Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:01:52.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes in farm structure following conversion to organic farming in Denmark

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Vibeke Langer
Vibeke Langer
Affiliation:
Organic Farming Unit, Department of Agricultural Science, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Agrovej 10, DK-2630 Taastrup, Denmark (vl@kvl.dk).
Get access

Abstract

Compared with conventional farms, organic farms are expected to be more diverse, less specialized and less intensive, and as a group contribute to a more uniform regional distribution of farm types. Data on farm size, crop distribution and livestock intensity prior to conversion and planned after conversion on 448 Danish farms, which began conversion to organic farming in 1997, are presented by addressing two questions: (1) what features characterize Danish farms that convert from conventional to organic farming; and (2) do farm types, stocking rates and crop distribution change with conversion? In 1997, dairy farms dominated among the converting farms in hectarage, and a large majority (80–97%) of the farmers of all farm types planned to continue with the same type of production system after conversion. Thus, the regional characterization pattern in organic farm types will be similar to that of conventional farms. Although the total number of livestock units on the converting farms is planned to increase by 6% following conversion to organic farming, they are well below average in stocking rates compared with all Danish farms both before and after conversion. Farmers also plan changes in crop distribution: a 20% decrease in the hectarage for cereal production; a doubling of the hectarage for grassland in rotation; a decrease in hectarage for set-aside, row crops and oilseed rape; and roughage and seeds unchanged. Planned changes in crop distribution differ between farm types. The need to include aspects of diversity and production intensity, on both the farm and the larger scale, in the evaluation of the future direction in organic farming is discussed.

Keywords

conversioncrop distributioncrop/livestock specializationcrop subsidy programsdiversified farmingfarm typeslivestock intensityorganic agricultureorganic production
Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2002 , pp. 75 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Anonymous. 1997. Landbrugsstatistik 1996. (Agricultural statistics 1996). Danish Statistical Office, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. 1999. Aktionsplan II. Φkologi i udvikling. (Action plan II - Developments in Organic Farming). Danish Directorate for Development, Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries. Copenhagen, 01 1999. Summary available in English on http://www.strukdir.dk/nyheder/organic2.htm.Google Scholar
3.Baudry, J., Laurent, C., and Denis, D.. 1997. The technical dimension of agriculture at a regional scale: Methodological considerations. In Laurent, C. and Bowler, I. (eds.). CAP and the Regions. Building a Multidisciplinary Framework for the Analysis of the EU Agricultural Space. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique-France (INRA), Paris, p. 161–173.Google Scholar
4.Eurostat. 1998. Agriculture Statistical Yearbook, Vol. 5, Series A. Eurostat, Statistiches Amt der europäischen Gemeinschaften. Luxembourg.Google Scholar
5.Foster, C., and Lampkin, N.. 1999. European organic production statistics 1993–1996. Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy. Vol. 3. Universität Hohenheim, Institut für Landwirtschaftliche Betriebslehre, Hohenheim, Germany.Google Scholar
6.Hartnagel, S., and Freyer, B.. 1997. Biological farming in Switzerland 1996/1997. NENOF (Newsletter of the European Network for Scientific Research Coordination in Organic Farming) 6:22–25.Google Scholar
7.IFOAM. 1999. IFOAM Standards Committee: Basic Standards for Organic Production and Processing. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, Tholey-Theley, Germany. Also available on http://ecoweb.dk/ifoam/standard/index.html.Google Scholar
8.Ilbery, B., and Bowler, I.. 1998. From agricultural productivitism to post-productivitism. In Ilbery, B. (ed.). The Geography of Rural Change. Addison Wesley Longman Limited, Harlow, UK. p. 57–84.Google Scholar
9.KRAV. 1997. KRAV Statistik 1997. KRAV, Uppsala, Sweden. Web site http://www.krav.se/statist.htm (viewed 20 08 1999).Google Scholar
10.Lampkin, N. 1998. Organic Farming. Farming Press, Ipswich, UK.Google Scholar
11.Lampkin, N., and Weinschenck, G.. 1996. Organic farming and agricultural policy in western Europe. In Φstergaard, T.V. (ed.). Fundamentals of Organic Agriculture. Proceedings of the 11th IFOAM International Scientific Conference, Vol. 1. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, Tholey-Theley. Germany, p. 223–239.Google Scholar
12.Plant Directorate. 1997. Vejledning om Φkologisk jordbrugsproduktion. (Guidelines for organic agriculture) (in Danish). Ministeriet for FΦdevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Plantedirektoratet (The Danish Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries), Lyngby. Denmark.Google Scholar
13.Plant Directorate. 1998. Φkologiske jordbrugsbedrifter 1998. Autorisation. Produktion. (Organic farms. Authorization. Production) (in Danish). Ministeriet for FΦdevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, Plantedirektoratet (The Danish Ministry of Food. Agriculture and Fisheries), Lyngby, Denmark.Google Scholar
14.Plant Directorate. 2000. Liste over Φkologiske bedrifter. (List of certified organic farms). Copenhagen, Denmark. Web site http://www.plantdirektoratet.dk (viewed 15 05 2000).Google Scholar
15.Raupp, J. 2000. The well-proportioned farm organism. Just a pleasing image of a mixed farming system or rather a basic requirement for functioning organic husbandry? In Alföldi, T., Lockeretz, W., and Niggli, U. (eds.). Proceedings 13th IFOAM Scientific Conference. VDF Hochschulverlag, Zürich. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, Tholey-Theley, Germany, p. 700–703.Google Scholar
16.Vereijken, J.F.H.M., and Baars, T.. 1995. Methodological example of landscape development on organic farms, the Goetheanistic approach. In Isart, J. and Llerena, J. J. (eds.). Land Use and Biodiversity: The Role of Organic Farming. Proceedings of the First ENOF Workshop. European Network for Scientific Research Coordination in Organic Farming, Barcelona, Spain, p. 99–119.Google Scholar