Proceedings of the Second NAHWOA Workshop

[Previous]    [Index]    [Next]

Comparison of European Organic Livestock Standards with national and international standards - problems of common standards development and future areas of interest

 Otto Schmid

FiBL, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Ackerstrasse, CH-5070 Frick (Switzerland), Tel. ++41 (62) 865 72 72, FAX ++41 (62) 865 72 73, E-mail otto.schmid@fibl.ch.
 

1. Introduction

1.1. Historical analysis of the development of organic livestock standards

It might be interesting to get an overview of the historical development of organic livestock standards. The author has been engaged with the development of organic livestock standards since 1977, being the first co-ordinator of the Standards Committee of IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) and now involved on behalf of IFOAM with the development of the Guidelines for organically produced food in the framework of Codex Alimentarius, a common programme of the UN Organisations FAO and WHO.

The content of organic livestock standards has always been influenced by the development of consumer awareness with regard to problems of conventional production. Public discussion in the media has had a strong impact on the awareness of farmers, advisors and researchers searching for solutions to these problems. Table 1 outlines how some of the standard issues were linked, during a certain time period, with the problem areas of conventional livestock production, and in what way organic livestock standards were influenced.

 The fact that organic farmers are particularly dependent on the perception of critical consumers might be a reason why they adapted the content of organic standards to new issues relatively quickly. The implementation of alternatives in practice on a broad scale, however, is dependent on the economic and technical feasibility. The readiness to pay for animal welfare of consumers (with a higher price) and of the state (with specific subsidies) is important.

 Table 1. Historical Analysis of the Development of Organic Livestock Standards

Time period	Public discussion /Problem areas	View of conscious consumers and producers	Influence on the content of organic livestock standards
Before 1970	Deficiencies with oligo-elements due to the intensive use of chemical fertilisers in food and feed. Problems with the fertility of animals caused by intensive use of artificial fertilisers	Healthy soil - healthy plants- healthy animals - healthy food Animal manure is an important source for fertilising soil/plants	Animals should be an important part of an organic farm. There should be a balance between animal and plant production (biodynamic concept of "Farm organism")
1970-1980	Problems with chemical residues in food (accumulation of organo-chlorides in the food chain, residues in mother milk and animal products)	The risk of contamination by using conventional feed must be minimised	No prophylactic addition of antibiotics and hormones in feedstuff. Max. 10% / 20% of feed from conventional farming
1980 - 1990	Problems of industrial animal production systems, animals suffering in intensive animal stable systems (battery chickens, etc.)	Conditions for "happy" animals (animal welfare) have to be established, particularly on organic farms	Minimum requirements for outdoor runs for chickens. Sufficient place in stables. No grinded floors, straw as bedding material, etc.
1994- 1995	Suffering animals during transport and slaughter	Animal welfare must include transport and slaughter	More detailed standards for transport and slaughter
1994- 1997	Discussion about BSE, hormones, etc.	Risks from feeding animals with animal compounds must be excluded	Stricter regulations regarding the use of animal feed compounds.
1998-1999	Problems with antibiotic resistance	Risks for human beings from the therapeutic use of antibiotics to combat animal diseases must be reduced	The use of antibiotics must be much more strongly restricted (max. 2x official withholding period, max 3 course of treatments with allopathic medicines)
2000 onward	Tethering, GMO, De-horning, new problem areas?	?	?

 

1.2. Need for harmonisation of organic livestock standards

For a long time, livestock products from organic farms were sold to the conventional market. In recent years, the market for organic livestock products has grown, due to the fact that consumers are more aware of animal welfare and health/environment issues. Standards and state regulations are therefore becoming very important as guarantees for the consumers and as a means to improve animal welfare. Animals are now seen as an important part of organic farming systems; they contribute to closing the nutrient cycle, their manure improves the fertility of the soil, they control weeds through grazing and they diversify the farm (Codex draft 1998). Management techniques must be governed by the physiological and basic ethological needs of the farm animal in question. The animals must be allowed to fulfill their basic behavioural needs. All management techniques, especially where production levels and speed of growth are concerned, must be directed at good animal health and welfare (IFOAM Basic standards, 1998).

In July 1999, the EU adopted the EU regulation (1804/99), which amends regulation 2092/91 with regard to livestock production. IFOAM Basic Standards were adopted in December 1998. Within Codex Alimentarius, the Organic Guidelines should include Organic Livestock production. These international Guidelines, regulations and standards have a strong impact on national standards. They are relevant to the degree to which animal welfare is taken into consideration in these standards. There was a need to know more about the requirements of private and state standards/regulations. Therefore, the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) in Frick, Switzerland has already made a first study in 1996 concerning 12 different standards for organic livestock production (Schmid, 1996).

The comparison showed that many aims and items were similar, especially the limitation for fodder from non-organic farms, the prohibition of growth promoters and the use of veterinary drugs in the absence of illness. Areas where different regulations did exist were minimum requirements for housing, grazing/free-range area, withholding period after the use of veterinary drugs, percentage of brought-in animals, conversion time and percentage of fodder from non-organic farms.

Further efforts have to be made to harmonise and to develop animal standards on the national as well as on the international level. The decision of the EU to put in force regulation 1804/99 on animal organic livestock was certainly a step forward in this direction. With the new EU regulation 1804/99, an adoption of most of the standards and national regulations, especially in the EU countries, was necessary. To get an overview of the situation in different countries, a second study was carried out in 1998/99: in particular, a comparison between the new EU Regulation, IFOAM Basic Standards and 16 different standards/ draft guidelines (such as Codex Alimentarius) for organic livestock production. A similar study was carried out in Denmark (Jesperson, 1998).

 

1.3 Aim of the comparison/evaluation

The aims of the study were:

• To gain basic knowledge for further development and implementation of minimum standards/regulations (EU, IFOAM, Codex Alimentarius);
• To make an analysis of the equivalence of different standards and regulations for import/export;
• To identify deficits with regard to the content and to minimum basic ethological requirements/needs;
• To show the potential of private label programs for stricter standards than state regulations or other label programs.

 

2. Materials and methods

The comparison was made with standards that have been established on different levels, such as private or state, and as international, umbrella or national standards (see Table 2).

Table 2. Standard levels and programs (end of 1998, except for EU mid-1999).

a) National level: label level

Demeter-Switzerland (CH, 1996), Bioland (Germany, 1997), Ernte (Austria, 1997), KRAV (Sweden, 1997), LOJ (Denmark, 1996), Argencert (Argentine, 1997), BFA (Australia, 1997). Umbrella organisations: BIO SUISSE (CH, 1997/98) and AGÖL (D, 1997)

b) National level: state regulation

Kodex (Austria, 1997), French. Ministry, UKROFS (Great Britain, 1997), AQIS (Australia, 1997), USDA-Draft (1997), First Draft Swiss Regulation (1997)

c) Supranational level:

Label level: OCIA (USA, Canada, 1996).

European Union (Draft January 1998 and new text No. 1804/99, Aug. 99)

d) International level:

IFOAM Basic Standards (1998), Codex Alimentarius Draft (January 1998).

The comparison of the content of the standards was done with the help of a criteria matrix, which was the same for all and included animal categories (milking cows, breeding stock, beef, breeding pigs, fattening pigs, laying hens, poultry for meat, goats and sheep). The main areas/criteria, listed in Table 3, were taken from the IFOAM Basic Standards (1998).

 

Table 3. Areas of interest for the comparison of livestock standards

Breeding

Genetic engineering

Embryo transfer techniques

Animal health

General requirements

Vaccination

De-worming

Dry of milk

Hormonal treatment

Medicines and methods

Withholding period for veterinary medicines

Prophylactic use of feed additives

In order to be able to evaluate requirements for animal welfare, the authors developed guidelines based on the concept of functional circles (nutrition, resting, social functions, sexuality, birth, movement, etc.) elaborated from a literature survey (Sundrum et. al. 1994, Boehncke 1991, Sambraus/Boehncke, 1986). For each animal category, simplified guidelines were established, such as this one for milking cows and beef (see Table 4).

The evaluation was only focussing on the content of the standards, not on the implementation. However, in the selection of the certification programmes it was an assumption that these standards could be inspected properly.

 

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Difficulties regarding the evaluation of standards

Looking at the aims and recommendations of different aspects of animal husbandry in organic agriculture, there is, in general, a consensus over which issues should be regulated. However, concerning the relevant restrictions, we often found a broad spectrum of interpretations and rules, reflecting the national situation and the consciousness of the organisation.

The analysis of the standards brought up some more problem areas:

• More clear statements on what the minimum requirement actually is, instead of recommendations, would be much more transparent and easier to inspect. A differentiation between aims, recommendations and minimum requirements (including criteria for exceptions), as is the case in the IFOAM Basic Standards, would be more appropriate.
• The selection of a relevant set of ethological criteria for different animal categories is difficult and would need much more scientific work.
• An appropriate validation of criteria for animal welfare in standards on a worldwide level is very ambitious because of differences in situation between the countries and even within the countries. An animal welfare/need index system applied to standard evaluation can only show relative deficits between comparable standards, and is not appropriate for judging the standards.
• In many standards, contradictions can be found between environmental and ethological aims/needs (e.g. required area for an outdoor run and protection of ground water).
• Standards might, in some cases, reflect also the influence of agricultural policies and economic pressure groups. This is probably why some areas are very detailed and others not (e.g. fodder requirements).

 

Table 4. Ethological guidelines for the evaluation of cow/beef standards

Management	Requirements based on ethological guidelines
In General
Stable climate	- different micro-climates - indoor and outdoor climates (uncovered outdoor runs)
Light	-daylight - size of the windows: minimum of 1/20 of the stable floor
Stable system	- kept in groups and not individually - no tethering (or at least no permanent tethering)
Calving pen	- existing - protected against other animals - with bedding material - no slippery floor
Free stable systems
Structure, elements	- different areas - no blind alley - brushes existing
Max. stocking rate	- defined area (m2) per animal
Sleeping and resting area	- area for each animal - sufficient place and space - several large access possibilities (min. 240 cm) - lateral constructions made in such a way that the animal is not disturbed - natural bedding material - not slippery - sufficiently dry (flow of excrements and urine) - protected against rain - protected against wind - sleeping area near each other
Feeding area	- area for each animal - passage in front of the feeding area sufficiently large (min. 3m) - size of manger - sufficient light - clean drinking bowls - fresh water
Activity / walking area	- passage sufficiently large (min. 240cm) - not slippery - no elements which could hurt the animals - floor not entirely slatted, nor constructed as grid - size of slatted elements adapted to the kind of animal
Out-door run	- necessary - enough room per animal - Winter: Minimum 10-13x times per month in outdoor run
Grazing	- during season daily
Stable for tetherd animals
Place/animal	- sufficient space
Tethering system	- enough possibilities to move (no chains, etc.)
Electric cow trainer	- not allowed
Out-door run	- necessary - enough room per animal - winter: minimum 10-13x times per month in outdoor run
Grazing	- during season daily

The validation of the criteria was measured in the following way:
0 = insufficient/ not fulfilled
1 = sufficient/fulfilled
2 = very detailed/good fulfilment

 

4.2. General requirements for all animal categories:

The analysis showed:

• "Breeding and "animal health" issues are rather detailed in most of the standards.
• The "prophylactic use of allopathic medicines" is in all standards generally not accepted.
• Areas such as "dry of milk cow" and "de-worming of animals" are often not specified.
• Withholding period is in most of the programs 2-3 times the legal period. (The EU regulation is even stricter, limiting the course of treatments to a maximum of three times.)

 

4.3 Requirements for milking cows/beef:

In general, the European standards are much more detailed than standards from the US, Australia and Argentina.

The analysis showed:

• "Grazing and outdoor run" is required in almost all programs, but with different details. For example, an outdoor run is not insisted on during winter in all standards. A fattening period indoors is allowed in the EU regulations and in some national programs.
• The "stable system" and "light requirements" are mentioned in the majority of programs but are often not very detailed.
• Areas such as "calving pen" and "climate requirements in the stable" are often not mentioned.
• Tethering of cattle is, as yet, allowed in all programs, but with additional requirements. However, the EU will rule it out by 2010 (except for small farms).
• The requirements for the "sleeping area in tethering system" are often less detailed than sleeping area in free stable systems.
• The "walking/activity area", "structure elements" and "maximum stocking rate" in free stable systems are often not clearly regulated (the EU does at least require a minimum size of outdoor/indoor area).
• The requirements for the "composition of feed" and "conventional feed" are more restrictive in Europe than in non-European countries (generally 10% for ruminants and 15-20% for non-ruminants on a dry matter basis; the EU did set a deadline of 5 years).
• All programs do exclude synthesised foodstuff and hormones, except for vitamins. Only a very few programs do allow synthetic amino acids, since they have been ruled out in the IFOAM Basic Standards in 1998.
• The "percentage of roughage in daily rations" (e.g. >60% as in EU) and/or "percentage/kind of concentrates" is often not specified.
• "Bought-in conventional animals" are restricted in most of the programs (e.g. 10% with exceptions, as in the EU).

 

4.4. Requirements for pigs

The differences between different standards/programmes aregreater here than in cattle standards:

• Areas which are often not specified are: "structure elements in outdoor runs", "requirements for grazing" and "minimum percentage of roughage in rations"
• Almost all standards request "natural bedding materials".
• Large differences were found with regard to conventional feedstuffs, ranging from 5% to 30% on a dry matter basis (EU and IFOAM allow 20% with time limits).
• "Mutilations": castration is allowed in all programmes and often not restricted. Ringing is tolerated in most of the programmes. Almost all national programmes do exclude teeth clipping and tail docking, except the EU regulations.

 

4.5 Requirements for poultry

As for pigs, the differences between standards are notable:

• Almost all programmes do exclude chemically synthesised feed additives, except for vitamins. A few programs allow synthetic amino acids.
• Large differences were found with regard to conventional feedstuffs, ranging from 5% to 30% on a dry matter basis (EU and IFOAM allow 20% with time limits).
• Outdoor runs are mandatory in all programmes, but the requirements are different (2-7 m²/animal).

• Mutilations: "beak trimming" is excluded in all programmes, but "wing clipping" is tolerated in some (the EU, for example).

 

4.6 Evaluation of ethological minimum requirements for milking cows/beef

Based on an ethological guideline, the standards were compared for the main animal categories: milking cows, fattening pigs and laying hens. When comparing the requirements for milking cows, which are summarised in Table 5, it was difficult to compare the requirements of stable systems for partly tethered animals (grazing and a minimum outdoor run required) and free stable systems. Therefore, the two systems were evaluated separately.

The analysis in Table 4 showed that the fulfilment of minimum ethological criteria is rather variable:

• The EU regulation fulfils ethological requirements to a higher degree than the average of national programmes in EU countries.
• All non-European national standards (US, Australia, Argentina) have a significantly lower level than the EU regulation and the average of EU countries.
• Areas that are not clearly regulated in the EU regulation nor in many other standards are: stable climate, calving pen, eating area and requirements for tethering.
• Requirements for outdoor runs are better than the other requirements, but are still not sufficient with regard to minimum ethological needs based on existing knowledge of animal welfare.

 

4.7 Comparison of ethological minimum requirements in standards

The comparison of the standards in Table 6, mainly focussing on the analysis for milking cows, pig and laying hens, shows:

• Very detailed standards do not always have a high ethological level. Some issues might be very detailed but are still on a low ethological level.
• The requirements for outdoor runs have a strong influence on the ethological level of standards, (e.g. outdoor run during the final fattening period for all animal categories, minimum requirements for tethered animals for outdoor run in winter).
• Only few programmes have detailed requirements for outdoor runs for pigs and for meat poultry, including activity area/material.

• On an European level: the EU regulation has a rather high ethological level, except for mutilations and outdoor-run requirements for animals for meat production.
• In general, most of the label programmes in Europe have a higher ethological level than non-European standards.
• On an international level, the minimum ethological requirements of IFOAM Basic Standards are equivalent to those of the Codex Alimentarius Draft Guidelines.

• There is limited potential for stricter standards for national label programmes in comparison with the EU regulation, including feedstuff, outdoor run for fattening, processing (not yet regulated).

 Table 5. Comparison of national and international organic livestock standards (evaluation based on an ethological guideline for milking cows)

Click here to see table.

Table 6. Content and ethological evaluation of national and international organic livestock standards (for milk cows, pigs and laying hens)

 Click here to see table.

 

4.8. Deficits and future areas of interest for further development

In order to identify more specific deficits and areas for further development, the standards were analysed more in depth. In Table 7, deficits of the EU regulation and, in Table 8, deficits of the German Umbrella Organisation AGOEL are shown.

Table 7. Strengths and weaknesses profile of the EU regulation for milking cows, pigs and laying hens

Specific content	Low ethological requirements (< 0.2)	Medium ethological requirement (0.2-0.6)	High ethological requirement >0.6)
low (<1.0)	Stable structure cattle/cows Tethering requirements Calving pen Activity area for pigs Mutilations of pigs Nests for laying hens	Stable climate	Light
medium (1,0- 1,5)	Requirement for grazing/out-door meat animals (fattening period), concentrates for ruminants		Outdoor run for milk animals and chicken, feeding of milk cows (roughage etc.)
high (>1,5)	Origin of conventional feedstuffs, conventional brought-in animals	Feed composition (all animal categories) Choice of poultry breeds	Free stable systems (no long-term tethering), Max. stocking rates indoor/outdoor cattle

 

Table 8. Strengths and weaknesses profile of the German AGÖL-Animal Standards for milking cows, pigs and laying hens.

Specific content	low ethological requirements (< 0,2)	Medium ethological requirement (0,2-0,6)	High ethological requirement >0,6)
low (<1,0)	Stable requirements for cattle/cows, tethering requirements, calving pen, requirement for grazing /outdoor (fattening period); activity material, outdoor run pigs; feed-compounds hens	Dry of milk, stable structure, max. stocking rate/stable for milk cows, de-horning; ringing of pigs; wing clipping, collection of dung
medium (1,0- 1,5)	Withdrawal period, concentrates for ruminants, brought-in animals	Sleeping area, outdoor run beef, light requirements	Outdoor run for milk animals, feeding of milk cows (roughage etc.)
high (>1,5)	Origin of fodder, conventional bought-in animals	Mutilations of pigs, perches, activity area	Feeding of milk cows (roughage etc.)

 

5. Conclusions

The analysis of standards showed that there are still a number of areas where a harmonisation of the requirements is needed. The EU regulation will force countries and certification organisations to adapt their standards, especially with regard to stable requirements, veterinary treatments and feedstuff requirements.

If countries outside the EU want to fulfil the EU regulation and be able to export animal products to the EU, important areas need to be adapted or even regulated. The comparison has shown even higher deficits than in the EU countries.

The comparison of national and international organic livestock standards showed that the new EU regulation has set a relatively high ethological standard compared with the existing standards. However, there are still ethological deficits. Areas that have to be developed in the future include outdoor runs for meat animals, mutilations and requirements for stables (calving pen, activity area for pigs, etc.) and feed requirements.

On an international level (IFOAM, Codex), there is a need for clearer standards regarding tethering for milk cows, management systems for pigs and poultry for meat.

 

6. Annex

A comparison of the new EU Regulation 1804/1999, IFOAM Basic Standards of November 1998 and the new draft guidelines of Codex Alimentarius ALINORM 99/22A is presented in Appendix IV.

 

References:

Boehncke, E. et. al. (1991): Alternatives in Animal Husbandry. Proceedings of the International Conference in Witzenhausen July 22-25. University of Kassel (Germany). 365 p

Codex Alimentarius (1999). Proposed draft Guidelines for the production, processing, labelling and marketing of organic livestock and livestock products. Alinorm 99/22 A Appendix IV. Codex Alimentarius Commission. Rome

European Communities (1999): Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 supplementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock production. Official Journal of the European Communities 24.98.1999. Brussels. L 222 1-28.

IFOAM (1998): IFOAM Basic Standards. IFOAM General Assembly November 1998. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements. Tholey-Theley.

Jesperson, L.M. (1998): International and National "Organic Standards in the EU. Section of Ecology. Danish Agricultural Advisory Centre. ca. 200 p

Riklin, F.; Schubnell, B.; Schmid, O. (1995): Vergleich internationaler und nationaler Richtlinien der Nutztierhaltung im biologisch-ökologischen Landbau. Internal publication (not published), Research Institute of Organic Agriculture, Oberwil/BL (Switzerland). 101 p

Sambraus H:, Boehncke E. (1986): Ökologische Tierhaltung. C.F. Müller, Karlsruhe.

Sundrum A., Andersson R., Schenke H. (1994): Tiergerechtigkeitsindex. Köllen Druck + Verlag GmbH, Bonn

Schmid O. (1996): Comparison of national and international livestock standards. IFOAM 11^th Scientific Conference. Kopenhagen. 6 p

Schmid, O., Schüpbach, K., Beltrami, R. (1999): Vergleich nationaler und internationaler Richtlinien für artgerechte Tierhaltung im ökologischen Landbau. In: Beiträge zur 5. Wissenschaftstagung zum Ökologischen Landbau. Hrsg.: Hoffmann und Müller, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Landwirtschaftlich-Gärtnerische Fakultät, 442-446

Schüpbach K., Beltrami R. (1998): Nationale und internationale Richtlinien der Tierhaltung im ökologischen Landbau. Semesterarbeit ETH-Zürich, Zürich. 263 p

 

[Previous]    [Index]    [Next]

---