ArticlePDF Available

Vegan organic horticulture – standards, challenges, socio-economics and impact on global food security

Abstract

Vegetarian and vegan diets have seen an increased interest in recent years all across the world. This is the case for ‘vegans’ who aim for 100% vegan food, but also for so-called ‘flexitarians’, meat and fish eaters including one or more vegan and vegetarian days in their weekly diets. This paper focuses specifically on vegan organic horticulture produced in greenhouses or in the open field. Vegan organic production (in contrast to vegetarian = eating no meat) excludes all animal inputs into plant production (e.g. manure, blood-meal or horn-meal). It uses ecosystem services supplied by the soil micro-fauna or wild bees for pollination, but uses no domesticated animals or any of their by-products like manure, horn or leather. This paper critically analyses vegan organic horticulture regarding three main topics: Firstly, it describes its current use in organic horticulture and agriculture. Based on this status-quo analysis it critically discusses the standards currently used for vegan organic horticulture and highlights on-going discussions in the organic movements on ‘stockless’, ‘stockfree’, ‘vegan organic’ and ‘veganic’. Secondly, it discusses the agronomic challenges for intensive organic horticultural production. How to manage soil fertility long-term in such systems, while also reducing other external inputs (finite fossil fuels, like oil and peat) into the organic farming system? Thirdly, the paper studies the socio-economics of a large-scale uptake of vegan diets, or more vegan days in flexitarian diets. How can vegan organic contribute to make organic overall more resource efficient and help in the transition to more sustainable diets and consumptions, worldwide? Vegan organic horticulture – standards, challenges, socio-economics and impact on global food security. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318677431_Vegan_organic_horticulture_-_standards_challenges_socio-economics_and_impact_on_global_food_security [accessed Jun 18 2018].
Vegan organic horticulture – standards, challenges,
socio-economics and impact on global food security
U. Schmutz1 and L. Foresi1
1Coventry University, Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, United Kingdom
Abstract
Vegetarian and vegan diets have seen an increased interest in recent years all
across the world. This is the case for ‘vegans’ who aim for 100% vegan food, but also
for so-called ‘flexitarians’, meat and fish eaters including one or more vegan and
vegetarian days in their weekly diets. This paper focuses specifically on vegan organic
horticulture produced in greenhouses or in the open field. Vegan organic production
(in contrast to vegetarian = eating no meat) excludes all animal inputs into plant
production (e.g. manure, blood-meal or horn-meal). It uses ecosystem services
supplied by the soil micro-fauna or wild bees for pollination, but uses no domesticated
animals or any of their by-products like manure, horn or leather. This paper critically
analyses vegan organic horticulture regarding three main topics: Firstly, it describes
its current use in organic horticulture and agriculture. Based on this status-quo
analysis it critically discusses the standards currently used for vegan organic
horticulture and highlights on-going discussions in the organic movements on
‘stockless’, ‘stockfree’, ‘vegan organic’ and ‘veganic’. Secondly, it discusses the
agronomic challenges for intensive organic horticultural production. How to manage
soil fertility long-term in such systems, while also reducing other external inputs (finite
fossil fuels, like oil and peat) into the organic farming system? Thirdly, the paper
studies the socio-economics of a large-scale uptake of vegan diets, or more vegan days
in flexitarian diets. How can vegan organic contribute to make organic overall more
resource efficient and help in the transition to more sustainable diets and
consumptions, worldwide?
Keywords: Organic greenhouse horticulture, vegan organic, flexitarian diets, organic
standards, scenario modelling
INTRODUCTION
Vegan organic production excludes all animal inputs into plant production, for
example composted manure but also blood-meal or horn-meal fertilisers from conventional
animal production which are allowed under current EU organic regulations. Vegan
horticulture and agriculture uses ecosystem services supplied by the soil micro-fauna or wild
bees for pollination, but uses no domesticated animals or any of their by-products like
manure, horn or leather. This excludes also bee-keeping, although wild bees and other
pollinators are encouraged. This paper critically analyses vegan organic horticulture
regarding current use in organic horticulture and agriculture. It critically discusses the
standards currently used for vegan organic horticulture and highlights challenges, socio-
economics and impact on global food security.
1 E-mail: ulrich.schmutz@coventry.ac.uk
CURRENT STATUS OF VEGAN ORGANIC PRODUCTION
It is reported that up to 25% of all organic farms in Germany are stockless, meaning
with no or very low livestock (Schmidt, 2004). Very low livestock is defined as less then 0.2
Live-Stock Units (LSU) per hectare. There are currently 23,271 organic farms (Willer and
Lernoud, 2015) in Germany and a quarter would be about 5,800 farms. Many of them are
arable, fruit and wine growers, full and part-time farms, but also specialist horticulture farms
are among them. In Europe, defined geographically, there are 334,870 organic farms; while
in the EU part of Europe there are 258,773 organic farms (Willer and Lernoud, 2015). If, like
in Germany, a quarter of all organic farms in Europe would be without livestock this would
be 80,000 organic farms without livestock in Europe. This is a large number of holdings.
Not all of them would necessarily want to become vegan organic, but it shows a European
wide potential for the growth of ‘vegan organic’ even without converting currently
conventional stockless farms. There is also ‘vegan organic’ interest and existing farms in many
parts of the world like Canada, USA, Mexico, Argentina, India, Australia and New Zealand.
RESEARCH ON ORGANIC STOCKLESS AND STOCKFREE SYSTEMS
Currently there are very few academic publications on vegan organic agriculture or
horticulture. Hagemann and Potthast (2015) have conducted a Web of Science search for the
term ‘stockfree organic’ and found zero articles in February 2014. However, using the term
‘vegan agriculture’ or ‘vegan farming’ resulted in a few papers. We extended the search using
web-based search engines to capture non-academic articles and practical research papers.
Here again ‘vegan’, ‘vegan organic’, ‘vegan horticulture’ and ‘vegan agriculture’ were used. We
also searched for papers in German and Italian on this subject.
From the German literature there is a comprehensive study on ‘Viehloser Ackerbau’
(stockless arable organic) produced for the German Federal Research programme on organic
farming by Schmidt (2004). This includes farms with few and no livestock and is restricted to
larger-scale arable crop rotations. It gives detailed practical examples from twelve farms in
different German regions and climates and enhances this information with a survey among
farm advisors. It also describes cropping details for twelve research sites (including ones in
Denmark and the UK) where stockless arable rotations are researched and presents a
comprehensive list of future research needs based on expert knowledge collected through
questionnaires and two workshops with advisors, farmers, scientists and other stakeholders.
This project however did not include specialised horticultural farms or those who
would be called stockfree or vegan with the aim to exclude all inputs from animals. As
described above the report shows that about 25% of organic farms had no or low livestock.
Low livestock was defined as less than 0.2 LSU/ha and therefore excludes all bio-dynamic
organic farms as Demeter standards require more then 0.2 LSU/ha. The sample size was large,
with 6,600 farms it covered about 42% of all German certified organic farms. Within the 25%
stockless farms, 4% were working together with livestock farms. When only full-time organic
farms were considered, the percentage of low or no livestock was 10%. One of the main
characteristics for having little or no livestock on arable farms was less labour, large size
farms and higher natural soil fertility. These findings may indicate that the drive to lower
livestock in these farms is somewhat similar to conventional stockless systems: reducing
labour and running farms on larger units on fertile land.
Unlike in certified ‘vegan organic’ there is no attempt to exclude all inputs based on
animal systems, and the word vegan (same word in German) is not mentioned once in the
Schmidt (2004) report. Our analysis is shared by Bonzheim (2014) calling stockless (viehlos)
organic a pragmatic approach and vegan organic a more idealistic one. Anja Bonzheim (2014)
conducted qualitative interviews with five vegan organic growers and has also contributed to
the definition and use of the word bio-vegan (‘vegan organic’) within the German academic
literature. She found through interviews that motives of vegan organic farmers and growers
for the exclusion of all animal inputs are ethical, ecological and social, and hence ‘vegan
organic’ can be distinguished from stockless farming. The latter being more economically
motivated within the existing values of organic.
Besides the different motivations, both forms face similar technical challenges in
terms of fertility management, especially in horticultural annual crops with high nutrient
demand as grown in greenhouses. Therefore, on a pragmatic level, knowledge exchange
between the two types stockless and ‘vegan organic’ can be considered very helpful.
DIFFERENT TERMS: VEGAN ORGANIC, VEGANIC, STOCKFREE, STOCKLESS?
In this paper we follow the distinction made between ‘stockless’ and ‘vegan organic’
as defined by the motivations of farmers and growers. The term ‘stockless’ is not used by
anyone within the vegan movements as it indicates something is missing (– less), while
stockfree’, (– free) of animals is indicating that animals are not necessary and horticulture
and diets can easily do without them completely.
In the further text we only focus on stockfree organic but use the word ‘vegan organic’.
In the United Kingdom both words are used with a very similar meaning:
- ‘stockfree’ is used as a more neutral technical term denoting the fact that the organic
growing is free from all animal inputs (Hall and Tolhurst 2010; Tolhurst 2015 pers.
comm., www.stockfreeorganic.net) and the fertility building techniques can be adopted
by many farms even those which still have livestock or are bio-dynamic.
- ‘vegan organic’ is used by the Vegan Organic Network (www.veganorganic.net) and
denotes more a campaign and social movement towards vegan diets or more vegan food
and drinks within flexitarian diets.
Since both terms ‘stockfree’ and ‘vegan organic’ describe the same practices we explain
why we chose to use the word ‘vegan organic’: Firstly it translates better in different
languages and secondly it is also already widely used by many consumers and understood as
a diet. It can also be used to describe other technical innovations like vegan anaerobic
digestion (Schmutz, 2012). Finally, as the movement grows, stockfree would be more difficult
to explain to consumers compared to the easy universal word vegan, which also works well
as a logo on a product. Both arguments, ease of translation in multiple languages and
widespread use also work against the word ‘veganic as a combination of vegan and organic.
Using only the word vegan might be possible, but this would not automatically mean organic
and then a vegan logo would only guarantee to include no animal inputs, but might have
inputs like e.g. insecticides, pesticides or genetic manipulation of organisms (GMO).
Even in organic diets it is often not possible to eat and drink 100% organic all the time,
but any percentage of organic consumption helps contributing to the principles of the organic
movements (IFOAM, 2015). A similar conclusion might be drawn regarding 100% vegan diets
and fexitarian diets, especially if the remaining meat and fish consumption is 100% organic.
STANDARDS FOR ‘VEGAN ORGANIC’ HORTICULTURE
A leading example of private standards for vegan organic production is the Vegan
Organic Network (2007) in the United Kingdom. The purpose of the standard is to “regulate
commercial stockfree organic growers on registered holdings and act as a guideline to other
growers. These Standards attempt to be inclusive to involve many growers and transform
systems of food production.” For a registered holding to attain the vegan organic logo it is
necessary to comply with the stockfree and organic standards and to be inspected by an EU
accredited organic certification body. In the case of the Vegan Organic Network in the UK it is
GB-ORG-05, Soil Association Certification Ltd., as they are able to certify the national/EU
organic standard and additionally are licensed to add the private vegan organic standard in
one inspection. The conversion from organic to ‘vegan organic’ is straightforward as no
additional conversion period is required. Further details of the standard are given below
(Vegan Organic Network, 2007):
Animals on the holding
The licensee cannot keep animals for food production or commercial gain on the
registered holding (companion animals, or animals that assist blind people are excluded). No
animal manures or products of animal or fish origin can be used and growing animal fodder
or bedding litter is also excluded (Vegan Organic Network, 2007).
Soil management
Protecting soil life (for example, microbes and earthworms) and soil structure are
important and this can be achieved by regularly replenishing organic matter, growing green
manures (overwintering and under-sowing), keeping the soil permanently mulched with
decaying plant material and minimising tillage (Vegan Organic Network, 2007).
Sources of fertility
Primary sources of soil fertility are plant-based composts, mulch, hay made from
materials on the farm. This includes agroforestry sources and digestate from anaerobic
digesters if produced with vegan organic material.
Secondary sources are the same inputs from other certified organic systems.
Restricted sources are e.g. Leaf mould and plant-based composts made from green
waste by local authorities (“restricted because they cannot be assured to be free from toxic or
genetic engineering contaminants, or animal residues”), plant-based composts from un-grazed
upland meadows, plant wastes and by-products, from food processing industries (e.g. spent
hops, barley) or seaweed (“need to show that it is collected away from pathogen
contamination”).
Supplementary nutrients
Permitted soluble fertilisers and alginates
Supplementary soluble fertilisers and tonics created on the holding e.g. based on
comfrey (Symphytum officinale), nettle (Urtica dioica) and herbs like chamomile
(Chamaemelum nobile) and tansy (Tanacetum vulgare)
Compost teas created on the holding
Dried seaweed meal, liquid seaweed and other commercially available foliar feeds
suitable for organic systems that are free from animal inputs
Commercially available compound fertilisers and liquid feeds suitable for organic
systems that are free from animal inputs
Permitted fertilisers
P: Natural rock phosphate (e.g. Tunisian rock phosphate); Calcined aluminium
phosphate rock (e.g. Redzlaag where soil pH > 7.5)
K: wood-ash (from wood not chemically treated after felling)
Ca and Mg: Dolomitic limestone, gypsum - calcium sulphate, ground chalk &
limestone, Epsom salts (for acute magnesium deficiency), Magnesium rock
Clays (e.g. perlite and vermiculite)
Restricted fertilisers
Sulphate of potash, sulphur
Calcium chloride - for bitter pit in apples
Industrial lime from conventional sugar production
Natural rock potash - providing it has a relatively low immediate solubility in water
and low chlorine content
Trace elements: stone meal (ground basalt), boron, copper, iron, manganese,
molybdenum, cobalt, selenium, zinc
Prohibited fertilisers
Any animal by-product of livestock or fish origin
Worm compost
Human faeces and urine, sewage sludge
Extracted peat
Soluble fertilisers as the main source of fertility
Propagation
Recommended are vegan organic grown seed and transplants from the own holding,
but equally permitted are commercial organic seeds and vegetative reproductive material. It
is also recommended to source propagation composts from the holding, but equally permitted
are commercial stockfree vegan organic composts (Vegan Organic Network, 2007).
Disease, mollusc and insect control
Should be a matter of prevention by using a mixed cropping and rotational cropping to
break pest and disease cycles, providing permanent predator belts, including incorporating
undisturbed perennial plants, planting attractant species of flowers in strips (e.g. Phacelia
spp.). Further measures include:
Installing some body of stagnant water to attract beneficial insects and creatures
Compost to encourage beneficial antagonistic microorganisms and have an
inoculating effect against disease
Good husbandry and hygienic practices
Physical barriers e.g. netting, fleeces, brassica collars
Quartz sand as a repellent
Standard principles
Natural pesticides, insecticides and biological controls should not be used.
Other standard principles exclude the use all biocides based on animal derivatives the
use of flame weeding and steam sterilisation of soils, and “Ducks should not be kept to eat slugs
and snails”. In addition, inputs and practices which are not necessarily animal derived or
harmful to soil fauna like of peat and coir, the use of monocultures in greenhouses, fossil fuel
use are banned in ‘vegan organic’ and this is more of a refection that the general national/EU
standard has not yet addressed these controversial issues for organic farming. The use of
plastic mulches is allowed but restricted: “Plastic mulches should not be used routinely” (Vegan
Organic Network, 2007).
Other standards outside the UK
There are other standards like veganic in North America, but they are similar to the
one described earlier as the website www.goveganic.net puts it for the USA and Canada: “The
standards are modeled significantly after the vegan organic (stockfree-organic) certification
that was developed in the UK”. As a private organic standard veganic is run as a participatory
guarantee system (PGS), which involves the farmers and consumers in the process of
developing and administering the certification. In the German speaking countries the UK
vegan organic standards have also been adopted and translated and called bio-vegan
(www.biovegan.org), biological and ecological being the most common German equivalents
to organic and all three words are protected by the EU organic legislation.
In Italy, ICEA (www.icea.info), Instituto Certificazione Ethica e Ambientale has also
developed standards and uniquely they are combining vegetarian and vegan production.
Besides food, ICEA certifies a wide range of products like cosmetics, textiles, tourism,
buildings, urban landscapes, social accountability and biofuels. The documents are therefore
provided in English (ICEA, 2014) and being business orientated ICEA sees a growing market
in vegetarian and vegan food certification. The problem with the standard from an organic
perspective is, that they require no organic production in addition to vegetarian or vegan. For
example the standard for vegetarian allows conventional eggs (they should be out-door, but
how is this verified?) and conventional free-range hens are often fed imported feeds like soya
and maize with GMOs and may have residues of fungicides and insecticides in the country of
feed production. Without organic certification at source this is difficult to exclude. In addition,
in vegan agriculture and horticulture synthetic fertilisers (not animal based) and herbicides
may still be used.
DISCUSSION – CHALLENGES TO VEGAN ORGANIC GREENHOUSES
Biological pest control
For a greenhouse environment the standard principle: “Natural pesticides, insecticides
and biological controls should not be usedis arguably the most problematic as greenhouses
work especially well with biological pest control. It is not clear why biological control, which
is happening already by introducing habitats, and host plants, should not be further used. In
addition, just relying on pollination services by wild bees may not be enough in a greenhouse
environment. Bees could be used for pollination without collecting their honey and replacing
it with a different, organically certified sugar.
One explanation for the underuse of biological pest control may be that most of the
stockfree growers are not very specialised concerning greenhouse crops and hence when
writing the standards did not see the advantage greenhouses can offer regarding pest control
and climate management, compared to the disadvantages they have to the open field, where
only relying on natural prevention and a diverse natural environment and crop rotation
makes perfect sense.
Fossil fuels, peat and coir
Other issues can be more easily achieved in vegan organic greenhouses including the
phasing out of fossil fuels, peat in growing media and not replacing it with coir. The exclusion
of coir (a natural fibre extracted from the husks of coconuts) can be considered more of a
transport issue (and reveals a UK-centric view of the Vegan Organic Network in the Global
North). If vegan organic horticulture is run in countries were organic coconuts, are regularly
grown then coir would be a local plant-based by-product from a perennial crop.
The phase-out of fossil fuels including peat is already on the agenda in the EU and
enforced in some member countries, for vegan organic to take a lead here would be
advantageous, but it can be expected that the wider non-vegan organic greenhouse world will
catch up soon.
High nutrient demand in vegan organic greenhouses
In our view the most challenging issue for vegan organic intensive greenhouse
production would be the availability of enough nutrients for plant demand. Some more radical
vegan and organic views may conclude greenhouses are too intensive, expensive and
therefore should not be used at all as a matter of principle. However, this is neither the view
of the Vegan Organic Network (2009) nor the view of nearly all professional organic and
‘vegan organic’ growers. They argue that greenhouses provide a useful addition to a farm, for
propagation of plants, seed production, season extension, out-of season production and local
supply of fresh produce all year. Contested is the amount of greenhouses on a farm and in a
region and the amount of centralisation and specialisation, which then leads to long food
supply chains, pollution and exploitation of resources (water) at the site of concentrated
industrial production.
Vegan organic fertilisers from the holding or linked farms
The requirement of ‘vegan organic’ to use the farm as the primary source of soil
fertility will act as a natural constraint on too many greenhouses on a farm or in a region. Like
producing feed for an organic dairy on the surrounding pasture and arable land there is land
required around the greenhouses to grow enough plant-based composts, mulches and other
biomass. This should be done to maximise the biodiversity of the cropping and also to
compensate for the area taken out by the greenhouses from natural habitats and “paying
back” with a more diverse landscape around the greenhouses.
A vegan organic greenhouse requires a basic crop rotation and because of greenhouse
constrains this will be most likely be less wide then in the open field and may only include
short and medium green manures, under-cropping with green manure or rotation of key
crops like tomato, pepper, cucumbers, beans or lettuce.
Besides fertility from the soil, as the main source, a vegan organic greenhouse
requires also a considerable amount of additional nutrients. For this a mixture of sources is
required: compost, mulch, pellets or liquid fertiliser. Around a greenhouse (on the own
holding or linked local organic farms) such a mixture can be provided by a permaculture and
agroforestry system combined with leguminous crops grown as fertiliser and a vegan
anaerobic digester (Schmutz, 2012). Good facilities and skills for composting several plant-
based materials are also needed. The anaerobic digester and the processing of fertiliser from
leguminous and other crops may require a larger then farm-scale approach and a linking up
of several organic farms in a region.
Socio-economics of vegan organic greenhouses
From the above it can be concluded that vegan organic greenhouses are technically
feasible, although they might be considered more challenging by many organic growers. Most
vegan organic growers would agree that they are “knowledge intensive”, meaning they
require a good general organic knowledge and a secure market to plan many years ahead.
The next question is regarding their socio-economics. Here the answer is even more
straightforward. On a production level replacement of animal based fertilisers with plant-
based ones from the holding or from linked farms may increase costs only marginally.
Schmutz et al. (2011) have fertility costs in a none-vegan, organic unheated tomato example
at 2-4% of total variable costs. The fertility costs include green waste compost, straw mulch,
vinasse (a by-product of sugar beet processing), lime and undersown yellow trefoil (Medicago
lupulina). If vegan organic inputs would be e.g. 50% more expensive they would still only be
3-6% of total variable costs. Better fertility management may however result in more stable
yields and it is clear that vegan organic greenhouses could “pay” for the fertility grown around
them. In addition, vegan organic consumers are often very committed and e.g. various types
of community supported agriculture (CSA) provide a good business environment to make the
investments required in terms of agroforestry trees, biomass processing, anaerobic digestion,
or renewable sources for greenhouse heating. Vegan consumers can also spend
proportionally more on their food as they make big savings by not buying organic meat and
hence can be considered less price sensitive then average consumers.
DISCUSSION – VEGAN ORGANIC AND FOOD SECURITY
Can or must vegan organic feed the world?
The feasibility of vegan organic to leave its current niche, and “feed the world” is a
hotly debated issue. Opinions range from “vegan diets are not healthy or at least not normal”,
brought forward by meat eaters and especially the conventional meat industry, to an equally
fundamental stance sometimes taken by vegans who consider meat-based diets unhealthy
and clearly not “normal”. It is however clear that globally ‘diet diversity’ is the best way to
describe the multiplicity in diets. Vegan and vegetarian diets and those who exclude certain
meats for religious and spiritual reasons are far more common then it may look from a
Europe-centric worldview. The often-repeated assumption that when people become more
educated and have more disposable income they would automatically increase meat
consumption is wrong on a global scale, although it might be right for some countries during
a limited period of rapid income growth.
However, the much more worrying aspect is the impacts diets have. The United
Nations, concerned about the global environmental impact of agriculture, are clear in their
report that A substantial reduction of (agriculture’s) impacts would only be possible with a
substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products (UNEP, 2010). This
substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products” is exactly what the vegan and
equally the organic movement would want to see as a vision and in German it is often called
“Agrar-Wende = Agri-Revolution” (Gottwald and Boergen, 2014).
The vegan and organic movement also share the same critic of industrial farming,
where animals have no rights to fresh air, natural daylight or freedom of movement, and
welfare is measured in terms of cost-efficiency. The two movements however draw different
conclusions: (1) exclude all animals from agriculture, or (2) develop organic livestock systems
based on the principle of care (IFOAM, 2015) and a rights-based approach for domesticated
animals.
Gottwald and Boergen (2014) try to make the case for organic animals when they ask
why do we still need some domesticated animals?” The arguments brought forward against a
total vegan world are that domesticated animals are among the oldest cultural heritage
human culture has produced, which have co-evolved with us while we became equally
domesticated. Domesticated farm animals are not wild and need protection by humans in a
caring farm environment. In return for this protection humans should provide highest welfare
and decide on the time death, but strictly regulated within organic standards. Domesticated
animals are clearly not necessary for successful farming systems, however in certain
environments, (e.g. mountains, tundra) they provide milk and meat, fibre and fuel from plants
not digestible to humans, which could not be produced in any other way.
Limits to vegan organic?
Gottwald and Boergen (2014) having defended organic livestock and the need for
organic animals in some production system, still agree with the need to cut meat consumption
in Europe and all other Western countries substantially (as a minimum 50% reduction).
Therefore, the question is rather once the estimated 15% vegan, vegetation and flexitarian
organic diets (1%, 2%, 11%) have been promoted and doubled twice at what level of meat-
free diets do we have to start worrying about the remaining organic farm animals? This point
is clearly somewhat in the future, but reflecting on it can give interesting insights into the
growth paths of vegan organic horticulture.
MAPS scenario modelling of uptake in vegetarian and flexitarian diets
We used the MAPS (Metropolitan Area Profiles and Scenarios) modelling tool for the
metropolitan areas and the case study of metropolitan London (Wascher et al., 2015). London
as a world city has one of the most diverse ethnicities and hence its current multicultural diet
mix can be used as a proxy for future diet diversity in the Global North. The modelling predicts
that the food demand of 26.5 million people projected for 2030 in Greater London (10 million)
and its surrounding metropolitan region, defined as East and Southeast England (16.5
million), can be met by 100% organic production, a healthy organic diet, and a moderate
reduction (4%) in food waste from the land available in the total metropolitan region. This
includes only food and drink which can be grown in this maritime climate of Europe and
hence excludes e.g. coffee, tea, tropical fruit, olives, soybeans and many other tropical and
sub-tropical crops being part of the multicultural diets of London.
The scenario modelling shows that the 100% regional food supply is about 62% of the total
area per person required for all food and drink consumed. This 62% ratio does not change
much by shifting from current unhealthy to ‘healthy diets’, or ‘healthy organic diets’, or even
one additional vegetarian day in a organic healthy diet. However, once 2 vegetarian days per
week are introduced or half a week vegetarian (3.5 days/week) this ratio of home produce to
import changes to 57% and 54%, respectively. If all days are vegetarian = 100% vegetarian
(vegan was not separately modelled) only 47% of the food then demanded, is predicted to be
produced in the maritime climate available.
From this scenario modelling we conclude that vegetarian diets at a very high
percentage (either 50% vegetarians among organic meat eaters, or 50% vegetarian days in a
flexitarian diet) could shift the food demand partially to a different climate. Vegetarian diets
may still reduce the overall land demand considerably. While this potential shift towards
imports from different climates might be desirable to some (looking for more housing and
golf courses), it might not be the intention of a food policy which would like to make full use
of all the foods which can be produced in a mild maritime climate with sufficient rainfall (free-
range organic dairy, beef, sheep etc. in case of the UK). However, the modelling used the
current diets in London and may underestimate the future innovation potential in organic
greenhouses, legumes, nuts, agroforestry, and permaculture systems. Within 30 years it may
well be possible to grow Mediterranean and Sub-tropical crops like e.g. olives, tea, tree-nuts,
soybeans, lentils, quinoa, peanuts, sweet potatoes or artichokes much more widely and
commercially viable then currently done in the UK. Especially innovations in organic legumes
and tree nuts for human consumption could shift the demand back to more home grown
produce, but this could also happen in meat based diets phasing out remaining feed imports.
CONCLUSIONS
It can be concluded that vegan organic greenhouses are technically and economically
feasible. They might be considered more challenging by many organic growers and most
vegan organic growers would agree that it is “knowledge intensive”, meaning it requires a
good general organic knowledge and a secure market to plan many years ahead. Committed
consumers and community supported agriculture schemes (CSA) provide a good support
infrastructure to grow the sector. Because of the low feed conversion rates of conventional
and organic livestock this additional land to support vegan organic greenhouses would be less
then what is required to feed organic chickens, pigs, farmed fish, or sheep and cattle. Growing
crops to feed plants in greenhouses can be equally a part of a diversified land use as currently
organic livestock systems are and consumers of a 100% vegan organic diet do not have to
worry that their diet requires more land then a meat or low meat based organic diet. On the
contrary, because of the environmental impacts the UN promotes a substantial worldwide
diet change, away from animal products”, together with organic this is known as “Agar-
Wende” = Agri-Revolution” in German.
But what would happen in a 100% vegan organic landscape to farmed animals? They
can be considered an important cultural heritage of humanity. Many landscapes are
dependent on livestock like upland pastures, prairie, alpine mountains, tundra, but also cider
orchards for grass cutting with sheep, replacing all this with biomass production for energy
and feeding plants may not be the preferred vision of rural citizens and tourists alike. In
addition, scenario modelling indicates that although 100% vegan/vegetarian reduces land
use considerably, in the Global North, it may shift the remainder partly to southern climates.
However, even those who argue organic livestock is still needed, agree that a
substantial reduction in meat consumption (and an equally substantial increase in vegan
organic) is necessary; substantial means cutting average meat consumption by more then
50% as a minimum, and producing only organic livestock. This in turn means vegan,
vegetarian and flexitarian organic diets should be the norm rather then the exception
following the UN’s guidance. If this happens - surely it could be called a revolution.
Literature Cited
Bonzheim, A. (2014). Die bio-vegane Landwirtschaft in Deutschland: Definition, Motive und Beratungsbedarf.
Hochschule für Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Bachelor Thesis, FH Eberswalde, Germany. http://biovegan.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/Bonzheim_Bachelorarbeit_Bio-veganeLandwirtschaft.pdf [accessed Dec 2015].
Gottwald and Boergen (2014). Brauchen wir Tiere? Anmerkungen zur aktuellen Debatte über Fleischverzicht
und Veganismus, 267-274, Der kritische Agrarbericht. AgrarBündnis, Berlin, Germany, www.kirtischer-
agrarbericht.de
Hagemann, N and T. Potthast, (2015). Necessary new approaches towards sustainable agriculture – Innovations
for Organic Agriculture. In Know your food Food ethics and innovation, Wageningen Academic Publishers p. 107-
113 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686-813-1_15
Hall, J. and I. Tolhurst, (2010). Growing Green: Animal-Free Organic Techniques. Chelsea The Vegan Organic
Network; Revised edition from 2006 Green Publishing Company, London, UK, 328 pages, ISBN: 978-1933392493
ICEA (2014). Standard for the certification of vegetarian and vegan products, Ed.02 Rev.01 – 15.04.2014,
Instituto Certificazione Ethica e Ambientale, ICEA DTR 03, Bologna, Italy www.icea.info [accessed Dec 2015]
IFOAM, (2015). Principles of Organic Agriculture, IFOAM, Bonn, Germany www.ifoam.bio/en/organic-
landmarks/principles-organic-agriculture [accessed Dec 2015].
Schmidt, H., (2004). Viehloser Ackerbau im ökologischen Landbau - Evaluierung des derzeitigen
Erkenntnisstandes anhand von Betriebsbeispielen und Expertenbefragungen. University of Kassel. Germany.
http://orgprints.org/5020
Schmutz, U., Sumption, P. and Lennartsson, M., (2011). Economics of UK organic protected cropping. Acta
Horticulurae, (ISHS) 915:39-46 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.2011.915.4
Schmutz, U., (2012). Plant based anaerobic digestion (Vegan AD). Growing Green International. No 29, 6-7
Tolhurst, I (2015). Iain Tolhurst, Tolhurst Organic, Community Interest Company limited by guarantee,
Whitchurch-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, UK www.tolhurstorganic.co.uk [accessed and additionally personal
communication, Dec 2015].
UNEP, (2010). Assessing the environmental impacts of consumption and production: Priority products and
materials. A report of the working group on the environmental impacts of products and materials to the
international panel for sustainable resource management. United Nations Environment Programme, Paris,
France ISBN: 978-92-807-3084-5, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S207863361000113X
Vegan Organic Network, (2007). The stockfree organic standards. UK, www.veganorganic.net
Wascher, D.M., M. Kneafsey, M., Pintar and A. Piorr Editors (2015). Food Planning and Innovation for Sustainable
Metropolitain Regions (Foodmetres)– Synthesis report, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
www.foodmetres.eu
Willer, H. and J. Lernoud, (2015). The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2015. FiBL-
IFOAM Report. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick, and IFOAM – Organics International,
Bonn, Germany, http://orgprints.org/28216
... Despite the diversity of veganic 2 "Stockfree" was selected as a "more neutral technical term," not necessarily associated with veganism (Schmutz and Foresi 2017, p. 477). The term is not entirely a neutral one, though, as it connotes that animals are not a necessary component to horticulture and diets (Schmutz and Foresi 2017). 3 Several of these references reflect field trials with a known veganic component-identified in Cormack (2006) as "truly stockless," or verified through personal correspondence. ...
... There are a number of additional field trials around the world that Watson et al. (2006) identify as including a "stockless" rotation. The term stockless refers to farms with no livestock (or with a very low livestock to land ratio), but does not necessarily mean that those farms exclude all inputs from animals (i.e., are "stockfree") (Schmutz and Foresi 2017). methods and the ostensible benefits of veganic agriculture, there is relatively little scholarly literature on the topic, as has been noted by Hagemann and Potthast (2015), Schmutz and Foresi (2017), and Jürkenbeck et al. (2019). ...
... The term stockless refers to farms with no livestock (or with a very low livestock to land ratio), but does not necessarily mean that those farms exclude all inputs from animals (i.e., are "stockfree") (Schmutz and Foresi 2017). methods and the ostensible benefits of veganic agriculture, there is relatively little scholarly literature on the topic, as has been noted by Hagemann and Potthast (2015), Schmutz and Foresi (2017), and Jürkenbeck et al. (2019). Qualitative perspectives are particularly lacking. ...
Article
Full-text available
Veganic agriculture, often described as farming that is free of synthetic and animal-based inputs, represents an alternative to chemical-based industrial agriculture and the prevailing alternative, organic agriculture, respectively. Despite the promise of veganic methods in diverse realms such as food safety, environmental sustainability, and animal liberation, it has a small literature base. This article draws primarily on interviews conducted in 2018 with 25 veganic farmers from 19 farms in the United States to establish some baseline empirical research on this farming community. Its qualitative perspectives illuminate farmer perceptions of and experiences with veganic growing, including definitions, knowledge acquisition, values, and challenges. Results highlight a lack of agreement about the meaning of veganic agriculture in terms of allowable inputs and scope. Participants have drawn on a wide array of veganic and non-veganic resources to ascend their veganic production learning curves, also relying on experimentation and trial-and-error. Their farming is motivated by a diversity of real and perceived benefits, most notably consistency with veganism, food safety advantages, and plant and soil health benefits. Veganic product sourcing and the dearth of veganic agriculture-specific resources present considerable challenges to farmers. The article briefly discusses possibilities for developing veganic agriculture in the United States, such as through a US-based certification system and farmers’ associations, based on considerations of the trajectory of the US organic farming movement and veganic developments in Europe. Finally, the article suggests the importance of expanded research into soil health and fertility in plant-based systems to support practicing and potential veganic farmers.
... Emerging from the vegan movement, one such alternative is SOA, also referred to as vegan organic, veganic, or biocyclic-vegan agriculture. Unlike animal-based organic and conventional agriculture, this horticultural method and certification forbids the use of animal by-products such as manure or bone meal as fertilizers in crop cultivation (Hagemann and Potthast, 2015;Hirth, 2021;Schmutz and Foresi, 2017;Seymour and Utter, 2021). By outlining the biomaterial specifics of foods cultivated in this way, I will show how SOA goes beyond the conventional framing of the term 'vegan' as an identity of consumers or any plant product and shifts it towards a performative practice. ...
... This includes violence against domesticated, 'wild', and human animals as well as the life of the soil. Also referred to as veganic or vegan organic, SOA must be seen as a value-driven form of crop cultivation because it applies agroecological methods while deliberately refraining from using animal by-products (Schmutz and Foresi, 2017). Thus, the term stockfree denotes a normative difference to stockless agriculture which depicts farmers who just happen to have no farm animals and may yet use manure from other farms to fertilize crops. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Academic, policy, and public debates have increasingly led to calls for the adoption of plant rich diets. Livestock's 'long shadow'-its high environmental footprint-and the need to transform food systems towards sustainable practices are widely recognized. However, despite their incremental normalization, vegan and vegetarian diets can still lead to fierce debates between people with different dietary identities. Arguing that identity-based understandings of who or what is 'vegan' obfuscate necessary changes in production and provisioning practices, this contribution develops a wider understanding of vegan food practices by shedding light on stockfree organic agriculture's organization, biomateriality, and its 'short' shadow. The chapter makes a contribution to food system organizing with a practice approach.
... Therefore, this paper is centred upon stockfree organic agriculture (SOA) which, in the national context of the UK, refers to food certified as 'vegan organic' (Schmutz and Foresi 2017). This can broadly be defined as an additional certification to the organic standard assuring that horticulture is free from animal by-products conventionally used to fertilise fields such as manure or bone meal. 2 Drawing upon SOA this paper makes two points about boundary work. ...
... As an agricultural practice, vegan organic cultivation aims at circulating nutrients sustainably while excluding any material input from domesticated animals. Different from conventional or organic agriculture, the vegan organic standard (as certified by the Vegan Organic Network and the Soil Association) fully excludes both synthetic fertilisers and animal derivatives such as manure or bone meal (see also Schmutz and Foresi 2017). As it does not rely on nutrients from fossil fuels or farm animals, this standard draws on other practices, materialities and relationalities to maintain soils. ...
Article
Full-text available
Meat and, less so, dairy are contested for their significant ethical and social‐ecological impacts. Abjuring animal products, veganism is conventionally treated as a dietary ideology related to consumer identities. Drawing upon practice and materialist turns, this article explores variations in the performance of veganism and how its boundaries are drawn. Yet, rather than an eating practice, I suggest to look at veganism more broadly and conceptualised as a food practice which also involves provisioning. By example of stockfree organic agriculture (SOA), a production‐based, processual understanding is outlined by which plant foods are “vegan” if animal by‐products are not used as fertilisers in crop cultivation. Thereof, a conceptual case is made to shift the focus away from veganism as a consumer identity and towards performative vegan food practices (VFP) as a global responsibility to reduce the ‘long shadow’ of livestock and maintain Earth as a relatively safe operating space.
... Most agro-ecological accounts focus on organic agricultural approaches that include animal derivatives for fertilising the fields. An exception is Schmutz and Foresi's (2017) introduction to the standards of vegan organic horticulture and its prospects for global food security. ...
... By rejecting synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, organic animal agriculture (at least in theory) fulfils the requirement of maintaining animate soil but in terms of the fates of domesticated animals it does not 'omit the killing element' (VON1). The same applies to organic crop production as the nitrogen and nutrient cycle is usually maintained with animal fertilisers such as manure, blood-meal, bone-meal, or horn-meal (VON1; see also Schmutz & Foresi 2017). ...
Thesis
Full-text available
Full text available: https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/theses/food-that-matters-sustainability-and-the-materialdiscursive-boundaries-of-carnist-and-vegan-food-practices(770c7ed4-5279-4969-b165-0558dc9f635b).html - - - Acting upon Livestock's Long Shadow to mitigate climate change, mass extinction, and other social-ecological crises requires fundamental changes in food practices. Labelled as "ethical consumers", vegans, vegetarians, and meat-reducing carnists already attract considerable attention. However, food practices on the production side, which are just as much an ethical issue, also require reconfiguration in order to achieve sustainable development. In a critical assessment of tendencies that depict consumer demand as the only legitimate means of change and depoliticise absolute reductions of animal-sourced foods, this thesis extends the locus of vegan food practices to various productive processes drawing on cases such as stock-based and stockfree farms, retailers, and food-related advocacy networks. By exploring these foodscapes, it is examined how the material-discursive boundaries between vegan and carnist food practices are drawn, particularly in response to animal agriculture as a sustainability challenge. Inspired by practice and materialist turns, my research builds on debates on ethical consumption, responsibility, and sustainability within sociological and geographical food studies. Relational and posthumanist approaches are drawn upon to conceptualise practices and conduct material-discursive analyses. Qualitative methods are applied to outline relations within and between agricultural and retailing foodscapes in Greater Manchester, Derbyshire, and South West England, involving a mix of participant observation (incl. field notes and photography), in-depth interviews with stakeholders on site, and an interpretative examination of their sustainability-related websites and reports. The findings revolve around the marginal but emerging agricultural and culinary paradigm of "vegan organic" production. It excludes the use of manure, bone meal, or other animal derivatives for the replenishment of soil fertility and relies instead on nutrient-fixing plants and practices such as composting or mulching. Thus, veganism, rather than being a dietary identity, becomes a relationally grounded approach to how vegans and plant foods come into being performatively through material-discursive practices. Conventionally, however, the term "vegan" as applied in both food regulations and everyday life, is merely a label either for people who abjure from animal products or for vegetal products. This dematerialised consumption-based mainstream conception of veganism personalises food practices, confines ethics to a sentimental care for domesticated animals, and depoliticises social-ecological reasons for veganism. In order to maintain a safe operating space for all life on Earth, I suggest that performing vegan food practices as much as possible is an undogmatic responsibility of ethical producers and consumers alike, regardless of their personal identities as vegans, vegetarians or "meat eaters" (carnists).
... The biocyclic-vegan standard is just a case in point in this practice, but vegetal fertilizer can be combined with mineral substance, and it also can be used in different stages. In a paper on vegan greenhouse production, for example, Schmutz and Foresi (2017;481) It is yet unclear, for example, whether more investment in catch crops would be necessary compared to today's situation to maintain soil fertility. ...
... The biocyclic-vegan standard is just a case in point in this practice, but vegetal fertilizer can be combined with mineral substance, and it also can be used in different stages. In a paper on vegan greenhouse production, for example, Schmutz and Foresi [59] mentioned "plant-based composts, mulches and other biomass". Wastewater from the processing of crops, such as cassava wastewater [60], would also fall into this category. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper explores both the necessities and the options for an agricultural system in which no animals are killed by reviewing existing literature. It first identifies a causal chain which can be labelled as vegan wave and which might generate a consensus that animals should not be killed for human consumption. By raising issues of nutrient supply, grassland management and beekeeping, the paper shows that vegan-organic agriculture, vegan-conventional agriculture and post-lethal vegetarian agriculture are three options for such a pathway. Yet, many technical and socioeconomic questions still need to be resolved.
... WP SOIL considers alternatives to the use of manure from non-organic farms and other animal-derived fertility inputs such as blood and bone meal (including legume-based fertilisers in horticultural production, marine derived fertilisers and pond sediments from organic aquaculture). Some of these fertilisers will be compatible to the recently developed private vegan organic standards (Schmutz and Foresi, 2017), e.g. the bio-cyclic-vegan standard was approved into the IFOAM family of standards in February 2018. Organic-PLUS also works on alternatives to peat in growing media (including materials from agroforestry) and alternatives to fossil fuel-derived plastic used as a weed supressing mulch (including degradable plastics and biocomposites). ...
... The research on sustainability aspects of stockfree-organic agriculture is quite limited. Schmutz and Foresi [41] dealt with the common standards (e.g., plant-based compost, hay, or mulch for soil fertility from one's own farm or purchased from other organic farms) and challenges (e.g., in a greenhouse, only pollination by wild bees is allowed, the exclusion of coir) of stockfree-organic agriculture. Besides, Visak [42] concluded that stockfree-organic agriculture has advantages on sustainability (e.g., less water and energy required, higher biodiversity) compared to the western conventional farming practices. ...
Article
Full-text available
Recently, more and more research has been conducted on what sustainable nutrition could look like. Stockfree-organic agriculture is one possible approach but a relatively new and unstudied cultivation method. In addition to organic agriculture, it excludes any animal by-products during the whole cultivation process. Among the consumers of organic food are especially many vegetarians and vegans. To attract this target group, first farms in Europe have started to follow the stockfree-organic agriculture principles. As it is important to know the consumers’ point of view on new developments in agriculture at an early stage of the diffusion process, this study deals with consumers’ evaluation of stockfree-organic agriculture to draw conclusions about a possible market potential. This is especially important for stockfree-organic farmers, as well as for organic farmers who are considering converting their cultivation method, and for retailers who wonder whether it is worthwhile to offer these products. The data was collected in 2019 by means of an online survey. The sample consisted of 500 German respondents. Principal component and cluster analyses were used to identify consumer segments according to their attitudes towards the acceptance, advantages, and disadvantages of stockfree-organic agriculture. Additionally, the different segments were compared with each other according to various attitudes and eating behaviours. Overall, animal welfare considerations and environmental aspects were of particular importance to consumers. Animal usage was clearly rejected by one segment, which contained 24% of the sample. Nearly all vegetarians and all vegans supported stockfree-organic agriculture, whereas heavy meat consumers tended to refuse the support of stockfree-organic agriculture. The supporting group valuing high animal welfare and health concerns was much larger than the current status of this niche segment would suggest. This could be a major challenge for the agricultural sector in the long term, but could also include opportunities for greater sustainability.
... Much research has focused on the motivation for buying organic products (PADEL and FOSTER, 2005;ZANOLI and NASPETTI, 2002;NASIR and KARAKAYA, 2014). One study analysed the motivation for following a vegan diet (JANSSEN et al., 2016) and another study analysed the potential of vegan organic agriculture (SCHMUTZ and FORESI, 2017). ...
Article
Full-text available
The number of consumers who follow a vegetarian or vegan diet and people who purchase organic food is increasing worldwide. The labelling of food products with a vegan label only refers to the ingredients, not to the production method. Therefore, animal products e.g. slurry, meal pellets and animal by-products can be used in the chain of agricultural production. A new biocyclic-vegan label, which refers to an exclusion of any animal by-product during production, was introduced in Germany in 2017. The product life cycle consists of five stages. The production method of biocyclic-vegan agricultural products is a new approach. Therefore, very little is known about consumer awareness of these products. As a result, this study is of an exploratory nature and investigates which needs biocyclic-vegan products can satisfy and which additional values these products offer in comparison to organic products. As little is known about the biocyclic-vegan production method, telephone interviews involving six experts and six vegetarian/vegan consumers from Germany were carried out. The interviews took place in January 2018. The consumer convenience sample was selected based on age, gender and profession while the experts were selected based on their expertise. On average the interviews lasted 20 minutes. The interviews consisted of 20 questions. Both, consumers and experts were included to gain knowledge from each perspective. The three key results are that most interviewees knew about biocyclic-vegan production and were able to explain the meaning. Another major result is that consumers mention that the purchase reason is to support the idea of biocyclic-vegan agriculture while experts name ethical reasons as a main purchase reason. The third key result is that the barriers of purchasing the products are the price, lack of knowledge and credibility. As this is an explorative study, further research is needed e.g. more in-depth interviews consisting of a larger sample size and a more diverse sample including consumers following different diets such as flexitarians. Moreover quantitative approaches would give valuable insights into the topic.
Article
A growing number of farmers are excluding animal inputs from crop production, an approach commonly referred to as veganic or stockfree organic agriculture. This research-based article discusses the soil health and fertility strategies reported by a sample of U.S. veganic farmers. These approaches may be relevant beyond the veganic community to farmers seeking innovative methods for produce safety and nutrient cycling. Agricultural outreach professionals (AOPs), including Extension personnel, play a critical role in supporting veganic practices by serving as cross-pollinators between farmers and research institutions. Thus, the article endeavors to expand AOP familiarity with veganic practices and benefits.
Article
Full-text available
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is not a new concept but in combination with stockfree organic farming and using it to enhance and recycle the fertility created on-farm it is a rather new and fascinating idea. It is also different from AD systems on organic farms where cattle manure is used. The term ‘vegan AD’ was coined in analogy to a vegan diet in which the digester is only fed with plant material from organic stockfree farms.
Article
Full-text available
The paper gives an overview of protected cropping in the UK. It presents examples of economic data for strawberries, tomatoes, and cucumbers, the most important protected crops in the UK. The data are presented in a format as collected for the UK Organic Farm Management Handbook, but based on our generic knowledge of the industry and not collected from a larger sample of growers as done for the handbook. Data show that organic protected cropping can be very profitable on a gross margin basis. As with other high value vegetables, there are considerable risks and the economic returns are very sensitive to changes in price and yield. Other major factors are labour hours and cost of labour. In comparison with this, the protected structures, usually polytunnels or unheated glasshouses, are not such a major cost factor, especially if they can be depreciated over many years and used by other crops (e.g. winter salad crops) in the same year. Based on these favourable economics, it is expected that capital is not a major limiting factor for the future growth of the organic protected industry in the UK. Skills and fluctuations in market demand and prices may play a much bigger role.
Chapter
Food production is one of the most pressing issues for a sustainable development (SD). Instead of mainstream paths like the utilisation of insect protein, highly efficient soilless hydroponics, aquaculture or precision agriculture, this article focusses on various approaches of organic agriculture. Organic Agriculture is subject to both scientific and non-academic research as well as commercial application. In many case studies, it has been demonstrated that organic agriculture can be productive, economic and able to reduce the carbon footprint of food. However, its comprehensive applicability and suitability to feed the world is still subject to both scientific and political debates. This article does not intend to adjudicate on this general question, but wants to shift the perspective on organic agriculture and highlight challenges and what we regard as some of the next necessary innovations. We understand SD as a continuous process of seeking inter- and intra-generationally fair and justifiable solutions within the 'safe and just space for humanity'. The general suitability of organic agriculture as a tool towards SD is already proven. Yet the gradual improvement of organic agriculture and its mainstreaming by food labelling and law, we shall argue, are not sufficient in the endeavour towards SD in food production. New ideas need to be included into research and tested as additional and maybe alternative paths. This article introduces the concepts of: (1) stockfree/vegan-organic farming; (2) Terra Preta techniques for soil fertility; and (3) featured biodiversity approaches as a quality marker for agriculture. They are discussed with respect to their potential to combat the loss of biodiversity, unsustainable land use change and soil degradation. These issues are relevant challenges for humankind and intergenerational justice not only in the realm of agricultural ethics.
Die bio-vegane Landwirtschaft in Deutschland: Definition, Motive und Beratungsbedarf. Hochschule für Nachhaltige Entwicklung
  • A Bonzheim
Bonzheim, A. (2014). Die bio-vegane Landwirtschaft in Deutschland: Definition, Motive und Beratungsbedarf. Hochschule für Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Bachelor Thesis, FH Eberswalde, Germany. http://biovegan.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/02/Bonzheim_Bachelorarbeit_Bio-veganeLandwirtschaft.pdf [accessed Dec 2015].
Brauchen wir Tiere? Anmerkungen zur aktuellen Debatte ü ber Fleischverzicht und Veganismus
  • Boergen Gottwald
Gottwald and Boergen (2014). Brauchen wir Tiere? Anmerkungen zur aktuellen Debatte ü ber Fleischverzicht und Veganismus, 267-274, Der kritische Agrarbericht. AgrarBündnis, Berlin, Germany, www.kirtischeragrarbericht.de
Growing Green: Animal-Free Organic Techniques. Chelsea The Vegan Organic Network
  • J Hall
  • I Tolhurst
Hall, J. and I. Tolhurst, (2010). Growing Green: Animal-Free Organic Techniques. Chelsea The Vegan Organic Network; Revised edition from 2006 Green Publishing Company, London, UK, 328 pages, ISBN: 978-1933392493
Standard for the certification of vegetarian and vegan products
  • Icea
ICEA (2014). Standard for the certification of vegetarian and vegan products, Ed.02 Rev.01 -15.04.2014, Instituto Certificazione Ethica e Ambientale, ICEA DTR 03, Bologna, Italy www.icea.info [accessed Dec 2015]
Principles of Organic Agriculture, IFOAM, Bonn, Germany www.ifoam.bio/en/organiclandmarks/principles-organic-agriculture
IFOAM, (2015). Principles of Organic Agriculture, IFOAM, Bonn, Germany www.ifoam.bio/en/organiclandmarks/principles-organic-agriculture [accessed Dec 2015].
Viehloser Ackerbau im ökologischen Landbau -Evaluierung des derzeitigen Erkenntnisstandes anhand von Betriebsbeispielen und Expertenbefragungen
  • H Schmidt
Schmidt, H., (2004). Viehloser Ackerbau im ökologischen Landbau -Evaluierung des derzeitigen Erkenntnisstandes anhand von Betriebsbeispielen und Expertenbefragungen. University of Kassel. Germany. http://orgprints.org/5020
Iain Tolhurst, Tolhurst Organic, Community Interest Company limited by guarantee
  • I Tolhurst
Tolhurst, I (2015). Iain Tolhurst, Tolhurst Organic, Community Interest Company limited by guarantee, Whitchurch-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, UK www.tolhurstorganic.co.uk [accessed and additionally personal communication, Dec 2015].