Talking point
Modern day sod busters [July 2010]
As the old saying goes, there are three types of people in this world - those that lead, those that follow, and those that wondered what the hell happened. I want to pay tribute to some of those leaders – the pioneers or 'early adopters' – whose contribution to the organic movement is often not recognised or rewarded.
Most organic farmers and growers will fall within the second category – those who haven’t led but have followed. They may have followed after being inspired, or followed opportunities in the market, or followed because of agri environment incentives.
But the organic farming and growing world has more than its share of pioneers. Indeed, until the emergence of an ‘organic market’ just 20 years or so ago – and remember that the era of organic policy support didn’t start until the late 1990s – virtually all organic producers could claim to be pioneers. They were doing something different because they believed in it – they were challenging the ‘accepted way’ that had had emerged from a period of food insecurity, a period when investment and profit of the chemical input manufacturers heavily influenced farm practices, and a period where our agricultural colleges and universities have produced several generations of farmers and growers where most can only comprehend an input focussed and industrial approach to food production.
Many of these ‘organic’ pioneers are still around and remind us periodically that they farmed organically before conversion grants and market premiums were available. It is important that their role and contribution is recognised – for we wouldn’t be where we are today without them. It would be justifiable reward if they were all benefiting from the interest and demand for organic food, from the agri-environment payments, and maybe from teaching others how to grow and farm in a sustainable way.
Today, there is another a new wave of pioneers, a group of people who are sometimes criticised for the wealth and capital investment they have brought into organic farming – for setting up farms and infrastructure that may not be financially viable in today’s economy, and for showcasing models that may not be truly replicable elsewhere… But these people are bringing vision and a radical approach that may well assist and inform the future direction of our farming and food activities in years to come. Their timing will present challenges for the high investment made in infrastructure that makes high quality products, provides excellent animal welfare, enables produce to be truly local, and provides infrastructure and activities to allow the public to get closer to their food.
While this pioneering investment may struggle to pay today, it is often down to policies and trade practices that incentivises ‘bad’ rather than ‘good’ practice. Rather than dismiss these early adopters, it might be better to recognise the influence that their work can have – through their campaigning and demonstration. Thanks to their efforts, we may be in the position to support the next wave of followers. After all, that’s simply what our earlier pioneers did – they would have done what they believed in for as long as they possibly could, whether it paid or not, while campaigning for their beliefs and finding ways to succeed. I applaud them, one and all.
Phil Stocker is director of farmer and grower relations at the Soil Association.
E: pstocker@soilassociation.org
Working together [June 2010]
Maybe the new ‘coalition approach’ is spreading - even if it is often born out of need. The Soil Association and the Organic Research Centre (formerly Elm Farm Research Centre) are organisations that complement each other, connected by shared values and objectives, as well as by our histories which go back to the origins of the modern organic movement in the mid 1940s. It won’t always have appeared that way and undoubtedly there are examples where, while we may have been in the same field, we have not always been ploughing the same furrow.
But things change. Both organisations cannot afford waste and cannot justify duplication – and this goes for our relationship with the many other organisations which share our values and work areas. We owe it to the many businesses, trust funds and to the public purse which fund much of our work to ensure efficiency and provide the best service and the greatest impact possible.
In our latest Mother Earth publication, our deputy director Roger Mortlock comments that “The organic movement still has much to do to ensure its voice is coherent, united – and properly heard.” The same publication saw Urs Niggli (director of FiBL and highly respected organic spokesperson in the EU) stating that "the relevance of organic agriculture and organic food consumption is still highly disputed” in the eyes of many people – public and politicians alike.
So it was with this in mind that a substantial team of Soil Association and Organic Research Centre staff came together for a joint meeting on 8 June in the new conference centre building at Elm Farm in Berkshire. The purpose was to identify areas where we can collaborate much more closely for greater impact and effectiveness. The organic movement is still small and with pressures on our markets, inconsistent political support – and agri-industry, international corporate companies and the bio-tech industry upping the anti and doing what they can to discredit the organic approach – we will have far more impact with a united voice.
With the meeting over the next challenge is to ensure that the many ideas for linking our work actually happen. We focused on the achievables, such as involving each other in conferences, collaborating on market intelligence, linking together on common project/research areas such as low carbon farming, and improving research and knowledge transfer outputs. My belief is that our efforts will soon benefit you, our members.
Phil Stocker is director of farmer and grower relations at the Soil Association.
E: pstocker@soilassociation.org
Secret filming exposes bad practices [May 2010]
Transparency, openness, and raising public awareness of how our food is produced: these are all things I fully support and they are implicit within the principles of organic food and farming. So it’s difficult to oppose the recent video clips released by Animal Aid of abattoir malpractices, even though the approach of secret filming may be unethical to some.
Animal Aid is a charity that supports vegetarianism and their latest campaign is focused on exposing poor animal welfare in abattoirs. Whether or not you like their approach or their intentions, some of the practices they have uncovered in abattoirs are totally unacceptable – and ultimately risk damaging the entire livestock farming community. For every time the media covers a story showing animals suffering unnecessarily, or not being treated with proper respect, more people will choose not to eat meat – it’s as simple as that.
We all know that when you work with animals things don’t always go according to plan. And animals in unusual surrounding such as abattoirs can present even higher risks. But providing good equipment and handling facilities, and ensuring that staff are adequately trained and supervised to take proper care, show humanity, and are professional and skilled in their work must become the norm – otherwise the abattoir sector will do a disservice to the entire livestock farming sector.
It is fair to say that abattoir operators and workers are not properly valued, rewarded, or treated adequately by society as a whole. Yet the work they do is absolutely essential to our food and farming industry and, when done properly (as it usually is), the job requires skill, intelligence, professionalism and humanity.
Abattoir operators must take responsibility and do everything they can to ensure there is nothing going on in their plants that would not only contravene regulations and official guidance, but also offend the public. Our livestock industry depends on it.
Phil Stocker is director of farmer and grower relations at the Soil Association.
E: pstocker@soilassociation.org
Sometimes you need to rock the boat... [23 April 2010]
Our latest Soil Association report, Telling Porkies: The big fat lie about doubling food production, has already drawn some criticism from within the farming community.
While Caroline Stocks, of the Farmers Weekly, agrees with the content of the report in her personal blog – that “there’s no scientific evidence that says we need to double production” – she is quite critical of the report's tone and the ‘silly name calling’. This mirrors (almost exactly) OF&G’s comments, which concluded that we would have done better if we had we adopted a more honeyed tone.
These are fair points, of course. The tone may well have (hopefully temporarily) rubbed some people up the wrong way. But with his years of campaigning experience, Peter Melchett, the Soil Association’s policy director, usually gets it right. And I have no doubt that he has done it again this time. You can read his response to Caroline below: I think it reveals the bigger picture and reminds us that sometimes we have to be prepared to stand up and speak out…
Phil Stocker is director of farmer and grower relations at the Soil Association.
E: pstocker@soilassociation.org
"... It was good of Caroline Stocks to take the trouble to comment on our recent report (Telling Porkies: The big fat lie about doubling food production). However, Caroline objects to our 'silly name-calling' while agreeing with what the report says.
I'd have more sympathy with [Caroline Stock’s] objection if she had drawn any attention at the time to the fact that a House of Commons Select Committee had thrown serious doubts on the endlessly repeated claim that we need to double food production by 2050, or increase it by 50% by 2030, in order to feed the world's growing population. A far as I know, she didn't. Nor did she shout from the rooftops when the Government, in reply to the Select Committee, admitted that the figures looked a bit dodgy. They actually suggested that if you went back far enough and did the calculations from an earlier date, the science on which these claims are meant to be based could suggest a nearly doubling of food production might be needed. That sounds to me like a significantly bigger scandal than the leaked emails about climate change from East Anglia University. It is a scandal which is central to much of the agricultural press's coverage of the future of farming.
Yet numerous senior figures from the Government, the NFU and GM companies have continued to use these figures, never once challenged by the agricultural press, or by Caroline herself. The fact is, it took the Soil Association's "silly name-calling" to get Caroline, or indeed anyone else, to sit up and take notice.
I hope people will also notice that the authors of the original scientific paper which looked at projections (not desirable goals) for food production globally said quite clearly that increasing food production will not solve the problem of malnutrition and starvation. Indeed, increasing production is not a good predictor of whether starvation and hunger will be reduced. More important is to transform: access to food; the ability to buy food; and the ability of developing countries to produce more of their own food themselves, rather than, as now, increasingly relying on imports.
Caroline, if you see me dancing around my 'organic allotment', it will be because we've finally got all of our spring crops drilled after the long, cold and wet winter. And by the way, even Defra have caught up with the fact that min-til systems are not necessarily better for climate change, and not many people are claiming nowadays that GM crops reduce inputs, given clear evidence from the USA of overall increases of pesticide use on GM crops.
Peter Melchett
Soil Association policy director
A bee in my bonnet [April 2010]
Last spring I retrieved one of my deserted beehives and brought it back home to fix up. Everyone will know that bees are having a tough time at the moment [sign our online bee petition] so I thought I would do my bit and try to repopulate the hive.
After bringing it back to the house, I cleaned the hive out and rebuilt it in preparation for either a swarm or a new nucleus. I put in several frames full of honey, thinking that this would provide a food source once I had found new bees, and planned to move it to a more convenient place once everything was organized.
Over the next month or so I noticed the occasional visitor, presumably raiding some of the honey stored. But one afternoon in early July we heard an incredible buzzing noise. Looking out, the sky above the house had almost turned black with a swarm of bees and slowly, over the next 30 minutes, they all funneled down and into the hive. It was a truly amazing sight.
The good news is that we now have a full and very active hive for the 2010 season, and it’s been fascinating (and at times mildly concerning) to watch their behaviour as we slowly lurch towards spring. The bad news is that I never got round to moving the hive and it is still sitting less than three metres from our back door!
Supporting wildlife – including, of course, bees – is a key aim of our agri-environment schemes, so there’s my excuse for changing tack and talking about the National Audit Office’s review of Organic Entry Level Scheme (OELS). The review generated a fair bit of media interest and email traffic from members, primarily over their criticisms that the OELS was low on deliverables.
The National Audit Office looked at the OELS because it was small and manageable in relation to Entry Level Scheme; nevertheless, their comments and criticisms are just as relevant to all agri-environment schemes.
Now, the National Audit Office got it right when they stated that OELS is likely to have delivered valuable environmental and public benefit by stimulating more organic farming. This conclusion doesn't surprise me because the evidence shows how wildlife and biodiversity benefit from the farming system itself, rather than being exclusively reliant on distinct habitat management.
However, the National Audit Office were also critical of the scheme, stating that the specific land management measures (in other words the prescriptions approach) didn’t deliver much benefit because organic producers mostly chose the easiest options – and often options that they were doing already.
What the National Audit Office failed to recognise is that this is exactly what the scheme was originally established to do. The OELS was specifically designed to provide a well-justified reward for practices that weren’t obligatory, but that were usually in place because they were considered ‘best practice’ within the farming system. And it seem sensible to me that we continue to make the case for rewarding organic producers for delivering so-called ‘public goods’ as an automatic output of good farming practices, including helping to mitigate climate change, increasing farmland wildlife and biodiversity, improving animal welfare and, of course, making life better for bees. It is also important to recognize that the OELS plays a vital role in encouraging and informing ‘best practice’ organic farming. And if this all means my bees are happier and more productive, then I’m happy too.
Phil Stocker is director of farmer and grower relations at the Soil Association.
E: pstocker@soilassociation.org
Inspired by conference debate [Feb 2010]
Fresh back from the 20th Soil Association national conference in Birmingham – and full of inspiration – I feel more optimistic than ever as I write this blog.
This conference has to go down as one of the best ever in recent years. And this is even more remarkable given the difficult times that many farmers and growers are facing. But sometimes adversity brings a sense of purpose and resilience, and for me that shone through over the two days at the Birmingham Custard Factory venue.
Very rarely do we experience such a wide range of interests coming together in one place. Retailers and food manufacturers, politicians and producers, and researchers and the public – all were in attendance at the event. And, arguably more than ever before, many individuals and organisations with opposing views were actively involved in the conference at all levels. To see Syngenta and the NFU speaking and being involved in discussions was completely refreshing and, at times, you could sense a coming together of objectives – even if we are on different roads. While opinions will inevitably differ, it has to make sense to talk to - and involve - those with different opinions. I certainly believe that there will always be some common ground that we can build on.
The theme of the conference was ‘The Future of Food’. In discussing the subject of the UK’s role in feeding a rising population in a resource diminishing world, a fundamental difference of approach was evident between the organic camp and that of the NFU.
Is it the role of UK farming to maximise production of commodity tradable products, using whatever technology is available – and at the expense of our environment – to feed an unsustainable population until the next crash comes? Or should our role be one of supporting nations to increase their food security, within ecological boundaries, aiming to feed indigenous populations with staple crops, and accepting appropriate trade of non-indigenous foods? This seems to be a fundamental policy and public issue that will so heavily influence the future of our farming here in the UK - and it’s why we have to debate and engage with as wide an audience as possible.
It was great to have Peter Kendall and other NFU bods involved, as it was to have Oliver Walston and Syngenta taking part. They deserve credit for coming and it would be rude to abuse their willingness to engage. But they are robust enough to hear alternative views. And their ‘business as usual’ vision of British agriculture - maximising production of world tradable commodities to feed an ever growing population, supported by a blind faith in high risk technological solutions (including GM nitrogen fixing wheat and nuclear power) as alternatives to finite oil reserves – is a vision that I find frankly depressing, shortsighted and unrealistic. Furthermore, their opinion that organic farming is in any way ‘anti-technology’ or ‘anti-science’ is simply untrue and it is no longer acceptable to hear organic producers still being tarnished with such a reputation.
When we think of food security we also have to think of environmental security and social well being. We could start by wasting less food, accept that obesity is as common as hunger, and that poor nutrition results in people with full stomachs still being malnourished. How much more food could we produce within organic, rotational, and polycultural systems if feeding people was our objective and economics weren’t such a barrier?
Phil Stocker is director of farmer and grower relations at the Soil Association.
E: pstocker@soilassociation.org
Good luck, Helen [Jan 2010]
The Soil Association's loss is the National Trust's gain.
Many of you may not yet have heard that, after five years as director of food and farming – and more recently as policy adviser at the Soil Association – Helen Browning is exploring pastures new in a full time post at the National Trust. Helen has had a far longer connection with the Soil Association, as an organic farmer, trustee and even chair of Council around a decade ago.
Helen has always been ‘on the edge’ in more ways than one. She farms on the edge of the Lambourn Downs in north Wiltshire, but she has always been on the edge in terms of her farming activities, too – pioneering high welfare pig farming, organic veal production from her dairy herd, and meat sales through the Eastbrook Organic brand.
She’s also been on the edge with her direct sales and involvement with her local community – farm shops, the Flying Pig mobile catering vans, her annual ‘Pig Fest’, and more recently taking over the Royal Oak public house in her local village.
And there’s more: while Helen is very at home in her wellies and muddy jeans, she also scrubs up well and looks at home in her business suit and smart shoes. And it was in this latter uniform that she brought a fresh perspective to Sir Don Curry’s Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, which framed the Governments farming related policies from 2002 onwards. She also chaired the Defra Animal Health and Welfare Implementation Group, was a member of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, and was on the Board of the Meat and Livestock Commission until it was wound up in 2005.
I could go on but this is already making me feel inadequate - and I wouldn’t want it to have the same effect on others! Although we at the Soil Association will miss her (she is a serious consumer of chocolate, most of our meetings involved a bar or two, and I will definitely miss that!) I also know that this won’t be the end of her involvement in the organic world, and that her energy and enthusiasm will mean that she is still there for us all.
So, Helen’s next challenge will be as director of external affairs for the National Trust. I’m sure you’ll all join me in wishing her well in her new role, as well as her ongoing muddy boots activities.
Phil Stocker is director of farmer and grower relations at the Soil Association.
E: pstocker@soilassociation.org
A unique responsibility [Nov/Dec 2009]
November was another eventful month, with two of the last days being taken up with the Farmer and Grower Board meeting and attending a soil carbon event at Nafferton Farm in the north-east of England.
The soil carbon event coincided with the official launch of the Soil Association’s new Soil Carbon and Organic Farming report, which gave producers in the north of England an early insight into its findings.
November also saw the last of this season’s Producer Roadshow meetings, this one held at Adrian Steele’s farm in Worcestershire in pretty rough conditions where everyone got a taste of the wet winter weather. In spite of this, as with all the other meeting, the afternoon resulted in the chance for some valuable debate, as well as the opportunity to talk about some of the activities the Soil Association is involved in which aim to further organic farming and growing, and improve conditions on the ground for producers.
While it’s been good to have held all these meetings, the most important thing now is to follow them through, to build on the communication achieved, and to pick up some of the key themes that emerged. In particular, it’s clear that the Soil Association has a unique responsibility to make connections between producers and those who want to buy and eat our food and drink, helping to create more direct relationships between producers and consumers. Sounds simple but to really scale up on what is already happening out there raises a huge number of issues such as convenience, continuity and range of produce to deal with – even before you get onto the subject of processing and storage infrastructure. This is an area the the Soil Association is already working on but which desperately needs more research and support as we move towards a future of diminishing oil reserves and climate change.
It is also clear that you - the farmers and growers out in the regions - are a truly fantastic resource and together we could do far more to communicate with other producers and the public in your areas. It is interesting that many staff at the Soil Association feel frustrated that we are seen as a radical campaigning organisation, and that this gives us problems when wanting to communicate with a wider audience. But in my experience, this is an issue of perception and the biggest challenge is actually starting the dialogue with people – an area that we could improve on by working in partnership with many of our producer members. I am writing up the key outcomes of all of the Producer Roadshow meetings, which will appear on our web site before Christmas – watch this space.
On an amusing note, one of the highlights of the Roadshow meetings was a sudden splash when one of our meetings ended in an impromptu swimming session as someone jumped into an irrigation lake at the end of the farm walk. You will remain nameless – even though the memory will no doubt stay with those who attended for some time! Anyway, it all adds to the spontaneity of organic meetings – you never quite know what someone will say or even do!
Phil Stocker is director of farmer and grower relations at the Soil Association.
E: pstocker@soilassociation.org
What role livestock marts? [Oct 2009]
Last week finished with a couple of days in Aberystwyth, one of which was at the Organic Centre Wales Producers’ Conference.
I was asked to speak in one of the workshops on the Soil Association’s position on livestock marts and their role in selling organic livestock. Our standards allow producers to sell store and breeding animals through organically registered marts, but do not allow stock going to slaughter to be sold live. Hence, in the presence of two market auctioneers and representatives of a couple of certification bodies, I found myself defending the reasons behind our standards.
The irony of this wasn’t lost on me: around 10 years ago I spoke at a Soil Association conference where I made the case for the selling of store and breeding stock through certified marts to help build better connections between producers. This was at a time when we were seeing a rapid expansion of grassland and upland farms and they were bringing a new dimension to the structure of organic farming in the UK.
The reason that the subject of fatstock and marts is coming up now is largely in response to another phase of growth in grassland and livestock production, bringing with it a new wave of producers who have traditionally sold through livestock marts – and who would like to continue selling in this way.
Now while I’m not responsible for setting our standards – we have our independent standards committees and Board for this process – I can think of several reasons why live fatstock sales would not be good for the organic sector and why it doesn’t fit well with the organic principles. And this was the case I put forward.
The principles for organic farming and food fall under four main headings: health, ecology, fairness and care. While store stock have the chance to overcome the stress involved in attending a mart – loading, transport, unloading, penning, mixing, waiting, loading, transport, unloading – a stock destined for slaughter do not. They can arrive at the slaughterhouse stressed and with high adrenalin levels. For me, this risks undermining our principle of health as well as risking a reduction in the quality of the finished product.
Then there is the issue of trade. Given the structure of the organic market, the main buyers of finished stock would be agents acting on behalf of the supermarket processors. The fact is that the vast majority of organic stock is currently sold direct or direct through producer groups and co-ops. This structure has enabled us to ensure that, through negotiation, the costs of production can influence the price, and a number of dedicated organisations have worked tirelessly to achieve this. I believe this structure has served us well.
In a time of surplus organic lamb, the proposals to auction finished stock (bidded on by a small number of buyers) would only have one impact – to bring the price down for everyone. I cannot see how anyone can suggest that this type of trading is fair – especially for those who have chosen to take a longer term view and are supporting the more co-operative approach.
At the end of the day these are only my views. While I can think of plenty of producers who would probably support me, I would be interested in hearing your perspective. Come and raise this – and other issues – at the remaining producer roadshow meetings if you can. Or email me direct.
Phil Stocker is director of farmer and grower relations at the Soil Association.
E: pstocker@soilassociation.org
Trusting your instincts [Sept 2009]
While I was out walking the dog last night I started to think about a recent article in the Farmers Weekly written by Stephen Carr. In the article, Stephen criticises the Soil Association for daring to claim that organic food has nutritional benefits. He was unhappy that the Soil Association should question the Food Standards Agency view that there are no nutritional benefits of organic food and advised the Soil Association to focus on organic farming as being good for the environment and animal welfare. He mentioned that he has some organic land and he’s ‘with the Soil Association’ – unfortunately, while he was happy to air his irritations in public he hadn’t contacted us to put forward his opinions.
This got me thinking about something I’ve noticed for many years, back to a time when I was a ‘chemical farmer’ and many times since. I’ve known many farmers who would rear and sell barley beef but when they had an animal for the freezer they would choose something different – often an Angus or Hereford heifer that had grazed paddocks or pasture. Why? The reason given was always because it ‘tastes better’, its ‘proper beef’, or its ‘better for you’. I know others who would keep a Jersey cow within their herd of Holsteins and separate this milk for themselves. The reason? ‘Its proper milk’, its ‘good for you’. How many farmers rave about their own vegetables and fruit fresh from the garden – and how many would prefer to eat supermarket vegetables? How many farmers would tell you that vegetables produced with plenty of muck and eaten in season are ‘tastier’ or ‘better for you’?
Where does this come from? Well, I’d dare to suggest it is instinct. I’d also dare to suggest that instinct is something worthwhile, something to be respected and taken seriously.
Unfortunately, instinct is something that is being questioned and even eroded by the current drive for everything to be scientifically proven. It seems to me that foods that are good for us also taste good – perhaps with the exception of sprouts when you’re eight years old! Think of the freshest fruits, the creamiest milk, in season tomatoes... all food that most of us would enthuse about.
Then there’s common sense, another attribute that is often thought to be in decline. Common sense tells me that plants grown in soil that is little more than a 'medium', and which are fed with artificial nutrients, won’t be as nutritious as plants grown in rich, biologically active soils where plants root differently and ‘hunt’ for nutrients. All farmers know that if seeds don’t root well they will suffer from drought or lack of nutrients. It therefore follows that the better plants root, the more nutrients they will take up – and then the more nutritious they will be.
I don’t feel I need science to tell me what food is good for me or not. I also think there is a better use for science, particularly when public money is short and we have so many important things to learn for which science is crucial. However, the science that has been done reassures me that the basics of organic farming – such as soil fertility and high forage intakes for animals – will produce tastier food that is better for me.
I’m up for being humble and accepting that we haven’t got all the answers, and I recognise the importance of science and technology. But we shouldn’t shy away from what we believe in.
Phil Stocker is director of farmer and grower relations at the Soil Association.
E: pstocker@soilassociation.org