Martin wrote:
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 08:08:39 +0100, (sarah)
wrote:
Martin wrote:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 17:41:55 +0100, (sarah)
wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:
"sarah" wrote in message
...
[-]
Manure is used by both organic and conventional systems.
Do they really use manure in 'conventional' systems?
Absolutely. Human as well as everything else -- when they can get it.
And, to be fair, as far as I know Organic producers are allowed a
certain proportion of manure from non-organic systems, provided it's
composted and doesn't contain prohibited substances.
It's truly amazing. Read the Defra website about what is allowed in
certain circumstance, it's in the derogation appendix.
I don't need to :-)
I've got a copy of the old Organic Standards (they were revised
recently, but a new copy costs serious money),
UK Govt. and EU regulations controlling Organic food production are
all available free on the web.
Members of the Soil Association are bound by additional rules in the
Organic Standards published by the Soil Association. Members of Demeter
(the biodynamic standard) have different additional standards; members
of Organic Farmers and Growers may have additional standards (I don't
know). Having skimmed briefly through some of the UK gov Organic
Standards in the May)4 Compendium, the SA Standards at least are far
more detailed. As a single example, they specify the length of time
various manures must be composted before application; I can find no
requirement that manures be composted in the UK Gov regs, although
composting is known to reduce the numbers of pathogenic organisms.
plus memories of several
conversations with the Soil Association about it. Be fair -- as a
general rule, bear in mind the Organic Standards are a sort of common
denominator, intended to encourage a reasonable number of farmers on a
wide range of soils to get into organic production,
plus the Standards
cannot under any circumstances permit anything that might lower animal
welfare standards.
Do organic standards/regulations cover animal welfare?
It's worth taking care to distinguish between the different standards
:-) For example, my understanding is that the Soil Association Standards
set higher, er, standards (in terms of density of birds/acre,
birds/pop-hole/building, that sort of thing) for the definition of
'free-range' than do the Organic Farmer and Grower standards. Certainly
the Soil Association Standards make it clear that no SA producer is
permitted actions/inactions that result in lower livestock welfare. For
example, while they would rather producers did not rely on
vaccination/prophylaxis to prevent various livestock ailments, they do
not ban them entirely, but require a producer to satisfy the committee
that no other method will serve the purpose on their holding.
I know of producers who have not joined the SA
because they feel the Organic Standards are too low; other, conventional
farmers feel the Standards are too restrictive.
It all depends on what one understands organic to mean. My wife grows
veg. in an allotment AKA gardening club, where no chemicals are
allowed. In my opinion that is real SRA organic gardening. I can also
see that to produce food in bulk this way is not a practical
proposition. Incidentally the land was originally used for bulb
production, samples of the ground were taken and analysed in a lab.
before it was used for veg production as there was a fear that the
land might be contaminated with heavy metals used in bulb production,
it wasn't.
Sensible, as bulb production made much use of OCs, if I recall. As far
as it goes, I tend to take small-o 'organic' to mean any producer
avoiding the use of chemicals they think are harmful. Which is fair
enough. Large-o 'Organic' producers work to published standards based on
research thought to indicate which chemicals/techniques are harmful,
plus, probably, a large dollop of personal opinion :-)
regards
sarah
--
Think of it as evolution in action.