The contribution of organic farming to rural development: an exploration
of the socio-economic linkages of organic and non-organic farms in
England
Abstract
Organic farming has experienced considerable growth in recent years.
Proponents of organic farming point to the environmental and nutritional
benefits of organic systems, although these are contested by some. More
recently, it has been argued that organic farming can provide rural
development benefits through enhanced employment and through closer
connections with the local economy, reconnecting consumers with producers
and stimulating positive economic multipliers. Against the background of
claims made for the rural development potential of organic farming, this paper
considers the generation and retention of income, purchasing patterns, and
direct employment impacts of a large sample of organic and non-organic
farmers in England. The paper reveals some important distinctions between
the characteristics of organic and non-organic farms and farmers. It is argued
that most of these differences do not stem directly from differences in farming
systems but, rather, reflect considerable differences in the people who
operate organic farms as well as the distinctive business configurations they
frequently adopt.
In confirmation of previous findings, organic farms are shown to employ more
people, but the data reveal few differences between the local economic
connections of organic and non-organic farms. In turn, this suggests that
simply comparing organic and non-organic farm businesses is too blunt an
approach. Instead, it is important to consider other factors such as the type of
enterprises found on the farm and the marketing routes adopted by the
business. It is argued that commentators need to adopt a more nuanced
approach, recognising differences between farming systems, farm types, the
configuration of farm businesses towards different marketing strategies and
the inclinations of those who operate such businesses. This shifts the focus of
the debate away from simplistic notions that equate organic production with
local supply and assume a local economic benefit, towards a broader
conception of the local agro-food economy in which some farms have strong
local connections while others focus their efforts elsewhere and earn
important export income for the local economy.
Keywords
organic farming; rural development; economic linkages;
The contribution of organic farming to rural development: an exploration
of the socio-economic linkages of organic and non-organic farms in
England
Introduction
Organic farming in the UK has experienced considerable growth in the last
two decades. Although the 4,639 registered organic farmers in England
account for less than 1.6% of the farm population, the market for organic
produce has grown from £100 million in 1993/94 to some £1.9 billion in 2006
(Soil Association, 2007). Interest in the organic sector stretches far beyond
the apparent rapid growth and buoyancy of the market. Organic farming is
frequently promoted on the basis of the multiple benefits it is argued to
provide; healthier food, an improved farmed environment and, increasingly, a
contribution to the rural economy (Soil Association, 2006; Smith and Marsden,
2004; Renting et al., 2003; Pretty, 2002). In nutritional terms, while there is
some evidence that “a predominately organic diet reduces the amount of toxic
chemical ingested, totally avoids GMOs, reduces the amount of food additives
and colourings” (Cleeton, 2004, p. 62) as well as increasing the amount of
vitamins, antioxidants and beneficial fatty acids (Soil Association, 2005),
others have argued that “current scientific evidence does not show that
organic food is any safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced
food” (Krebs, 2003)1. To date, it is the environmental impacts of organic
farming that have received most research attention and, while some still
contest the environmental benefits of organic farming (e.g. Colman, 2000)
there is a growing consensus that it does indeed offer certain environmental
benefits over and above those of conventional agriculture (Sandhu et al.,
2007; Petersen et al., 2006; Wood et al., 2006; Hole et al., 2005; Shepherd et
al., 2003; Cobb et al., 1999). More recently, researchers have turned their
1
This debate has been reinvigorated with the widely publicised, ‘early’ results of an EU Sixth
Framework project which indicates that organic fruit and vegetables contain 40% more
antioxidants compared to non-organic foodstuffs. http://www.qlif.org/about/index.html
attention to the role of organic farming in the rural economy and specifically,
the potential for organic farming to contribute to rural development (e.g.
Darnhofer 2005; Marsden et al 2002; Pugliese, 2001). In this context it is
frequently argued that organic farming can promote employment in rural areas
and thus contribute to rural development (Morison et al., 2005; Smith and
Marsden, 2004; Midmore and Dirks, 2003; Hird, 1997) and that it can also
make a broader contribution to rural development, for instance, through the
provision of environmental services that underpin rural tourism. Despite these
claims, it has been argued that research on the wider “social impacts of
organic farming is very limited” (Morris et al., 2001). Significantly, Smith and
Marsden (2004) have argued that considering organic farming as “a panacea
for the problems of rural economic development … has to be seriously
qualified by examining particular types of overall supply chain dynamics which
are operating in particular types of organic sectors in different local, regional
and national settings” (pp.355, emphasis in original).
In parallel with the growth of, and interest in, the organic sector, ‘local food’
has also taken on increased economic, environmental and symbolic
importance. Much of this is concerned with reducing environmental costs,
particularly food miles, but also a desire to increase local economic multipliers
and contribute to the (re)connection of farmers and consumers (e.g.
Cranbrook, 2006; Ilbery and Maye, 2005; Pretty et al., 2005). It has also been
suggested that patterns of increased local food purchases, rather than
revealing a strong turn to quality and locally produced organic food, actually
points to a politics of “defensive localism” (Winter, 2003). Although organic
produce is not necessarily ‘local’ (even locally supplied organic boxes may not
contain exclusively locally produced food), and local produce does not equate
with organic, there is nevertheless a perceived close alliance between local
food and organic food movements. For instance, although the majority of
organic sales are via supermarkets, sales through direct routes, such as local
box schemes, rose by 53% between 2005 and 2006 (Soil Association, 2007).
Combining a greater degree of localness in food sourcing with increased
organic production would lead to considerable savings associated with the
reduction of environmental externalities (Pretty et al., 2005). Whereas the
economic and social benefits of reducing negative externalities and increasing
positive externalities have long been recognised, the renewed research focus
on the ‘local economy’ and interactions, clusters and networks within it (Winter
and Rushbrook, 2003) may point to a role for organic farming and local food in
developing and sustaining local economies. Certainly writers such as van der
Ploeg et al (2000) have suggested that the operators of farm businesses have
particular advantages to bring to the process of rural development, while
Renting et al (2003) have demonstrated aggregate benefits in terms of
additional Net Value Added stemming from a number of “short food supply
chains” (including organics and direct sales) and Smithers et al (2008) point to
the benefits of retaining a greater proportion of farming and food expenditure
within the local economy. Similarly, in discussing the multiple rationales
associated with the promotion of “locally sourced organically produced food”
Seyfang (2006) argues that such food supply chains can, amongst other
things, favour new “socially embedded economies of place” and “make a
significant contribution to rural development” (p. 386) by giving farmers
greater control of their market and retaining a greater proportion of food spend
in the local economy. The assumed localised nature of organic food and
associated social and economic benefits are not uncontested. For instance,
Clarke et al (2008 p. 220) have recently commented on the “supposedly
localised nature of organic food” and called for more critical and reflexive
accounts of what it is organic food networks can do for us.
Against the background of claims concerning the rural development potential
of farmers generally and organic farming in particular, this paper considers the
generation and retention of income, purchasing patterns, and direct
employment impacts of a large sample of organic and non-organic farmers in
England. If, as some of the authors quoted above suggest, organic farmers
can play a role in engendering rural development by stimulating employment
and helping retain money in the local economy, it is important to understand
the socio-economic links between such farms and the local economy. Building
on a methodology developed by Harrison (1993) and modified by Errington
and Courtney (2000) this paper presents spatialised data on the socioeconomic linkages associated with different types of farming and also
evidence of social embeddedness of the principal farmer2. In doing so, the
paper seeks to contribute to the debate outlined above concerning the extent
to which organic farming and organic farmers are embedded in, and
contribute to, the development of the local economy.
Rural economies, rural development and organic farming3
For most purposes the term ‘rural economy’ is a shorthand way of considering
a range of ‘economies’ rather than discussing a discrete, unified and
homogenous economy (Winter and Rushbrook, 2003). These various
economies may share similar characteristics but may also be quite different in
terms of economic linkages with the wider economy and reliance on different
sectors, for instance. The shift in rural policy towards more of a territorial focus
and the growing policy emphasis on regional and local sustainable economic
development is associated with the development of research addressing
interactions within ‘local’ economies. For example, writers such as Courtney
and colleagues (2007; 2000) have considered economic linkages between
businesses and localities. Analysis of purchase and sales links provides a
method of exploring the extent to which farms (or indeed, any business) of
different types are connected to local economies. There are a number of ways
of approaching the concept of economic connectivity. Earlier studies of
economic linkages (e.g. Curran and Blackburn, 1994) focused on the
proportions of sales and purchases by businesses within certain localities,
whereas Harrison (1993) extended the approach to include the monetary
2
Clearly, the majority of farms are operated by families rather than ‘a farmer’. Nevertheless,
within the constraints imposed by the methodology adopted for the research (a postal survey)
the questionnaire was directed at the main decision maker/principal farmer.
3
For the purposes of this research, the definition of organic farming was based on certified
compliance although it is recognised that organic farming can be much more than this.
Equally, by defining organic farming, remaining farms have been classified as non-organic
although in reality non-organic farms exist on a spectrum of farming systems, some of which
are ‘near-organic’.
values of sales and purchases. Harrison’s methodology, which involved
examining sets of farm accounts and tracing the location of input suppliers
from receipts, as well as identifying the location of output sales, was
particularly labour intensive and benefited from being able access to the
accounts of a small (52) sample of businesses participating in the annual
Farm Business Survey. In reflecting on her methodology, Harrison raised the
issue of defining those with the greatest value of local inputs or outputs as
being those with the strongest local economic links, arguing that frequency
and number of transactions may also be a useful indicator of economic
linkage.
Another method that has been used to measure the direct, indirect and
induced impacts of linkages on rural economies are input-output models. For
instance, John’s and Leat (1987) examined rural development in the
Grampian region of Scotland, while Midmore (1988) analysed Welsh land
based industries. This technique, developed by Leontief in the 1930s, is
based on the notion that production of output needs inputs (Armstrong and
Taylor, 2000). Multipliers are derived from an input-output (I-O) analysis that
identifies backward linkages in terms of a change in the deliveries of final
demand on aggregate gross output, incomes and employment (Midmore
1993). However, the lowest spatial level of analysis associated with I-O
models tends to be at a regional scale rather than a local scale. Therefore this
approach may need reshaping to reflect the needs of a more local, rural focus
as opposed to a larger area analysis (Robison, 1996). Furthermore, there is a
high cost associated with collecting data for the transactions matrices that I-O
modelling relies upon (Armstrong and Taylor, 2000).
To focus on a sub-regional level, Courtney et al. (2007) employed a social
accounting matrix (SAM) model to estimate the strength of local employment
and output multipliers. Such a method enables first round multiplier effects to
be calculated as well as identifying the linkages between a town and its
hinterland. (Courtney et al., 2007; Courtney et al., 2006; Courtney and
Errington, 2000; Errington and Courtney, 2000) have further developed this
approach, initially focusing on the first round of economic transactions in order
to establish the linkages between small towns and their local economics and
subsequently using social accounting matrices to estimate local employment
and output multipliers (Courtney et al., 2007). Highlighting economic linkages
in this manner reflects a concern with a spatialised understanding of economic
multipliers and leakages. If income is ‘leaking’ out of a local economy it
reduces the amount of money circulating in the area and therefore potentially
available for salaries, purchases, etc. Other things being equal, the lower the
leakages from the local economy, the higher the associated multiplier effects
are. This notion is captured by the New Economic Foundation’s (NEF) ‘leaky
bucket’ analogy and its interest in strengthening local economies by “plugging
the leaks” (Sacks, 2002). Moreover, the NEF have developed a multiplier tool
(LM3 – Local Multiplier 3), which is based on a Keynesian multiplier model.
LM3 incorporates three rounds: the first measures a source of income, the
second determines of how much of income is spent locally, and the third
determines how much of this spent income is re-spent within a defined
geographic area (Sacks 2002). Thatcher and Sharp (2008) however caution
that LM3 methodology may be too simplistic and is reliant on assumptions,
estimation patterns and sampling.4 Indeed, some of these criticisms may also
be aimed towards other Keynesian type multipliers (Armstrong and Taylor,
2000).
The renewed focus on the local economy however, extends beyond traditional
concerns with economic multipliers and has witnessed a resurgence of
interest in the importance of clusters, networks and the embeddedness of
businesses and entrepreneurs (Winter, 2003; Winter and Rushbrook, 2003;
Murdoch , 2000). Drawing on these concepts, economic behaviour is no
longer viewed simply in narrow economic terms. Rather, the behaviour of
individual businesses is viewed as being linked with the associational
capacities of those controlling it. Entrepreneurial skill is not seen as being
4
Thatcher and Sharp (2008) do acknowledge that Sacks (2002, p.19) originally conceived
LM3 as a “quick and simple” tool for communities, businesses and local authorities to
calculate local multiplier effects, rather than a sophisticated measure.
held by an isolated individual but is located within networks of association or
‘clusters’ of other people with whom business operators can trust, collaborate
and share knowledge with. Consequently, the transaction costs of the
business are lowered. Such interest in social relations inevitability brings the
concept of community into play. Community is a frequently ill-defined term
referring to notions of settled populations with “a wide variety of kinship, social
and political links plus a cultural awareness or identification with the local
geographical area” (Curran and Blackburn, 1994, p.18). That said, the
observation that the connections between people, and the collective actions of
people who share some bonds are important is one that is hard to ignore.
The concept of embeddedness (Granovetter, 1985) points to the recognition
that economic interactions are also related to non-economic connections
(including non-business connections). Individuals are not free of social
relationships. They are embedded in a community and linked to others
through networks of association (professional and/or social): “in other words,
economic connections are embedded in social, political and cultural relations
and structures. Indeed, strong political and social links are seen as especially
critical for models of industrial development that have a strong local
component” (Curran and Blackburn, 1994, p. 93). In such a situation, bonds
of trust and friendship will develop and it is argued that these relationships can
lower transaction costs. So, embeddedness may aid economic efficiency. In
these terms then, if, as its proponents frequently claim, organic farming has a
role to play in rural development, it could be expected to be associated with
certain ‘traditional’ economic indicators such as employment but also perhaps
closer economic and social connections to a locality. Thus, the strengthening
of local ties may be seen as being a prerequisite for the formation of a
stronger rural economy with the benefits of local enterprise cascading into the
rest of the rural economy. This takes the study of endogenous development
beyond the consideration of economic multipliers alone to consider the
importance of a whole range of interactions and transactions which may
strengthen the local economy (Courtney and Errington, 2000).
Research interest in rural economies is closely connected with policy
concerns regarding ‘rural development’, although as van der Ploeg and
colleagues concede: “Any critical discussion of these issues must begin with
the acknowledgement that, as yet, we have no comprehensive definition of
rural development” (van der Ploeg et al., 2000, p. 391). For instance, Sotte
argues that rural development “means providing non agricultural functions and
employment in rural areas, fostering exchanges between sectors and
territories, and thus breaking both isolation and mono-functional agricultural
specialisation” (Sotte, 2002, p.12). Errington on the other hand, adopts a
definition less overtly antagonistic towards agriculture, arguing that rural
development involves “premeditated changes in human activity which seek to
use resources within the rural arena to increase human well-being” (Errington,
2002, p. 11). In this sense, rural development is about more than promoting
employment and generating income. That said, for many commentators
employment remains an unambiguous and easily measurable indicator of
rural development success. Jobs protected or created within a rural area
provide the foundation on which viable communities can be based, as they in
turn supply the economic multipliers that support other businesses and
services. According to Midmore and Dirks (2003) employment is a central
concern in rural development: “the approximate measure of rural community
well-being is and should still be employment, because although the emerging
paradigm of rural development suggests this should no longer be the end of
policy, it is certainly one of the most important means by which further ends
should be achieved” (Midmore and Dirks, 2003, p.3). Whilst we accept
Errington’s notion that rural development is (or should be) concerned with
bringing about broad based improvements in human well-being, within the
confines of this paper we concentre largely on the economic aspects of rural
development notably employment and purchases and sales in the local
economy. We comment on some of the wider aspects of rural development
elsewhere (e.g. Reed, Butler and Lobley, 2008).
Given the long term trend of falling farm employment, at first glance it might
appear that there is only limited room for farming to play a role in rural
development. For instance, it is the non-farming sectors that tend to generate
most employment in rural areas of the UK. Nevertheless, van der Ploeg et al
(2000) argue that farm businesses have particular advantages in being
involved in the process of rural development as long-term residents with the
self-interest to run viable businesses and thus support vibrant economies. In
addition it is suggested that farm businesses offer the opportunity to realise
new enterprises in a step-wise manner. Farmers and their household
members are able to ‘toe-dip’ into new opportunities, minimising business
risks. While it is true that farming provides a resource base from which to
experiment with new economic activities, equally, it could be argued that
many existing farmers are in a poor position to respond quickly to market
signals. Despite powerful driving forces evidence suggests that recent
agricultural restructuring has been confined to a relatively few farms and that
a distinct group of ‘resistors’ are particularly unwilling to quickly re-configure
their resources and realign their businesses (Lobley and Potter, 2004).
Despite the long term trend of falling farm employment, research on the
employment impact of organic farming typically indicates a positive effect.
Padel and Lampkin (1994) for example, estimate additional labour
requirements in the range of 10-25% and Hird (1997) reports a similar effect,
although the employment impact is sensitive to enterprise type. For example,
Bowler (1992) found the employment impact to be positively associated with
horticultural and vegetable production, while research in Germany suggests
that on organic arable farms employment is 60% higher, but that no significant
differences exist for livestock farms (Kohne and Kohn, 1998, quoted in Centre
for Rural Economics Research, 2002). According to Midmore (1994), the
impact on employment is positive for most outputs under organic production.
However, pasture and forage crops are less likely to create employment with
only half the quantity used compared to conventional production methods.
Other production systems that have a considerably lower employment
multiplier include the production of organic cattle, which uses 34% less than
conventional production systems. Only organic milk production has a
significantly greater employment multiplier than conventional production at
2.96 compared to 2.29. Morrison et al (2005) argue that while the number of
jobs per farm varies according to farm type and size, organic farming
generates a substantial employment dividend in rural areas as organic farms
in the UK employ 2.52 Full Time Equivalents5 (FTEs) per farm compared to
1.24 FTE per conventional farm. Furthermore, it is suggested that a 20%
expansion of organic farmland could create an additional 73,200 FTE jobs in
the UK.
Although there is empirical evidence to support the notion that certain types of
organic farming can contribute to rural development through a positive
employment effect, previous research suggests that the additional
employment created by organic conversion is largely confined to part-time and
casual labour (Centre for Rural Economics Research, 2002; Morris et al.,
2001) and while for some, part-time employment may offer flexibility around
other work and family commitments, casual employment by its very nature
offers little job security. Indeed, there is some debate “whether job increases
within organic farming represent sustainable full-time employment” (Morris et
al., 2001). Moreover, technological change and greater labour efficiency over
time could threaten the much-quoted organic jobs dividend (Haring et al.,
2001; Offermann and Nieberg, 2000). Equally, the increasing freedom of
movement of labour means that migrant labour is often employed in
agriculture which, in turn, means that the rural development impact of
agricultural employment in a given area may be reduced if migrant workers
send a proportion of their wages back to their home country.
Clearly, the local economic impact of a farm (whether it is organic or not) goes
beyond employment. Bateman et al. (1993) also calculated the output and
income multipliers6 for different agricultural crops and livestock (cereals,
pasture and forage, other crops, milk, cattle, sheep and other livestock) for
Welsh agriculture. Generally, the output multipliers suggested that for most
5
Morison et al. (2005) assume one part-time job is the equivalent of 0.5 FTE. Their survey
suggested that a casual worker on average is employed for 41.6 days. Therefore, using 240
working days, which excludes weekends and holidays, equates to one FTE. By deduction,
one full time employee will equate to one FTE.
6
These are derived from Input-Output model of Welsh agriculture at the regional level.
outputs there were only marginal positive or negative differences between the
organic and non-organic farming systems. Income multipliers, on the other
hand, suggested that pasture and forage crops produce substantial more
income than conventional agriculture with the former recording a multiplier of
4.26 compared to 1.88. Only sheep and cereals produced less income from
organic production compared to conventional production. As a result of this
analysis, Midmore (1994) concluded, “conversion to organic farming does
have the potential to generate considerably wider social and economic
impacts than simply on the farms involved” (Midmore, 1994, p. 368). Although
this appears to be a widely shared belief, few researchers (notwithstanding
the work of Midmore et al) have collected any quantitative empirical evidence.
Exploring socio-economic linkages
Our approach to exploring socio-economic linkages and the consequent
potential contribution that organic farming can make to rural development has
been informed by the literature reviewed above. Given the importance
ascribed to employment impacts and the retention of food and farming
spending in local economies in the literature, these are the main means
employed here to explore the rural development potential of organic farming.
That said, rural development clearly encompasses a broader range of factors
and we also consider the extent to which farmers are socially embedded in
their local communities. We therefore do not provide a fully comprehensive
analysis of all aspects of rural development but concentrate on a number of
social and economic indicators of rural development potential that are
discussed in the literature but for which there is limited quantitative empirical
evidence.
In order to explore the socio-economic linkages of organic and non-organic
farms a self-completion postal questionnaire was designed to capture a range
of information about farm business characteristics, patterns of sales and
purchases (the value and location of transactions), diversification activities,
respondent demographic characteristics, embeddedness and participation in
the local community and the extent to which formal and informal networks play
an important role in the farm business (see Lobley et al., 2005 for full details).
The choice of the postal survey approach offered the benefit of being able to
conduct a large scale survey with limited resources. The trade-off was that
there were limitations to the depth and complexity of information that could be
collected and for this reason it was decided, in terms of economic impacts, to
limit our approach to first round transactions in the economy. As such our
approach owes much to the methodology employed by Harrison (1993) and
by Courtney and Errington (Courtney et al., 2007; Courtney et al., 2006;
Courtney and Errington, 2000; Errington and Courtney, 2000). However, in
contrast to these more conventional economic studies, our hybrid approach
also involved the collection of data on social connections and emdeddedness
(informed by Curran and Blakburn, 1994 and Granovetter, 1985) and thus
forms an initial attempt to consider a wider range of social and economic
interactions which Courtney and Errington (2000) have suggested may
strengthen the local economy.
The sample was drawn by Defra’s census branch and was stratified to reflect
a mix of ‘mature’ and well established businesses in some parts of England
and more recently developed businesses in other areas, as well as reflecting
a good mix of main farm types. The total sample comprised 1684 farm
businesses in England, of which 684 were registered organic. The postal
survey ran from early March to mid-May 2004 and achieved an overall
response rate of 43%, although this varied from a 44% (302) response rate for
organic farms to 35% (353) for non-organic farms.
Respondents to the postal survey managed an agricultural area of 98,000 ha,
of which 44,000 ha were in the hands of the operators of organic farms. This
represents approximately 20% of the organically farmed area of England in
2004. Mean farm size was 155 ha (median = 68 ha), although organic farms
in the survey were smaller on average. Data on the distribution of organic
farms by size and type is not readily available from Defra so it is not possible
to compare the farm size and type characteristics of the sample with the
national organic population. However, a recent survey by the Organic Farmers
and Growers (2004) and data from Soil Association registration lists provides
some basis for comparison. As Table 1 illustrates, on this basis the farm
survey has captured a relatively representative cross-section of organic farms
of different sizes although it appears that larger organic farms are slightly
over-represented. Similarly, Table 2 indicates that the survey achieved a
good cross section of the main farm types.
Turning to the respondents themselves, a range of personal and demographic
data points to some significant differences between the people who operate
organic farms and their conventional counterparts. For example, the mean
age of organic farmers in the sample is 50 compared to 56 for non-organic
farmers7. There are far fewer organic farmers aged 65 or over and a greater
proportion of young (<45) organic farmers compared to their non-organic
counterparts. Perhaps partly as a result of the markedly different age
structure of organic farmers, they are also significantly more likely to have
achieved a higher education qualification compared to non-organic farmers
(51% and 30% respectively).
It is well known that many farmers succeed to and eventually inherit their
farm, while many also ‘inherit’ the occupation of farming but farm away from
the core family farm. In the current sample, three quarters of respondents
operated established family farms8 and managed 90% of the total farmed area
captured by the survey (of this, 52% was in non-organic production and 38%
in organic production). Family occupancy of the current farm or local farmland
was often long term, with 22% of the sample tracing their family’s occupancy
of the farm to 1900 or earlier. The operators of organic farms however, were
less likely to have such long farming connections in the area and 44% were
the first generation of their family to farm the current farm compared to 37% of
non-organic farmers. In other words, organic farmers were more likely to be
new entrants to farming of any kind. Consequently, it is not surprising to
7
This is statistically significant using an independent samples t-test.
8
Established family farms are defined as those operated by at least the second generation of
the family to farm, either operating the original family farm or farming in the immediate area of
the first family farm.
discover that organic farmers are also more likely to have previously worked
outside of farming (60% compared to 48% of non-organic farmers9).
A further dimension of the emerging distinctive socio-economic profile of
organic farmers is revealed through a series of proxy indicators measuring the
degree to which respondents can be said to be embedded in their locality. The
questionnaire employed three proxy measures of embeddedness: distance
from place of birth, distance from majority of close family and distance from
majority of close friends. Analysis of this data revealed a consistent picture
indicating that, on the basis of these measures, the operators of organic farms
are less embedded in their local community than their non-organic
counterparts. For example, 49% were born either on their current farm or
within ten miles compared to 64% of non-organic farmers. Similarly, 28%
described most of their close family as living over 100 miles away compared
to 18% of non-organic farmers. A similar proportion of organic and nonorganic farmers reported that most of their close friends live within 10 miles of
their farm, although in relative terms organic farmers were more likely to have
most of their close friends living at least 100 miles away. These results are
also consistent with the emerging picture of at least a significant proportion of
organic farmers being new entrants who had previously worked outside of
agriculture and who have frequently moved a considerable distance from the
roots of their kinship networks. The results do not mean that organic farmers
are less involved in social networks but rather that they may be embedded in
networks which are less ‘local’ and perhaps less geographical (e.g.
virtual/mediated networks). The profile of organic farmers presented here
supports the earlier findings reviewed by Rigby et al (2001) indicating that
organic farmers are frequently better educated, younger, more likely to come
from an urban background and to have less farming experience.
9
The association between organic status and having previously worked outside of farming is
statistically significant using Chi Square test of independence.
The farm business
The distinctiveness of organic farmers is also reflected in the characteristics
and organisation of their businesses. The CRER evaluation of the Organic
Farming Scheme (CRER 2002) noted the tendency for organic farms to
diversify, but did not make comparisons between organic and non-organic
farms. The results of the present survey indicate that organic farms are more
likely to have diversified into a range of additional activities (see Table 3),
although compared to their non-organic counterparts they are significantly
less likely to have diversified into the provision of agricultural services (9.6%
compared to 18.4% of non-organic farms). Organic farmers, on the other
hand, are more likely to have established trading and on-farm processing
enterprises, providing the opportunity to capture added value and to develop
closer connections with customers. Twenty-one per cent of organic farms in
the sample operate a trading enterprise compared to just 5% of non-organic
farms. The tendency for organic farms to have diversified into trading and/or
processing activities is further revealed by analysis of the ‘routes to market’
employed by organic and non-organic farms in the sample. Direct and local
marketing is a much more common feature on organic farms with 39%
involved in one or more direct marketing route such as, farm shops, box
scheme, farmers’ market, supply of local shops, compared to just 13% of nonorganic farms. Marketing channels are important because of the implications
for local economic impacts. Whilst local marketing may help retain local
household incomes in an area, the opportunity cost of this is the potential
injection of income into the local economy provided through export earnings
(i.e. food sales beyond the ‘local’ area).
Economic linkages10: Farm business purchases
Analysis of purchasing links provides a method of exploring the extent to
which farms (or indeed, any business) of different types are connected to local
10
It should be noted that for the remainder of this paper, the category of ‘Other’ in the farm
type classification, while capturing an important aspect of rural society, has been excluded on
the basis that they did not necessarily represent farm businesses since many did not include
any commercial agricultural functions.
economies. In measuring economic connectivity (both in terms of purchases
and sales) data was collected on the proportion (by value) of sales/purchases
made by a business locally, regionally, nationally, internationally and also the
actual value (totals and means) of these economic transactions.
Consequently, it is possible to distinguish between businesses that are ‘highly
connected’ in terms of the proportion of their sales and purchases made
locally, but which nevertheless make a relatively small impact due to low sales
and purchase values, and business which may be associated with a greater
local impact even though their business is orientated towards more distant
markets.
A total of 470 respondents (246 organic and 224 non-organic) supplied details
of the value of business related11 purchases made in the most recent year for
which information was available. Together these respondents spent over
£64m in purchases for their businesses. This clearly represents a significant
injection of money into the economy although, following the economic linkage
concept, it is important to understand where that money was spent and
whether agricultural and related businesses purchases represent a source of
leakage from local economies or an injection of spending that will be
associated with local multiplier effects. A smaller number of respondents (443)
supplied spatial estimates of where they made their purchases12. Analysis of
the farm size and type characteristics of those who answered these questions
revealed no statistically significant differences in terms of farm size and type
between the main sample of 655 and the smaller number of farmers returning
spatial data. Consequently we have not reported separately on the farm size
and type characteristics of the latter groups. These respondents spent over
£55m on purchases and it is this smaller group on which the subsequent
analysis is based. At an aggregate level, 28% of purchases (by value) were
made very locally (within 10 miles) and a total of 68% were made either very
11
Household purchases were excluded. Labour values were captured separately through
salary rates.
12
As with most self-completion questionnaires, the response rate for individual questions
varied according, in part, to the complexity of the information requested. It is therefore not
surprising that fewer respondents completed this question or the equivalent question on
business sales.
locally or within the rest of the county. There are no directly comparable
studies with which to contrast these results with, although Harrison (1993)
found that 40% of the value of input transactions were made within the smaller
radius of 10km (approximately 6 miles). There are a number of possible
explanations for the differences between the two findings including the
changing nature of agricultural supply networks since 1989 (the harvest year
that formed the basis of Harrison’s study) and geographic differences: the
present study includes upland areas where the nature of the terrain probably
means that local services are often some distance away from the farm.
Looking at purchases in more detail, Figure 1 presents data for non-organic
farm businesses only. Non-organic respondents were responsible for
purchases of approximately £30m, of which 26% were made very locally
(within 10 miles of the farm), while a total of 64% were made either very
locally or within the county. The average (mean) value of purchases in the
county was slightly larger than those at the very local level (£54,672 and
£38,529 respectively). That only 11% of all purchases by value were made in
the national economy appears to point to limited leakages. Purchases in the
national economy were also considerably smaller on average: the mean value
of national purchases was £16,312 compared to £55,077 for purchases made
within the county.
Figure 2 presents the same data but for organic farm businesses. The organic
businesses supplying spatial data recorded £25m of purchases. The lower
value of total purchases compared to non-organic farms may partly be a
reflection of the purchasing requirements of organic farm systems. However,
it is apparent from Figure 3 that the mean values for local, county and national
sales are not greatly different and neither is the proportion of purchases
sourced very locally (within 10 miles) or within the county: On average organic
farms made purchases of £32,110 within 10 miles of the farm compared to
£38,529 for non-organic farms. Measuring economic connectivity in terms of
the proportion of all purchases made within 10 miles reveals very little
difference between organic and non-organic farms (29% and 26%
respectively) although if the concept of local is stretched to the county
boundary then the difference becomes larger; 72% compared to 64% for nonorganic farms. Although the total value of purchases made by non-organic
farms is greater, the size of the non-organic sample is also larger. When
mean purchases per farm are considered, again there is little apparent
difference between organic and non-organic farms.
Looking in more detail at different farm types revealed variation both within the
organic farming sector and between organic and non-organic farms. In terms
of their purchasing behaviour (i.e. the relative location of purchases) most
types of organic farm, with the exception of arable farms, purchase a high
proportion of inputs and services locally (within 10 miles of the farm). On the
other hand, while organic horticulture farms source a significant proportion
(42%) of their inputs very locally compared to non-organic horticulture farms
(24%), organic lowland livestock and pig and poultry farms are less well
connected in this sense compared to their non-organic counterparts (see
Table 4). Extending coverage to purchases within the county reveals that
organic dairy farms source 74% of purchases within the county. Organic
lowland livestock producers make an even larger proportion (86%) of their
purchases within the county although in that case the absolute sums involved
are much lower than the equivalent spending of their non-organic counterparts
(see Table 5).
Labour use on organic and non-organic farms
One of the most common claims made for organic farming in a rural
development context relates to employment creation. At the most basic level,
employment is necessary in order to earn income to purchase goods and
services and also brings with it a range of less tangible benefits such as social
contact and a feeling of self worth. While employment is not the only goal of
rural development, it can be seen as a principal means of meeting several
objectives. The farms in the sample employed a total of 3,071 people, of
which organic farm businesses accounted for 60%. On average organic farm
businesses employed 6.4 people per farm compared to 4.8 people on nonorganic farms. One implication is immediately clear; organic farms ‘punch
above their weight’ in employment provision. They account for less than half
the sample but more than half of all employment recorded and despite
operating smaller farms (in terms of area) organic farms employ more people
per farm. However, while absolute numbers of people employed may be taken
as an indicator of rural development impacts at the farm level, it obscures
differences in terms of full-time labour, part-time, causal and seasonal
employees. In particular, 55% of labour on non-organic farms is provided by
full-time, 22% by part-time and 23% casual/seasonal workers compared to
44%, 21% and 35% respectively on organic farms.
Given the differences in the composition of the total labour force within the
survey, a more meaningful comparison is to standardise labour into Full Time
Equivalents (FTEs)13. In these terms the surveyed farm businesses employ
2,016 FTEs, of which 1,125 (56%) are found on non-organic farms. In terms of
salaried non-family as opposed to family labour, on average organic farms
provide work for more FTEs (59% of all non-family FTEs in the sample
compared to 41% for non-organic farms) and this employment effect is even
more marked when considering FTEs per ha. These differences are at least
partly explained by differences between farm types, with some organic farms
employing significantly more labour in FTE terms than comparable (in terms of
farm type) non-organic farms. For example, organic arable, horticulture, mixed
and pig and poultry farms all employ more FTEs than their non-organic
counterparts. In particular, the role of organic horticultural farms complicates
the picture, supporting fewer employed non-family FTEs but significantly more
family FTE labour (see Table 6). Overall, organic horticultural farms generate
higher levels of FTEs/ha than their non-organic counterparts and given the
significance of horticulture within the organic sample14, this is likely to impact
on the aggregate mean figures for employment on organic farms. A further
explanation relates to the very different business model adopted by some
13
The calculation of FTEs was based on the definition from Errington and Gasson (1996)
where: full-time = 1 worker, part-time = 0.5 of a worker, casual = 0.33 of a worker and
seasonal = 0.125 of a worker).
14
There were three times more horticultural farms in the organic sample compared to the
non-organic sample.
organic businesses. As the earlier analysis indicated, organic farmers are
more likely to be involved in diversification, on-farm processing and direct
sales, all of which could be expected to have an employment impact. Indeed,
27% of organic farmers report increasing employment following conversion,
employing on average an additional 1.73 FTE labour units. Overall, the
employment of more non-family FTEs in organic farm businesses indicates
that, in this sense, they are more likely to support the local economy rather
than just their own farming family.
These findings support earlier studies that examined employed labour
requirements on organic farms. For example, Padel and Lampkin (1994)
estimated that increases in labour normally range between 10 and 25 per cent
higher than conventional farms, with similar findings reported by Hird (1997).
Labour requirements depend, of course, on the type and mix of enterprises
that make up the farm holding. As a general rule, the more diverse the
enterprise mix is the higher the labour requirements will be, as the benefits of
specialisation and economies of scale are lost (Centre for Rural Economics
Research, 2002). Some of this diversity is illustrated when employed labour
use on different organic farm types is considered. Comparing the results of
the survey reported here with that of Morrison and colleagues (2005)
demonstrates that, with the exception of horticultural farms, most FTE labour
requirements between the two surveys are remarkably similar, although the
values of Morrison et al. tend to be greater. For example, Morrison et al.
report 2.74 FTEs labour use for arable farms compared to 2.19 in the current
paper; 1.63 FTEs for livestock farms compared to 1.55 FTEs; and 2.84 FTEs
for mixed farms against 2.17 in this research.
Establishing the number of jobs supported by organic and non-organic farms
is one thing but it is also important to identify rates of pay for family and nonfamily employees. Together, the organic and non-organic farm businesses in
the survey have an annual salary bill of approximately £23m. The salary per
FTE is approximately £1,400 lower for organic farms, although this is largely
accounted for by low family ‘wages’ as non-family labour is paid at a
marginally higher rate. However, the data on the salaries of family labour must
be treated with some caution, particularly where this represents a farmer and
spouse as many farmers do not pay themselves a wage that is easily
comparable with salaried workers either within farming or beyond.
Farm Business Sales
Turning to farm sales, as an indication of the ability of farms to generate value
in the economy at the aggregate level, the 468 respondents supplying sales
data generated sales of £88.9m. Mean sales per farm were higher for nonorganic businesses at £231,624 compared to £152,862 for organic farm
businesses, with this difference being significant in a statistical sense. 15 In
both instances though, the wide range of farm sizes, between the extremes of
micro businesses to some very large businesses skews the mean figure
towards the largest business and as such the respective median values of
£77,170 and £48,293 give a more accurate picture. Given the differences in
the farm size structure of the organic and non-organic samples comparing the
values of sales generated per hectare provides a more robust basis for
comparison. On this basis, organic farm businesses generate sales of
substantially greater value per hectare compared to non-organic farms,
£2,837 ha-1 and £1,857 ha-1. However, when the median figures are
considered this difference reduces considerably to £722 ha-1 for organic farms
and £650 ha-1 for non-organic. This suggests that only a few organic farms
manage to create a greater sales value per hectare whereas most perform at
a similar level to their conventional counterparts.
Again, a slightly smaller number of respondents (430) supplied information on
the spatial destination of sales, recording sales totalling £76m or an average
of £177,349 per farm. In terms of the spatial distribution of sales, 33% took
place locally (this compares to 33% within 10 km in Harrison’s study), 30%
within the rest of the county and just 13% in the national economy.
Considering sales from organic and non-organic farms, 37% of all sales by
value (£34.4m) were associated with organic farms. Figures 3 and 4 present
data on the spatial economic connectivity of sales behaviour for organic and
15
This is statistically significant using an independent samples t-test.
non-organic businesses. A first point to note is that while the mean values
and absolute values of sales differ, in terms of their very local and county level
connectedness the two sub-samples differ very little. Indeed, 56% of the value
of sales from non-organic farms were either made within ten miles of the farm
or within the county compared to 57% for organic farms. Organic farms
however, are slightly less locally orientated than their non-organic
counterparts with the value of local sales accounting for only 20% of the total
sales made by organic farms compared to 27% for non-organic farms. On the
basis of this measure, organic farms are no more connected to their local
economy than non-organic farms and the value of their sales is less. One
interpretation of these results is that organic farming does not lead to a benefit
to rural economies over and above that of conventional agriculture. Despite
the increasing importance of the ‘local food’ market and the greater use of
local and direct sales routes by organic farmers, a lower proportion of their
sales are located in the local area. One explanation may relate to the
definition of local16 although an alternative explanation is that treating both
organic and non-organic farms homogenous groups obscures important
distinctions which may be revealed by exploring differences associated with
farm type classifications or indeed alternative methods of categorising farm
businesses.
Further analysis indicated substantial differences in terms of economic
connectivity between organic and non-organic farms that are ostensibly of the
same type. As with purchases, there are considerable differences between
different types of organic farm. For instance, organic horticultural farm
businesses appear highly connected to their local economy with 67% of sales
(by value) taking place locally (within a radius of 10 miles) and with mean local
sales of close to £37k per farm (see Tables 6 and 7). Non-organic horticultural
farms on the other hand made only 33% of sales locally with a significantly
lower mean value of £5k per farm. Non-organic horticultural farms in the
sample are much more focused on regional and national sales, which account
16
Farmers may be travelling further than ten miles to participate in farmers’ markets for
instance.
for 48% of sales.17 Within the organic sector there are marked differences
between different types of farm. For instance, 59% of arable and dairy farm
sales take place outside of the county, compared to 35% for all organic farms.
This greater focus of organic dairy and arable farms on regional and national
markets both in terms of sales behaviour and the value of sales represents an
important injection of ‘export income’ back into the local economy. It also
clearly indicates that the 'organicness' of the farming system is not necessarily
a marker of the localness of a farm’s marketing strategy.
Discussion and Conclusions
Recent years have seen the concept of the localness of food production and
purchase become increasingly important as a means of addressing food miles
issues, contributing to the (re)connection of farmers and local consumers, and
retaining income in the local economy (e.g. Smithers 2008; Pretty et al 2005).
At the same time, the role of organic farming has been explored in the context
of its potential to provide a means of securing wider rural development
benefits due to the employment dividend associated with organic production
and the assumed closer linkages between organic farms and the local
economy (e.g. Seyfang, 2006; Midmore and Dirks, 2003; Renting et al 2003).
The analysis presented in this paper has certainly revealed and confirmed
some important distinctions between the characteristics of organic and nonorganic farms and farmers. Arguably, most of these differences do not stem
directly from differences in farming systems but, rather, reflect considerable
differences in the people who operate organic farms, as well as the distinctive
business configurations they frequently adopt (e.g. in terms of the incidence
and type of diversification, routes to market, etc).
The analysis presented in this paper has confirmed that the people who
operate organic farms are typically younger and more highly educated than
their non-organic counterparts and a significant proportion have entered
17
This should be interpreted with caution, as there were only eight non-organic horticultural
farms.
agriculture as an entirely new ‘career’. It is reasonable to assume that this
distinctive group of organic farmers brings with it different skills and aptitudes
and possibly also a different attitude to operating a farm business. They
certainly appear more willing and/or able to diversify their farm businesses
and to do so in a different manner to their non-organic counterparts. These
characteristics alone may be considered to provide evidence that organic
farming, or more precisely, organic farmers can have a wider role to play in
rural development, perhaps by demonstrating that alternative food business
can be developed by new entrants and thus encouraging others to enter the
sector, or by contributing their skills and experience to cooperative
endeavours. In terms of the proxy measures employed in this research,
organic farmers are less well socially embedded in their local communities
than non-organic farmers but given that many have made a positive choice to
enter organic farming after another career it is perhaps not surprising that they
now find themselves living at some distance from most of their close family
and friends. In confirmation of previous findings (e.g. Morrison et al 2005;
Offermann and Nieberg, 2000), organic farms in the survey employed more
people. Importantly, from a rural development perspective, the present survey
has demonstrated that not only do organic farms generate more employment
but they also employ a greater proportion of non-family FTEs. Such
businesses are therefore not simply providing employment for their extended
family but also for others who live and/or work in rural areas. There is also
some evidence that salary levels for non-family labour on organic farms are
higher, although this requires further investigation.
However, despite the distinctive profile of organic farmers and despite quite
radical differences in farming systems, the analysis presented here also
clearly reveals that, at an aggregate level, the economic connectivity of
organic and non-organic farms is not dissimilar. Although the non-organic
sample generated greater sales in total and spent more on purchased inputs,
the mean sales figures and proportion of sales according to distance from the
farm differed only marginally compared to organic farms. In turn, this suggests
that in terms of patterns of sales and purchases there are no appreciable
differences in the rural development potential of organic and non-organic
farms. Such a conclusion is, however, overly simplistic. The data presented in
this paper clearly demonstrate that simply comparing organic and non-organic
farm businesses is too blunt an approach. Treating organic farms (and nonorganic farms) as homogenous sectors does not help in identifying rural
development potential. Indeed, we have seen that by combining organic
status and farm type it is possible to identify those organic businesses that
have particularly strong local economic connections, both compared to their
non-organic counterparts and other organic farms. Organic horticultural farm
businesses emerge from this analysis as being amongst the most likely to
operate short, local supply chains. Their marketing orientation is distinctly
more local both compared to non-organic horticultural businesses and other
organic farms, suggesting that it is not organic status or farm type alone or in
combination that is the most useful indicator of a farm’s local economic
connectivity and rural development potential, but a combination of these
factors as well as the way in which the business configures it’s marketing
routes.
As this paper has shown, organic farming and local supply are by no means
synonymous with each other. Consequently, it is important for policy makers
and researchers to adopt a more nuanced approach, recognising differences
between farming systems, farm types, the configuration of farm businesses
towards different marketing strategies and the inclinations of those who
operate such businesses. This then shifts the debate away from simple
notions that equate organic production with local supply and assume a local
economic benefit, towards a broader understanding of the local agro-food
economy in which some farms (which may or may not be organic) have strong
local connections while others focus their efforts elsewhere and earn
important export income for the local economy.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Defra for funding the research on which this paper is
based.
References
Armstrong, H. and Taylor, J. 2000 Regional economics and policy (3rd
Edition), Blackwell, Oxford, 437pp.
Bateman, D. I, Hughes, G. O., Lampkin, N. H., Midmore, P. and Ray, C. 1993.
Pluriactivity and the Rural Economy in Less Favoured Areas of Wales. Report
for the ESRC. Department of Economics and Agricultural Economics,
University of Wales, Aberystwyth.
Bowler, I. 1992. Sustainable agriculture as an alternative path of farm
business development. In: Bowler, I., Bryant, C., and Nellis, M. (Eds)
Contemporary Rural Systems in Transition, Volume 1. CABI, Wallingford.
296pp.
Centre for Rural Economics Research, 2002. Economic evaluation of the
organic farming scheme: final report to DEFRA. Department of Land
Economy, Cambridge University, Cambridge, 122pp.
Clarke, N., Cloke, P. Barnett, C. and Malpass, A. 2008. The spaces and
ethics of organic food. Journal of Rural Studies, 24 (3), 219-230.
Cleeton, J. 2004. Organic food in relation to Nutrition and health. Coronary
and Diabetic Care in the UK 2004, 58-63.
Cobb, D., Feber, R., Hopkins, A., Stockdale, L., O’Riordan, T., Clements, B.,
Firbank, L., Goulding, K., Jarvis, S. and Macdonald, D. 1999. Integrating the
environmental and economic consequences of converting to organic
agriculture: evidence from a case study. Land Use Policy, 16, (4), 207-221.
Colman, D. R. 2000. Comparative economics of farming systems. In: P.
Tinker (end), Shades of green - a review of UK farming systems. Royal
Agricultural Society of England, Stoneleigh, 42-58.
Courtney & Errington (2000) The Role of Small Towns in the Local Economy
and some Implications for Development Policy. Local Economy, 15 (4), 280301.
Courtney, P., Hill, G. and Roberts, D. 2006. The role of natural heritage in
rural development: An analysis of economic linkages in Scotland. Journal of
Rural Studies, 22, (4), 469-484.
Courtney, P., Mayfield, L., Tranter, R., Jones, P. and Errington, A. 2007. Small
towns as ‘sub-poles’ in English rural development: Investigating rural–urban
linkages using sub-regional social accounting matrices. Geoforum, 38 (6),
1219-1232.
Cranbrook, C. 2006. The Real Choice: How local foods can survive the
supermarket onslaught. CPRE, London. 24pp.
Curran, J., and Blackburn, R. 1994. Small Firms and Local Economic
Networks. London, Chapman. 224pp.
Darnhofer, I. 2005. Organic Farming and Rural Development: Some Evidence
from Austria. Sociologia Ruralis, 45 (4), 308–323.
Errington, A. and Gasson, R. 1996. The Increasing Flexibility of the Farm
Horticultural Workforce in England and Wales. Journal of Rural Studies, 12
(2), 127-141.
Errington, A. 2002. Developing tools for rural development: a multidisciplinary
research agenda. In: Arzeni, A., Espostri, R. and Sotte, F. (Eds) European
Policy Experiments with Rural development, EAAE, Kiel.19-41.
Errington, A. and Courtney, P. 2000. Tracing the "Economic Footprint" of
market towns: A Methodological Contribution to Rural Policy Analysis.
Agricultural Economics Society Annual Conference, Manchester.
Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of
embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91, 481-510.
Häring, A., Dabbert, S., Offermann, F. and Nieberg, H. 2001. Benefits of
Organic Farming for Society. Paper presented at The European Conference –
Organic Food and Farming - Towards Partnership and Action in Europe,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Harrison, L., 1993. The impact of the agricultural industry on the rural
economy – tracking the spatial distribution of farm inputs and outputs. Journal
of Rural Studies 9, 81–88.
Hird, V. 1997. Double Yield. SAFE Alliance, London.
Hole, D. G., Perkins, A. J., Wilson, J. D., Alexander, I. H., Grice, P. V., and
Evans, A. D. 2005. Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biological
Conservation, 122, 113-130.
Ilbery, B. and Maye, D., 2005. Food supply chains and sustainability: evidence
from specialist food producers in the Scottish/English borders. Land Use
Policy 22, 331-344.
Köhnem M. and Köhn, O. 1998. Betriebsumstellung auf ökologischen
Landbau – Auswirkungen der EU-Förderung in den neuen Bundesländern.
Berichte der Landwirtschaft 76, 329-365. Quoted in Centre for Rural
Economics Research, 2002. Economic evaluation of the organic farming
scheme: final report to DEFRA. Department of Land Economy, Cambridge
University, Cambridge, 122pp.
Johns, P.M. and Leat, P.M.K., 1987. The application of modified grit input–
output procedures to rural development analysis in Grampian Region. Journal
of Agricultural Economics 38, 243–256.
Krebs, J. 2003. Is Organic food better for you? Speech to Cheltenham
Science Festival, 4 June 2003.
Lobley, M. and Potter, C. 2004. Agricultural change and restructuring: recent
evidence from a survey of agricultural households in England. Journal of Rural
Studies 20 (4), 499-510.
Lobley, M., Reed, M. and Butler, A. with Courtney, P. and Warren, M. 2005.
The Impact of Organic Farming on the Rural Economy in England. Final
Report to DEFRA. CRR Research Report No. 11, Exeter, 132pp.
Marsden, T., Banks, J. and Bristow, G. 2002. The social management of rural
nature: understanding agrarian-based rural development. Environment and
Planning A, 34, 809-25.
Midmore, P., 1988. The impact of agricultural policy on the Welsh economy:
an input–output approach. Unpublished PhD thesis. University College of
Wales, Aberystwyth.
Midmore, P. 1993. Input-Output Forecasting of Regional Agricultural Policy
Impacts. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 44 (2), 284-300.
Midmore, P. 1994. Input-Output Modelling of Organic Farming and the Rural
Economy of England and Wales. In: Lampkin, N. and Padel, S. (Eds.), The
Economics of Organic Farming. An International Perspective. Wallingford, C.
A. B. International, pp.361-369.
Midmore, P. and Dirks, J. 2003. The development and use of 'rapid
assessment methods' in ex-Ante and ex-Post evaluations of policy initiatives
in the rural economy. Agricultural Economics Society Annual Conference,
Seale Hayne Campus, Plymouth University.
Morison J., Hine, R. and Pretty, J. 2005. Survey and analysis of Labour on
Organic Farms in the UK and Republic of Ireland, International Journal of
Agricultural Sustainability, 3 (1), 24-43.
Morris, C., Hopkins, A. and Winter, M. 2001. Comparison of the social,
economic and environmental effects of organic, ICM and conventional
Farming. Cheltenham, Countryside Agency.
Murdoch, J., Marsden, T. and banks, J. 2000. Quality, nature, and
embeddedness: some theoretical considerations in the context of the food
sector. Economic Geography, 76(2), 107-125.
Offermann, F. and H. Nieberg 2000. Economic performance of organic farms
in Europe. University of Hohenhiem, Hohenhiem.
Padel, S. and Lampkin, N. 1994. Conversion to Organic Farming: An
Overview. In Lampkin N. and Padel S. (Eds), The Economics of Organic
Farming: An International Perspective. CAB International, Wallingford, pp.
295-313.
Petersen, S. Axelsen, J. A., Tybirk, K., Aude, E. and Vestergaard, P. 2006.
Effects of organic farming on field boundary vegetation in Denmark
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 13 (1-4), 302-306.
Pretty, J. 2002. Agri-culture: Reconnecting People, Land and Nature.
Earthscan, London. 261pp.
Pretty, J., Ball, A., Lang, T. and Morison, J. 2005. Farm costs and food miles:
An assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy, 30,
1-19.
Pugliese, P. 2001. Organic farming and sustainable rural development. A
multifaceted and promising convergence. Sociologia Ruralis, 41(1), 112-131.
Reed, M., Butler, A., and Lobley, M. 2008. Growing Sustainable Communities:
Understanding the Social-Economic Footprints of Organic Family Farms in
Farnworth, C.,(ed) Creating Food Futures. Gower, London. (In press).
Renting, H., Marsden, T. and Banks, J. 2003. Understanding alternative food
networks: exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development.
Environment and Planning A, 35, 393-411.
Rigby, D., Young, T. and Burton, M. 2001. The development of and prospects
for organic farming in the UK. Food Policy, 26, 599-613.
Robison, M. H. 1997. Community input-output models for rural area analysis
with an example from central Idaho. The Annals of Regional Science, 31, 325351.
Sacks, J. 2002. The money trail: measuring your impact on the local economy
using LM3. New Economics Foundation, London.
Sandhu, H. S., Wratten, S. D., Cullen, R. and Case, B. 2007. The future of
farming: The value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable
land. An experimental approach. Ecological Economics, In Press, Corrected
Proof.
Seyfang, G. 2006. Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: Examining
local organic food networks. Journal of Rural Studies, 22 (4) 383-395.
Shepherd, M., Pearce, B., Cormack, B., Philipps, L., Cuttle, S., Bhogal, A.,
Costigan, P., Unwin, R., 2003. An Assessment of the Environmental Impacts
of Organic Farming. Defra, London.
Smith, E. and Marsden, T. 2004. Exploring the ‘limits to growth’ in UK
organics: beyond the statistical image. Journal of Rural Studies, 20 (3), 345357.
Smithers, J., Larmarche, J. and Joseph, A. 2008. Unpacking the terms of
engagement with local food at the Farmers’ Market: Insights from Ontario,
Journal of Rural Studies, 24 (3), 337-350.
Soil Association, 2007. Organics market report 2007. The Soil Association,
Bristol.
Soil Association, 2006. Organics market report 2006. The Soil Association,
Bristol.
Soil Association, 2005. New research proves organic milk is higher in vitamins
and antioxidants than non-organic milk. Press Release. The Soil Association,
Bristol.
Sotte, F. 2002. Introduction. In: Arzeni, A., Espostri, R. and Sotte, F. (Eds)
European Policy Experiments with Rural development, EAAE, Kiel. 9-16.
Thatcher, J. and Sharp, L. 2008. Measuring the local economic impact of
National Health Service procurement in the UK: an evaluation of the Cornwall
Food Programme and LM3. Local Environment, 13, 3, 253–270.
van der Ploeg, J., Renting, H., Brunori, G., Knickel, K., Mannion, J., Marsden,
T., de Roest, K., Sevilla-Guzmán, E. and Ventura, F. 2000. Rural
development: from practices and policies towards theory. Sociologia Ruralis,
40(4), 391-40.
Winter, M. 2003. Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive
localism. Journal of Rural Studies, 19, 23-32.
Winter, M. and Rushbrook, L. 2003. Literature review of the English rural
economy. Centre for Rural Research, Exeter, pp. 71.
Winter, M. and Rushbrook, L. 2003. Literature review of the English rural
economy. Research report prepared for Defra. Centre for Rural Research,
University of Exeter, Exeter.
Wood, R., Lenzen, M., Dey, C. and Lundie, S. 2006 A comparative study of
some environmental impacts of conventional and organic farming in Australia.
Agricultural Systems, 89, (2-3), 324-348.
Table 1: Farm size distribution: farm survey data compared to OF&G and SA data
Farm Type
OF&G 2004a
Farm survey respondents
Soil
Association b
Organic
Non-organic
All farms
Organic
Organic
Less than 20 ha
21.6
27.4
24.7
19.0
29.1
Between 20 - 49 ha
17.6
14.3
15.8
20.2
22.1
Between 50- 99 ha
23.6
19.0
21.2
23.4
20.8
Between 100 - 199 ha
17.9
17.9
17.9
20.3
13.9
200 ha or Over
19.3
21.4
20.4
17.1
14.1
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
N=
302
353
655
n/a
n/a
Source: Farm survey; Soil Association 2003; Organic Farmers and Growers 2004
a
Analysis of data from the OF&G 2004 survey.
b
Analysis of data taken from the Soil Association registration list 2003.
Table 2: Farm type distribution: farm survey data and DEFRA June sample data compared
Farm Type
Farm survey respondents
DEFRA
Organic
Non-organic
All farms
All farms
Arable cropping
7.6
19.8
14.2
22.3
Horticulture
9.3
2.8
5.8
3.8
Dairy
10.3
9.6
9.9
7.4
Lowland cattle and sheep
14.6
15.0
14.8
16.9
Pigs and Poultry
4.6
1.1
2.7
4.5
LFA cattle and sheep
12.6
13.6
13.1
12.1
Mixed
34.4
18.4
25.8
5.9
Other farm type
6.6
19.5
13.6
27.1
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
302
353
655
N=
Source: Farm Survey, DEFRA June sample 2003
Table 3: Diversification activities: organic and non-organic farmers compared
Diversification
% of organic
% of non-organic
% of all farms
respondents
respondents
Agricultural Services*
9.6
18.4
14.4
Accommodation
15.4
15.3
15.3
Recreation/Leisure
7.6
8.8
8.2
Trading Enterprises*
21.2
5.4
12.7
Processing*
15.8
3.5
9.6
Equine Services
7.0
9.9
5.0
Unconventional Crops
6.0
4.2
7.8
Unconventional Livestock
9.9
5.9
9.6
Any diversification*
56.3
46.5
50.8
Multiple diversification*
23.2
15.3
18.9
N=
302
353
655
Source: Farm Survey
* The association between organic/non-organic status and this diversification type is significant using
Chi Square test.
Table 4: Farm business purchases
Farm Type
% of Purchases by value
Non-organic
N
Local
County
Regional
National
Imported
Arable
61
31
34
25
9
1
Horticulture
8
24
17
21
21
16
Dairy
27
44
29
19
7
0
Lowland Cattle and Sheep
33
51
23
17
8
1
LFA Cattle and Sheep
34
45
40
13
2
0
Mixed
56
30
42
18
11
0
Pigs and Poultry
3
57
25
5
13
0
All non-organic farms
222
38
34
19
9
1
Organic
N
Local
County
Regional
National
Imported
Arable
16
29
35
23
13
1
Horticulture
23
42
17
17
21
3
Dairy
26
41
33
15
11
1
Lowland Cattle and Sheep
34
46
40
8
6
0
LFA Cattle and Sheep
33
42
39
10
5
0
Mixed
86
41
33
14
12
0
Pigs and Poultry
21
43
22
23
12
0
All organic farms
239
41
32
15
11
1
All Farms
461
40
33
17
10
1
Source: Farm Survey
Table 5: The spatial distribution of farm business purchases by farm type and organic/non-organic
status
Farm Type
Total Value of Purchases (£,000)
Non-organic
N
Local
County
Regional
National
Imported
Arable
59
3230
3899
2592
1221
274
Horticulture
7
294
391
471
544
399
Dairy
25
1164
1002
717
367
29
Lowland Cattle and Sheep
33
447
1683
300
288
9
LFA Cattle and Sheep
30
347
799
137
69
0
Mixed
51
2347
3518
2446
846
52
Pigs and Poultry
2
148
26
10
41
0
All Non-organic Farms
207
7975
11317
6673
3377
763
Organic
N
Local
County
Regional
National
Imported
Arable
16
486
1440
726
286
30
Horticulture
23
416
587
426
433
80
Dairy
25
1238
1056
579
422
50
Lowland Cattle and Sheep
30
373
221
97
113
6
LFA Cattle and Sheep
31
694
428
173
79
6
Mixed
80
3882
6777
1242
1332
35
Pigs and Poultry
21
168
350
546
416
0
All Organic Farms
226
7257
10859
3788
3080
207
All Farms
433
15232
22176
10462
6457
970
Source: Farm Survey
Table 6: Labour use by FTE ha-1 by farm type
FTE ha-1
Farm Type
Non-organic
N
Family*
Employed**
All FTE ha-1*
Arable
59
0.011
0.005
0.017
Horticulture
8
0.287
0.446
0.733
Dairy
34
0.035
0.012
0.048
Lowland Cattle and Sheep
45
0.046
0.010
0.056
LFA Cattle and Sheep
39
0.038
0.014
0.052
Mixed
61
0.030
0.014
0.044
Pigs and Poultry
4
0.278
0.016
0.294
All Non-organic Farms
250
0.043
0.025
0.067
Organic*
N
Family*
Employed**
All FTE ha-1*
Arable
22
0.010
0.010
0.020
Horticulture
25
0.473
0.319
0.792
Dairy
30
0.021
0.010
0.031
Lowland Cattle and Sheep
42
0.031
0.006
0.037
LFA Cattle and Sheep
38
0.025
0.004
0.029
Mixed
99
0.045
0.015
0.060
Pigs and Poultry
14
0.233
0.152
0.385
All Organic Farms
270
0.084
0.046
0.130
All Farms
520
0.064
0.036
0.100
Source: Farm Survey
* Means between organic and non-organic farm types are significant (t-test, p <0.001).
** Means between organic and non-organic farm types are significant (t-test, p <0.1).
Table 7: The spatial distribution of farm business sales by farm type and organic/non-organic status
Farm Type
Mean Value of Sales (£’000)
Non-organic
N
Local
County
Regional
National
Exported
Arable
59
115
81
46
35
3
Horticulture
7
5
24
178
484
2
Dairy
23
51
55
90
17
0
Lowland Cattle and Sheep
33
10
53
19
10
0
LFA Cattle and Sheep
32
7
29
8
0
0
Mixed
46
54
75
62
46
4
Pigs and Poultry
2
66
7
62
0
0
All Non-organic Farms
202
11182
12350
9862
8323
390
Organic
N
Local
County
Regional
National
Exported
Arable
16
18
152
83
27
2
Horticulture
25
37
20
64
28
0
Dairy
26
29
33
78
35
0
Lowland Cattle and Sheep
30
6
5
9
5
0
LFA Cattle and Sheep
31
12
16
7
10
0
Mixed
80
45
99
47
28
0
Pigs and Poultry
20
26
17
19
20
0
All Organic Farms
228
29
56
42
22
0
All Farms
430
42
58
45
31
1
Table 8: Farm business sales
Farm Type
% of Sales (by value)
Non-organic
N
Local
County
Regional
National
Imported
Arable
61
27
37
24
12
1
Horticulture
8
33
3
15
48
3
Dairy
26
34
26
30
10
0
Lowland Cattle and Sheep
33
38
20
33
9
0
LFA Cattle and Sheep
35
33
42
24
1
0
Mixed
52
24
35
24
15
1
Pigs and Poultry
3
38
5
33
23
0
All non-organic farms
218
30
32
26
12
1
Organic
N
Local
County
Regional
National
Imported
Arable
16
16
25
28
28
2
Horticulture
25
67
14
16
2
0
Dairy
27
18
23
39
20
0
Lowland Cattle and Sheep
32
47
27
15
12
0
LFA Cattle and Sheep
32
31
41
12
15
0
Mixed
86
33
32
20
14
0
Pigs and Poultry
20
49
22
17
12
0
All organic farms
238
37
28
20
14
0
All Farms
456
34
30
23
13
0
Figure 1: Purchases by non-organic farm businesses
Figure 2: Purchases by organic farm businesses
Figure 3: Sales by non-organic farm businesses
Figure 4: Sales by organic farm businesses