Chapter 11 From conventional to organic farming: an analysis

In the first part of the report, seven farmers discussed their reasons for becoming organic farmers. Closely related to the reasons for a change in farming system are their goals. For these farmers those goals were such that they felt they had to farm organic or bio-dynamic. They also talked about how they had made the transition with the resources they had available to them. The problems with this approach to farming, and how to overcome those problems, were other topics of the discussions.

Here, an attempt is made to detect any common threads in the farmers' stories, which may be generally applicable. If so, they might also be relevant for those who are about to embark on an organic management system.

First some characteristics of organic farming are considered, starting with those of farmers themselves: their goals and their reasons for conversion. The focus is on those aspects which have been mentioned by others as important in order to make it as on organic farmer. Those aspects include the level of commitment to organic agriculture and the level of support received from other members of the family. A few physical aspects are then mentioned such as climate, and the effects of organic farming on types of weeds on the farm and on crop yields.

Subsequently, problems are summarised with which organic farmers struggled when converting to an organic management, and measures these farmers took to cope with these problems are then considered, and the present (financial) situation summarised.

There are some characteristics of farmers discussed in the previous chapters, and also of their farm or farm environment, which seem similar. We first look at the farmers, and than at some physical characteristics of the farm.

- Farmers' goals and reasons to convert

Of the goals farmers mentioned as contributing to them becoming organic, two stood out as all important.

The first one can be captured under the heading of soil and natural environment. Some farmers mention stewardship of the land, wanting to farm within the capability of the land, and wanting to maintain the quality of the soil. Others talk about stewardship of an eco-system and working with nature.

The second goal mentioned by most farmers is the wish to 'produce quality food'. These farmers were clearly not satisfied with the quality of the food they produced under a conventional system.

The reasons for changing from conventional farming are closely related to these goals. Most farmers mentioned (major) problems with their soil. Some related problems with crops and stock which are often related to soil issues. One in the sample did not change to organics, because they started their farming career as organic farmers. But they also talk about soil quality as a major reason for being organic farmers.

- Level of commitment

The level of commitment to organic farming is closely related to the reasons why farmers change the system in the first place.

Some of the farmers in the study experienced problems with their soil, crop and animals (which they attributed to their (conventional) way of farming) to such a degree that they felt they had to drastically change the farming system or get out of farming. For these there seems little doubt that they must have been totally committed to give organic farming a go. Of course when, after a number of years, the system seemed to work, there was no reason to go back to the conventional way of farming.

The other farmers believed that their goals (maintenance of soil quality and production of good quality food) could be more easily met within an organic rather than a conventional management system. As some have experienced that they can make the organic system work, there is no reason for them either to turn back to conventional farming.

The three farmers who converted last, although seeming to have a high level of commitment, expressed some sentiments of uncertainty about the future.

A bio-dynamic farmer from Narrandera in New South Wales, who was not interviewed for this study but commented on this report, mentions that, in order to make it as an organic farmer, there needs to be total commitment to this way of farming. In his opinion this is only possible by 'going organic' in one go. He surmises that burning the bridges (that is, by making a total commitment such that going back to conventional farming is not possible (or very difficult)) is the only way to make organic farming a success.

- Level of support

All farmers talked about the importance of having support from their spouse in starting with organic farming. Some said that they would have taken that course of action anyway, even if they had not had support; but even so, they acknowledged the importance of the support. Others said they would not have started with organic farming without their spouses' support.

Support from other sources was recognised as being important such as from other organic farmers. However, not everybody had a network of support outside the farm.

- Climate

As very little research has been carried out on organic cereal-livestock farming, one needs to be careful with drawing conclusions from research which has been done. Wynen (1989a) postulated that the fully-organic farmers in the 1985-86 survey farmed in less marginal areas than those who were considered semi-organic (those who were close to organic management but probably would not be able to get organic certification from the certifying organisations). In that publication the question was asked whether organic farming under more marginal circumstances is more difficult than if, for example, the land is less marginal. No conclusions could be drawn, although the attention was drawn to these matters.

The only figures related to climate gathered in this survey, the average rainfall figures, recorded between 350 mm and 475 mm for the seven farmers. None of these farmers remarked that their particular climatic circumstances were especially difficult for farming organically as opposed to conventionally.

- Kinds of weeds

Weeds are one of the main problems encountered by organic farmers and more is said about the topic below. Here, however, some words about the kinds of weeds on organic farms.

Some farmers talked about the dominant weeds on their farms changing over time. Under the conventional system before conversion, the weed problem changed from broad-leaf weeds to grass weeds (wild oats (Avena fatua) and rye-grass (Lolium spp.)) to 'rubbishy grass' weeds (such as silver grass (Spinifex hirsutus)). Then, after some years of organic management, weeds like silver grass (Spinifex hirsutus) became less of an issue and weeds such as rye-grass (Lolium spp.) came back again. The reason put forwards by one of the farmers was that, with a decreasing soil quality, weeds which survive are the 'less useful' ones. With an increasing soil quality the 'more useful' ones come back.

This brings us to the second issue on this topic. The word 'weeds' means different things to different people. The more useful 'weeds' can be used in the system. Several farmers recognised this. For example, two farmers talked about plants which they consider weeds in crops, but are happy to have in their pasture (such as phalaris (Phalaris spp.) and capeweed (Arctotheca calendula)).

- Yields

Several farmers mentioned that their crop yields were lower than those on conventional farms. The reasons given were mainly that, in order to beat the weeds or insect cycles, planting on their farm occurred later than on their neighbour's far. One farmer did not give a reason, but remarked merely that the saving on super meant that the returns were still similar. Another farmer said that, under certain circumstances, organically grown crops can yield higher than those grown under conventional management. A third farmer mentioned that farmers in transition should count on lower yields in the early years.

One farmer found in a trial in 1990-91, that crops planted with some fertilisers, allowed under the standards of organic licensing schemes, could yield as high as those commonly used on conventional farms.

The Narrandera-farmer mentioned the following points in connection with yields:

- farms with a history of high phosphate and nitrogen input should have enough nutrients locked away to sustain the level of production during the conversion process, provided methods are used to activate the reserves (like deep ripping in conjunction with the bio-dynamic sprays)

- on farms with a low fertility level, yield decreases should be avoidable by moderate use of organic nitrogen and rock phosphate (according to soil analysis) provided that management methods which tie up nitrogen (like stubble and straw retention) are avoided until the biological activity in the soil is such, that the organic matter is converted into humus at a fast pace

In this Section we discuss the problems encountered by farmers when they converted. For some of the farmers it is a while ago that they went through that process. For them the problems which they expect they would encounter if they converted now are discussed. A number of the problems do not only occur during the transition process but continue after an organic system has been established.

Organic farmers often speak of the quality of their soil as the most important aspect of their success in farming. A large part of their management is therefore directed towards getting that aspect of the system right.

In cropping, weeds were the major problem while pests, in the form of insects, fungi or diseases, were not a major problem for any of the farmers. This despite the fact that a number had expected it to be so.

In the management of livestock, pests were more of a problem and were sometimes treated in conventional ways.

In order to implement organic agriculture in general and to cope with the problems mentioned above, more information is needed to take action. Lack of it, especially in the early stage of conversion, was seen as a major difficulty by most of the farmers. The complaints centred mainly around inputs in the production process, and they can be divided into two groups:

- Place of sale

- Efficiency of inputs

- Fertiliser experiments were reported by several farmers.

- Suitable crops to include in the rotation or pasture species were specifically reported upon by three farmers.

Some farmers reported upon mental difficulties to adjust to changes brought about by moving towards organic farming. For example, a number of farmers mentioned that, even when the crop does not look that good, it often yields higher than with the same appearance but grown under conventional management. In this connection one farmer noted that the organic pasture was of higher quality than that which he grew under the conventional system. He could see that the sheep were thriving on a paddock where, if that had been grown conventionally, they would have had to be moved to another paddock because of shortage of feed. The interesting part of this is that, although he was convinced about it, he still found it hard to actually increase the sheep numbers. He felt he needed some more time to get used to the idea.

Another example of the need for mental adjustment is the change in what the paddock is supposed to look like. One farmer found it hard to be seen by their peers as farmers with 'lower yields and a dirty crop', although they themselves could well be happy with the financial returns of that crop.

A third example of mental stress is the uncertainty which is connected with starting organic farming. It was reported that it was rather stressful not to know how the income would be affected when they changed the management system.

A fourth example, although not directly mentioned by farmers in this survey, was given by farmers in the 1986 survey (Wynen 1989a). It was related to seeing weeds in the crop and finding it very hard not to 'do' anything to stop them from growing. However, the same farmer who reported this also mentioned that, in the end, the weeds did not affect the yields nearly as much as originally thought.

Most farmers reported upon the fact that they were considered 'odd' or 'eccentric', and that they needed a thick skin to be able to withstand that social pressure. Several farmers mentioned they had felt isolated, because their farming practice was seen by many as being not acceptable.

11.4.1 General

As the soil is seen as the key to successful organic farming many of the farmers talked about how the soil should be treated. They spoke of crop rotations, nutrients, cultivations, use of livestock and other techniques to get the soil in optimum condition. Crops and livestock were then to benefit from this improved environment, so that pests and diseases were less likely to occur.

Of course, the above mentioned techniques (and many others) are also used for other purposes such as for weed, pest and disease management. In the rest of this Section we will first look at the solutions to specific problems such as those occurring with crops and livestock. We will then look at the solutions to problems with inputs used in the production process (such as machinery).

11.4.2 Weeds

In cropping, weeds are an important issue for organic farming. A large part of the farming enterprise is directed to cope with them, for example by way of:

- design of rotation and choice of crop (all surveyed farmers)

- manipulation of planting date

- mowing crop or pasture

- choice of cultivation technique (all surveyed farmers)

- use of livestock with possibly re-fencing

- hand pulling

- adaptation of seeding rate.

All farmers used several of the above mentioned methods to deal with weeds. Some might well have used more methods than discussed in the interview.

11.4.3 Insects

Insects in crops do not appear to be a problem. Some farmers talked about red legged earth mite in the early years of conversion, but the problem seems to solve itself.

To prevent insect damage in storage, farmers mention that a special kind of storage is needed (air-tight containers) which does not require a synthetic insecticide (although some other substance such as carbon di-oxide is still needed to keep the product insect-free). Several farmers had either increased their storage space with appropriate space in order to accommodate the fact that they could not sell all their produce at harvesting time or thought they might need to do so in the foreseeable future. One farmer, who has recently moved to another location, did find enough storage space on this farm, although he would have had to expand it if he had stayed where he was.

Insects in stock are generally more of a concern. For external parasites, all farmers used dips to some degree, although not necessarily in each year and not necessarily of a kind which is not permitted under organic management. For example, one farmer did not dip in the 1980s, but dipped again in the last two years, another dipped in only three of the last ten years, a third don't dip usually and two farmers did not in 1991. The same picture emerges for the internal parasites, where some farmers drench only some of the flock (such as the lambs at weaning and ewes, or when they are bought onto the farm. Against fly-strike many farmers had the long-term strategy of culling. In the short term many used conventional methods; and one used diesoline. Of the four farmers with a merino breeding flock three mulesed their animals.

11.4.4 Diseases

None of the farmers were using a seed protectant ('pickle'), and most considered that there were no problems because of it. However, one farmer did mention that, after a number of years 'fresh' barley seed needed to be brought in because they could get some smut in the barley after that time.

In stock, only one of the farmers uses vaccines on a regular basis but only on part of the flock, on lambs at marking time.

11.4.5 Machinery and other capital items

When discussing the need for other capital items most farmers who plant into stubble reported that, when moving towards organic management, they experienced problems with seeding. They mentioned that they had to adjust their existing equipment or buy machines which could cope with the extra stubble. One farmer talked about a chaff spreader on the harvester. Some farmers mentioned the benefits of a ripping implement with the Wallace plough, and Yeoman's plough getting a special mention. To combat weeds, two used a disc plough and one a mouldboard plough. The rest used tine implements. One of the farmers had problems with the spreading of the fertiliser, for which he is considering the purchase of additional equipment.

Several farmers mention that smaller paddocks for the purpose of weed control (with livestock), worm control, and soil management is important. This means that fencing might become an important capital outlay, although the use of electrical fencing, where possible, could decrease this cost considerably. Most farmers expressed the need to invest in extra storage space.

As yet, nothing has been said about the returns to organic farming in comparison with conventional farming.

When talking about the returns to organic farming it is necessary to distinguish between the period when the system is in change (during conversion), and the time after the change, when the system is more developed (in a 'steady state'). Some of the organic farmers in this report were in the conversion stage, others were clearly past that stage.

No neighbours of these farmers were interviewed, so that a direct comparison with conventional farming cannot be made. However, detailed financial data for the year 1990-91 were obtained from the organic farmers, which is compared here with data from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE). For four of the organic farmers net cash receipts and returns to capital and management (which is the net cash receipts minus non-cash costs such as family labour and depreciation, and minus interest paid) were higher than the averages for the state as calculated by ABARE. One farmer's net cash returns were similar to those of ABARE (no figures for returns to capital and management were available), and two farmers showed lower returns than their State's average.

The comparison of eight organic cereal-livestock producers (who had been farming organically for, on average, almost 20 years) with a conventional neighbour showed that, at least for 1985-86, returns to farming were similar for the two groups. This was true both for the farm cash income, and for the returns to capital and management (Wynen 1989a).

Some calculations about the returns to organic farming in the conversion stage, as compared to conventional farming, are made below.

Having identified the most pressing problems for organic farmers when they convert it is now time to turn to the questions posed in Chapter 3.

11.6.1 Which part of the farm?

Of the seven farmers interviewed for this study, six converted the whole farm at once, although not all for the same reasons. Two did so because their farm was in a condition that a drastic change in system was required. They felt that they did not have to lose a lot, as they could see the farm going down-hill fast under the present management system. Three farmers changed the practice in one go because that was the only way in which they wanted to farm, and one farmer found themselves being organic after implementing a number of techniques which, together, could be considered as organic. On one farm the conversion is carried out on only part of the farm, although they also originally started the organic system on the whole farm.

There are several factors to consider when deciding whether to start the conversion on the whole or part of the farm. There is little doubt that conversion towards organics can be costly (see below), the cost being dependent on a range of factors. One of the factors is the available alternative. When you are in a situation like some of the interviewed farmers, you might find that you don't have a lot to lose and prefer to go all the way in one go.

Another factor is the history of the farm. There are indications that, if the farm has been farmed intensively in the past and is still producing well, the decrease in yield might be greater than if the production system was run close to an organic system anyway. In such a case the temptation to convert the farm over time might be greater. Alternatively, if the farm has been close to organic management for a while, the transition to it might be naturally carried out on the whole farm in one go.

A different reason for 'going organic' in one go is that you can no longer see the sense in farming in the conventional way. Three farmers displayed at least some aspects of such a sentiment. A more positive way in which to put this is that they were convinced that farming in an alternative to the conventional way would be more satisfying, certainly in the long-run.

1.6.2 Timing of conversion

The timing of conversion (that is, where to start in the rotation) is only an issue when the farm is converted over time (partial conversion). Of the seven farmers interviewed, only one converted this way.

The way in which he went about it was to start in paddocks which were likely to be easiest to convert. These paddocks were characterised by:

- soil which could stand cultivation without deterioration

- area with fewest weeds

The area consisted of several paddocks, so that a full rotation could be carried out.

11.6.3 Which crops?

The decision about which crops to include in the rotation is influenced by a number of factors. The most obvious ones are climate, soil characteristics (present and future), the need for pest management (especially weeds), available labour, machinery and equipment, and marketing possibilities.

Climate has a rather drastic influence on the range of crops which can be included in the rotation. Since this factor cannot be changed in a broad-acre scale, we will not spend more time on this here.

Soil characteristics and the need for pest management considerably influence the number of years crops are grown in the total rotation. In general, organic farmers include more pasture than conventional farmers. In a comparison between organic and conventional cereal-livestock farmers in South-eastern Australia (Wynen, 1989a) the average area cropped on organic farms was found to be 47 per cent, and on conventional farms 77 per cent of the arable area in 1985-86. The average area cropped as a percentage of the total arable area on these seven farms in 1990-91 was 34 per cent.

In addition, some farmers mentioned that they would at least consider mowing a crop, which was originally planted for grain, if there were too many weeds in it. Another, less drastic, way of managing weeds which affects the kind of crop planted is to include a crop in the rotation which can be mowed before the seeds set, such as hay made of oats. One farmer uses this technique extensively.

Organic farmers in general are interested in including different crops for a number of reasons, such as to provide nutrients in the soil (nitrogen fixing crops and green manure), to retrieve nutrients and moisture from deep in the soil profile (long root system, such as lucerne), and to provide competition with weeds (crops such as barley).

There are, however, occasions when organic farmers are limited in their possibility to grow certain crops which are grown by neighbouring conventional farmers in the same areas. For example, conventional farmers around two of the organic farmers grow peas and beans, which these organic farmers feel they can not include in their rotations at present. Peas are a problem because of the pea weevil, and beans because of their susceptibility to fungi.

It is possible that organic farmers will find a solution to such problems, just as has happened with chickpeas. Two farmers plant this crop late, which eliminates the possibility of Heliotaxis completing its life-cycle, and so becoming a pest. The consequence is that their yields are generally lower than those on conventional farms, which is partly offset by a decrease in input costs, and partly by the beneficial effect on the farm.

The influence of available markets on the choice of crop is also starting to show. For example, one farmer is growing more oats now than they used to (instead of wheat), as there is a market for bio-dynamic oats.

11.6.4 Livestock

All seven farms included in this study had livestock, as did all 13 organic and semi-organic farms in the 1985-86 study (Wynen, 1989a). Three of the 13 conventional farmers interviewed for that study did not have livestock at all and on average these farmers cropped 67 per cent of their total arable land, as compared to 46 per cent on all organic farms. This shows a tendency towards cropping by conventional farmers in those areas. However, organic farmers in general say that the livestock enterprise is essential for an organic farm. Reasons for this are:

- weed management (all farmers)

- manure availability

Two farmers stated specifically that they have different kinds of livestock in order to get rid of different kinds of weeds, and one farmer in order to get different types of manure.

Some farmers insist on breeding their own replacement stock, so that they have less problems with internal and external parasites.

None of the farmers mentioned availability of organic feed as a limiting factor in their operations. In 1990-91 none of them bought feed. It is reasonable to assume that this is generally not a problem.

11.6.5 Farm equipment

The main implements a farmer might need to consider when converting to organic agriculture are:

- tyned plough

- trash seeder

- roller

Storage space is also mentioned as important.

11.6.6 Inputs other than farm equipment

All farmers in the survey, except for one, had switched to other sources of nutrients than those used when they were conventional farmers.

In order to minimise the use of dips and drenches, some organic farmers cull their flock on susceptibility to internal and external parasites, as they do to fly-strike. They may also use conventional means of pest management, when confronted with severe infestations, in addition to alternative means.

11.6.7 Marketing

Most farmers mentioned problems with marketing at some stage. Grains are marketed now in the organic market by all four who are certified as organic farmers. Two of the farmers are not licensed yet. One, who is under conversion, did not find a market for the cereals grown under that label (Level B) for the 1990-91 crop.

Only one farmer markets the animals in a premium market.

11.6.8 Cash flow

Cash flow, although the last of the issues to be addressed in this chapter, is certainly not the least important aspect.

In fact, although none of the farmers said anything specifically about it, they kept on referring to it. 'If I could afford it I would do ...'. It is obvious that, unless you can survive the time of conversion from conventional farming to the new system, there is no sense in even trying. Part of the problem is, however, to get an estimate of how much it could cost. And of course, such an estimate is very dependent on a number of factors such as the history of the farm, the available resources at the time of conversion, and the ones which are needed (and their costs) in order to implement the necessary changes. The next section summarises some financial aspects of conversion to organic cereal-livestock farming.

Chapter 12 Cost of conversion

There is little doubt that, when cereal-livestock farmers in Australia move from conventional to organic farming, the returns possible under conventional management are reduced. The question is how large will that reduction be.

The answer depends considerably on the assumptions which are made in connection with a number of variables. The main ones are the availability of premium prices for organic products, changes in conventional output prices, the level of yield reductions, changes in rotations and new investments needed.

A model was set up to imitate as closely as possible a typical conventional farm, together with an organic farm, in the Tatiara district in South Australia. Conditions were then changed such that a conversion towards organic agriculture was approximated according to the data available at present.

Such a simulation shows that, without the aid of premium prices, farmers' decrease in gross returns can be considerable (reaching a maximum of $15,000 in year 2 and decreasing over the years to $6,000 in year 12). With premiums for organic products, these decreases are considerably less, although the first four years are still negative (at a maximum of $12,000 in year 2). Increased livestock prices and similar cereal yields in the transition and the steady-state organic period decrease losses in the transition period, but not to the extent that premium prices do. Increased conventional product prices widen the gap between in-transition and conventional farming.

In practice it is likely that all of these factors occur to some degree: most farmers will be able to sell some of their crop on the organic market and secure a premium, the livestock prices might well increase in the near future and not every farmer will have yield decreases as severe as those used in this Chapter.

We can therefore be reasonably sure that the picture painted of farm returns under conventional product prices is pessimistic. The most optimistic picture, in which the organic cereal crops are sold for a premium, prices of livestock and livestock products have almost doubled, and no transitional yield decreases eventuate, the (considerable) decrease in farm returns occurs only in the first few (two) years of conversion, while there is a large surplus from year 5. It is also not likely that this picture is realistic.

Before detailed conclusions are drawn from this model a word of warning about the validity and applicability of the model. The model was not optimised, that is, no attempt was made to discover which rotation would provide the least loss in income. Although improvement of the model might well be possible, the scope for altering activities (by changing the rotation) is somewhat limited by the greater importance placed on particular rotations in organic agriculture. Since rotations are an important tool to combat fertility and pest problems in organic farming, changes in crop mixes and sequences can have more negative consequences (increased weed problems, with subsequent yield reductions) than under conventional management (where fertility and pests can be combated with fertilisers and pesticides). The improvement to the model is therefore likely to be more in the area of decreasing the variability of returns in the different years of transition.

The particular yields and rotations are peculiar to the particular enterprise and area discussed. Although the general principles (decrease in yield and total area cropped, and a change in rotations), and trends (decreased income in the early years of transition, improving over time) are likely to apply anywhere else, absolute figures should be treated with care.

The results pertain to conditions in 1990-91, especially for output prices. With changes in those conditions, the results in absolute terms might well be completely different. For example, in 1990-91 prices for canola and chickpeas were close to $300, while in 1991-92 these had dropped to between $220-$230. Prices of wheat were at a low in 1990-91 ($120-130) as compared to expected prices for 1991-92 ($150-160). Changes in prices can not but have an effect on the relative values in this model.

In spite of these limitations, use of the model has shown the trend and magnitude of the costs of transfer from conventional to organic cereal-livestock farming, and identified how these costs vary as various output prices and yields vary.

Chapter 15: Summary and conclusions

In this report seven farmers discussed their farms, the process of conversion towards organic agriculture; their ideas about the problems that process brought with it; the ways in which they had tried to solve the problems on their farm; and, with the benefit of hindsight, how they would convert if they would do so now.

Those who are interested in starting to move towards organic farming might wonder whether there are any general themes from which to learn how to go about it. Let's see if any generalisations can be made from the farmers' stories in this report.

None of the farmers came to organic farming without having had a prior period of reflection. Most saw problems within the system they were using, and felt that they didn't have much choice or that organic farming would give them more satisfaction, either because of their own health, the quality of the food they produced and/or the challenge organic farming brought. Most also mentioned that reading certain books had been important in their process of reflection.

They all stress that the support from other members of the family has been extremely important in either starting with organic farming, or being able to continue with it.

Being seen to be 'different', and mostly 'less' of a farmer by relatives, neighbours and friends (which was felt as social isolation by some) is an aspect of organic farming all farmers commented upon. This is true not only for the farmer, but also for some other members of the family. Needing a 'thick hide', not worrying about your neighbours' opinion, and knowing your own mind were characteristics which all felt were needed in order to continue with organic farming.

It is likely that the negative attitude displayed towards organic farmers in the past will become less of a problem in the future. But it might still be important at this stage that prospective organic farmers reflect seriously upon their own abilities and that of their family to cope with negative feelings towards them from their social environment if they were to change their farming system.

It is also possible to 'strengthen' oneself by becoming part of a group of people with an interest in organic farming. These people could be other farmers (either organic or those who are interested in organic farming) or people such as buyers of the products, consumers and researchers.

Another aspect which always comes up is the availability of money in the initial stages. This is important for a few reasons:- how much of a decrease in income will there be?- how much of a decrease in income can one cope with and for how long?- which investments are essential in order to be able to start with organic agriculture?- how fast can the conversion go?

In order to answer those questions a plan will need to be made. This plan must be in several stages, a general plan for the long term, a somewhat more detailed plan for the medium term (say three years), and a detailed plan for the short term (one year). The detailed plan should encompass details about:

• cropping-
• rotation of each paddock over, say, the next ten years
• - inputs to be used, their availability and cost
• - strategies to manage soil fertility
• - strategies to combat weeds, insects and diseases
• - yields expected - markets to be accessed
• - output prices expected
• - livestock the planned rotations will give a good idea about possible livestock numbers; if an increase in livestock is desirable the following questions are of relevance:
• - is a different combination of livestock than what is presently on the farm desirable (for example, sheep, goats, cattle, horses)?
• - is the additional livestock going to be bought in or bred on the farm?
• - what are the strategies for pest control in livestock?
• - is there a need for re-fencing?
• - what is the expected cost of running livestock?
• - which markets should be approached?
• - what are the expected returns to the livestock enterprise?

These planned solutions then need to be checked for compatibility with other resources on the farm and how they can be provided if not available:

• labour
• what is needed for the cropping and stocking activities?
• - what is available?
• - what is the difference between what is needed and what is available, what action can be taken to breach this gap, and what is the cost?
• machinery

Do the new strategies to manage soil fertility and pest problems require different machinery from what there is on the farm at present?

If a new crop is planned, is the right machinery available?

If you don't have the appropriate machinery for the planned change, how can you accommodate the new needs:

• can you adjust existing machinery?
• can you lease it?
• can a contractor plant or harvest the crop?
• can you buy the needed machinery?

And last, but not least, how much do the different options cost? Not all of these aspects need to be worked out in detail before starting with organic farming, but those aspects on which the system depends most heavily should be. For example, if the decision to go ahead is dependent on premiums for the product, it is more important to have contacted a buyer before you start than if the decision to start with organic farming depends on the availability of certain equipment.

To get answers to those questions information is needed. Farmers in this report talk about reading a lot, having to be very observant on the farm, doing their own experiments, contacting other organic farmers and organic licensing organisations. Those organisations are contacted in order to make sure that the plans are consistent with organic standards.

If you have concluded that organic farming is for you, and you wish to make the transition then you should consider the next steps:

• have soil tests done many farmers stress that the first step on the way to organic farming is to have a good look at the soil, by means of a soil test or a tissue (root) test, to discover nutrient needs or toxicities
• - consider alternative rotations
• - change input use
• - stop using artificial pesticides and fertilisers
• - change number and types and species of livestock and their management (feed minerals, stop using dips and drenches, implement a rotational grazing plan)
• - change paddock size?
• - change practices
• - cultivation- grazing.

Whether you do this on the whole farm or part of the farm depends on your personal circumstances. Those who have gone through the transition a while ago all mention that they would do the whole farm in the one go, if they had the money. They are convinced enough about the fact that it can work that the possibility of failure is not a big threat to them. However, they realise that it can be costly to convert the whole farm at once, so that they all qualified their statement in terms of '...if I had the money'. A detailed plan as mentioned before should give you an insight into what the (financial) consequences are of the different possibilities. With that knowledge and the knowledge about what you are willing to accept, you can then make a decision. Once you have made a decision to 'go organic', make sure that you continue to monitor the progress and measure it against a predetermined goal (the long term plan). It is worth while remembering: If you fail to plan, you plan to fail. It is, however, also important to keep in mind that farming is dynamic. All kinds of conditions change from year to year or, indeed, even from day to day (such as the weather, soil life, input and output prices and the farmer's understanding of the processes and skill with which to cope with new challenges). It is therefore equally important to adjust plans from time to time to accommodate a change in the conditions. It might be good to remember the words of one of the farmers quoted: 'People are too hesitant to take the system by the horns and go. But if you go, you get nature going for you'.