Early results  from a new study suggest that claims that organic food is healthier may be right.

http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2007/10/29/107902/organic-food-is-more-nutritious-suggests-study.html

The only thing I can confirm about organic food as a producer is that it is not one bit better for the bottom line in terms of profit. If it is proven (big if imo) the price of it needs to be about double what it is now or I will be going back to conventional production.

the results from the last new study i read suggested 'badger culling could not meaningfully contribute to controlling btb" !!!!!!!!!!

It is very sad that a once greatly respected agricultural faculty should carry out reseach work with a heavily biassed team and a pre-conceived objective - to prove that organic farming is better than conventional.

We must wait until they submit a paper to a reputable scientific journal.

Bill R,

You're so right!

The article in yesterday's Sunday Times (print version - not on-line), although providing a sensationalist headline, made it quite clear that these remarks from Professor Leifert are from a preliminary look at the data.  The results are to be published, after peer review which has not yet been conducted, over the coming year. 

There was also a rather telling quote to the effect that there was still some work to be done to establish exactly which variations in husbandry had caused the effects.  To my mind this immediately flagged up the possibility that this research, like so many other attempts at a once and for all proof of organic worth, is probably doomed to failure through the attempt to compare results where different crop varieties have been grown or different systems of husbandry rather than identical varieties and breeds treated in exactly the same way save for the adoption of organic principles for one sample and not for the other.

The saddest thing being that £12m of EU funding will have been wasted!  

I would be farily confident that they will find that husbandry differentials are the entire reason for differences between the organic and conventional end product. Once they remove variety/breed selection from the equation much will go. The concept of 'slow food' will also be much too the fore. I have always believed that with most food production systems, well most things in life, you either get quality or quantity. I expect most Forum users will agree that flavour comes from time, wine, cheese, hanging beef etc. etc. I expect that the production cycle for most organic products is significantly longer. The extra costs associated with a longer production cycle and lower production is why organic needs premiums. The great question is whether any extra quality imparted is and will be rewarded sufficiently.

I don't think there is any doubt that vegetables grown in the garden with a bit if muck will taste better than intensively grown vegetables which has travelled miles to the consumer.

But our own swedes grown intensively on a field scale for sheep feeding are as good as one could wish for.

As far as meat, milk and eggs are concerned, there is no possibility that organic per se could better. Again there is no doubt that a free range chicken grown relatively slowly will invariably taste better than an intensive broiler chicken.

The same maybe goes for free-range eggs. Again, nothing whatsoever to do with being organic or conventional- how could it be so?  And it is worth mentioning that the free-range organic egg production units I am familiar with are out and out factory farms. The hens don't even have names.

 And why do we keep confusing ''organic'' with ''wholesome''? 

Bill R I have to agree with the confusion between organic and wholesome. but also the question that must  be raised is 'is organic produce like likely to be prepared and cooked different at the point of conmsumption?' because if the organic vegetable are boiled to death it makes no differnce how many extra nutrients they have in them to begin with! maybe the reason those who claim to eat only organic say it is healthier is that they don't over cook there food and are less likely to live of processed food?!

although I know little of the actually farming methods involved, it seems commonsensical to me that if food is reared/grown over a longer period of time in a more natural way then it will be more nutritious and taste better than mass produced food that is produced on high density farms whether it is organic or conventional. (correct me if I am wrong).

personally i am more concerned about my food being free range than i am about it being organic.

Kat, one of the unfounded claims of the organic movement is that their animal welfare is better. There is no evidence whatsoever to believe that welfare is any better than on well run conventional farms. In fact, I would argue that the reverse is more likely. Conventional farmers are more able to respond to veterinary requirements immediately whereas organic farmers need to apply for and obtain a derogation before treating for, say, worm infestation or the need for antibiotic treatment.  Likewise, I can use a bit of nitrogen fertiliser in spring, and thus provide a bit of fresh grass for newly lambed ewes or cows with calves.

And please don't believe the organic claims that conventional farmers use routine antibiotics as growth promoters. In beef, milk and sheep production. They certainly don't. I am less familiar with poultry and pigs, but any routine antibiotics which might be used will be under close veterinary supervision.

Of course there are rogues in all types of farming. But I have no resaon to believe that organic farmers are any more honest that the rest of us: they just have more rules to break.

What I'd like to know is - if you get fat by over-eating organic food what does that do to your chances of getting cancer?

In the old days  of America(when my dad was young) all farmers kept some chickens and they were free range.  They ate bugs, pecked grain out of manure, and got some scratch and mash and the like.  Dad use to go on and on about how much better those chickens tasted, I can't say as I never ate one, but Grandma always said that if he had ever had to clean them he would have preferred the store bought ones in a minute.  Might be a little imagination involved as to how good they taste. 

Reminds me of a story my Grandpa told me I think is funny.  When they all helped each other thresh, everyone ate at whatever farm they were doing the threshing on.  Certain families and farmers wives are famous for good noon meals, others for the opposite.  They were threshing for a neighbor who was notorious for being rather tight with his money, and his wife had cooked a rather scrawny chicken for lunch. The oldest farmer always said the prayer before eating and he happened to be a neighbor famous for his sense of humor.  He bowed his head and prayed with conviction "God bless the owl that ate the fowl and left the bones for us".  I thought that was pretty darned clever. 

I tend to prefer the idea that free range and natural systems are the way to go. I certainly prefer receiving eggs from one or two village people we work with.

We are working within organic regulations but we have the conundrum now that we are not allowed to use powdered milk for the calves. When you are rearing buffalo and the total production per buffalo is low it is very expensive - I have noted that in the UK there is a derogation for goat and sheep dairying. We seem to be in a position where the only solution is to slaughter all the male calves and weaker female ones at a day old. It is unneccessary but unless we get a rule change that is the conclusion. I refuse to do it and we sell them to the villagers at a few days old to rear on their now nearly unsaleable cow milk. For us it is a waste. I am also extrememly unhappy with the minimum space requirements required for housing, it is too high for the water buffalo here, even if they are indigenous. Our local inspectors are willing to listen but I am not sure if that will be acceptable internationally. At present their welfare is being compromised by the organic regulations.

On another note, there seems to be several loopholes for micro-farms, presumably on the premise that small is beautiful. I have seen some terrible welfare conditions in the villages here and they should certainly not be allowed to qualify just because they have less than six cows.

Meat and livestock Australia have already responded to the report, and blown holes in it.

Apologies , my previous post should have gone on the red meat and cancer thread.  As far as organic food being healthier I do not believe it.

sorry Bill R i obviously didn't say what i thought i had said - the point i was getting at was not that oprganic farmingwas better for the animals but that i would rather the animals/animal products i eat come from farms where they led a more (fpr want of a better word) natural life in being free range etc, and that i don't care so much about the organicness of my food but rather than it has had a good life before being a good steak!

sorry for the confusion

I think that most decent conventioanal farmers will suspect that stock on organic farms wiil , on average, have poorer husbandry standards. That it because many farmers who convert to organic farming do so, not because of ideological reasons, but purely for economic reasons. Many have not been successful at conventional farming, and convert to organic to capitalise on the grant aid available and also to capitalise on an inflated price which a gullible public is prepared to pay. And one reason that supermarkets are keen to promote organic produce is bacause it provides a high gross margin. And even when farmers convert to organic for ideological reasons, they are likely to be the good-life novice farmer without a basic understanding of good sound animal husbandry. They mean well, but..........

Yes, in many cases, free range is preferable to continuous intensive housing. And there are plenty of free range pigs and poultry which are farmed conventionally. The trouble is, any sensible conventional farmer will ensure that adequate housing is available at particular times of the production cycle and in inclemant weather. Given the choice, my cows much prefer to be inside on straw bedding and adequate hay and silage during bad weather. But it is difficult to identify this as a selling point.  

Conversely, I often see organic free-range hens and pigs outside in bad weather and in poor conditions, when they would obviously be more comfortable inside a shed.

So next time you see ''free-range eggs'' for sale, remember that the hens might well have been standing outside in a flock of 1000 in miserable weather on bare dirty exposed ground. Or the eggs might have come from a small flock of 100 birds pecking around an orchard with plenty of shelter. Each could be either organic or conventional.

Another good thread with lots of interesting points from which have learned. I do wonder however if the people who rule us have forgotten that Britain is an Island with a fixed acreage from which to produce food.

Those who relied on the Merchant Navy for our food, will remember that Britain couldn't feed a population of some 40 millions by organic farming in the nineteen forties. How then will it be possible to feed 60+ millions by similar methods today?  Improvements in the effectiveness of modern organic farming over the 1940 methods have been largely lost, because the increase in population means that less land is now available for agriculture and horticulture.

Further Increases in population with all the facilities needed, will further reduce the area of land from which to produce organic food, and it would be unwise for anyone to imagine that the increases in productivity that came about as a result of plant breeding and farming methods since the war, are likely to be repeated were we to turn our creative minds to organic production.

I do not know the precise figures but there will be a ratio between the quantity of organic product grown in the UK and the increased quantity of conventional product which will need to be imported to compensate for the difference between the two systems.

In short. The greater the quantity of organic product we grow the more conventional product we shall need to import.

To turn from the subject of capacity to that of Food Miles, I believe that there are logistical local benefits to be had, but that improvements in local logistics will not result in reduction of imports.

 From Peter Wells above:

''I do not know the precise figures but there will be a ratio between the quantity of organic product grown in the UK and the increased quantity of conventional product which will need to be imported to compensate for the difference between the two systems''.

 A very significant observation Peter. I wish I'd thought of it.

Another issue that does not get mentioned is that with organics the regulations mean that there is a significant specialist agricultural infrastructure required to supply organic inputs, not to mention sell organic products. Now I live in a region which to put it simply is the most organic lowland agricultural region in Europe (just come and see our wild flowers, not to mention that we have bear, boar and wolves on the farms) and it has long since been said that its future lies as an organic producer. There has, however, been no support to develop the infrastructure required and that means it will not happen. There has been endless talk by NGOs about this but nothing concrete has been done to help. The net result is that we are looking at establishing our own set of environmental management rules that are realistic with respect to what can be achieved and also suited to local conditons. The requirements for environmentally positive land management will go further than under organic.

"So which official body has pronounced that organic is better for you?  I would be interested to know."

This is a quote from the blog of the Food Standards Agency's chief scientist Andrew Wadge. So farmers aren't the only ones with questions about this research...

http://www.fsascience.net/2007/11/01/science_spin_and_advice_on_a_plate

Isabel Davies:

"So which official body has pronounced that organic is better for you?  I would be interested to know."

This is a quote from the blog of the Food Standards Agency's chief scientist Andrew Wadge. So farmers aren't the only ones with questions about this research...

http://www.fsascience.net/2007/11/01/science_spin_and_advice_on_a_plate

.. which was well answered by Marcus on the same page:

" And who is the body that did the Quality Low Input Food (QILF) research? It's a consortium of 35 partner institutes whose identities are shown at http://www.qlif.org/topmenu/contact/partners.htlm

Come on, FSA, you can do better than this pretend "confusion"!"

at the back of all our minds food produced without chemicals is regarded as safer to eat and better for you,

 what very few know is how to produce it at a profit

or in large enough quantities to make any real differance to the greater world

when the oil as finaly run out and we are digging our own little plots we may all become keener.

 well done Tom you must be pleased with these latest stats

KEEP UP YOUR OWN GOOD WORK

REGARDS JOHN

John, I presume you are not concerned about ergot, fusarium, septoria, potato blight, liver fluke, coliform bacteria, salmonella,and coccidiosis, to name a few dangerous items which can be controlled by chemicals and which in turn help to produce safer food.