A Cooperative model appears to assist the majority of organic producers in developed and emerging economies. Advantages of establishing a legal producer’s cooperative include the improvement of supply and an enhanced capability to negotiate with wholesale agents. Cooperatives are ideal for smaller organic producers who can benefit from distributing some of the expense involved in hiring staff, training, equipment, marketing and promotion.

Every now and then, I encounter lending agents who continue to distrust proposals associated with an ‘organic cooperative’. The seventies were, unfortunately, a decade of badly conceived agricultural ventures. While most participants were well meaning and earnest in pursuit of their philosophy, the vast majority failed the business test.

With a stronger representation of successful organisations to model themselves against, contemporary organic producers are less likely to become snared in the errors of the past. The first and most basic lesson is to establish each cooperative within a legitimate legal and financial framework. This will help to identify and secure member’s rights and responsibilities. It seems to have the additional effect of removing false preconceptions about the organic industry as a whole. People are generally misguided when they approach organic production believing that everyone involved will be generous, relaxed, and accommodating to the best strains of shared humanity. While there are many individuals with precisely these qualities, the reality of business within the organic sector is generally one of competition with limited margins between success and failure. If a solicitor cannot convince you of this, then hopefully your accountant will.

Working within a cooperative can provide an ideal safety net for the inexperienced producer. One of the most challenging goals is to determine the level of consumer demand for a particular product. Of course for most farm products, demand is relatively inconsistent and subject to seasonal fluctuations. By working effectively together, members of a rural cooperative can work to meet regional demand and limit their individual exposure to market uncertainty. At the same time a cooperative is usually in a superior position to negotiate with wholesale purchasers of their particular commodity.

Occasionally, I’m asked to explain the important factors which convince me to believe that organic agriculture will ultimately succeed against the major investment and technologies which have structured contemporary models of food production. While my response is based on evidence obtained from practical studies, it also appeals to the intuitive wisdom of agricultural traditions throughout history.

There’s an old saying which suggests “..you won’t get more out of any field than the amount you’re prepared to put in..” Putting philosophy on hold for a moment, every farmer knows that a field requires work to maximise productivity. When there is no long-term strategy for soil replenishment, sooner or later the field must cease to be productive. In this sense, organic agriculture remains consistent with the successful traditions of food production throughout recorded history.

We’re often told that organic agriculture is inefficient. In many situations this is absolutely correct, and I’m the first to admit it. But as soon as you agree with their simple enough proposition, adherents of chemical based agriculture will often attempt to close in with the substance of their argument. They maintain that elimination of pesticides and other forms of chemical control must reduce yields to an extent that farming can no longer be profitable or sustainable over the longer term. In this sense, they are dismissive and at times contemptuous of the cultural controls and other husbandry strategies employed by organic producers.

There are many studies showing that yields obtained through commercial organic cultivation can match those where chemical inputs are employed. One reality with most agriculture is the need to restore nitrogen which is partially depleted with each harvest. Organic farmers generally respond by selective rotations and the application of green manures and other cover crops which actually replace and fix nitrogen within the soil.

Unlike the spreading of chemical fertiliser, cover cropping temporarily removes land from commercial production. This situation may be unacceptable where arable land is scarce or when economic imperative requires rapid returns on investment. Another impediment to organic agriculture is the tendency for wealthier nations to depend heavily upon consumption of animal based protein. Its no exaggeration to suggest that one kilogram of lean meat requires at least twenty kilograms of high quality grain. Under natural conditions, it’s almost impossible to replenish soil nitrogen at this rate.

The future of organic agriculture is beyond question provided we can understand and accommodate the need for arable land identification, soil replenishment, and longer term economic strategies.

As a dedicated organic consumer I like to play my part in minimizing the impact our species has on the planet. There are numerous “big” environmental issues, which I don’t have direct control over, and then there are the smaller ones over which I enjoy at least a degree of control. Naturally enough, rather than depressing myself with my inability to alter the course of global issues, I tend to focus my efforts and attention on the day-to-day things I can do to contribute to a better, cleaner, greener society. That’s why I pay particular attention to the packaging of organic produce. I have an expectation – and I don’t believe it to be unreasonable – that organic products should be packaged in an environmentally responsible manner. I extend this expectation to the packaging options provided at the checkout.

Last week, while visiting with friends in Boston - and feeling inclined to express my gratitude for the most gracious hospitality that had been bestowed upon me - I had cause to visit a local specialty organic store. The store, which I won’t name, was fantastic apart from one major shortcoming. They expected me to leave with my items packaged in single use plastic bags. “What”, I said to the cashier. “You can not be serious”. Although not said with the John McEnroe inflection that you’ve probably just ascribed to my comments - I have to admit - I was shocked. How can anyone sufficiently inspired to open a store dedicated to selling organic produce routinely provide customers with single use plastic bags? And worse still, provide no alternatives.

Some of you may be scratching your head and wondering why I’d bother to upset myself over a few plastic bags. After all, I was partly to blame. Clearly I had entered the store without my own shopping bags. And you’re right to ask – I’m big on consumer responsibility too. Normally I do present at the checkout with my own multi-use, hand-stitched organic cotton bags. But on this occasion I was traveling light. However, even though I hadn’t brought my own bags to take my produce home from the store, I still feel there should have been environmentally friendly packaging options made available.

What was I expecting? There are many alternatives to single-use plastic bags, but my two personal favorites would have to be:

• String bags – these are reusable and convenient. However, while string bags are excellent for bulky items such as the larger varieties of fruits and vegetables, they can prove awkward for holding smaller items.
• Calico bags – these reusable cotton bags are easy to wash. They fit into a pocket (or handbag) for portability and they hold more items than your average single-use plastic bag. They last for about a year and look great when a little bit of color and imagination is applied to them.

The irony is, it would have made sound business sense for this particular store to offer me an alternative to the single-use plastic bag packaging they were pushing. And here’s why:

• Cost savings – supplying plastic bags is a business expense to them with no financial return;
• Lost advertising opportunities – a reusable packaging option would likely have had the store’s logo emblazoned on it in a prominent position, thus ensuring the store’s brand was constantly visible and in the minds of both current and potential customers.
• Customer loyalty – most consumers are aware of the need to protect the environment for future generations. Providing alternatives to single-use plastic bags represents an opportunity to ensure customers remain loyal.

It might seem like a small and insignificant issue, but single-use plastic bags spoil our parks and beaches, block our drains, harm our wildlife and take over 1000 years to break down. Fortunately, steps are being taken. Many cities, including Boston in the United States, and indeed many countries throughout the world are starting to take this issue seriously. It’s important that organic storekeepers show some leadership in this area. 

Large scale agriculturalists and primary producers have recently become interested in measuring their carbon profiles. This may be accounted for in terms of sound economic management, and the type of foresight which anticipates the introduction of government policy and other compliance imperatives. Within this analytical environment, there is renewed demand for comparative studies which measure the approximate carbon profiles of organic and conventional agricultural technologies.

In a field-based trial organised through the University of Nottingham, researchers concluded that organic weed control required almost double the amount of energy per hectare of wheat production compared with conventional control methods. In terms of carbon dioxide emissions, they estimated between 49 and 59 kg per tonne of grain as a consequence of organic weed control. Compare this with the 16.5 kg per tonne estimated from the conventional approach to weed management. The question then arises, to what extent might the elevated carbon profiles of organic weed control be offset by advantageous conditions within the productive supply chain?

It is for example, advantageous to alleviate the additional energy expenditure associated with herbicide manufacture, and the other synthetic inputs required by a conventional production model. Once the energy expenditure is balanced to include fertiliser, pesticide, and similar treatments the carbon dioxide emissions rise dramatically from 16.5 kg to approximately 39 kg per tonne of grain production.

Of course, the anticipated advantages of organic production relate specifically to consumer safety and a wider spectrum of ecological practices which promote sustainability and stability of important food resources. It also needs to be clarified that specific unit energy studies are disadvantageous to smaller operations. Once organic farming units increase in scale so that yields approach those established through conventional cropping, these variations in carbon profile are likely to be revised.    

I love cartoons. I always have. Perhaps it’s the child in me. Anyway, yesterday I received an email from Seppo Leinonen, a cartoonist and illustrator from Finland. Seppo was emailing to inform me of his weekly cartoon feature. Seppo’s feature cartoon this week is in response to one of our recent posts, which provided details of a recent study finding that organic milk reduces childhood eczema. A smaller version of Seppo’s artwork appears to the side of this post. Good fun! If you enjoy cartoons, please visit Seppo’s website which contains an array of humorous and sharp-witted observations on all things environmental. There is some fabulous work on his site and I for one will be visiting often. Humour and laughter certainly make the world a much brighter place. Great stuff Seppo - thanks from all of us here at Organic Guide!