternatives or additions in pig feeding There is a increasing need in organic animal feeding to introduce alternative feed components, or new processing options that do not directly compete with human nutrition, and that have the potential to improve the health and welfare of pigs. Moreover, they have to be of 100% organic origin. Based on this need, a European project was carried out between 2012 and 2014. The project named ICOPP ‘Improved Contribution of Local Feed to Support 100% Organic Feed Supply to Pigs and Poultry’, a Core Organic II project, was aimed at © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

296

Organic pig farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

supporting the transition to feeding poultry and pigs with organically produced feed of 100% organic origin (ICOPP Consortium, 2014). Part of the project was also to estimate the self-sufficiency of countries partnered with the project regarding organic feedstuffs (Früh, 2015). For the ten ICOPP countries, a self-sufficiency rate of 69% for concentrated feed was calculated. From the total demand, over 50% were fed to bovine animals, 30% to poultry and 16% to pigs. Self-sufficiency for crude protein was 56%, from which 49% were fed to bovine animals, 34% to poultry and 17% to pigs. The estimated self-sufficiency for essential amino acids is even lower, with approximately 50% for lysine, 40% for methionine and 55% for methionine + cysteine (Früh, 2015). These figures show that in particular, locally produced feed rich in high-quality protein is needed, but also that it will be very difficult to cover the European demand for organic protein without major shifts in production. The same project evaluated some promising alternative feed components. Dehulled sainfoin seeds, heat-treated grass pea seeds, and mussel meal have been found to be potential substitutes for soybean products in piglet feed. Mussel meal, for example, contains 684 g crude protein per kg DM with highly digestible amino acids. Adding it to a ration for growing-finishing pigs did not affect production results (ICOPP Consortium, 2014). The ICOPP project also investigated different types of roughages to be included in a ration for pigs. Results showed that roughages such as grass silage, grass/clover silage, lucerne silage or chicory, can contribute towards protein and energy supply (ICOPP Consortium, 2014). Article 20 of the commission regulation (EC) no. 889/2008 requires the following: ‘Roughage, fresh or dried fodder or silage shall be added to the daily ration for pigs and poultry’. Roughages include feedstuffs that are rarely used in commercial, (especially intensive,) pig feeding. Roughages in this sense may be defined as plant-based feedstuff which is 1 Rich in dietary fibre that is non-hydrolysable by endogenous enzymes of the mammalian digestive system. 2 On a low level of processing. 3 Suitable to be manipulated and ingested by livestock. 4 Contributing to some extent to energy and nutrient requirements. It remains questionable whether straw can be regarded as roughage, as is sometimes the case done [e.g. (EC) no. 889/2008 until 2011]. In some feeding systems, straw is used as crude fibre component directly in the feed mixture. Usually straw for pigs is provided as litter and therefore doubtful from a hygienic point of view. Moreover, the very low nutrient content of straw does not contribute to nutrition. Roughages are relevant, as they are available worldwide, often at low cost. Examples of roughages that are used or could potentially be used in smallholder systems as well as in more intensive systems, in countries in the South, are cassava leaves, water spinach, rice bran, tofu residues and many more. Sows can digest dietary fibre in roughages better than young pigs, as their digestive tract is larger and the passage rate lower, which increases microbial activity (Lindberg, 2014). Sows can consume grass to provide nearly half of their energy requirements (Sehested, 2004). Nevertheless, growing pigs are also able to digest roughages. In a trial with lucerne silage, 100 kg of concentrated feed per pig for each fattening period could be saved (Wustholz, 2017). An overview of current findings in peer-reviewed articles regarding effects of roughages on behaviour, performance and meat quality in pigs is presented in Table 1. It is important to note that these studies differ widely in terms of roughages used, as well as the amount of roughage or concentrated feed offered. Because of this variation © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

297

Organic pig farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

Table 1 Effects of provision of roughages to growing-finishing pigs on behaviour, performance, meat and fat quality and sensory attributes – a literature overview

Behaviour

Performance and carcass composition

Whether concentrated feed was reduced compared to control groups

References

Effect of roughage

Investigated dietary fibre component (amount provided)

Pen mate directed oral manipulation ↓

Whole crop barley/pea silage (ad libitum)

Not reduced

Olsen (2001)

Aggression ↓

Whole crop barley/pea silage (ad libitum)

Not reduced

Olsen (2002)

Hay, grass silage or whole crop barley silage (ad libitum)

Not reduced

Presto (2009)

Aggression →

Grass/clover silage, intact, pelleted or chopped (20% of energy requirements)

By 20% of energy requirements

Presto (2013)

Skin lesions ↓

Grass/clover silage, intact, pelleted or chopped (20% of energy requirements)

By 20% of energy requirements

Presto (2013)

Digestibility of nutrients and energy ↓

White clover or lucerne meal (10% or 20% of fresh matter)

By 10% or 20%

Andersson and Lindberg (1997)

Fresh grass/clover, grass/clover silage, barley/pea silage (10–12% of DM intake)

Not reduced

Jorgensen (2012)

Alfalfa silage (20–50% of DM intake, depending on age)

By approx. 40%

Wustholz (2017)

Pelleted grass/clover silage mixed with concentrate (20% of energy requirements)

By 20% of energy requirements

Wallenbeck (2014)

Chopped or intact grass/clover silage (20% of energy requirements)

By 20% of energy requirements

Wallenbeck (2014)

Grass silage (ad libitum)

By 25% or 50%

Santos e Silva (2007)

Feed conversion (MJ from concentrated feed/kg growth) ↓

Chopped, intact or pelleted grass/clover silage (20% of energy requirements)

By 20% of energy requirements

Wallenbeck (2014)

Carcass yield →

Alfalfa silage (20–50% of DM intake, depending on age)

By approx. 40%

Wustholz (2017)

Daily weight gain →

Daily weight gain ↓

(Continued) © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

298

Organic pig farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

Table 1 (Continued)

Effect of roughage

Meat and fat quality

Sensory attributes

Investigated dietary fibre component (amount provided)

Whether concentrated feed was reduced compared to control groups

References

Carcass yield ↓

Chopped, intact or pelleted grass/clover silage (20% of energy requirements)

By 20% of energy requirements

Wallenbeck (2014)

Lean meat content →

Alfalfa silage (20–50% of DM intake, depending on age)

By approx. 40%

Wustholz (2017)

Chopped or pelleted grass/clover silage (20% of energy requirements)

By 20% of energy requirements

Wallenbeck (2014)

Lean meat content ↓

Intact grass/clover silage (20% of energy requirements)

By 20% of energy requirements

Wallenbeck (2014)

Lean meat content ↑

Barley/pea silage or clover grass silage (ad libitum)

By 30%

Hansen (2006a)

Backfat thickness ↓

Grass silage (ad libitum)

By 25% or 50%

Santos e Silva (2007)

Drip loss →

Grass/clover silage (0.9 kg FM per animal and day)

Schwalm (2013)

Pea/barley silage or grass/clover silage (ad libitum)

By 30%

Hansen (2006a)

Unsaturated fatty acids ↑

Grass/clover silage (0.9 kg FM per animal and day)

Not reduced

Schwalm (2013)

Saturated fatty acids ↓

Barley/pea silage or grass/clover silage (ad libitum)

By 30%

Hansen (2006a)

Intramuscular fat content →

Grass/clover silage (0.9 kg FM per animal and day)

Not reduced

Schwalm (2013)

Intramuscular fat content ↓

Barley/pea silage or clover grass silage (ad libitum)

By 30%

Hansen (2006a)

Flavours → Hardness ↑ Tenderness ↓ Chewing time ↑

Barley/pea silage or clover grass silage (ad libitum)

By 30%

Hansen (2006a)

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic pig farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

299

there were contradictory findings, for example regarding daily weight gain or lean meat content. More research is therefore needed into how roughages affect pig health. The main fermentation products of dietary fibre are short-chain organic acids, and these organic acids have been shown to suppress pathogenic bacteria such as Escherichia coli, Salmonella or Clostridium (reviewed by Lindberg, 2014). It has also been described how roughages change the intestinal microbiota (Ivarsson, 2012; Liu, 2012). Little is known about the direct effects of roughages, for example on diarrhoea. There are indications that provision of roughages has the potential to reduce gastric ulcers in growing pigs, as seen in trials within the ICOPP project (ICOPP Consortium, 2014).

8 International collaboration and dissemination to promote implementation of scientific results The big challenge for all research focusing on organic pig production is the varying conditions and systems. This makes it difficult to obtain results that are relevant and valid for all systems and countries. Therefore, international collaboration in this kind of research is crucial. Former and current projects like CorePIG (ERA-Net Core Organic), ICOPP (ERA-Net Core Organic II), ProPIG (ERA-Net Core Organic II) or PigWatch (ERANet ANIHWA) demonstrate the success of such an approach. At the same time, there is valuable knowledge shared among the partners and stakeholders of those projects, which often includes farmers. For example, keeping pigs on pasture has a long tradition in the UK. Sharing this experience and knowledge may help researchers or farmers in countries like Germany or Switzerland, where outdoor pigs are rare. Collaboration between countries with different development stages of organic farming leads to an exchange of ‘lessons learned’. In particular, countries with a growing organic market and intensification of animal production could benefit from the experiences of countries with already established organic farming systems. Currently, there is an increase in feed imports from countries in Eastern Europe to countries with more intensive livestock production (Central and Northern Europe). On the one hand, the demand for organic feed may be a chance to establish organic farming in countries where it has not been well established before. On the other hand, transporting feed over large distances is not sustainable and does not stimulate a more in depth analysis of the feeding of monogastric animals in organic systems. Many research questions emerge from practical problems observed and put forth by farmers. A close exchange between researchers and individual farmers or farmer’s associations is therefore essential. When it comes to carrying out an experiment, on-farm research has some disadvantages compared to research under controlled conditions. The big advantage is, however, that results are more easily transferred to commercial conditions and both farmer and researcher can exchange knowledge and experience. In general, transfer of scientific findings to practice should be prioritised. Any applied project should plan how to make results available to farmers, and financial funding should be connected to dissemination activities. One example is a handbook for organic pig farmers to improve animal health and welfare as an outcome of the ProPIG project (Holinger, 2015a). The English handbook had been translated into four languages and distributed in more than eight countries. Other ways of dissemination are YouTube videos (e.g. https:// www.youtube.com/user/FiBLFilm), websites (e.g. www.pigwatch.net), articles in farming © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

300

Organic pig farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

journals, information leaflets [e.g. Organic Pig Production in Europe (Früh, 2011a)], discussions in farming groups or presentations at farming conferences.

9 Future trends and conclusion As in all areas of agriculture, the importance of smart practice is increasing in organic pig farming. For this reason, several research projects are currently dealing with the topic of precision farming techniques. For example, the new technologies extend the possibilities of animal observation with motion sensor techniques (Blomke and Kemper, 2016), image processing (Nasirahmadi et al., 2016) or recordings of vocalization (Manteuffel, 2004; SOUNDWEL project, ERA-Net ANIHWA). Approaches like these may be used commercially, for example to detect individual sick animals at an early stage, or detect disturbances in a group due to problems such as dehydration, broken feeders or tail biting. With such new precision farming tools, organic pig farms can turn into accurately controlled farms. In future, gates to outdoor runs might be controlled by radio frequency identification technology; feeding could be sensor-based, health and fertility monitored with ear tags, and all information might be directly retrievable on the farmer’s smartphone. Nevertheless, it is important to consider that most of these techniques help with the early detection of problems, but they do not prevent problems. Automation can also lead to farmers spending less time being around and observing their livestock. The most crucial task therefore is still to train observation capabilities in people working with livestock, and to aim for a system that per se promotes a good health and welfare status. New processing techniques will also improve organic feeding. Fermentation techniques to produce amino acids, vitamins, and more easily available trace elements or minerals, will be assessed and tested for organic compatibility. Techniques will be evaluated that increase digestibility and availability of protein in feedstuff, such as the protein refining technique described in Santamaria-Fernandez (2017). In recent years, particularly after the successful project ‘Welfare Quality®’, outcomeoriented assessment of animal welfare has received growing attention. Certification of organic farms, however, is based on the production process and not on the outcome. As a result, implementing requirements provided by national or international organic regulations does not necessarily guarantee a high animal health and welfare status. To comply with organic principles and to meet consumer expectations, certification should therefore be more outcome oriented with animal-based welfare indicators. AssureWel, (2010–6), a collaborative project in the UK, developed practical protocols for welfare assessment for the major farm animal species. Their findings might encourage other certification bodies to use welfare outcome assessment to improve farm animal welfare. However, research is still needed to define indicators which correlate well with actual deviances of an optimal health and welfare status. Existing protocols and training for inspectors have to be improved until assessments can be done consistently. The European regulation on organic farming requires breeds to be chosen based on their capacity to adapt to local conditions, vitality, and resistance to disease [commission regulation (EC) no. 889/2008 Art. 8]. Recent scientific projects have started to investigate the resilience at the animal level. Ten Napel (2011) defines resilience in this context as the ability of animals to overcome a variety of challenges or ‘perturbations’. Future research will investigate how to improve the ability of animals to withstand and overcome diseases, and social, climatic or nutritional challenges. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic pig farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

301

A final important focus is that the organic movement or more specifically organic associations, supported by research, will have to lead an ethical discussion on the usage of animals. In particular, pig production will be affected by this discussion because besides meat and manure, pigs do not produce other products, and they consume enormous amounts of feedstuff – feed that is mostly in direct competition with human food production. Pigs had a clear legitimacy as long as they were transforming waste into valuable meat. But, is there a legitimacy for pigs in a sustainable organic agricultural systems if they have to be fed with imported, high-quality feed components?

10 Where to look for further information Information leaflets developed by FiBL (Research Institute of Organic Farming) on many different topics like group suckling, fattening entire male pigs, feeding of sows, successful weaning and more, partially in English. www.shop.fibl.org/chen (-> topic -> animal husbandry, animal health -> topic -> pigs) Organic Agriculture – official journal of The International Society of Organic Agriculture Research. Organic Eprints (inventory of diverse articles, presentations and reports from organic research). www.orgprints.org WAFL conference (International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level, organized once every three years. In 2017 it took place in Wageningen, The Netherlands. www.wafl2017.com). Centers of expertise include: FiBL, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Switzerland, Austria and Germany (Research on all aspects of organic farming, including animal husbandry). www.fibl.org INRA, French National Institute for Agricultural Research http://institut.inra.fr/en Raumberg-Gumpenstein, location Wels-Thalheim (Research on organic pig housing, feeding and health). www.raumberg-gumpenstein.at/cm4/de/(in German) Thünen Institute of Organic Farming, Germany (Research on organic animal husbandry). www.thuenen.de/en/ol/ Udviklingscenter for husdyr på Friland http://udviklingscenter.com/(in Danish) WUR, Wageningen University & Research, Netherlands (Wageningen Livestock Research). https://www.wur.nl/en/Expertise-Services/Research-Institutes/livestock-research.htm Recommended literature: Blair, R. (2007), Nutrition and Feeding of Organic Pigs, Columns Design Ltd, Reading. ISBN: 978 84593 191 9. Früh et al. (2011a), ‘Organic pig production in Europe – Health management in common organic pig farming’, FiBL-Technical Guide, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), CH-Frick. Download under https://shop.fibl.org/chde/1549-organic-pigproduction-europe.html (available in five languages). Holinger et al. (2015), ‘Improving health and welfare of pigs – A handbook for organic pig farmers’,. Download under https://shop.fibl.org/chde/1676-handbook-propig.html (available in five languages).

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

302

Organic pig farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

11 References Andersson, C. and Lindberg, J. E. (1997), ‘Forages in diets for growing pigs 1. Nutrient apparent digestibilities and partition of nutrient digestion in barley-based diets including lucerne and white-clover meal’, Animal Science, 65, 483–91. Ayrle, H., Mevissen, M., Kaske, M., Nathues, H., Gruetzner, N., Melzig, M. and Walkenhorst, M. (2016), ‘Medicinal plants – prophylactic and therapeutic options for gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases in calves and piglets? A systematic review’, BMC Veterinary Research, 12, 89. Baldinger, L., Hagmuller, W., Minihuber, U., Matzner, M. and Zollitsch, W. (2016a), ‘Sainfoin seeds in organic diets for weaned piglets utilizing the protein-rich grains of a long-known forage legume’, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 31 (1), 12–21. Baldinger, L., Hagmuller, W., Minihuber, U., Schipflinger, M. and Zollitsch, W. (2016b), ‘Organic grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) seeds as a protein source for weaned piglets: Effects of seed treatment and different inclusion rates on animal performance’, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 31 (3), 269–79. Blomke, L. and Kemper, N. (2016), ‘Animal welfare pilot project to standardize the evaluation automated detection of animal welfare indicators in pigs at slaughterhouse’, Fleischwirtschaft, 96 (7), 30–2. Bonneau, M. (2006), ‘Factors affecting the level of androstenone’, Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 48 (1), S7. Brandt, H., Werner, D. N., Baulain, U., Brade, W. and Weissmann, F. (2010), ‘Genotype-environment interactions for growth and carcass traits in different pig breeds kept under conventional and organic production systems’, Animal, 4 (4), 535–44. Bussemas, R. and Weissmann, F. (2008), ‘Prolonged suckling period in organic piglet production – Effects on some performance and health aspects’, Conference of the International Society of Organic Agriculture Research ISOFAR, Modena, Italy, 18–20 June 2008. Carstensen, L., Vaarst, M. and Roepstorff, A. (2002), ‘Helminth infections in Danish organic swine herds’, Veterinary Parasitology, 106 (3), 253–64. De Vries, J. W., Aarnink, A. J. A., Koerkamp, P. and De Boer, I. J. M. (2013), ‘Life cycle assessment of segregating fattening pig urine and feces compared to conventional liquid manure management’, Environmental Science & Technology, 47 (3), 1589–97. Djokic, V., Blaga, R., Aubert, D., Durand, B., Perret, C., Geers, R., Ducry, T., Vallee, I., Djakovic, O. D., Mzabi, A., Villena, I. and Boireau, P. (2016), ‘Toxoplasma gondii infection in pork produced in France’, Parasitology, 143 (5), 557–67. Dolman, M. A., Vrolijk, H. C. J. and de Boer, I. J. M. (2012), ‘Exploring variation in economic, environmental and societal performance among Dutch fattening pig farms’, Livestock Science, 149 (1–2), 143–54. Eriksen, J., Hermansen, J. E., Strudsholm, K. and Kristensen, K. (2006), ‘Potential loss of nutrients from different rearing strategies for fattening pigs on pasture’, Soil Use and Management, 22 (3), 256–66. Etterlin, P. E., Ytrehus, B., Lundeheim, N., Heldmer, E., Osterberg, J. and Ekman, S. (2014), ‘Effects of free-range and confined housing on joint health in a herd of fattening pigs’, BMC Veterinary Research, 10, 208. Etterlin, P. E., Morrison, D. A., Osterberg, J., Ytrehus, B., Heldmer, E. and Ekman, S. (2015), ‘Osteochondrosis, but not lameness, is more frequent among free-range pigs than confined herd-mates’, Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 57, 63. FAWC (2009), ‘Farm animal welfare in Great Britain: Past, present and future’, URL: https://www.gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319292/Farm_Animal_Welfare_ in_Great_Britain_-_Past__Present_and_Future.pdf (assessed 1 September 2017). FiBL (2017), ‘FiBL data on organic pigs by continent, country, and worldwide 2004–2015, based on national data sources’, Extract from the FiBL database per 13 June 2017, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, CH-Frick.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic pig farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

303

Früh, B., Bochicchio, D., Dippel, S., Edwards, S., Gunnarsson, S., Leeb, C., Lindgren, K., Mejer, H. and Prunier, A. (2011a), ‘Organic pig production in Europe – Health management in common organic pig farming’, FiBL-Technical Guide, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), CH-Frick. Früh, B., Bochicchio, D., Edwards, S., Hegelund, L., Leeb, C., Heinonen, M., Maupertuis, F., Sundrum, A., Werne, S., Wiberg, S., Mejer, H., Prunier, A., Roepstorff, A., Lubac, S., Bonde, M., Rousing, T. and Lindgren, K. (2011b), ‘Knowledge synthesis: Animal health and welfare in organic pig production – Final Report COREPIG’, URL: http://orgprints.org/18419 (assessed 1 September 2017). Früh, B., Bochicchio, D., Edwards, S., Hegelund, L., Leeb, C., Sundrum, A., Werne, S., Wiberg, S. and Prunier, A. (2014), ‘Description of organic pig production in Europe’, Organic Agriculture, 4 (2), 83–92. Früh, B., Schlatter, B., Isensee, A., Maurer, V. and Willer, H. (2015), ‘Report on organic protein availability and demand in Europe’, URL: http://orgprints.org/28067/3/FINAL-REPORT-ICOPP-2015-02-08. pdf (assessed 1 September 2017). Gareis, M., Oberlander, S., Zippliesl, J., Reese, S., Schade, B., Bohm, B. and Schwaiger, K. (2016), ‘Prevalence of auxiliary bursae and injuries of claws in fattening pigs at time of slaughter-results of a study at four slaughterhouses’, Berliner Und Munchener Tierarztliche Wochenschrift, 129 (9–10), 428–36. Girotto, E., Ceretta, C. A., Lourenzi, C. R., Lorensini, F., Tiecher, T. L., Vieira, R. C. B., Trentin, G., Basso, C. J., Miotto, A. and Brunetto, G. (2013), ‘Nutrient transfers by leaching in a no-tillage system through soil treated with repeated pig slurry applications’, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 95 (1), 115–31. Gleeson, B. L. and Collins, A. M. (2015), ‘Under what conditions is it possible to produce pigs without using antimicrobials?’ Animal Production Science, 55 (11–12), 1424–31. Hansen, L. L., Claudi-Magnussen, C., Jensen, S. K. and Andersen, H. J. (2006a), ‘Effect of organic pig production systems on performance and meat quality’, Meat science, 74 (4), 605–15. Hansen, L. L., Mejer, H., Thamsborg, S. M., Byrne, D. V., Roepstorff, A., Karlsson, A. H., Hansen-Møller, J., Jensen, M. T. and Tuomola, M. (2006b), ‘Influence of chicory roots (Cichorium intybus L.) on boar taint in entire male and female pigs’, Animal Science, 82 (03), 359–68. Henry, M., Gasco, L., Piccolo, G. and Fountoulaki, E. (2015), ‘Review on the use of insects in the diet of farmed fish: Past and future’, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 203, 1–22. Holinger, M., Ayrle, H., Bochicchio, D., Butler, G., Dippel, S., Edwards, S., Holmes, D., Illmann, G., Leeb, C., Maupertuis, F., Melišová, M., Prunier, A., Rousing, T., Rudolph, G. and Früh, B. (2015a), ‘Improving health and welfare of pigs – A handbook for organic pig farmers’, FiBL, Bioinstitut, BOKU, CRA-SUI, Aarhus University, Friedrich-Löffler-Institut, Institute of Animal Science, INRA and School of Agriculture, CH-Frick, CZ-Olomouc, A-Wien, I-Rom, DK-Aarhus, D-Celle, CZ-Prag, F-Saint-Gilles and UK-Newcastle upon Tyne. Holinger, M., Früh, B. and Hillmann, E. (2015b), ‘Group composition for fattening entire male pigs under enriched housing conditions – Influences on behaviour, injuries and boar taint compounds’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 165, 47–56. ICOPP Consortium (2014), ‘Improved contribution of local feed to support 100% organic feed supply to pigs and poultry’, Synthesis report, edited by Smith, J., Gerrard, C. and Hermansen, J., Organic Research Centre. IFOAM (2017), ‘The IFOAM NORMS for organic production and processing, version 2014’, URL: http://www.ifoam.bio/sites/default/files/ifoam_norms_july_2014_t.pdf (assessed 1 September 2017) Ivarsson, E., Liu, H. Y., Dicksved, J., Roos, S. and Lindberg, J. E. (2012), ‘Impact of chicory inclusion in a cereal-based diet on digestibility, organ size and faecal microbiota in growing pigs’, Animal, 6 (7), 1077–85. Jorgensen, H., Carlson, D. and Laerke, H. N. (2012), ‘Influence of forage inclusion in the diet on ileal and total tract digestibility’, Journal of Animal Science, 90, 176–8. Knarreborg, A., Beck, J., Jensen, M. T., Laue, A., Agergaard, N. and Jensen, B. B. (2002), ‘Effect of non-starch polysaccharides on production and absorption of indolic compounds in entire male pigs’, Animal Science, 74, 445–53. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

304

Organic pig farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

Leenhouwers, J. I., Ten Napel, J., Hanenberg, E. and Merks, J. W. M. (2011), ‘Breeding replacement gilts for organic pig herds’, Animal, 5 (4), 615–21. Lindberg, J. E. (2014), ‘Fiber effects in nutrition and gut health in pigs’, Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 5, 15. Lindgren, K., Bochicchio, D., Hegelund, L., Leeb, C., Mejer, H., Roepstorff, A. and Sundrum, A. (2014), ‘Animal health and welfare in production systems for organic fattening pigs’, Organic Agriculture, 4 (2), 135–47. Liu, H., Ivarsson, E., Dicksved, J., Lundh, T. and Lindberg, J. E. (2012), ‘Inclusion of chicory (Cichorium intybus L.) in pigs’ diets affects the intestinal microenvironment and the gut microbiota’, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 78 (12), 4102–9. Makkar, H. P. S., Tran, G., Henze, V. and Ankers, P. (2014), ‘State-of-the-art on use of insects as animal feed’, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 197, 1–33. Manteuffel, G., Puppe, B. and Schon, P. C. (2004), ‘Vocalization of farm animals as a measure of welfare’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 88 (1–2), 163–82. Maurer, V., Holinger, M., Amsler, Z., Früh, B., Wohlfahrt, J., Stamer, A. and Leiber, F. (2016), ‘Replacement of soybean cake by Hermetia illucens meal in diets for layers’, Journal of Insects as Food and Feed, 2 (2), 83–90. Meredith, S. and Willer, H. (2016), ‘Organic in Europe. Prospects and developments 2016’, URL: https://shop.fibl.org/chde/1708-organic-europe-2016.html (accessed 1 September 2017). Miao, Z. H., Glatz, P. C. and Ru, Y. J. (2004), ‘Review of production, husbandry and sustainability of free-range pig production systems’, Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science, 17 (11), 1615–34. Michalopoulos, C., Tzamtzis, N. and Liodakis, S. (2014), ‘Effects of an intensive hog farming operation on groundwater in east Mediterranean (I): A study on electrical conductivity, as well as nitrogen and sulfur nutrients’, Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 93 (6), 683–7. Nansen, P., Larsen, M., Roepstorff, A., Gronvold, J., Wolstrup, J. and Henriksen, S. A. (1996), ‘Control of Oesophagostomum dentatum and Hyostrongylus rubidus in outdoor-reared pigs by daily feeding with the microfungus Duddingtonia flagrans’, Parasitology Research, 82 (7), 580–4. Nasirahmadi, A., Hensel, O., Edwards, S. A. and Sturm, B. (2016), ‘Automatic detection of mounting behaviours among pigs using image analysis’, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 124, 295–302. Nejsum, P., Roepstorff, A., Jorgensen, C. B., Fredholm, M., Goring, H. H. H., Anderson, T. J. C. and Thamsborg, S. M. (2009), ‘High heritability for Ascaris and Trichuris infection levels in pigs’, Heredity, 102 (4), 357–64. Olsen, A. W. (2001), ‘Behaviour of growing pigs kept in pens with outdoor runs I. Effect of access to roughage and shelter on oral activities’, Livestock Production Science, 69 (3), 255–64. Olsen, A. W., Simonsen, H. B. and Dybkjaer, L. (2002), ‘Effect of access to roughage and shelter on selected behavioural indicators of welfare in pigs housed in a complex environment’, Animal Welfare, 11 (1), 75–87. Olsson, A. C., Botermans, J., Andersson, M., Jeppsson, K. H. and Bergsten, C. (2016a), ‘Design of rooting yards for better hygiene and lower ammonia emissions within the outdoor concrete area in organic pig production’, Livestock Science, 185, 79–88. Olsson, A. C., Botermans, J., Andersson, M., Jeppsson, K. H. and Bergsten, C. (2016b), ‘Use of different rooting materials to improve hygiene and to lower ammonia emission within the outdoor concrete area in organic growing finishing pig production’, Livestock Science, 191, 64–71. Olsson, A. C., Jeppsson, K. H., Botermans, J., von Wachenfelt, H., Andersson, M., Bergsten, C. and Svendsen, J. (2014), ‘Pen hygiene, N, P and K budgets and calculated nitrogen emission for organic growing-finishing pigs in two different housing systems with and without pasture access’, Livestock Science, 165, 138–46. Pelletier, N. and Tyedmers, P. (2010), ‘Forecasting potential global environmental costs of livestock production 2000–2050’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 107 (43), 18371–4. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Organic pig farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

305

Presto, M. H., Andersson, H. K., Folestam, S. and Lindberg, J. E. (2008), ‘Activity behaviour and social interactions of pigs raised outdoors and indoors’, Archiv Fur Tierzucht – Archives of Animal Breeding, 51 (4), 338–50. Presto, M. H., Algers, B., Persson, E. and Andersson, H. K. (2009), ‘Different roughages to organic growing/finishing pigs – Influence on activity behaviour and social interactions’, Livestock Science, 123 (1), 55–62. Presto, M., Rundgren, M. and Wallenbeck, A. (2013), ‘Inclusion of grass/clover silage in the diet of growing/finishing pigs – Influence on pig time budgets and social behaviour’, Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section a – Animal Science, 63 (2), 84–92. Prunier, A., Brillouet, A., Tallet, C. and Bonneau, M. (2010), ‘Influence of housing condition on behaviour and sexual development in male pigs’, Book of abstracts of the 61st Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, 23–27 August 2010, Heraklion, Greece, Wageningen Academic Publisher. Prunier, A., Dippel, S., Bochicchio, D., Edwards, S., Leeb, C., Lindgren, K., Sundrum, A., Dietze, K. and Bonde, M. (2014a), ‘Characteristics of organic pig farms in selected European countries and their possible influence on litter size and piglet mortality’, Organic Agriculture, 4 (2), 163–73. Prunier, A., Lubac, S., Mejer, H., Roepstorff, A. and Edwards, S. (2014b), ‘Health, welfare and production problems in organic suckling piglets’, Organic Agriculture, 4 (2), 107–21. Reckmann, K. and Krieter, J. (2015), ‘Environmental impacts of the pork supply chain with regard to farm performance’, Journal of Agricultural Science, 153 (3), 411–21. Roepstorff, A., Mejer, H., Nejsum, P. and Thamsborg, S. M. (2011), ‘Helminth parasites in pigs: New challenges in pig production and current research highlights’, Veterinary Parasitology, 180 (1–2), 72–81. Roost, H., Seelmann, M., Konow, M., Klopries, M., Melzer, F., Wolk, R., Kay, M., Dey, E., Mildner, H. and Heyne, H. (2010), ‘Early recognition and monitoring of brucellosis in free-range pig farms in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany’, Tieraerztl Umsch, 65 (7–8), 278–84. Rudolph, G. (2015), ‘Animal health and welfare and environmental impact of different husbandry systems in organic pig farming in selected European countries’, PhD thesis, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, Austria. Salomon, E., Akerhielm, H., Lindahl, C. and Lindgren, K. (2007), ‘Outdoor pig fattening at two Swedish organic farms – Spatial and temporal load of nutrients and potential environmental impact’, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 121 (4), 407–18. Salomon, E., Rodhe, L., Malgeryd, J., Lindgren, K. and Lindahl, C. (2012), ‘Ammonia losses from outdoor pig fattening at two Swedish organic farms’, The Open Agriculture Journal, 6, 27–35. Sanchez-Muros, M. J., Barroso, F. G. and Manzano-Agugliaro, F. (2014), ‘Insect meal as renewable source of food for animal feeding: A review’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 16–27. Santamaria-Fernandez, M., Molinuevo-Salces, B., Kiel, P., Steenfeldt, S., Uellendahl, H. and Lubeck, M. (2017), ‘Lactic acid fermentation for refining proteins from green crops and obtaining a high quality feed product for monogastric animals’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 875–81. Santos e Silva, J., Enes, M., Figueiredo, F. Q., Pires da Costa, J. S. and Abreu, J. M. F. (2007), ‘Grass utilization in growing finishing Bisaro pigs (85–107 kg): Performance and carcass composition’, in Audiot, A., Casabianca, F. and Monin, G. (Eds), 5. International Symposium on the Mediterranean Pig, CIHEAM, Zaragoza, Spain, pp. 143–9. Schroder-Petersen, D. L. and Simonsen, H. B. (2001), ‘Tail biting in pigs’, Veterinary Journal, 162 (3), 196–210. Schwalm, A., Bauer, A., Dederer, I., Well, C., Bussemas, R. and Weissmann, F. (2013), ‘Effects of three genotypes and two roughages in organic heavy pig production for dry fermented sausage manufacture 2. Meat quality, fatty acid pattern, and product quality’, Landbauforschung, 63 (4), 273–84. Sehested, J., Soegaard, K., Danielsen, V., Roepstorff, A. and Monrad, J. (2004), ‘Grazing with heifers and sows alone or mixed: Herbage quality, sward structure and animal weight gain’, Livestock Production Science, 88 (3), 223–38.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

306

Organic pig farming: key characteristics, opportunities, advantages and challenges

Spranghers, T., Michiels, J., Vrancx, J., Ovyn, A., Eeckhout, M., De Clercq, P. and De Smet, S. (2017), ‘Gut antimicrobial effects and nutritional value of black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens L.) prepupae for weaned piglets’, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 235, 33–42. Squires, E. (2006), ‘Possibilities for selection against boar taint’, Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 48 (Suppl. 1), 1–4. Stolba, A. and Wood-Gush, D. G. M. (1989), ‘The behavior of pigs in a semi-natural environment’, Animal Production, 48, 419–25 Tallet, C., Brilloüet, A., Meunier-Salaün, M.-C., Paulmier, V., Guérin, C. and Prunier, A. (2013), ‘Effects of neonatal castration on social behaviour, human–animal relationship and feeding activity in finishing pigs reared in a conventional or an enriched housing’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 145 (3–4), 70–83. Taylor, N. R., Main, D. C. J., Mendl, M. and Edwards, S. A. (2010), ‘Tail-biting: A new perspective’, The Veterinary Journal, 186 (2), 137–47. Ten Napel, J., van der Veen, A. A., Oosting, S. J. and Koerkamp, P. (2011), ‘A conceptual approach to design livestock production systems for robustness to enhance sustainability’, Livestock Science, 139 (1–2), 150–60. Thomsen, R., Bonde, M., Kongsted, A. G. and Rousing, T. (2012), ‘Welfare of entire males and females in organic pig production when reared in single-sex groups’, Livestock Science, 149 (1–2), 118–27. van der Giessen, J., Fonville, M., Bouwknegt, M., Langelaar, M. and Vollema, A. (2007), ‘Seroprevalence of Trichinella spiralis and Toxoplasma gondii in pigs from different housing systems in The Netherlands’, Veterinary Parasitology, 148 (3–4), 371–4. van Huis, A. (2013). Potential of insects as food and feed in assuring food security. Annual Review of Entomology, 58, 563–83. Veldkamp, T., Duinkerken, G. v., van Huis, A., Lakemond, C. M. M., Ottevanger, E., Bosch, G. and van Boekel, M. A. J. S. (2012), ‘Insects as a sustainable feed ingredient in pig and poultry diets – a feasibility study’, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Report 638, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Lelystad. Wallander, C., Frossling, J., Dorea, F. C., Uggla, A., Vagsholm, I. and Lunden, A. (2016), ‘Pasture is a risk factor for Toxoplasma gondii infection in fattening pigs’, Veterinary Parasitology, 224, 27–32. Wallenbeck, A., Gustafson, G. and Rydhmer, L. (2009), ‘Sow performance and maternal behaviour in organic and conventional herds’, Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section a – Animal Science, 59 (3), 181–91. Wallenbeck, A., Rundgren, M. and Presto, M. (2014), ‘Inclusion of grass/clover silage in diets to growing/finishing pigs – Influence on performance and carcass quality’, Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section a – Animal Science, 64 (3), 145–53. Wang, Y., Dong, H. M., Zhu, Z. P., Gerber, P. J., Xin, H. W., Smith, P., Opio, C., Steinfeld, H. and Chadwick, D. (2017), ‘Mitigating greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions from swine manure management: A system analysis’, Environmental Science & Technology, 51 (8), 4503–11. Wechsler, B. and Weber, R. (2007), ‘Loose farrowing systems: Challenges and solutions’, Animal Welfare, 16 (3), 295–307. Windig, J. J., Mulder, H. A., Ten Napel, J., Knol, E. F., Mathur, P. K. and Crump, R. E. (2012), ‘Genetic parameters for androstenone, skatole, indole, and human nose scores as measures of boar taint and their relationship with finishing traits’, Journal of Animal Science, 90 (7), 2120–9. Wu, N., Abril, C., Thomann, A., Grosclaude, E., Doherr, M. G., Boujon, P. and Ryser-Degiorgis, M. P. (2012), ‘Risk factors for contacts between wild boar and outdoor pigs in Switzerland and investigations on potential Brucella suis spill-over’, BMC Veterinary Research, 8, 116. Wustholz, J., Carrasco, S., Berger, U., Sundrum, A. and Bellof, G. (2017), ‘Fattening and slaughtering performance of growing pigs consuming high levels of alfalfa silage (Medicago sativa) in organic pig production’, Livestock Science, 200, 46–52. Xue, J., Dial, G. D. and Pettigrew, J. E. (1997), ‘Performance, carcass and meat quality advantages of boars over barrows: A literature review’, Swine Health and Production, 5 (1), 21–8. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

Chapter 15 Organic poultry farming: opportunities and challenges Mette Vaarst, Aarhus University, Denmark; Klaus Horsted, Danish Centre for Food and Agriculture DCA, Aarhus University, Denmark; and Veronika Maurer, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Switzerland 1 Introduction

2 Organic poultry farming



3 Improving organic poultry farming: poultry as part of ecological systems and cycles



4 Improving organic poultry farming: the precautionary principle, naturalness and care



5 Improving organic poultry farming: health and disease



6 Improving organic poultry farming: fairness and good quality of life



7 Future trends and conclusion

8 Acknowledgements

9 Where to look for further information

10 References

1 Introduction Poultry can be described as domesticated birds reared for their meat, eggs and/or feathers. They constitute a fascinating and diverse group of animals which have long been integrated into organic farming systems throughout the world. Many different poultry species and breeds are kept by smallholder farmers in both developed and developing countries. Some are farmed according to organic or agroecological principles, although they may not formally be certified as such. Many of these breeds are locally adapted, an example is France where many regions still have their own indigenous breeds (TixierBoichard et al. 2006), for example the Bresse and Géline de Touraine chickens (Verrier et al. 2005; Baéza et al. 2010). Poultry fit into many different systems for the mutual benefit of animals, the farming systems and the humans involved. They can convert

http://dx.doi.org/10.19103/AS.2017.0028.15 © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

308

Organic poultry farming: opportunities and challenges

a variety of feed types (e.g. residuals from agricultural crops, households and food processing operations) into animal products and protein sources in ways which are more efficient than the conversion rate of most other animal species (Clark and Tilman 2017). At a global level, they contribute to food security, protein supply and the livelihood of numerous families, especially women, in many smallholder settings and they even fit into urban and peri-urban farming systems. In Europe, a small proportion of poultry is kept by small producers or hobby farmers, whereas the majority of animals is kept in commercial production systems. Small producers tend to keep different breeds while, in large production systems, few specialized genotypes for egg or meat production are used. The same is true for large organic systems, where specialized layer and broiler genotypes are kept according to organic legislation. A systematic loss of breeds also means not only losing natural capital and biodiversity, but also the ability to develop breeds able to adapt to different environments and situations, particularly in the context of climate change (FAO 2015). In contrast, much commercial poultry production in developed countries in particular is being industrialized to meet the increasing demand for poultry meat at low prices (International Poultry Council: http:​//www​.inte​rnati​onalp​oultr​ycoun​cil.o​rg/in​dustr​y/ ind​ ustry​ .cfm)​ . This more industrialized production has major consequences such as dramatically decreased breed diversity, a complete separation of egg and poultry meat production, as well as a growing detachment between animals, feed, land and consumer markets. In these systems, for example, feed is sourced externally and transported over large distances. Manure is even considered to be a waste product requiring disposal rather than as a contributor to soil fertility. Organic systems must compete with the low prices that non-organic industrial systems can offer consumers.

2 Organic poultry farming Despite these competitive pressures from conventional systems, poultry was the fastest growing organic animal sector in Europe from 2007 to 2014 (IFOAM 2016), with a 108% increase to an estimated 35 million birds, primarily due to the increasing demand for organic eggs. Within the 28 EU countries, 13.5 million organic egg layers were in production in 2015, representing 3.8% of all commercially farmed laying hens in these countries (Marktinfo Eier und Geflügel 3 September 2015). The reason for the relatively high market share of organic eggs is due to consumer expectations regarding welfare of organic production compared to cage, barn or free-range systems. Organic poultry meat has not achieved a comparable market share due to strong competition from the nonorganic sector in producing very cheap poultry meat, as well as other factors related to distribution and marketing of fresh meat products. The fact that organic egg production has grown so fast is potentially an additional challenge to creating sustainable organic systems with poultry, because the emphasis is still on increasing production rather than integrating poultry into organic farming systems in sustainable ways. This has led, for example, to an increasing specialization of egg and broiler production and a dramatic decrease in genetic diversity. The diversity of organic egg production can be seen in the examples of Swiss and Dutch organic egg production which represent two extremes on the range (Bestman

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2019. All rights reserved.

309

Organic poultry farming: opportunities and challenges

and Maurer 2006), as can be seen in Table 1. In Dutch organic egg producing farms, egg production is often the only or main activity on the farm. In these cases, feed is bought in from feed mills and manure sold to other organic farms. Compared to Dutch nonorganic egg farms, that have an average size of 54 000 hens (CBS Statline, 2018), the average size of Dutch organic farms (14 290 hens) is small, but relatively big compared to Swiss organic farms (