Converting to organic
food production in the UK
Peter
Grey,
Introduction
The UK organic market is currently growing at a faster rate
than in other EU member states, total retail sales of organic food rose from
€245[2]
million in 1995 to €1.5 billion in 2001 (Soil Association, 2002c). This is
reflected by a dramatic increase over the past few years in the area of land,
and number of producers, registered as organic or in conversion––from 700 producers
farming 32,476 hectares in 1994 to 3,981 producers farming 680,000 hectares, 61
per cent of this being fully converted, by the end of 2001 (Soil Association,
2002b). These latter figures represent
3.9 per cent of
In order to assess barriers to conversion, 27 farms considering conversion were recruited between November 2001 and February 2002 through the Soil Association[3], the Organic Advisory Service, and the National Farmers’ Union into a case study in which participants took part in a detailed budgetary analysis of conversion to organic production, the findings of which are presented in this paper. Family Farm Income (FFI) was calculated for the current conventional system from financial accounts held by the farmer for harvest year 2000 or 2001. Budgets for conversion (Year 2) and organic (Year 3) systems were based on information obtained during interview, standard organic farm management performance handbooks, and published market information. For the conversion and organic budgets, product prices were based on farmer knowledge and / or published standard farm prices (Nix, 2002; Lampkin & Measures, 2001).
UK
Following the 1992 McSharry agreement on CAP reform, and as part of an overall initiative taken by the European Union (EU) to provide a framework for EU member states to implement policies to support organic agriculture through the Agri-environment Regulation 2078/92 (EC, 1992), the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) set up the Organic Aid Scheme (OAS) on 1st August 1994. Differential payments were introduced for various types of land and over time, with higher payments available for the first two ‘income deficit’ years of conversion (Table 1). However, the rates of payments were low in comparison with other EU states and uptake by producers was relatively poor (Figure 1). The OCIS operated by Elm Farm (Organic) Research Centre (EFRC) under contract to DEFRA, successor to MAFF, was introduced in June 1996[4] but uptake of state aid did not improve significantly until the OAS was reformed. With the reaffirmed aim ‘to support and encourage the expansion of organic farming, to increase environmentally friendly production’, the Organic Farming Scheme (OFS) replaced the OAS in April 1999 (DEFRA, 2002a).
Table 1. Organic Conversion
Payments for
|
€ per hectare |
OAS 1994-9 |
OFS from 1999 |
OAP[5] |
||||
|
Total |
Total |
Y1 |
Y 2 |
Y3 |
Y4-5 |
Y1-5 |
|
|
AAPS[6]
eligible and land in permanent crops |
409 |
736 |
368 |
220 |
82 |
33 |
49 |
|
Other improved land |
82 |
573 |
286 |
172 |
65 |
25 |
38 |
|
Unimproved land[7] |
60 |
82 |
41 |
17 |
8 |
8 |
8 |
With the introduction of the OFS, the maximum area of 300
hectares eligible for aid under the OAS was removed (but the minimum
requirement of 1 hectare remained) and a lump sum ‘stand alone state aid’
payment of €750 per holding spread over three years, for purchase of consultancy
advice was introduced. In addition,
payment rates were considerably more attractive (Table 1) and the scheme was
forced to close after six months due to over subscription, only to be reopened
in January 2001. In
Figure 1. Comparison of
conversion payments and area
Source: DEFRA (2002a)
At
the time of the study, no ongoing support payments for land under organic
management were available in the
Figure 2 Growth
of organic production sector in relation to state aid (
Source: DEFRA (2002a)
DEFRA (2002a) figures imply that more land is now
being converted to organic methods than is accounted for by conversions
alone. In other words, established
organic farmers are converting more land on their existing holdings. Critics of government support for organic farming
would argue that subsidising farmers might lead to distortion of the market and
cause producer prices to fall. There are
also fears that conversion grants could encourage commercialisation of organic
farming, thus leading to the loss of traditional values and principles held by
organic farmers (CRER, 2002). However,
the further financial enhancements of the OFS, announced in the OAP, and an
increase in Government funded research has to be interpreted as a positive
commitment to organic agriculture by the
Participating case study farms
Farms were located
throughout the
|
|
<50ha |
50-150ha |
>150ha |
|
Meat |
6 |
8 |
2 |
|
Dairy |
0 |
2 |
3 |
|
Cereal |
0 |
3 |
3 |
The sample
recruited, with a larger number of farms classified as ‘meat’ and fewer dairy
and cereal/horticultural producers, in part reflects the types of farms that
could be expected to be interested in conversion to organic farming at the time
of study considering the availability of price premiums on the one hand and
farming system constraints on the other.
For example, price premium for organic meat was very attractive during
the latter part of 2001, whilst during the same period however, surplus organic
milk production, amounting to 81 million litres in 2001/02 (Soil Association,
2002d) and the difficulty of obtaining an organic milk contract, in combination
with improved prices for conventional milk after a long period of decline,
explain the lack of interest in participation from dairy farmers. Arable and horticulture have traditionally
been the most profitable parts of organic systems (Lampkin, 1998) and, although
the premium for organic cereals remained high throughout 2001, the lack of
interest in participation is likely to reflect the prevalence of specialised
arable rather than mixed arable systems in the
Average farm size of 180 hectares compares favourably
with the recorded average organic farm size in the UK, 189 hectares (Soil
Association, 2002c), whilst average holding size in England was 79 hectares for
2001 (DEFRA, website). However, many
Just over half the land in the study was
owner-occupied, a third was rented long term and the remainder was rented short
term. Nearly two thirds of the farms
were family partnerships and ten of the farms relied solely on family
labour. Seven farms employed the spouse
on-farm in some capacity. However, only
eight of the farmers’ children were recorded as working on the farm and the
average off-farm household income was 45%.
These factors reflect the particular economic difficulties experienced
by the traditional, family farm sector of the
Previous studies of
farmers adopting organic methods have reported a high involvement of younger
farmers and women, many from an urban background, and possessing high levels of
education (Padel & Lampkin, 1994; Rigby, et al, 2000). Socio-demographic attributes in this study
were similar but not identical with this typical profile; most farmers were
male, aged between 30–59 years, from a rural background, and with an
agricultural educational attainment to technical college or equivalent, two
thirds having undertaken general or agricultural higher education. However, it is notable that very few farmers
had received specific training in organic farming methods. In addition, although three quarters of the
farmers in the study were male, all the female farmers said they were definitely
going to convert to organic production or were still considering it, whereas
one quarter of male farmers had already ruled out the organic option by the end
of the study. This agrees with previous
work by Burton et al (1999) where it was found that in the
Twenty-four of the twenty-seven producers planned to keep organic livestock on their farm after conversion with half of these growing some organic cereals, either for feed or sale. This highlights the importance of livestock for the efficient operation of the organic system. Anticipated main enterprises after conversion were beef and/or sheep (17), dairy (4), cereals (4), and horticulture (2). All projected conversions involved changes to cropping and livestock regimes. The most common of these were reduction in livestock numbers, or increase in forage area to reduce stocking density, and enlargement or start-up of a beef suckler herd (twelve producers). Two would start growing organic soft fruit and only one farmer would change product sector, from milk to meat. All producers that had decided to convert (ten out of the twenty-seven) would not change their current farm enterprises once organic.
For conversion in
the
Case study meat and dairy producers would opt
predominantly for whole farm conversion, meat producers via simultaneous
conversion and dairy producers via fast track conversion. However, only one of the six cereal producers
was considering whole farm conversion and this was planned over an eight-year
period at the same time as setting up an organic suckler herd. Other cereal producers would part-convert
either continuing as organic arable or switching to organic horticultural
production. On average, these
cereal/horticultural producers would convert less than one third of their total
land holding.
Motivation to convert to organic farming
Several elements of the data collection and analysis process
were designed to elicit information about farmers’ perceptions and
attitudes. The interview schedule
incorporated open-ended questions and a series of attitudinal statements were
scored on a Likert scale. These were
analysed using qualitative coding and statistical techniques (Principle
Components Analysis, Mann-Whitney (2 Independent samples) and Kruskal-Wallis (K
Independent samples) tests). Farmers
were asked about various aspects of the conversion process: what were the
perceived benefits; what the conversion process entailed; and what problems
they thought would likely be encountered.
The findings from these procedures help to build a profile of
·
Farmers
considering conversion were motivated mostly by economic factors (with 32% of
producers mentioning this), especially ‘better prices for produce’ and ‘greater
income’, but personal satisfaction (23%) and improving the farming system (22%)
were also important factors in the decision to convert.
· In general, farmers believed the conversion period was a time for planning and adjustment to organic farming practices (24%)––including green manure cultivation, maintaining soil fertility and husbandry, but 13% of responses also indicated that farmers thought there would be few changes because they already managed an extensive system, often considered de facto organic, i.e. without certification. Indeed, the perceived administrative burden of certification accounted for an additional 16% of responses relating to what the conversion process involves.
· Padel and Lampkin (1994) suggested that conversion to organic farming might be hampered by the following reasons: perceptions (image of organic farmers, size of market); access to technical and financial information; institutional barriers (problems in getting loans, certification constraints) and social barriers (fear of being an outsider). By far the most concerns expressed about conversion related to technical issues (45%) within this, the most frequently cited specific problem was uncertainty about their ability to control weeds and disease without the use of chemical inputs. Financial concerns including the possibility of reduced incomes and economic viability of organic farming were also frequently cited (26%). Another frequently mentioned barrier was the burden of paperwork that organic certification entails and the additional bureaucracy required to operate complex organic standards (19%). Surprisingly, farmers envisaged few problems with marketing their organic produce or coping with the change in ideology that farming organically implies.
· Most case study farmers scored high agreement with statements suggesting that organic farming benefits environment, marketing, animal welfare and quality of organic products.
· In particular, small farms, meat producers, and farms with greater than 50% percent off-farm household income had high mean scores for statements suggesting that organic farming improves quality attributes.
·
Most of the farmers gave low agreement to “Organic products looks better than conventional products”, “I will make more profit by converting to organic farming”, and “There are enough processors of organic food”
· Farmers with high off-farm income, predominantly the small-scale meat producers, appeared to be more optimistic than other farmers that the market for organic food is growing.
Financial performance of case study farms
Recent studies have reported that organic farming can provide similar or even improved returns when compared to conventional farming (Leake, 1999) for all major product sectors (dairying, cropping, mixed farming and horticulture) (Colman, 2000). Gross margins for crops are similar between organic and conventional systems as the lower yields, between 10 – 15% less, are often offset by lower variable costs (Lampkin, 1998). In order for organic livestock gross margins to become comparable to conventional systems, a 10 – 15% price premium would be required (Lampkin, 1998). However, other studies (Vine & Bateman, 1981) found that although variable costs, and to a lesser extent fixed costs, were reduced, this was not sufficient to offset lower yields and thus net financial returns fell.
The process of converting to organic production can be a complex procedure lasting several years and typically leads to loss of income. These reductions in income are a result of: output reductions; new investments; information and experience gathering; fixed costs increases and lack of access to premium prices despite the lower yields (Lampkin and Measures, 2001). Conversion costs over a five-year period are likely to be in the region of: €246 and €328 ha/year for specialist cereal or mainly arable farms; €164 ha/year for specialist dairy farms, but possibly lower depending on intensity of the system; and €82 to €164 ha/year for livestock and mixed livestock/arable farms (Padel and Lampkin, 1994).
Family Farm Income (FFI)
The poor existing agricultural financial performance of many participating farms is reflected in the proportion of off-farm income received. Figure 3 indicates a general trend for farms with low or negative farm income to be most reliant on off-farm income but two distinct groupings can be seen for meat farms––low farm income combined with low off-farm income, and very low farm income compensated for by very high off-farm income.
Figure 3. FFI at present on the case study farms by percentage household income off-farm
Table 2. Family Farm Income
and investment for conventional and organic management[8]
|
|
Dairy |
Meat |
Cereal/Horticultural |
All farms |
|
FFI present (€ per farm) |
76,683 |
-2,631 |
25,996 |
18,120 |
|
Average farm size (ha) |
247 |
95 |
105 |
126 |
|
FFI present (€ per ha) |
310 |
-28 |
247 |
143 |
|
FFI conversion (€ per ha) |
196 |
69 |
277 |
142 |
|
FFI organic (€ per ha) |
513 |
117 |
481 |
299 |
|
Investment (€ per ha converted) |
13 |
253 |
384 |
202 |
Average[9] current Family Farm Income (FFI) was €18,120 (€143 per ha) but varied substantially between product sectors (Table 2). Dairy farm average FFI was €76,683 (€310 per ha), whilst average FFI for meat producers was negative, -€2,631 (-€28 per ha) reflecting low farm gate meat prices and the small scale and extensive nature of participating meat producers. Organic conversion leads to improved financial performance for twenty-five farms and even in the ‘income deficit’ second year of conversion, FFI would be elevated from the present situation for seventeen farms. During the second year of the conversion period, average FFI for all farms would be €17,913 (€142 per ha), virtually the same as pre-organic FFI but again there is variation between product sectors. Cereal/horticultural and meat producers showed an average increase of €30 and €97 per ha respectively, whereas milk producers experienced an average fall in FFI, or cost of converting, of €114 per ha. The rise in FFI for cereal producers during the conversion period may be partly explained by the low conventional grain prices realised during 2000/2001. In effect, the opportunity cost of converting to organic production, e.g. reduction of yields during the conversion period, is reduced somewhat by these lower conventional prices as it consequently brings about a smaller reduction in revenue than if higher prices prevailed. In addition, the conversion subsidies received during this period also help compensate, and in some instances more than compensated, for this. Meat producers also experienced an improvement in FFI during the conversion period. Again, this was largely due to the poor conventional beef and lamb prices experienced during 2000/01 causing nine of the sixteen meat producers to record a loss during this accounting period. The fall in dairy farm FFI during the conversion period was due to the reduced revenue, a combination of reduced yields whilst still obtaining the conventional milk price.
Once organic, FFI increased 110 per cent on average to €37,723 (€299 per ha) over the present situation. Only two farms showed a reduction in FFI. Cereal/Horticultural producers would see the biggest increase, €234 per ha, with both milk and meat producers also seeing substantial increases, €203 and €145 per ha respectively.
These findings are comparable with previous work carried out by the Welsh Institute of Rural Studies (WIRS) that compared the financial performance of several organic farms to their conventional equivalents over a number of years (Colman, 2000). Occupiers Net Income (ONI) was calculated in WIRS work and this is a fairly similar measure to FFI, the main difference being ONI attributes an imputed value for any unpaid labour. It should also be noted that figures used in WIRS work are actual and relate to the period 1997/98, whilst organic figures quoted from this work are budgeted and equate to the period 2000/01. Nevertheless, the results make interesting comparisons not least because WIRS collected data from three different farm types, namely: cropping; dairy; and lowland cattle and sheep. These were broadly equivalent to the ones used in this study.
Conventional cropping farms’ ONI was €192 ha whilst the organic sample averaged €280 ha, a 45% improvement. Average FFI at present, i.e. conventional farming, in our sample of cereal/horticultural farms was €247 ha, with the budgeted organic figure being €481 ha, a 95% increase.
ONI for dairy farms in the WIRS study was €567 ha for conventional, whilst organic managed €1007 ha, a 77% difference. Dairy producers FFI at present was €310 with the budgeted organic figure increasing to €596 ha, a 92% increase. Colmans (2000) figure for organic dairying is considerably higher than that calculated in this study and one reason for this is that the budgeted figure uses an organic milk price of 25 ppl[10], whilst the figure obtained by dairy farmers during 1997/98 was likely to have been higher. Secondly, two of the four dairy farms considering organic milk production were large (400 ha) units with other, smaller, enterprises, and those used in WIRS work were far smaller, averaging 98 ha, indicating they were probably more specialised dairy farms.
Lowland cattle and sheep farms’ ONI was €197 ha for conventionally managed units, and €23 ha for organic ones. This is in stark contrast to meat producers’ FFI in this study where the present situation averaged –€28 ha, increasing dramatically to €117 ha once organic. The reasons for this are probably three fold. First, Colman (2000) cites poor management structure of the organic farms as a reason for their low ONI. Second, in recent years meat prices have been severely affected by food scares and this could account for low FFI figures at present. Finally, the market for organic meat has strengthened since 1997/98, in part due to these food scares, meaning organic prices premiums for 2000/01 were good, thus helping to improve FFI.
Fixed costs and investments
It is often assumed that
organic systems require considerably more labour than conventional farms. In reality this is only the case for certain
enterprises, such as vegetables, or if livestock are introduced into an arable
system (Lampkin, 1998). Typically, the
increase in labour over the conversion period is between 10 – 25%, and is
associated with the production of high value, more labour intensive crops
(Lamkin and Padel, 1994). Other fixed
cost increases can be attributed to the depreciation charge of conversion-related
investments and producer-licensing fees (Lampkin and Measures, 2001).
All farms would have the
added cost of €573-900 for a producer-licensing fee[11]. Other fixed costs liable to change after
conversion include (regular) labour, fuel, interest payments, and depreciation
(of conversion-related investments).
Less than a quarter of farms would increase, and three would decrease,
employed labour once organic giving an average fixed labour increase of only €458
per farm. Total average increase in
fixed costs from the present to the first year of organic status was €1,440 but
varied considerably between farms from a decrease of €86,135 for the dairy farm
changing to meat production (and shedding labour) to a €35,327 increase for a
predominately dairy producer increasing labour.
For sixteen farms fixed costs would increase less than €8,000 suggesting
these businesses would not expand following conversion.
Average investment amounted to over €24,200 (€202 per ha of land converted), two thirds of which related to buildings and breeding livestock and consequently varied between product sectors. Investment would be highest for cereal/horticultural farms, €37,450 (€384 per ha) incurred through ‘establishment costs’ for new enterprises, such as soft fruit beds, and livestock. The smallest investment, €3,270 (€13 per ha), would be for dairy farms, none of which would add livestock or improve buildings. A comparison of FFI with average investment for the three product sectors (Table 2) reveals that although FFI increases significantly once organic for all product sectors, for cereal/horticultural and meat producers conversion would be accompanied by considerable investment costs.
Discussion
OFS support payments play an important role in sustaining farmers economically during the conversion period. Case study farms would be eligible to claim an average €18,590 (€154 per ha of land converted) during the second year of conversion, and €5,346 (€44 per ha of land converted) in the first year of being fully organic (Table 3). This support contributed an average fourteen per cent (ranging from nearly thirty to less than 0.1 per cent) in the second year of conversion and four percent in the first year of organic to total farm output (sales plus subsidies before costs of production) respectively, a figure that would have been higher had some farms not undertaken part-conversion. Without government subsidy for conversion, average whole farm FFI for all case study farms during the second year would be -€677 compared to the €17,913 calculated. Dairy farms receive the highest conversion support both in terms of per hectare converted and whole farm due to their high proportion of AAPS eligible land, and because they convert, on average, the largest area. Meat and arable farms receive similar lower levels of support both per hectare and whole farm.
Table 3. Average conversion subsidies received
|
€ (€ per
ha of land converted) |
Average
conversion subsidies received |
|
|
|
Conversion
– Year 2 |
Organic
– Year 3 |
|
Cereals/Horticulture |
15,040
(154) |
3,431
(35) |
|
Dairy |
50,010 (195) |
14,305
(56) |
|
Meat |
12,449
(128) |
3,913
(40) |
|
All |
18,590
(154) |
5,346
(44) |
Improvements in FFI are heavily dependent on expected
premium receivable on organic produce sales as well as conversion support
payments received under the OFS. Even
small reductions in price premium, as currently witnessed in the
In order to improve the
representative value of the study in relation to farming in the
1.
Small beef/sheep
producer (2)
Located in a Less Favoured Area (extensively farmed)
Convert for ‘organic values’
2.
Small
predominately sheep producer (3)
High % off-farm income
3.
Medium
beef/sheep producer growing cereals for own use (6)
High % of farmland owned
4.
Small/medium
milk producer (2)
Low % off-farm income
Convert for ‘organic values’
5.
Large
predominately mixed dairy farm (2)
High % of farmland owned
Low % off-farm income
Convert for ‘organic values’ and financial
reasons
6.
Large cereal
producer (3)
Low % off-farm income
Convert for financial reasons
Part-conversion
Table 4 shows FFI per ha
for these six farm types. All three beef
and/or sheep farm types (types1-3) had negative FFI at present increasing
during the conversion period. However,
farm type 1, small beef/sheep in a LFA, and type 3, medium-sized beef/sheep
producer, would experience little change in FFI from conversion to full organic
status, but they would become viable businesses. Conversely, type 2, small-sized sheep
producer, could expect a significant increase in FFI from Year 2 to Year 3 of
conversion. Farm type 4, small/medium
dairy, and type 5, large dairy/mixed farm, would experience a drop in FFI from
the present to Year 2 of the conversion period but FFI increases significantly
once organic. The large cereal producer
(type 6) would experience little change in FFI between the conventional and
conversion scenarios, but would realise an increase once organic.
Table 4. FFI (€/ha) for six farm types in the case study
|
Type |
No.* |
Present |
Year2 |
Year3 |
|
1. Small beef/sheep, LFA |
2 |
(185) |
60 |
45 |
|
2. Small sheep |
3 |
(369) |
87 |
231 |
|
3. Medium beef/sheep |
6 |
(116) |
2 |
16 |
|
4. Small/medium dairy |
2 |
752 |
527 |
1,044 |
|
5. Large dairy (mixed) |
2 |
263 |
133 |
412 |
|
6. Large cereals |
3 |
143 |
119 |
240 |
*Number of farm cases represented
In addition to this,
splitting the farms into these farm types also enables better comparison with
the groups used in the WIRS work, with cropping farms equating to farm type 6,
large cereals, dairy farms equating to farm type 4, small/medium (specialised)
dairy and lowland cattle and sheep equating to farm type 3, medium (lowland)
beef/sheep. FFI figures calculated for
the large cereals and small/medium dairy farm types show greater similarity to
the equivalent farm type ONI in WIRS work.
The majority of farmers in this study were motivated to
convert for financial reasons, such as increased profits, and less so for
environmental or personal reasons, the ‘organic ideology’. The types of farms interested in conversion
most represented by the study were large, family owned units somewhat
disillusioned with the present financial difficulties that agriculture is
facing, and actively considering other options available. It has been suggested that larger organic
farms occur in countries with a longer organic history (e.g.
The study found that all three product sectors examined
would see a large improvement in FFI as a result of converting to organic
production. However, these increases in
FFI would require considerable investments for the cereal/horticultural and
meat producers, €106 and €241 per ha respectively on a whole farm basis, or
€384 and €253 respectively per ha converted.
These figures for organic production are optimistic. When the interviews
were carried out premiums for organic beef, lamb and milk were in excess of 20
per cent over conventional. In recent
months, premiums have been eroded, due to over supply and lack of organic
outlets, and are not available throughout the
Furthermore, figures for the ‘conventional’ budgets were calculated from actual farm financial data whereas conversion and organic budgets were calculated based on standard budgeted figures. It is generally accepted that the latter are not always realised due to unpredictable factors such as bad weather and disease. In addition, movements in market price are related to market outlet and whilst some of the case-study farmers anticipated sale of organic produce through high premium outlets, such as box schemes, infrastructural constraints can impede selection of preferred outlets and producers have been and continue to be forced to sell organic produce through conventional channels. Therefore care should be exercised when interpreting budgeted figures.
Clearly, government subsidies are vital in maintaining FFI during the conversion period and findings from this study indicate levels of payment are now set at a sufficiently attractive level to encourage conversion and economically viable organic farming. The newly introduced on-going organic stewardship payments should provide a welcome buffer from market price fluctuations, particularly if organic premiums continue to be eroded or non-existent.
Closer examination of the
farm case-study characteristics showed that six farm types can be identified.
These help to provide a more accurate picture of the industry, illustrating the
different types of farms interested in converting to organic production and can
be used to identify businesses and regions where organic conversion holds
particular interest for both producers and policy makers. Subsequent components of the EC project from
which this paper derives will investigate further these farm types in relation
to their location and the market infrastructure available to them.
This study has shown that
organic farming in the
References
Colman, DR 2000.
Comparative Economics of Farming Systems. In: Shades of Green. A Review of
CRER 2002. Economic
Evaluation of the Organic Farming Scheme.
Centre for Rural Economics Research, The
DEFRA 2002a. Agriculture
in the United Kingdom 2001.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Scottish Executive
Environment and Rural Affairs Department; Department of Agriculture and Rural
Development (
DEFRA 2002b. Action
Plan to Develop Organic Food and Farming in
EC. 1992. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside. Official Journal of the European Communities, L215; 85-90.
Lampkin N. 1998.
Organic Farming. Farming
Press:
Lampkin N, Measures M. 2001. 2001 Organic Farm Management Handbook.
Department of Agricultural Sciences,
Leake AR. 1999. A report of the results of CWS Agriculture’s organic farming experiments 1989-1996. Journal of the RASE. 160: 74-81.
MAFF 1997. Farm
Incomes in the United Kingdom 1996/97. The
Stationery Office:
MAFF
1999. Organic Conversion Information
Service. The Stationery Office:
MAFF
2000. The Organic Farming Scheme. The Stationery Office:
Nix J. 2001. Farm
Management Pocketbook 32nd edition (2002), The Andersons
Centre: Melton Mowbray.
Padel S, Lampkin N. 1994. The
Economics of Organic Farming: An International Perspective. CAB
International:
Rigby D, Young T,
Soil
Association. 2002a. Organic facts and
figures – October 2001. www.soilassociation.org
Soil Association. 2002b. Organic Food and farming Report 2001 – Summary. www.soilassociation.org
Soil Association. 2002c. Organic Food and Farming Report 2002. Soil Association,
Soil
Association. 2002d. Organic Farmer. Winter 2002. Soil Association,
Vine A, Bateman D. 1981. Organic
Farming Systems in