What is the Oxford Real Farming Conference?

BSH said:

I agree, you don't have to be certified as organic to farm organically and those organic practices pre date any certification process. Also, following a set of rules isn't going to teach you anything, but I would suggest that organic farming has held a torch for low input rotational farming with an eye on soil quality that has been otherwise left behind by mainstream agriculture and has performed a useful role in that function. It obviously has its faults, but it seems to me that the PFLA are trying to copy a number of the SA standards, because at the end of the day, if you want a marque you have to have an audit process, which requires rules. I guess my point is that the PFLA rules are so similar to the organic ones that for those to whom it might appeal they would probably stick with the organic marque.

Click to expand...

Barleycorn said:

I think that there are two sides, husbandry and politics, and agree with both of the replies to Will.

Husbandry wise it is obvious that conventional farmers are taking on more practices promoted by organic farmers, with good results. But when did 'organic' start? Rudolf Steiner ran an organic course in 1924, and the soil association was formed in 1946. Probably a better question would be when did organic stop? I.e. when artificial fertilisers started to be used, probably early in the 20th century with the Haber Bosch process.

One of the perceived benefits of early chemical farming was the ease of use. It was a lot easier to chuck on a couple of cwt ammonium nitrate than spread tons of dung or compost. Happily now we have the machinery to make either course feasible.

But the early organic pioneers never had the grasp of the organisms in the soil, and I think that this is the most exiting part that will benifit both organic and conventional farmers in the future. Some of the preparations that Mike Harrington and Robert Plumb are coming out with look fantastic.

As for politics as an organic farmer I am uneasy using food as a fashion statement, but 'you pays your money and takes your choice'

As stated about the PFLA, the welfare standards of organic attract a lot of people, as does the fact that it is GMO free.

Click to expand...

BSH said:

Will, I think you are wrong. I would suggest that the whole No til movement is following the lead of Howard et al in terms of improving SOM to lower inputs hence the name SOIL Association. I think there is a large amount to be learnt from organic methods in terms of livestock production and would suggest that the PLFA have taken their standards largely from the SA production standards, but have left some stuff out. There is a lot to be said for low input livestock production and the use of clovers and diverse swards promoted by the organic movement is part of that. At the moment, there is a small organic premium for beef. I don't believe there is one for PFLA produce? Perhaps some lessons in marketing and lobbying could be learnt from the organic movement as well!

Click to expand...

hindmaist said:

Those who accept that soil organic matter levels are a measure of farming ability are the ones who will improve their farming most.

Click to expand...