HAL Id: hal-00886488
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00886488
Submitted on 1 Jan 2010
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entic research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diusion de documents
scientiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.
Conventionalisation of organic farming practices: from
structural criteria towards an assessment based on
organic principles. A review
Ika Darnhofer, Thomas Lindenthal, Ruth Bartel-Kratochvil, Werner Zollitsch
To cite this version:
Ika Darnhofer, Thomas Lindenthal, Ruth Bartel-Kratochvil, Werner Zollitsch. Conventionalisation of
organic farming practices: from structural criteria towards an assessment based on organic principles.
A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, Springer Verlag/EDP Sciences/INRA, 2010, 30
(1), �10.1051/agro/2009011�. �hal-00886488�
Agron. Sustain. Dev. 30 (2010) 67–81
c
INRA, EDP Sciences, 2009
DOI: 10.1051/agro/2009011
Review article
Available online at:
www.agronomy-journal.org
for Sustainable Development
Conventionalisation of organic farming practices: from structural
criteria towards an assessment based on organic principles. A review
Ika Darnhofer
*
, Thomas L
indenthal,RuthBartel-Kratochvil,WernerZollitsch
BOKU - Univ. of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Feistmantelstr. 4, 1180 Vienna, Austria
(Accepted 8 April 2009)
Abstract – Organic farming is widely perceived as being more environmentally friendly than conventional farming. As a form of sustainable
agriculture, it receives substantial support from policy for its contribution to environmental protection as well as the provision of amenities such
as biodiversity and cultural landscapes. Consumers are attracted to organic foods as they are produced without synthetic chemicals and comply
with higher animal welfare standards. Although organic farming certainly has the potential to fulfil these expectations, studies have shown that
some certified organic farms do not. Their practices comply with the regulations, but not with the principles of organic farming. This trend has
been called ‘conventionalisation’ of organic farming. In this paper we review the studies that discuss the conventionalisation of organic farming,
focusing on the farm level and on evidence from Europe. We argue that to strengthen organic farming’s transformative potential, the debate
must move beyond its focus on the bifurcation between artisanal and conventionalised organic farms, so as to capture the full range of empirical
heterogeneity. Our core argument is that to adequately understand the dynamics within organic farming and their potential impact on the ability
of organic farming to fulfil the expectations of consumers and policy-makers, it is not sufficient to focus on structural changes. Instead, we need
to assess whether or not the observed changes comply with the principles and values that are the fundament of organic farming.
organic agriculture / conventionalisation debate / Europe / plant production / animal husbandry
Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................ 67
2 An overview of the conventionalisation debate ....................... 69
2.1 Core issues of the debate ...................................... 69
2.2 Conventionalisation in the European context ................... 70
2.3 Shortcomings of the debate surrounding the conventionalisation
hypothesis .................................................... 70
3 A more discerning approach to studying change in organic farming.... 71
4 Towards principle-based indicators of conventionalisation ............ 73
4.1 Organic farming as value-based agriculture .................... 73
4.2 Exploring options for building an assessment framework ........ 73
4.3 Examples of potential indicators for conventionalisation......... 75
5 Conclusion ......................................................... 75
1. INTRODUCTION
Organic farming was developed in the 1940s in Switzerland
by Hans Müller, Maria Biegler and Hans Peter Rusch, as
* Corresponding author: ika.darnhofer@boku.ac.at
well as in the United Kingdom by Lady Eve Balfour and
Sir Albert Howard. Their developments were based in part
on the concepts of biodynamic farming initiated in the 1920s
by Rudolf Steiner in Germany. However, it was only in the
1980s, when the negative impact of intensive conventional
Article published by EDP Sciences
68 I. Darnhofer et al.
agricultural methods became apparent, that interest in organic
farming reached a broader public. In the European Union (EU)
organic farming has received policy support since the early
1990s for its potential to contribute to environmental protec-
tion, rural development and animal welfare (EC, 2004;Häring
et al., 2004; Nieberg et al., 2007). Organic farming is also
linked to the production of quality food, and policies have
been implemented to ensure transparency and fair competition
on the market. Support by consumers and by policy-makers
has resulted in a sizeable uptake of organic farming methods.
In 2005, around 4% of the Utilised Agricultural Area of the
25 Member States of the EU was certified organic, represent-
ing over 6 million ha and nearly 158 000 organic producers
(Eurostat, 2007). In the last decade the market for organic
products has grown steadily, both in Europe and elsewhere,
and is expected to keep increasing (Michelsen et al., 1999;
Willer et al., 2008).
Research on agronomic aspects of organic farming has
shown that crop yields tend to be lower in organic farming
(Mäder et al., 2002;Kautetal.,2008), albeit less variable
and less susceptible to drought (Lotter, 2003). Organic farm-
ing methods tend to increase soil organic matter and thus en-
hance soil fertility (Langmeier et al., 2002; Mäder et al., 2002),
making it less dependent on external inputs. Organic farm-
ing may also provide ecosystem services, increase biodiver-
sity and have a positive impact on the landscape (Letourneau
and Bothwell, 2008; Norton et al., 2009). However, studies
have pointed out that the potential benefits of organic farm-
ing are not always realised in all places and under all manage-
ment systems (e.g., Trewavas, 2001; Rigby and Cáceres, 2001;
Degré et al., 2007; Letourneau and Bothwell, 2008).
In the social sciences, there have been numerous studies
on reasons for farmers to convert to organic farming (e.g.,
Fairweather, 1999; Padel, 2008) and for consumers to pur-
chase organic foods (e.g., Brand, 2006; Holt, 2006). Research
has also addressed the potential of organic farming to con-
tribute to endogenous rural development, through fostering
direct producer-consumer relationships (e.g., Moore, 2008;
Renting et al., 2008; DuPuis and Gillon, 2009) or through
service provision (e.g., Darnhofer, 2005; Schermer, 2006;
Frederiksen and Langer, 2008; Lobley et al., 2009). Finally,
a number of researchers have analysed the influence of legal
regulations as well as of the entry of agribusiness and super-
markets into the organic food chain (e.g., Allen and Kovac,
2000; Alrøe and Noe, 2008; Tomlinson, 2008). However, as
Lamine and Bellon (2009) have shown, there has been little
dialogue between the agricultural and social sciences as well
as a general lack of emphasis on the trajectories of organic
farms and the understanding of transitions.
Transitions in organic agriculture and the trajectories of or-
ganic farms play a central role in the debate surrounding the
conventionalisation hypothesis. The hypothesis was first put
forward by Buck, Getz and Guthman in 1997 and has led to
an on-going, intense debate on how the developments within
organic farming can be understood and which patterns can
be discerned. The debate essentially hinges on two aspects:
whether the developments observed in the organic vegetable
sector in California are universal and whether they are in-
evitable.
According to the conventionalisation hypothesis, organic
farming is becoming a slightly modified version of modern
conventional agriculture, replicating the same history, result-
ing in many of the same social, technical and economic char-
acteristics (Buck et al., 1997; Hall and Mogyorody, 2001;
Guthman, 2004a). Organic farming could thus be subjected
to ‘industrialisation’, i.e. the implementation of economies of
scale at the farm level (larger farms), increased reliance on
purchased non-farm inputs (machinery, fertilisers, feed, agri-
chemicals), resource substitution (capital for land and labour),
implementation of organisational features associated with the
concept of the ‘firm’, and mechanisation of the production pro-
cess (Bowler, 1992). These mechanisms have been observed
both at the farm level as well as in processing and marketing
of organic food (Guthman, 2004a).
Conventionalisation is widely seen as problematic since or-
ganic farming has received public support for its potential to
contribute to environmental protection and rural development
(CEC). However, if organic farming increasingly comes to
resemble conventional farming, this potential contribution is
jeopardised, and organic farming might lose the support it cur-
rently receives from both consumers and policy-makers.
In this paper we present a brief review of the debate that
has surrounded the conventionalisation hypothesis. We also
discuss the empirical evidence that has been gathered to sup-
port and modify this hypothesis. We focus on the contribu-
tions from the EU
1
as the Common Agricultural Policy and
the multifunctional model of agriculture are likely to offer dif-
ferent opportunities and constraints to organic farms than lib-
eral agricultural policies. We will argue that a number of the
‘symptoms’, that have been used to identify conventionalisa-
tion at the farm level, may not be reliable indicators and that
they are thus not well suited to achieve a comprehensive as-
sessment of the type and direction of changes in organic farm-
ing. To overcome these weaknesses, we suggest that it may
be necessary to design an assessment framework that is ex-
plicitly based on the ethical principles and values that are the
foundation of organic farming. Such an assessment framework
could be used both to assess the ‘level of conventionalisation’
on individual organic farms and to guide their development in
accordance with the principles.
In this paper we will focus on conventionalisation at the
farm level rather than taking an agrarian political economy ap-
proach. This in no way denies the importance of sophisticated,
comprehensivestudies of food networks (e.g. Goodman, 1999;
Green and Foster, 2005; Brand, 2006; Lockie et al., 2006;
Follett, 2009), nor does it indicate that we are not aware of the
fact that all farmers operate within a larger political and eco-
nomic framework that affects their agronomical practices (e.g.,
Allen and Kovach, 2000; DeLind, 2000; Guthman, 2004b;
Thomas and Groß, 2005; Obach, 2007; Alrøe and Noe, 2008;
1
Especially in the 15 Member States of the former EU-15, as the
Member States that joined the EU since 2004 tend to have a differ-
ent agricultural structure and heritage, stemming from past socialist
policies.
Organic farming: towards principle-based practices 69
Tomlinson, 2008). We also fully acknowledge the importance
of consumer motivations (Lockie et al., 2002;Bähretal.,
2004; Padel and Foster, 2005; Holt, 2006) and the role super-
markets can play (Burch and Lawrence, 2005;Konefaletal.,
2005) in the development of organic farming. However, we ar-
gue that if the imperative of agricultural intensification under-
mines the potential of organic farming to contribute to agri-
cultural sustainability, then there should be clear evidence at
the farm level. Also, as organic quality is mostly based on the
production process, it is in large part defined by what happens
at the farm level. Arguably, conventionalisation should lead to
tangible changes in farm practices, which would threaten the
core identity of organic farming. The farm is thus probably the
most important level mediating the various influences exerted
by the different scales in the hierarchies of agri-food networks.
2. AN OVERVIEW
OF THE CONVENTIONALISATION DEBATE
2.1. Core issues of the debate
Trends towards conventionalisationwere first reported from
California (Buck et al., 1997; Guthman, 2004a), where high-
value crops within the organic vegetable commodity chain
were being appropriated by conventionally-based agribusi-
ness. Many of these commercial farms were abandoning the
more sustainable agronomic and marketing practices associ-
ated with organic agriculture (Guthman, 2000, 2004a). A first
thread of the conventionalisation debate thus tries to assess
whether such developments can also be identified in other lo-
cations and if so, how widespread such developments are. The
relevant evidence from international studies has been reviewed
by Lockie et al. (2006). They conclude that case studies from
around the world, e.g. by Hall and Mogyorody, 2001; Lockie
and Halpin, 2005; Jordan et al., 2006, show that concentra-
tion, de-localisation, institutionalisation and input substitution
certainly are occurring to a significant extent (Lockie et al.,
2006).
A second thread of the conventionalisation debate hinges
on whether conventionalisation affects all farms equally, or
whether there might be a ‘bifurcation’ of the organic sector
(see Fig. 1). A bifurcation would result if conventionalisa-
tion primarily affects large operations that specialise in mass-
producing a few high-growth, high-profit crops (Coombes and
Campbell, 1998). The smaller, ‘artisanal’ farms continue to
implement diversification strategies, using artisanal methods
to grow a variety of marketable crops (Buck et al., 1997;
Coombes and Campbell, 1998). This thread of the debate fo-
cuses on the ability of these ‘artisanal’ organic farms to resist
the economic pressures exerted by the large operations, i.e.
their ability to survive in the long term and ensuring that con-
ventionalisation does not spread to all organic farms.
Guthman (2004b) has argued that agribusiness involve-
ment unleashes the logic of intensification and therefore al-
ters the conditions under which all organic growers operate.
Through their control over processing and marketing, and
through their introduction of industrial inputs, agribusinesses
Figure 1. Schematic development of organic farming from the pio-
neers in bio-dynamic and bio-organic farming in the 1940s towards
certified organic farming in the 1990s and expected further devel-
opment according to the conventionalisation and the bifurcation hy-
potheses. (Note: the graphic is indicative of trends and is not based
on empirical data.)
make the smaller operations less profitable, as they compete
directly with the larger producers on the same markets. This
puts pressure on the artisanal organic farmers to adopt conven-
tional cropping, labour and marketing practices if they are to
survive. The growing constraints in decision-making, coupled
with increases in the economic pressures farmers face, could
thus cause an erosion of the ethical attitudes and behaviours of
farmers (Hendrickson and James, 2005).
Other authors, although acknowledging these pressures,
have emphasised the smallholder’s ability to resist concen-
tration and specialisation and have pointed out that a num-
ber of factors countervail conventionalisation (Coombes and
Campbell, 1998; Lockie et al., 2006; Guptill, 2009). These in-
clude the technology barriers faced by larger and more mono-
cultural operations; the biological limits to input substitution;
the ability of household-based enterprises to cope with un-
favourable returns through self-exploitation and reduced con-
sumption; the competitive advantage of small enterprises in
a range of markets and under a range of policy conditions;
their ability to target market niches; as well as consumer de-
mands for what are perceived to be local, speciality products.
Coombes and Campbell (1998), in their analysis of the devel-
opment of organic farming in New Zealand, not only empha-
sise that smallholders are expected to survive, but also show
that the relationship between small and large growers may well
be complementary. Indeed, larger actors may initiate research
and market development, and/or focus on different products or
markets.
The various contributions to the conventionalisation debate
have thus shown that although symptoms of conventionalisa-
tion can be identified fairly easily, a widespread conventional-
isation of organic farming is (still) constrained. This conclu-
sion needs to be understood as being based on case studies in
countries with a liberalised agricultural policy, e.g. California
(USA), Ontario (Canada), New Zealand and Australia. In
70 I. Darnhofer et al.
such a context, farmers receive few or no subsidies and are
thus more likely to be affected by the vagaries of market
forces. However, as Guthman (2004b) points out, the type
and degree of state support along with the agrarian structures
on which organic farming was built are likely to have a
strong influence on the extent, severity and pervasiveness of
conventionalisation.
2.2. Conventionalisation in the European context
In the EU, agriculture is characterised by a vast major-
ity of family farms and a minority of corporate farms. The
Common Agricultural Policy has embraced the concept of
multifunctional agriculture, thus recognising that farms not
only produce food, but also provide services such as land-
scape amenities, recreational space, environmental protection
and preservation of cultural heritage. Whereas large-scale agri-
culture may be efficient in producing food and fibre, small-
scale farms tend to be more efficient in supplying services that
are valued at a local level. Farms thus receive direct payments
for the provision of public goods. This supportive policy en-
vironment creates a different set of opportunities for organic
farmers.
Still, case studies assessing the changes in organic farm-
ing in Europe report on trends and practices that could in-
dicate conventionalisation processes. For example, the size
of organic farms is increasing, e.g. in Denmark (Langer and
Frederiksen, 2005)andinGermany(Best,2008). An analy-
sis of dairy herds in Norway shows that later entrants tend to
have a higher level of registered disease treatments per cow,
and an intensification of milk production based on a higher
use of concentrates (Flaten et al., 2006). Smith and Marsden
(2004) point out that the over-supply of some organic prod-
ucts (e.g., milk) has led to a ‘farm-based cost-price squeeze’
in the UK, which might be forcing farmers into progressively
more intense production strategies. Best (2008) finds that later
entrants seem to be somewhat less concerned about the en-
vironment. He also reports fewer mixed farms and a drop in
direct marketing. De Wit and Verhoog (2007) report conven-
tionalisation trends in organic pig and poultry production in
the Netherlands. Conventionalisation has also been reported
from arable farming, where permitted fertilisers of conven-
tional origin are increasingly used (e.g. vinasse, a byproduct
of the sugar beet industry). The intensive use of fertiliser has
resulted in mineral surpluses in the soil and higher nitrate lev-
els, e.g. in organic carrots (De Wit and Verhoog, 2007; Padel
et al., 2007). Despite these symptoms of conventionalisation,
a Europe-wide study concludes that conventionalisation does
not (yet) seem to be a dominant phenomenon in organic farm-
ing as a whole (De Wit and Verhoog, 2007).
Thus, in Europe as elsewhere, some organic farms are im-
plementing practices that may not be sustainable but that are
not explicitly prohibited by the standards (Padel et al., 2007).
Certified organic farming by itself is thus no guarantee for its
alternativeness, as has been pointed out by Guthman (2004b).
The question thus arises whether the symptoms that have
been identified indicate that conventionalisation is progress-
ing, thus undermining the potential contribution of organic
farming both to quality food and to environmental protec-
tion. To answer this question it is not only necessary to assess
whether the identified practices are spreading, it is also neces-
sary to assess whether the practices and symptoms reported in
the studies are valid and reliably indicate the conventionalisa-
tion of organic farming.
2.3. Shortcomings of the debate surrounding
the conventionalisation hypothesis
When critically assessing the methods used in the various
studies, a range of weaknesses can be identified. Most of these
are due to the fact that the available data does not allow one to
sufficiently capture the heterogeneity and complexity of the
on-going processes within organic farming. Indeed, there has
been a focus on analysing aggregated statistical data, and there
has been a lack of distinction between farm types, e.g. part-
time vs. full-time farmers or corporate vs. family farms. Fur-
thermore, there is a lack of statistical time-series data to ascer-
tain long-term trends. In this section we review some of the
approaches leading to conclusions that are based on circum-
stantial evidence rather than on valid variables and rigorous
analysis of comprehensive data sets.
One of the methodological weaknesses lies in comparing
early converters with later converters and deriving conclusions
on the change in attitudes, values and practices of organic
farmers. In this approach, a small group of pioneers who have
been organic for an extended period of time are compared with
farmers who have limited experience with organic farming
as they converted recently. This comparison is fundamentally
problematic, as it tends to ignore the learning processes lead-
ing to change in knowledge and attitudes that farmers undergo
after conversion (Padel, 2008). To reliably assess changes in
attitudes, a longitudinal study of both early and later convert-
ers would be required, but none has been reported so far.
A similar weakness can be found in studies that analyse ag-
gregated statistical data and assess changes in the ‘average’
organic farm at two points in time. These studies often con-
clude that organic farms are now larger than they used to be,
or that they are more specialised than they used to be. These
changes are then assumed to derive from farmers’ preferences,
indicating conventionalisation of on-farm practices. The prob-
lem with this approach is that the influence of changes in the
wider environment (markets, policies, technologies) tends to
be under-theorised. The identified differences may thus be the
result of processes that are not linked to conventionalisation.
For example, a reduction in the share of organic farms involved
in animal keeping might be due to the spread of organic farm-
ing in a new agro-ecological environment, i.e. a new cohort of
organic farms, rather than different practices by the same co-
hort. For instance, in Austria most organic farms in the period
1995–2000 were grassland-based dairy farms. After the year
2000 arable farms started converting to organic farming, but
these had few, if any, animals even prior to conversion. Similar
shifts in the national composition of organic farms were also
reported from Denmark (Langer, 2002). Thus, data indicating
