|
Reports of Meetings associated with EAAP | ||
| Number 44 | |||
| Back to Contents | Next | ||
Report on a Meeting on Ruminant Organic Meat And Milk Production, Athens, Greece, October 2001
A meeting on ruminant organic meat and milk production was held in Athens in October 2001 organized jointly by the Hellenic Society of Animal Production and the British Society of Animal Science. The meeting included two plenary sessions, two sessions devoted to oral presentations and one to a poster presentation.
During the first plenary session, four reports were presented: E.S. Kristensen and S.M. Thamsbors (Denmark) described the organic market of 4% in Austria, Denmark and Switzerland while it remains around 1% in most other European countries. While organic milk and fresh products reach 30% of the market, cheese and meat are much lower. The development of organic products is curbed by a lack of foresight as a result of confusion with labels and poor quality for a higher price.
Definition of organic milk and meat
G; Rahmann (Germany) defined an organic product as one produced naturally on the farm after a sufficient period of conversion and certified by an independent organization. Made official by EU regulations in1999 it must be free from genetically modified organisms, chemical products, hormones and antibiotics and respect the animals’ well-being. I. Wright (UK), L. Louloudis and G. Zervas (Greece) highlighted the fact that organic farming is promoted by the EU which, since the 1980s, has favoured a natural form of farming that protects the environment and enhances the value of farm products, to the detriment of intensive farming. G. Arsenos (Greece), Sp. Athanasiadou and L. Kyriazakis (UK) raised the question of animal health and well-being in organic farming. The banning of some practices, as well as the lack of scientific data, result in risks as far as the health and well-being of animals are concerned, in particular veterinary surgeons cannot always stop the development of some diseases. Further research and training is needed for efficient solutions. During the second plenary session, M. Kouba (France) discussed quality and the consequences on human health of organic production, which is a system more than a product label. As far as organoleptic qualities and the health safety of products are concerned, there are at present few reliable scientific comparisons between organic and traditional production methods. In order to meet consumers’ expectations, it seems necessary to study these problems.
Scale and benefits of organic products
E.M. Brown (UK) described the UK organic market which concerns 5,500 people, 500, 000 hectares and represented $605m in 1999-2000. Ruminant products make up 20% of this market. Future development is linked to consumers’ demand and the organization of a sustainable market. G. Siardos (Greece) mentioned the consequences of organic farming on soil fertility, the environment, the economy and sociology. It restores soil fertility, protects the environment as it favours sustainable production systems, and the high price of products reinforces farmers’ incomes. It increases jobs in agriculture and also favours rural development.
Research needed
A. Haring and S. Dabbert (Germany) spoke of the development of organic farming as based on present farmers’ practices. It seems that some adapted research work is necessary to increase the efficiency of this system. This work should be done by all-rounders who are able to take into account all the aspects of a system of production. Particular care must be given to veterinary training courses adapted to the problems raised by this system of production. During the two sessions devoted to oral presentations, most of the problems raised by organic farming were covered. In the Netherlands, the production of organic milk has reduced the production of greenhouse gases by 14% and soil acidification potential by 40%. However, it requires 40% more land. While traditional production depends on the economy, organic production is linked to the environment. In Norway, organic production increases the use of plant energy by animals. In Sardinia, the yield of ewe organic milk is higher but TP is somewhat lower and the milk’s coagulation time is reduced. In the UK, some consumers like organic meat better because it is favourable to the environment and to the well-being of animals. The increase in the number of mammary disease cases as well as the problem of the number of cells in milk were dealt with in three presentations. The technical and economic advantages of producing feeds on the farm instead of buying them outside were discussed in two papers. Finally, the inconsistencies between consumers’ opinions and scientific data, as far as meat is concerned, were highlighted.
International practices
Among the 28 posters presented, many dealt with extensive farming in different countries (Bangladesh, Brazil, Greece, Lithuania, New Zealand, Poland, Turkey) and raised the following topics :
In conclusion, this meeting allowed the participants to gain an almost total view of organic production and its problems. It highlighted the major differences between countries and a lack of consistency between what consumers think and scientific realities. The future of organic farming depends on the acquisition of scientific certainties and a tighter co-ordination between countries, thanks to some efficient action from international organizations.
Professor Jean-Louis Tisserand, France.
Report on Meeting and Activities of the European National Co-ordinators on Animal Genetic Resources.
The seventh annual workshop of the European National Co-ordinators (NCs) for the management of farm animal genetic resources was held in Budapest on August 24 – 25, 2001. Dr Mike Roper from the European Regional Focal Point (ERFP) Steering Committee chaired the meeting. The 45 participants represented 25 countries (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom) and different international organizations (FAO, FAO-SEUR, RBI, EAAP, NGB). The chairman welcomed the NCs and thanked France and specially Dr. D. Planchenault for funding of the ERFP during the last years. He announced that finally 10 countries had agreed to fund the ERFP, the 10th being The Netherlands, thus he congratulated everybody for having secured the continuation of the ERFP for the next 3 years.
Dr D. Planchenault reported on the activities of ERFP in the past year. In order to facilitate the communications and exchanges between the different National Focal Points (NFPs), the ERFP proposed one program (EFABIS) for funding (5th framework program of EU). The main objective of EFABIS is to develop an infrastructure linking national databases of Europe to the Regional database of Hanover (EAAP-AGDB) and to the Global Information System of FAO (DAAD-IS). This programme must be evaluated by the next evaluation round in October 2001.Since the beginning of July, the ERFP has the 10 funding countries and is, therefore, fully operational. The ERFP is funded by regular financial contribution of participating countries, which is paid into a trust fund, managed and fully audited by EAAP. All the counties are encouraged to participate. D. Planchenault explained that the philosophy of the ERFP is not to oblige countries to pay; since payment must be voluntary. B. Scherf agreed but indicated that the aim is to include all European countries and that we should mobilise the more silent NCs.
Ms. E. Martyniuk reported on the Second Ad Hoc Session of International Stakeholders in Animal Genetic Resources that took place in Rome, 5-6 June 2001. She also introduced SBSTTA, an expert body working for CBD. She indicated that the CGRFA agrees with Global Strategy; its next meeting has been pushed to 2002.
Ms B. Scherf reported on the current situation of the First Country-driven Report on the State of the World on Animal Genetic Resources (SOW-AnGR). 84 countries have confirmed its participation (22 European countries). The Regional training has already started. F. Vigh-Larsen (Denmark) informed that the North Europe will be held in Denmark 8th – 13th October 2001, and the South Europe training course would be held in Debrecen (Hungary) 22nd – 27th October 2001.
D. Planchenault presented a review of the criteria used under EU regulation 2078/92 for supporting local breeds at risk and FAO's criteria. He gave details on the new regulation 1750/99 on agri-environment measures. From the data available at the EAAP-AGDB, it appeared that the new criteria envisaged would considerably reduce the number of endangered breeds eligible for support. M. Roper asked the NCs to review a draft letter to be sent to EU Agricultural Commission. G. Gandini presented the proposal of the EAAP for selection criteria of breeds eligible for support within regulation 1750/99. The general aim is to implement a mechanism to maintain in Europe a variety of local breeds because of their role as a components of sustainable rural development. The objective is to obtain simple and clear criteria to rank breeds eligible for support.
M. Roper gave a overview of the situation of Foot and Mouth disease epidemics in UK. He stressed the point of danger for rare AnGR due mainly to the culling strategy for eradication of disease. The main actions taken were setting culling exemptions for sheep and goats, collecting semen samples for Heritage Gene Bank.
L. Telo da Gama presented the general structure of the organisms devoted to conservation of AnGR in Portugal and Spain, and their relation with Iberoamerican countries. He described the Iberoamerican Program of Science and Technology for the Development and its Network for Conservation of Biodiversity of Local Domestic Animals for Sustainable Rural Development. A. Georgoudis presented a Greek project aimed to compose the new type of Sykia cattle, well adapted to the pasture and climate, and utilize those animals to obtain quality meat in their specific region of production. H. Eding presented a kinship-based method of measuring genetic diversity, in the framework of his PhD-project on "Guidelines for cryoconservation of farm animals". T. Vares from the FAO sub-regional office for Central and Eastern Europe (FAO-SEUR), presented an overview of the situation in CEEC. She asked for more efforts to integrate poor European countries in the existing network, as well as for a full time regional or sub-regional co-ordination body.
The actual Steering Committee is maintained for another year. For the next year, a rolling system will be implemented and only one member will be replaced. Nominations for candidates should be sent to D. Planchenault. At least one of the members of the Steering Committee should be from the CEE country. The next NCs workshop will be held in Cairo.
Dr D. Planchenault (France); Dr E. Ruiz de Villalobos Zabala (Spain) rapporteurs.
Next: Book Reviews