Breeding in organic farming: different strate-

gies, different demands.

W.J. Nauta, H. Saatkamp, T. Baars and D. Roep

Abstract – Due to regulations organic farming is sub- has to cope with differences in strategies and de-
jected to a different regime then conventional farm- mands.
ing. This results in different environments for ani- In the survey two opposing strategies most reflected
mals. The question is whether one overall breeding their farm (income) strategy were introduced: (1)
goal is sufficient to cover all different demands of specialisation in producing milk (to be processed
organic farmers. A survey among 132 Dutch organic elsewhere) as dominant source of income (economy
dairy farmers revealed that 55% of the farmers are of scale is prevailing here), or combining multiple
specialized in milk production and 45% is running a activities at farm level as different sources of income
multi-functional farm. The specialized milk production (where economy of scope is prevailing) (Ventura and
farms were significantly more intensive in farming Milone, 2004).
compared to the multifunctional farms. Farmers from
both strategies were also asked to value different MATERIALS AND METHODS
breeding aspects of animals. In general farmers val- In a short, exploring survey organic dairy farmers
ued different aspects more or less the same: they were asked about their main farming strategy, farm
wanted a robust, long living cow, with good udder characteristics, breeding goal, prevalence for differ-
health and fertility. However, farmers wanted to ent production, conformation and functionality traits
achieve this goal in many different ways. From farm- of animals and the breed or cross breed they wanted
ers specialized in milk production, 29% used pure to go on with in the future.
bred Holstein cows while 51 % chose for cross breed- For farming strategy they could choose between:
ing with more robust breeds. Also 57% of the multi- (1) Specialisation in milk production as domi-
functional farms chose for cross breeding, but an- nant income strategy (‘Specialized Milk
other 30% chose for native Dutch breeds. These dif- farms’)
ference in the use and crossing of different breeds (2) Combining multiple income generating ac-
questions the overall breeding goal. It is important to
tivities as income strategy (‘Multi-functional
know why farmers opt for different breeds, pure or
farms’)
crossing. We developed some hypothesis on this, to
stimulate further discussion and research 1 RESULTS
More than half (55 %) of the 132 responding farms
INTRODUCTION were Milk farms. The other 45 percent of the farms
was multi-functional. Clear differences were found
Due to regulations organic farming is subjected to a
between the characteristics of these to farms strate-
different regime then conventional farming. This
gies (see Table 1). Specialized milk farms did have a
results in a different environment for the animals
significantly higher milk yield per cow and more kg
(Nauta et al, 2006a). The often debated question
milk per ha. The cows got significantly more kg
then is, if organic farming needs a breed of her own,
concentrates per year and were mainly housed in
a breed adapted to the organic regime. Organic
free stalls with cubicles. Multifunctional farms did
farming is however far from homogeneous. By their
have lower productions per cow and housed the
principles organic farming, such as low external
cows for 40% in deep litter stalls and still 10% did
input, is more dependent on the local agro-
have a tie-stall.
ecological system. Organic farming is also more
multifunctional in nature: i.e. serving multiple goals
Table 1: Characteristics of specialized milk and
and combining different activities at a farm (e.g.
multifunctional farms
cheese making, nature development, human care). Specialized Milk Multi-functional
Research has revealed different strategies in organic farming farming
farming (Padel, 2000; Verhoog et al., 2003). These N=74 N=58
Mean (sd.) Mean (sd.)
different strategies also result in different circum-
% bio-dynamic 7 22
stances and as one can argue, different functional Total farm area (ha) 52 (22) 51 (29)
needs with respect to theirs animals. So the ques- Quota (tons) 380 (154) 282 (164)
tion raised in this article, based on a survey among % nature grass 0.14 (0.18) 0.19 (0.23)
organic farmers, is whether one overall breeding No. Milking cows 58 (21) 48 (25)
Milk per ha (kg) 7656 (2540) 5737 (2147)
goal is sufficient to cover all different demands of LSU/ ha 1.6 (0.38) 1.6 (0.49)
organic farmers, or if institutional breeding somehow % Holstein blood in herd 75 (28) 37 (31)
Replacement (%) 35 (10) 33 (11)
Concentrates/cow /yr (kg) 1232 (376) 973 (395)
Average prod./cow (kg) 6634 (1306) 5820 (959)
Nauta, W.J., Louis Bolk Institute, Department of Animal Husbandry, Housing:
Hoofdstraat 24, NL-3972 LA Driebergen Free stall/cubicles(%) 76 50

Hollandseweg 1, NL-6706 KN, Wageningen.

Surprisingly, the breeding goal and preferred char-
Baars, T., University of Kassel, Department biodynamic agriculture,
acteristics of the animals were very similar for all
Nordbahnhofstrasse 1a, D-37213 Witzenhausen
farms. Farmers wanted a weight of about 43 % for
Roep, D., Rural Sociology Group, Wageningen University, Holland- functional traits in the breeding goal, 32% for pro-
seweg 1, NL-6706 KN, Wageningen.
duction traits and 25 for conformation traits. For organic conditions (Nauta et al., 2001). With the
production traits, the main focus was on a long pro- choice for new breeds and crossbreeds the farmers
ductive life, a good milk yield per lactation and high probably try to get stronger cows (due to heterosis)
milk compound (protein and fat). The most impor- which need less care but give a good milk yield
tant functional traits were fertility and udder health. It can be questioned why farmers choose for foreign
For conformation the conformation of the udder and or native breeds. Nowadays there are 7 foreign
quality of legs were most important (results not breeds available which are actively supplied by dif-
shown). ferent companies in the Netherlands. Also breeds
Despite of a similar breeding goal, big differences like the Groninger white face become more popular
were found between the breeds and cross breeds by the public. This surely has stimulated the choices
used between the strategies (see Fig. 1). Forty-six for such breeds or crossbreeds. But there is no in-
percent of the specialized milk farms used Holstein formation available on the special suitability of these
cows as a bases and one half of these farms wanted breeds for organic farming. Decisions are based on
to go on with pure bred Holstein. The other half the fact that these breeds have stronger claws,
started to cross breed their Holstein cows with better fertility etc. But research should been carried
breeds like Browns Swiss, Montbéliarde and Maas- out on the overall suitability of these breeds and
Rijn-IJssel cattle. especially the cross breeds.
The choice for Dutch native breeds might be an
Specialized milk farms indication that for this farmers breeding has a ‘sec-
ond dimension’: the preference and saving of this
breeds. This is more accepted in organic farming and
organic farming might open the doors for such initia-
other cross tives (Darnhofer, 2005). Native breeds might give a
breeds better recognition of organic production, especially
17% HF
for multifunctional farms, which do not need high
29%
Foreign milk production but have strong connections with
breeds consumers and society (Nauta et al., 2006b)
10%
Dutch CONCLUSION
breeds
HF-cross
Farmers are active searching for the best type of
7%
34% cow for their farms. The difference in the use and
Jersey crossing of different breeds questiones the overall
3% breeding goal. Other aspects of breeding become
important in organic farming, like the breed it self.

Multi-functional farmers REFERENCES

Darnhofer, I. (2005) Organic Farming and Rural
Development: Some Evidence from Austria. Socialis
Ruralis 45: 308-320
HF
other cross 2% HF-cross Nauta, W.J., T. Baars, A.F. Groen, R.F. Veerkamp &
breeds
26% D. Roep, (2001). “Organic Breeding, a Way to Go.
31%
Discussion Paper”. (Louis Bolk Instituut, Driebergen,
Jersey www.louisbolk.nl).
0%
Foreign
breeds
Nauta, W.J.,Veerkamp, R.F., Brascamp, E.W., and H.
7%
Dutch Bovenhuis. (2006a). Genotype by environment
breeds interaction for milk production traits between
34% organic and conventional dairy cattle breeding in the
Netherlands. Journal of Dairy Science, in press.

Figure 1: Distribution of breeds and crossbreeds at special- Nauta, W.J., Saatkamp, H., Baars T. and D. Roep.
ized milk and multifunctional farms (2006). Demands for organic breeding. (in prep).

Only 2% of the multi-functional farms wanted Padel, S., (2000). “Strategies of organic milk pro-
Hosteins. Thirty-four percent of the multifunctional duction”. In Hovi, M., Bouilhol, M., (eds.). Human-
farms wanted native Dutch breeds like Maas-Rijn-
animal relationships: Stockmanship and housing in
IJssel, Groninger White face cattle and Dutch Frie-
sians (FH). Also farmers started crossbreeding their organic livestock systems. Proceedings of the 3th
Holstein and MRIJ cows (other) with stronger breeds NAHWOA Workshop, 21-24 October, Clermont-
comparable with their specialized milk farming farm- Ferrand, 121-135.
ers.
Overall there were 18 different Holstein (two- and Ventura, F. and P. Milone (2004) Novelty as Redefi-
three-way) cross breeds combinations chosen for the nition of Farm Boundaries. In Wiskerke, J.S.C. and
future by 42 farms. For cross breeding MRIJ there
J.D. van der Ploeg (eds). Seeds of Transition. (Royal
were 6 different combinations chosen at 10 farms.
van Gorcum, Assen, ISBN 90.232.3988.1)
DISCUSSION
Verhoog, H., Matze, M., Lammerts Van Bueren,
The overall breeding goal for a strong and long living
cow is probably a reaction on bad experiences with E.,and T. Baars, (2003). Integrity, ecology and envi-
Holstein cows. In the period 1999-2000 many or- ronmental care: aspects to understand the concept
ganic dairy farmers complained about the durability of naturalness in organic farming. Agricultural and
of Holstein cows (which they mainly had) under Environmental Ethics 16: 29–49.