Managing the Transition from Conventional to Organic Farming

Terry Kelly, Gretchen Gempton, & Alan Palmer
Institute of Natural Resources
Massey University
Palmerston North, New Zealand

Introduction

In order to become a fully certified organic producer, a conventional farmer or grower must go through the process of conversion. The time between the start of the conversion process to when the producer gains full organic certification is called the transition period. During this transition period the production system is weaned from the chemical inputs that many New Zealand production systems have become dependent on. Depending on the type of production and the certification agency, it can take 24 to 48 months or more to gain full certification.

For BGNZ certification of primary producers, the transition period is measured back from the date of planting crops. In the case of annual crops, the conversion period is a minimum of twelve months. For permanent, biennial or perennial crops, the conversion period is a minimum of eighteen months and is measured back from the end of harvesting fruit, or natural parturition in animals. This conversion period can be individually varied at BGNZ’s discretion, for annual or perennial crops, due for example to previous use of residual pesticides or any other prohibited inputs (BGNZ 1998, p 15).

The process of transition from a conventional to an organic production system can be difficult for the producer. The changes in management practices can have an impact on the whole ecology of the production system, including the soil, plants, and livestock. Production can be adversely affected, which can result in a drop in farm income (Dabbert and Madden, 1986). Also, premiums are either smaller or unavailable for transition products. Conversion can have an impact on animal health, and the farmer is now limited as to how animal health issues are managed. A great deal of learning also goes on during the transition period. Farm managers considering converting to organic production need information as the basis for their plans and decisions (Peterson and Hurley, 1999). New Zealand organic farmers and growers may need to organise their own processing and marketing, outside of the conventional product processing companies. This learning and developing of new skills is critical, as mistakes can be expensive.

The objectives of this study were to:

• identify the factors that influence the management of the transition period, and to understand the nature of that influence;
• identify farmer circumstances that mitigate or enhance the difficulties encountered during the transition period; and
• determine the requirements of farmers to better manage the transition period.

Methods

A multiple-case study approach was employed in this research. Participants were pastoral farmers selected from the BIO-GRO producers’ list, made available from BIO-GRO NZ. In order to study the management of the transition phase, case farmers had to be certified organic producers. Because of resource constraints, cases were selected within a two-hour travelling distance from Palmerston North.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with five case farmers. The interviews lasted between 90 and 120 minutes, and were conducted at the farmers’ homes, which allowed the participants to feel comfortable and relaxed. Distractions were not a problem during the interviews. All interviews were tape-recorded but not transcribed – the tapes were used to complete and expand on notes taken during the interview. In some cases, follow-up contact by telephone was made to clarify any points that came out in the interviews. The discussions were guided by an interview schedule to ensure that key topics were explored with each farmer, but participants were allowed to pursue certain issues that were important to them within the broad boundaries of the topic.

The interviews focused on management during and after the transition period. The three broad areas covered were biophysical, financial, and social. More specifically, farmers were asked to comment on the impacts and implications of transition on soil management, weed and pest management, pasture and grazing management, planning, finances, animal health and welfare, and social relationships, including family, friends, and neighbours. Farmers were also asked to comment on what they’d do differently, what were the main obstacles they faced, what was useful, and what advice they’d give to others.

Background

Many changes take place during the transition from conventional to organic farming as a result of the changes in the way the agricultural system is managed. A farm’s profits during the transition are determined by a combination of five kinds of effects: a biological transition effect, a rotation adjustment effect, a price effect, a learning effect, and a perennial effect (Dabbert and Madden 1986).

The biological transition effect refers to the impacts on farm profits due to natural processes that result from shifting to organic methods, and may be either negative or positive (Dabbert and Madden, 1986). Negative biological effects result from reduced yields or increased costs of the new organic practices, while positive impacts on profits may result from practices such as the substitution of leguminous nitrogen for purchased fertilisers, or reliance on biological controls instead of chemical pesticides. Unfortunately, positive biological effects often are not realised until after the transition period.

The severity of the biological transition effect depends on climatic and soil properties, cropping history, combinations of chemicals used in the past, and the transition strategy employed by the farmer. The length of the biological transition period may vary from three to six years, and a more gradual transition featuring phased reduction of chemical use combined with introduction of beneficial predators can minimise negative biological effects (Dabbert and Madden, 1986).

When converting from a conventional farming system to an organic system, it may be necessary to introduce or alter crop rotations, and the particular selection of crops required for these rotations can lead to a reduction in income (Dabbert and Madden 1986). This is referred to the rotation adjustment effect. For example, if the conventional crop mix was intensive and the transition involves introduction into rotation of less profitable crops, such as pasture, the financial losses in the early years of the transition can be severe. On the other hand, if a conventional farming system featured a diverse rotation including legumes, the rotation adjustment effect may be minimal or even zero (Dabbert and Madden 1986).

The price effect refers to the impact on farm profits from a change in the prices of its commodities (Dabbert and Madden, 1986). In situations where organic produce commands price premiums, the price effect is positive. On the other hand, if organic production systems result in increased pest damage or other factors that reduce the grade of the product, the price effect could be negative. Finally, the price effect can be non-existent it situations where yields are maintained and commodities are sold in conventional markets at regular prices (Dabbert and Madden 1986).

The learning effect during the transition refers to the reduction in income due to the farmer’s lack of experience or information regarding organic methods (Dabbert and Madden 1986). This effect can be quite significant in cases where the organic technology is complex and risky, and the farmer is inexperienced. However where the organic technology is relatively easy to adopt and the systems are relatively simple, the learning effect may be negligible (Dabbert and Madden, 1986). One of the major barriers to adoption of organic systems is the lack of technical information and advice regarding organic methods, which can significantly increase the farmer’s apprehension and uncertainty regarding the financial outcome of the transition (Dabbert and Madden, 1986; Saunders et al. 1997; Peterson and Hurley, 1999). Sound advice from experienced and successful organic farmers can be invaluable during the transition.

The perennial effect refers to the long-term effect on farm profits after considering the effects of rotation adjustment, biological transition, price and learning (Dabbert and Madden 1986). Depending on whether organic farming is inherently advantageous or not from the standpoint of year to year profitability, the perennial effect may be either positive or negative. Since the present study is concerned only with management of the transition period, the perennial effect is not addressed here.

Results and Discussion

Managing the transition means minimising the negative aspects of these effects and maximising the positive aspects. These five effects were not equally important for the farmers participating in this research, and several important points emerged regarding farmers’ attempts to successfully manage the transition period.

All the farmers interviewed experienced the biological transition effect. Maintaining soil fertility throughout the transition was important for all farmers, and generally involved replacing conventional fertilisers with approved ones, and making more use of green manure crops. The consensus is that the soil takes a long time to adjust from a chemical system to an organic one and it can only be changed gradually. Some of the farmers noted that it took four to six years for the soil to adjust to the new management system, which is consistent with the literature (Dabbert and Madden, 1986). One farmer observed that it took four or five years to see the effects of Bio-Phos fertiliser (RPR mixed with fish nutrient) as compared to the almost instant results obtained by some chemical fertilisers. A key point is to maintain soil fertility through transition – the farmers who struggled most did not put on adequate fertiliser to maintain fertility.

Managing for weed control was also important during transition in all five cases, though to varying degrees. Three of the farmers reported that there was an increase of weeds over the transition, and two farmers noted that these weeds continue to be a problem. In one case, the ragwort infestation increased to such a level that the pasture production was severely compromised. It took over ten years of organic management, including the use of biological control agents, and cropping to control the ragwort problem. In another case, a farmer reported that the number of thistles increased during the transition period, and they remain a major problem still. Three of the farmers commented that the number of weeds is very dependent on weather conditions. The farmers had to employ new management strategies to manage weeds, and it was stressed that timing is very important for weed management in organic crops.

With farming organically, you only get a small window of opportunity, when it is the right time to knock the weeds before they get established. …You might have 24 to 48 hours when it’s the right time to get out there and weed a crop.

None of the farms were heavily stocked before conversion, and all were in the process of reducing their stocking rates when they converted to organic systems. Some farmers found that improved performance partially compensated for decreased stock numbers.

My stock numbers are about 15 to 20 percent less than the people around… in saying that I’m probably getting my stock to better weights than they are. The amount of meat per acre is probably the same.

It was found that to manage internal parasites in sheep, a high cattle-to-sheep ratio is needed. Mackay et al. (1998) also report that a high ratio of cattle to sheep is an important component of a chemical-free farming system. Farmers in this study would prefer to stay away from sheep altogether if they could.

The sheep really hammered the herbal ley and left the grass… the grass also ended up swamping the ley.

Lamb is the biggest hassle… would run less sheep, but we would still need the sheep for management… would let the lambs go at conventional prices if we couldn’t find an organic market.

In one case it was found that in the first year of transition, the animals went through a ‘checking period’ where they didn’t perform as well as they had under a conventional system and there was a drop in animal production. After the first year of transition the animals seemed to have adjusted to the new system and performance improved.

When you change initially, production goes down because you are going from feeding the grass to feeding the soil… two totally different systems.

With the animals you have to expect an initial loss of production, a slowing in growth-rate. You also have to be careful to buy good quality stock.

The farmers tended toward smaller breeds of cattle, such as Angus or Angus-Hereford cross, since they seemed to be more efficient feeders, and performed better in drought conditions. They also moved away from the wool breeds of sheep and towards meat breeds, since they were more worm-tolerant and less troubled by fly strike.

The main animal health problems that the farmers encountered during transition were bloat, internal and external parasites, and fly strike. One farmer found the animal health side of transition very stressful.

Through the conversion process we had some pretty horrific scenes really… tearing around stabbing cows because we weren’t drenching… we had healthy cows just dropping dead. It can be very expensive not to do anything about it…we were so paranoid about losing animals.

Bloat became a serious problem on the property and they reverted to conventional bloat treatments until they gained confidence in what they were doing. A second farmer also reverted to conventional treatment when there was an outbreak of the internal parasites Barbers Pole (Haemenchus contortis). One farmer found that there was about the same amount a fly strike as before conversion and two farmers thought that there was less.

Two of the farmers found that animal health costs initially decreased during the transition, because they stopped using conventional animal treatments, but after the transition the animal health costs have returned to what they were before conversion. The other three farmers have found that their animal health costs have continued to decrease and are now very minimal.

The farmers suggested that animal health issues are just common sense, and if an animal has a healthy, varied diet, and is managed in as stress-free way as possible, they will cope with disease and parasite infestations a lot better. They have also found that leaving the young on their mothers for a longer period helps them get a good start and build up natural immunities.

You can’t afford to short change your stock in any way, or cut corners… they have got to be fed well, because if they get under stress they’ll get a worm problem and you’ve got no quick fixes.

Two of the farmers advocated a gradual transition to avoid any negative impacts that transition may have on animal health, animal and crop production, farm finances and the occurrence of weeds and pests.

We weren’t drenching a whole lot before we converted. The cattle were probably given a pour on once when they were younger, the sheep were being drenched more regularly… once the animals have adjusted it seems to have settled down really… its probably just the first year or so that you find it takes them a while to adjust.

The first year might have only had two drenches, next year one or two and basically got less and less. That’s the way it’s got to be really… I don’t think that you can go from a conventional farm and say you‘re going to be organic in two years time… the country needs time to change.

This opinion is supported by Dabbert and Madden (1986) who state that negative biological effects of transition can be minimised through a gradual transition featuring phased reduction in chemical use, combined with the introduction of beneficial predators and removal of conditions or substances harmful to these organisms.

The other effect that seemed quite significant to transition management for the farmers studied was the learning effect. The lack of good information and knowledge at the onset of transition was an important issue for farmers – much learning came through trial and error. One farmer commented that he would do most things differently now. Also, it was suggested that information may be very farm specific, and what works on one farm may not work on another.

I thought the whole process would be remarkably easy… I was probably a bit idealistic at the start and I thought there was no reason why it wouldn’t work. I didn’t realise it would be so long before the whole system would really work and gel.

It got to the stage where we gained confidence in what we were doing and we were able to go out and grow a crop without thinking that we will lose the crop or the cows.

Most of the farmers participated in organic or conventional discussion groups and visit each other’s properties. This contact with other farmers seemed to be important for sharing ideas, information, and general problem solving. It was also an opportunity for social interaction with like-minded individuals. The comment was made that before organic discussion groups were established being an organic farmer was sometimes lonely.

In addition to technical learning, conversion to organic production systems also required increased understanding about social, community, and family relations. The farmers and farming families, as well as their neighbours and friends, often have to make some social adjustments in order to facilitate transition to organic farming.

In a small community you can step on people’s toes and you lose confidence in the community. You become the lowest common denominator in the community and the finger is pointed at you as being socially unacceptable, rather than the other person.

Neighbours were often sceptical early, but their acceptance of organics appeared to grow with time. However, two of the farmers encountered difficulties with inconsiderate neighbours who sprayed crops and applied conventional fertiliser on windy days or just had disregard for property boundaries. In one situation the farmer involved lawyers to resolve the matter that was an on-going issue. The other farmers reported no such problems and said that their neighbours have been most considerate, and have created buffer zones between the properties when applying conventional fertilisers.

The support of family members was important during the transition. As well as providing the emotional support and encouragement to convert to organic farming, they provided casual labour when required to fill the deficit created by the increased demands of farming organically. One farmer remarked that the increased labour demand of farming organically has forced him to spend more time working on the farm and to employ cheap labour (often young, live-in volunteers). This has put a strain on family relationships.

My wife has always thought I have done things the hard way… probably, what we have been through has put quite a strain on our relationship… just the time really… enormous amounts of time needs to be spent doing it.

Three of the other farmers also commented that they feel organic farming is more labour intensive than conventional farming, mainly because of weed control and the manufacture of biodynamic preparations.

Neither the rotation adjustment effect nor the price effect seemed to have significant impact on the management of transition. The only price premiums received during transition were for crops; no premiums were received for stock until after transition, and they were not guaranteed even then. None of the farmers reported financial losses as a result of planting winter green manure crops or as a result of the practice of fallow. However, the change in rotations may require an additional investment in capital equipment. One farmer noted that the biggest expense for developing the property as an organic crop and livestock farm has been the investment in the cropping equipment. The other main costs of conversion were the initial loss in animal production as the animals adjusted to the new system, and the BIO-GRO levies.

According to the farmers interviewed, more and more conventional farmers are considering conversion. It is thought that they are seriously considering conversion for two main reasons: conventional farming is not as profitable as it used to be and people are attracted by the thought of receiving premium prices, and secondly for personal health reasons. The second reason predominated for the farmers in this study.

When we changed it wasn’t because we wanted the organic status. We wanted to change… I was getting headaches from using the chemicals and just really thought I could cut down on a few things.

…we are not in it for the finances, we’re in it because we want to do it.

A lot [of neighbours] have said they would like to convert, but with a huge mortgage wouldn’t be able to do it.

Conclusions

This study explored the management of the transition from conventional to organic farming with five certified organic pastoral farmers in the Manawatu and Hawke’s Bay regions. Its main aim was to identify and understand the factors that influence transition, and to identify farmer circumstances that might mitigate or enhance the difficulties encountered during the transition period. A further objective was to determine the requirements of farmers to better manage the transition period.

The results of this study indicate that the biological transition effect and the learning effect are particularly important for pastoral farmers in transition to organics, while the price effect and the rotation adjustment are less important. The findings imply that farmers who try to convert quickly to organic production by suddenly ceasing conventional farming practices may have difficulties with animal health, nutrient and weed management. The study indicates that a slower and more gradual transition from conventional to organic farming is easier to manage, and results in fewer problems, especially regarding animal health and weed management. This finding implies that certification agencies and future policies to encourage organic farming should not advocate a short transition period. They should encourage farmers to spend time planning and preparing for a gradual transition. Policies should encourage farmers to convert at a pace that allows the farmer to develop confidence in organic methods and allow them to learn first hand that farming without chemical products can be successful.

This study suggests that management in an organic system is more for soil and animal health, rather than for good grass growth, as in a conventional system. In particular, maintaining healthy, fertile soil during the transition is a key to good transition management. If soil fertility is not maintained, other problems related to weed management and animal health become more acute, and in organic systems, remedies for these are more difficult.

The results suggest that it is important to introduce biological control agents in the early stages of the transition for weed management. This would enable predator populations to become established before the weed becomes a serious problem. The climate and weather conditions have a profound impact on organic farming, as they do in conventional farming. Seasonal fluctuations, such as droughts or mild winters, influence pest and weed populations, and affect growth rates of crops and pasture.

Knowledge and information systems for organic farmers need to be improved. Contact with other organic farmers is important for problem solving and gathering information. It is also important for social interaction, as an organic farmer in a conventional rural community can feel quite isolated. The study has highlighted the importance of learning, not only in the technical realm, but also in the area of managing family and social relations, which the farmers identified as very important for successful transition management.

Further research is needed into the processes that occur in the soil during the transition. This would aid in the management of soil fertility during the transition period and farmers could better prepare for the transition. Research into animal health remedies that would be acceptable in an organic system would also be beneficial. Strategies to minimise animal health problems during transition and research into the effects of transition on animal health would also aid in furthering the understanding of the transition from conventional to organic agriculture.

References

BIO-GRO New Zealand., (1998). Organic production standards. NZ Biological Producers and Consumers Council. Wellington. pp 15.

Dabbert, S., Madden, P., (1986). The transition to organic agriculture: A multi-year simulation model of a Pennsylvania farm. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. 1 (3), pp 99-107.

Mackay, A.D., Betteridge, K., Devantier, B.P., Budding, P.J., Niezen, J., (1998). Chemical-free hill country sheep and beef livestock production systems. AgResearch Grasslands, Palmerston North.

Peterson, K., Hurley, E., (1999). Information needs of organic farmers. Unpublished Paper, Massey University.

Saunders, C., Manhire, J., Cambell, H., Fairweather, J., (1997). Organic farming in New Zealand: An evaluation of the current and future prospects including an assessment of research needs, comprehensive report. MAF Policy Technical Paper. No: 97/13. MAF Policy, Wellington.

T.C.Kelly@massey.ac.nz