Evaluation of the impact of a Herd Health and Production Management programme in organic dairy cattle farms: a process evaluation approach

Animal health planning activities are not always providing a satisfactory positive impact on herd health and welfare. Moreover, evaluating the impact of advisory programmes is complex due to multiple interacting elements that influence its outcome. Therefore, measuring solely health outcomes is not sufficient: the whole process of the implementation and use of such programmes should be evaluated. In order to evaluate the impact of an intervention with a Herd Health and Production Management (HHPM) programme a process evaluation framework was designed and used. The intervention involved 20 organic dairy cattle farmers and their advisors, in both France and Sweden. In both countries 20 organic dairy farms were selected as control herds. The evaluation of the HHPM programme was based on: (a) the compliance to the programme; (b) the programme’s functions influencing herd health management practices and stimulating dialogue between farmers and advisors; (c) its effectiveness in terms of improving herd health compared with control farms. Complete compliance to the programme was fulfilled by 21 out of 40 farmers–advisors. Results from a questionnaire showed that the programme functioned as intended (e.g. by allowing early identification of herd health problems), stimulated change in farmers’ herd health management practices and farmer–advisor dialogue. Even though the majority of the users perceived that the programme contributed to herd health improvements, no significant differences in health outcomes were found when compared with control farms 12 months after the start of the intervention. The programme allowed creating an environment promoting the exchange of information between farmers and advisors, necessary to define pertinent advice in a farm-specific situation. Future research should aim at improving methods for the evaluation of the effect of advisory programmes, by identifying early indicators for effective advice and developing methods to evaluate the quality of advisory situations without interfering with them

A Review of Milk Production in India with Particular Emphasis on Small-Scale Producers

The current document begins with a general overview of milk production in India. This is followed by a detailed study of dairy farming in Haryana State, particularly of the small-scale producers owning two to four milking animals who form the majority. The purpose is to assess their prospects for earning more from dairy farming, and to identify which areas of intervention in terms of management or policy are likely to be most favourable to them, and whether they are vulnerable to international competition. A further objective has been to evaluate the methodology used. The Review applies a method of economic analysis developed by the International Farm Comparison Network (IFCN) which is based on the concept of 'typical farms'. Four farm sizes were selected to represent typical farms in Haryana State, with two, four, 22 and 37 dairy animals respectively. Each farm is described in detail with assets, costs, profits and other economic information presented both graphically and in the text. A series of variables is introduced to model the effect of changes - in market prices or in production practices, for example - and these are discussed in the light of the reality facing small-scale dairy farmers. The Review concludes that the 'typical' farms with four and 22 dairy animals have the potential to cut their production costs and compete with imports. However, farmers with two dairy animals - the majority - are unlikely to be able to compete in future, even on the domestic market, without major changes. Nevertheless, the Review also recognises that in India, as in most other countries, farmers will keep their dairy animals as long as no alternative employment opportunities exist.Livestock Production/Industries,

COREPIG, final report of WP3: Development and evaluation of a HACCP based surveillance and management system

Organic farmer repeatedly face problems with suckling piglet mortality, weaning diarrhoea, en-doparasites and farrowing/reproduction. These problems are multifactorial, they are caused by many factors whereby the key factors often differ from farm to farm. Thus, it was the aim of the 3rd work package of Corepig to develop a management tool based on the HACCP (hazard anal-ysis critical control points) principle, which can be used by farmers, advisers and veterinarians to solve health problems on organic pig farms. Several teams of experts for organic pig production including advisers and researchers created four risk assessment protocols, one each for suckling piglet mortality, weaning diarrhoea, endo-parasites and farrowing/reproduction problems. As the lists of possible risk factors are long and complex, the assessment protocols were incorporated into semi-automated MS Excel® files. The tools were tested on 32 farms in Austria, Denmark, France and Germany, where risks for the four problem areas could but reduced on 72% of farms. Farmers as well as advisers acknowledged the HACCP based management tools as valuable helps for organic pig produc-tion. The revised tools and their descriptions can be downloaded from the project homepage at http://www.coreorganic.org/research/projects/corepig/index.html (to be launched 01.09.2011)

Corepig, final report of WP3: Development and evaluation of a HACCP based surveillance and management system

Organic farmer repeatedly face problems with suckling piglet mortality, weaning diarrhoea, en-doparasites and farrowing/reproduction. These problems are multifactorial, they are caused by many factors whereby the key factors often differ from farm to farm. Thus, it was the aim of the 3rd work package of Corepig to develop a management tool based on the HACCP (hazard anal-ysis critical control points) principle, which can be used by farmers, advisers and veterinarians to solve health problems on organic pig farms. Several teams of experts for organic pig production including advisers and researchers created four risk assessment protocols, one each for suckling piglet mortality, weaning diarrhoea, endo-parasites and farrowing/reproduction problems. As the lists of possible risk factors are long and complex, the assessment protocols were incorporated into semi-automated MS Excel® files. The tools were tested on 32 farms in Austria, Denmark, France and Germany, where risks for the four problem areas could but reduced on 72% of farms. Farmers as well as advisers acknowledged the HACCP based management tools as valuable helps for organic pig produc-tion. The revised tools and their descriptions can be downloaded from the project homepage at http://www.coreorganic.org/research/projects/corepig/index.html (to be launched 01.09.2011)

Vermont\u27s Dairy Sector: Is There a Sustainable Future for the 800 lb. Gorilla?

Key Questions Will the organic sector resume its previous prolific growth or will it stagnate? The growth in artisan cheese presents an opportunity for a few farmers, but will it continue? How does the interest in local foods affect Vermont’s dairy sector? Will the interest in raw milk present a future option for dairy farmers

Survey among Belgian pig producers about the introduction of group housing systems for gestating sows

There is a global move from individual to group housing of gestating sows. In the European Union, individual gestating stalls will be banned by 2013. Just like in other industrialized regions, these stalls have been the standard housing system for intensively kept sows from the 1960s onward in the Flemish region of Belgium. Because the socioeconomic consequences for the pig industry may be far-reaching and because farmer attitude may influence the realization of the hoped-for improvement in animal welfare in practice, we conducted a survey from 2003 until 2009 among representative samples of Flemish pig producers every 2 yr. The share of farms with group housing increased from 10.5% in 2003 to 29.8% in 2007, but then dropped to 24.6% in 2009. It appears that after 2005 users of old group housing systems in particular stopped farming. Because sow herd size increased more on farms with vs. without group housing and because the proportion of the herd that was group-housed also tended to increase between 2003 to 2009, the change to group housing took place faster when expressed at the level of the sow (from 9.1% in 2003 to 34.1% in 2009) instead of farm. The percentage of farmers planning to convert to group housing within 2 yr was 4.1% in 2003, and 6 to 7% thereafter. These were typically young farmers (P = 0.006) with a large sow herd (P < 0.001) and with a likely successor (P = 0.03). Free access stalls were the most common group housing system (31% of farms, 37% of sows). Their popularity is expected to increase further at the expense of electronic feeding stations, ad libitum feeding, and stalls/troughs with manual feed delivery. User satisfaction was generally high but depended on whether or not all gestating sows were kept in group (P < 0.001), the provisioning of environmental enrichment (P = 0.057), and the age (P = 0.012) and type (P = 0.016) of system. The main criteria for choosing a certain group housing system were the investment costs and sow health and welfare. The importance of economic reasons (P = 0.007) and type of labor (P = 0.043) decreased with the age of the system. In 2003 and 2005 the main reason for not having converted to group housing was that farmers would stop keeping sows by 2013. In 2007 and 2009 the reasons mainly concerned uncertainty about the future and maximally delaying the conversion. Belgium is one of the European Union countries where the pig industry is expected to undergo drastic changes during the few years remaining before the ban on individual housing

Impacts of organic farming on the rural economy RE0117

Organic farming has achieved a high profile in recent years. Although the 1,636 registered organic farmers in England account for less than 3% of the farm population, the market for organic produce is estimated to be worth some £1.2 billion. It has been argued that the growth in demand and supply of organic produce offers environmental benefits, health benefits and also benefits to the rural economy through stimulating employment and providing a basis for rural development. Against this background, the research on which this report is based sought to address the question of whether organic farming provides an additional benefit to the rural economy over and above that of conventional agriculture. The main objectives were to: 1. Review current state of knowledge of wider socio-economic impacts of organic farming through a review of literature and input of stakeholders via a panel of experts seminar. 2. Examine differences in the socio-economic footprint between organic and conventional farming in terms of pattern of sales and input purchases, quantity and ‘quality’ of labour inputs, integration with local socio-economic networks, contribution to tourism and rural development. 3. Examine differences in socio-economic footprint between different types of organic and conventional farms (following the approach outlined under Objective 2). 4. Develop policy implications in consultation with DEFRA and other stakeholders. In order to explore these issues a postal survey was conducted in 2004 of 655 organic and non-organic farmers in England and this was supplemented by in-depth face-to-face interviews with 22 farmers and stakeholders in three study areas in South West, Eastern and Northern England. For the purposes of the project, the definition of organic farming was based on certified compliance although it is recognised that organic farming can be much more than this. Additionally, by defining organic farming, remaining farms have been classified as non-organic although in reality non-organic farms exist on a spectrum of farming systems, some of which are ‘near-organic’. In terms of identifying and understanding benefits to the economy, the concept of a ‘socio-economic footprint’ has been developed to illustrate and measure the impact of different types of farm in terms of their economic activities, accessing of grant aid, connectedness to and participation in the local community. This is a much broader perspective than a traditional economic analysis and, as a consequence, the results of the research may be more complex. Impacts and characteristics Respondents to the survey spent a total of £65m in purchases (excluding labour) for their businesses and generated £90.5m in sales. At an aggregate level, organic farms spent less on purchases and generated a lower volume of sales. The organic sample was slightly smaller (302 compared to 353 non-organic farms) and when the value of sales is standardised and expressed on a per hectare basis, organic farms out-perform non-organic farms (generating average sales of £2,837 per ha compared to £1,953 per ha for non-organic farms). That said, it is increasingly recognised that in terms of economic impacts and rural development potential it is not just aggregate values that are important but also how closely businesses are linked to their local economies, so that the money spent is retained in the local economy and supports other businesses and individuals. This can be thought of as ‘economic connectivity’ and was explored through an analysis of the spatial pattern of sales and purchasing behaviour. In terms of both sales and purchases organic farms are not significantly more connected to the local economy. For example, on organic farms 29% of the total value of purchases and 19% of sales are made within ten miles of the farm compared to 27% and 27% respectively for non-organic farms. The definition of ‘local’ is clearly open to interpretation and if it is widened to encompass the county within which a farm business is located then a total of 72% of purchases and 57% of sales on organic farms were made ‘locally’ compared to 65% and 56% for non-organic farms. On the basis of this measure of economic impact and connectivity there is little difference between organic and non-organic farms. The results of this research largely confirm the results of previous studies in identifying a significant employment dividend associated with organic production. Organic farms accounted for 46% of the sample but 57% of all people employed in the sample. Standardising labour in terms of Full Time Equivalents (FTES) confirmed that, despite being smaller on average, organic farms employ more FTEs per hectare and per farm than non-organic farms. Moreover, they employ more non-family FTEs compared to their non-organic counterparts and it is only on organic farms that non-family FTEs exceeded family labour inputs. However, while employment is higher on organic farms a much greater proportion is accounted for by casual staff (50% compared to 33% for non-organic farms). This may be a reflection of the farm type structure of the two sub-samples as horticultural businesses account for a greater proportion of the organic sample (see the short and full reports for full details). Casual employment may offer flexibility to multiple job holding rural workers but by definition does not offer stability and may be associated with lower levels of pay. While the economic impacts and local economic connectivity of the two farming systems are broadly similar, the operators of the businesses and the way in which individual businesses are configured are significantly different. The people who operate organic farms are typically younger and more highly educated than their non-organic counterparts. On average, organic farmers are 6 years younger than their non-organic counterparts and 51% have a higher education qualification compared to 30% of non-organic farmers. In addition, a significant proportion have entered agriculture as an entirely new ‘career’ and did not come from a farming family. Many had never farmed in any other way but organically and had no intention of leaving organic farming in the foreseeable future. It is reasonable to assume that this distinctive group of organic farmers bring with them different skills and aptitudes and possibly also a different attitude to operating a farm business. They are more likely to run diversified enterprises than their non-organic counterparts and those enterprises are much more likely to be orientated away from providing services to the agricultural industry and instead are focused on processing and/or retailing. Further analysis revealed that farms operating direct sales enterprises have the most distinctive impact in terms of their contribution to rural development. Compared to other organic farmers they were younger, more highly educated and more likely to have diversified. All farms with direct sales recorded a higher value of sales per ha than farms where direct sales were absent but this was even more marked for organic farms. On average organic farms with direct sales generated sales of £4,983/ha compared to £3,249/ha for non-organic farms with direct sales, whilst all farms without direct sales generated sales of £1,654/ha. These farms also support a larger number of jobs as well as providing a more diverse range of employment opportunities. In addition to the readily quantifiable impacts noted above, the combination of organic production, in particular, with direct sales is associated with less easily quantifiable impacts that nevertheless represent a bonus to rural development and suggest the possibility of having a re-generative role in the community. Key here is the direct relationship with the consumer which often transforms the operation of the farm business in that it requires there to be trust between farmers and their customers. As well as connecting farmers and consumers in a more direct manner, direct sales are frequently associated with improved connections and collaboration between farmers as consumer demand almost always requires farms to act collectively. These networks of trust can help build broader feelings of reciprocity and solidarity. Consumers can feel that they are supporting and building a form of food production that they find to be superior from an environmental and or health perspective, or just convenient, or a combination of all of these. As a result, they can enter a new set of relationships with those who produce their food. In turn the producers, who are often already acutely aware of their dependency on consumers, can negotiate that relationship face-to-face with their customers. Organic status again acts as a bridge, a social shorthand, that helps customers and producers share a feeling of solidarity before entering into a relationship of relative interdependence. These feelings can be established outside the framework of organic agriculture, but the costs in terms of time and effort will be more considerable. Fellow feeling and mutual dependence strengthen the sense of community. Although the selling of food directly to the customer is not a complete answer to community development, it can make an important contribution. Implications The beneficial impacts identified in this research were associated with organic farms which operated a very different business model. Therefore it is recommended that a business reconfiguration package is developed to help farmers reconfigure their businesses to supply customers directly. In addition, given the shortage of external private capital in farming it is recommended that possibility of private co-financing to lever in funds from outside the farm sector is explored. A venture grant scheme could be facilitated with Defra acting as the broker introducing those willing to share both risk and reward with farmers wanting to reconfigure their businesses. Action should also be taken to recruit dynamic and pioneering farmers into a network of demonstration farms where the emphasis is on understanding the process of changing and sustaining the farm business rather than just the farm system. Finally, it is recommended that the concept of developing organic hubs is explored through an experimental pilot project. An organic hub would be a single site where organic infrastructure, including advice workers, is located. The hub could provide an organically certified small-scale abattoir, cold-storage unit and warehouse/pack-house facilities. The principle would be to establish a point where infrastructure was available to facilitate the building up of networks of smaller producers selling directly to the customer

Modelling the Effect of Policy Reform on Structural Change in Irish Farming

End of project reportThe Mid Term Review (MTR) of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has allowed for the decoupling of all direct payments from production from 2005 onwards; until then, most direct payments were coupled to production, requiring farmers to produce specific products in order to claim support. After decoupling, farmers will receive a payment regardless of production as long as their farm land is maintained in accordance with good agricultural practices. Direct payments to farmers have been an integral part of the CAP since the 1992 Mac Sharry reforms. Throughout the 1990s, market prices for farm produce have declined generally in line with policy while costs of production have continued to increase. Meanwhile, direct payments increased in value, increasing farmers’ reliance on this source of income. Furthermore, farmers adapted farming practices to maximise their receipt of direct payments, leading to the culture of ‘farming the subsidy’. By 1997, on cattle and tillage farms in Ireland 100 per cent of family farm income was derived from direct payments, meaning that on average the market-based revenue was insufficient to cover total costs

Focus groups of value concepts of producers: National Report Switzerland

The Organic Revision project was funded by the EU with the aim of supporting the further development of the EU Regulation 2092/91 on organic production. As part of the project focus groups were run in five European countries on value concepts of organic producers and other stakeholders, during 2004-2005. The project aims to provide an overview of values held among organic stakeholders, and of similarities and differences among the various national and private organic standards. In Switzerland, three group sessions were held with established organic farmers, two groups with newly converted organic farmers, one group involved experts from BIO SUISSE and one group was conducted with students from Agronomy, Environmental Sciences and Geography faculties of Zurich. The following conclusions were reached: Almost all participants were engaged in organic agriculture based on a certain believe or because they just like organic farming. Not only farmers had strong concerns with regard to the current development. The discussion about the basic values and the over-arching principles of organic agriculture were seen as very positive and a move in the right direction. The health of the ecosystem were in the discussions several times a fundamental value. Fair trading conditions were seen for many participants as a core issue. The producers did see the maintenance of their family farm and the farm succession as major issue. Many farmers were against an industrialisation of agriculture and against a too strong commercialisation of their products. Several farmers and several groups mentioned the problem of the lack of solidarity between farmers. Solidarity should get more importance in the future. Several farmers wished that there will be better cooperation between farmers and market actors as well as a better common strategy with a clear concept. Another issue was a truthful and careful processing, which is also for farmers very relevant. The farmers as well as the experts found that the added value of the production, the ideologic content of the products, and as well as the special intrinsic quality of the products are very important. Furthermore farmers and experts were in favour of “100 % entirely supply and market chains with only organic product, where not only the producers but also the trader and sales staff is convinced of organic agriculture. Many producers found that the communication with costumers, in particular public relation, will be important to survive on a competitive market and must be improved. A secure livelihood, surviving on he market and the strong workload were for many producers a major issues. Another central discussion point was the overregulation and inspection. Not only the producers but all main actors wished that the standard/rules are more comprehensive and the inspection work less bureaucratic. This issue is highly relevant not only for organic farmers. Experts saw a potential for an adaptation of the standards. In particular the health of the Ecosystem and the regionality are seen as key topics