0% found this document useful (0 votes)

20 views84 pages

Organic Documentation

The document is a project report on 'Organic Was Inorganic Prediction Classification Using Machine Learning' submitted by students for their Bachelor of Technology in Computer Science. It outlines the project's objectives, methodology, and significance in the context of organic farming regulations in the EU, emphasizing the importance of ethical values in organic agriculture. The report also discusses the use of machine learning techniques for heart sound classification to aid in cardiovascular disease diagnosis.

Uploaded by

kumarpentakota22

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

20 views84 pages

Organic Documentation

Uploaded by

kumarpentakota22

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 84

Organic was Inorganic prediction Classification Using Machine learning

An project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of

the award of the degree of

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY

COMPUTER SCIENCE

Submitted by

[Link] KUMAR 22NT5A0529

[Link] REDDY 21NT1A0511

L.S.V. CHAITANYA 21NT1A05A0

[Link] 21NT1A0525

[Link] 21NT5A0527

Under the esteemed supervision of

MS. A. NAVYA, M. Tech

Assistant professor

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE

VISAKHA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY

(Approved by AICTE, New Delhi & Affiliated to JNTUGV, Vijayanagaram) 88th Division,
NARAVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530027

2021-2025
VISAKHA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
(Approved by AICTE, New Delhi & Affiliated to JNTUGV, Vijayanagaram)

88th Division, NARAVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530027

CERTIFICATE

This is certified that the project report entitled “Organic Was In Organic Prediction
Classification Using the Machine Learning” is an authentic record of project done by
[Link] KUMAR (22NT5A0529) , [Link] REDDY (21NT1A0511) , L.S.V
CHAITANYA (21NT5A05A0) , [Link] (21NT1A0525) , [Link]
(21NT1A0527) towards the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Award of
the degree of bachelor of technology in Computer Science.

Place: Visakhapatnam

Date :

PROJECT GUIDE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT

MS . A . NAVYA ASC TEJASWINI KONE (Ph.D)

Assistant Professor, DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE VIET.

VIET.

EXTERNAL EXAMINER
DECLARATION

We here by declare that work done in this project work entitled “Organic Was Non Organic
prediction classification using machine learning” has been carried out by me, in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the award of degree of BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY in
COMPUTER SCIENCE of Visakha Institute of Engineering & Technology, Narva,
Visakhapatnam.

Place : Visakhapatnam

Date :

[Link] KUMAR 22NT5A0529

[Link] REDDY 21NT1A0511

L.S.V. CHAITANYA 21NT1A05A0

[Link] 21NT1A0525

[Link] 21NT1A0527
DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE

VISAKHA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY

PROJECT EVALUATION REPORT

This internship entitled “Design and comparative study between conventional and modified
rapid sand filter to recycle waste water” is an authentic record of project work done by
[Link] KUMAR (22NT5A0529) , [Link] REDDY (21NT1A0511) , L.S.V
CHAITANYA (21NT5A05A0) , [Link] (21NT1A0525) , [Link]
(21NT1A0527) batch, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree
of BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY in COMPUTER SCIENCE at Visakha institute of engineering
& technology has been approved.

Examiners :

……………………… project supervisor

(MS. A . NAVYA)

……………………… External Examiner

……………………… Head of civil department

(ASC TEJASWINI KONE (Ph.D)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We are pleased to acknowledge our sincere thanks to Board of

Management of VISAKHA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND
TECHNOLOGY for their kind encouragement in doing this project and for
completing it successfully. We are grateful to them.

We convey our thanks to Prof. G. VIDYA PRADEEP VARMA,

MTech, Ph.D. Principal, and [Link] kone, Head of the
Department, Dept. of Computer Science And Engineering for
providing us necessary support and details at the right time
during the progressive reviews.

We would like to express our sincere and deep sense of gratitude to

our Project Guide [Link], for her valuable guidance, suggestions
and constant encouragement paved way for the successful
completion of our project work.

We wish to express our thanks to all Teaching and Non-teaching staff members of the
Department of Computer Science And Engineering who were helpful in many
ways for the completion of the project.
Abstract

Heart sound classification is vital for the early diagnosis of cardiovascular diseases, which remain
one of the leading causes of death globally. Traditional auscultation methods are limited by
subjectivity and variability among practitioners. To address this, we propose a deep learning-based
system utilizing Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), Long Short-Term Memory networks
(LSTM), and ResNet architectures to automatically classify heart sounds into three categories:
normal, murmur, and artifact. These models process audio features extracted from heart sound
recordings sourced from publicly available datasets, including Kaggle. Preprocessing includes noise
filtering and transformation into mel-spectrograms, enabling the models to learn rich audio
representations.

The trained models demonstrate strong performance in distinguishing pathological heart sounds
from normal patterns, offering significant support for clinical decision-making. The system is
designed to accept user-uploaded audio files, classify the sound, and return a diagnosis in real time.
This tool aims to provide scalable and efficient cardiac screening, particularly beneficial in
telemedicine and rural healthcare settings. With further enhancements in interpretability and
robustness, such AI-driven systems hold the potential to revolutionize cardiac diagnostics and
improve patient outcomes worldwide.

Key words—Heart sound classification, CNN, LSTM, ResNet, artifact, murmur, normal, disease
detection, deep learning, audio analysis, cardiovascular diseases.
TABLE CONTENT

Chapter Title Subsection

1.1 Introduction 1.1 Background
1.2 Introduction 1.2 Problem
Statement
1.3 Introduction 1.3 Objectives
1.4 Introduction 1.4 Scope
1.5 Introduction 1.5 Significance of
the Study
2.1 Literature Review 2.1 Overview of
Image
Classification
2.2 Literature Review 2.2 Machine
Learning in Food
Analysis
2.3 Literature Review 2.3 Related
Works
2.4 Literature Review 2.4 Research Gap
3.1 Methodology 3.1 Data
Collection
3.1.1 Methodology 3.1.1 Dataset
Sources
3.1.2 Methodology 3.1.2 Labeling
Process
3.2 Methodology 3.2 Data
Preprocessing
3.2.1 Methodology 3.2.1 Image
Resizing
3.2.2 Methodology 3.2.2
Normalization
3.2.3 Methodology 3.2.3
Augmentation
Techniques
3.3 Methodology 3.3 Feature
Extraction
3.3.1 Methodology 3.3.1 Manual
Feature
Extraction
3.3.2 Methodology 3.3.2 Automatic
Feature
Extraction
3.4 Methodology 3.4 Model
Building
3.4.1 Methodology 3.4.1 Logistic
Regression
3.4.2 Methodology 3.4.2 Random
Forest
3.5 Methodology 3.5 Model
Evaluation
3.5.1 Methodology 3.5.1 Evaluation
Metrics
3.5.2 Methodology 3.5.2 Cross-
Validation
4.1 System Design 4.1 Architecture
Diagram
4.2 System Design 4.2 Workflow
4.3 System Design 4.3 Hardware and
Software
Requirements
5.1 Implementation 5.1 Tools and
Libraries
5.2 Implementation 5.2 Code
Development
5.3 Implementation 5.3 Testing
Phases
6.1 Results and 6.1 Performance
Discussion Metrics
6.2 Results and 6.2 Model
Discussion Comparison
6.3 Results and 6.3 Challenges
Discussion and Limitations
7.1 Conclusion & 7.1 Summary
Future Scope
7.2 Conclusion & 7.2 Contributions
Future Scope
7.3 Conclusion & 7.3 Future
Future Scope Enhancements
8 References
Chapter-1

1 Introduction
Since 1991, organic Farming in the EU is governed by the Regulation (EEC) 2092/91, which sets out
the rules for labelling a food product as ‘organic’ or equivalent terms ‘biological’ or ‘ecological’ in
other languages. The Regulation was a response to growing consumer demands for organic
products, building on the experience of governmental standards in several member states (Austria,
Denmark, Spain, Finland, and France) and in the private sector. The result was a legally enforceable
and officially recognized common standard for organic crop production, certification, and labelling
in the EU, which had to be implemented in all member states by 1993.

In most areas the production rules were similar to the Basic Standards of the International
Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM). The Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 paved the
way for organic management options to be included in the EU agri-environment policy support
programmes (Regulation (EEC) 2078/92)2 and through its provisions for imports from non-EU
countries has affected organic standards worldwide. In 1999, the Regulation was amended by
Regulation (EEC) 1804/1993 setting out rules for on organic livestock production, a flexibility
clause allowing member states to maintain stricter rules on animal production, and a prohibition of
GMO were introduced in 1999. An organic regulation (or private standard) acts as the basis of a
virtual contract between the organic producer and the consumer.

The organic producer promises to deliver certain ethical values by following the practises set out in
the standards, and the consumers receive a guarantee about what to expect from an organic
product. The Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 mainly covers rules for labelling, rules of production are
covered largely in Annex I. Permitted inputs and inspection rules are covered in the other annexes.
The regulation does not contain an explicit definition; organic farming is defined by the practices
rather than the principles and ethical values. Since the introduction more than 25 amendments
have been taken up. In a growing market for organic food there is concern that the involvement of
large companies and global trade will encourage producers to cut corners and forget about the
ethical values.

The concern that ‘conventional’ organic farming would be conducted in a more intensive,
industrialised fashion and would no longer function effectively as a more sustainable alternative,
has resulted in a renewed interest in the values and principles of organic farming.

Private standard-setting organisations and some governments within and outside the EU have
long-established organic standards, which in some areas are more detailed and/or more
demanding than the EU Regulation. Some standard setting bodies aim 1Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications
referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs. Official Journal of the European
Communities L198(22.7.91): 1-15. 2 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of the 30 June 1992 on
agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the
environment and the maintenance of the countryside." Official journal of the European
Communities L215(30.7.92): 85-90. 3 Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999
supplementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and
indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock
production. Official Journal of the European Communities, L222

for stricter rules as a way to differentiate the products carrying their symbol in a growing market.
This and the flexibility in relation to livestock have resulted in differences in the implementation of
Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 in the Member States and to private standards, which raises concerns
about unfair competition and to barriers to the trade. The European Action Plan for Organic Food
and Farming4 called for a review of the legal framework with the aim to ensure simplification and
overall coherence, to establish principles that encourage harmonisation of standards and, where
possible, to reduce the level of detail.

Following this, the Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 was reviewed. This Project EEC 2092/91 (Organic)
Revision was set up to support this revision of the Regulation (EEC) 2092/91. The project began in
March 2004 and lasted for 38 month until April 2007 and was therefore ongoing during the first
phase of the revision of the EU Regulation. A first proposal for a new regulation was published by
the European Commission in December 20055 and was negotiated by a Council Working Group
during 2006. The opinion of the European Parliament was given in May 2007 and the text for a new
Council regulation (EEC) 834/20076 has been agreed in June 2007, and is to come into force in
January 2009.

“According to the preamble, the main aims of the revised regulation are to ensure fair competition,
a proper functioning of the internal market, and to maintain and justifying consumer confidence in
products labelled as organic. This should provide conditions under which this sector can progress
in line with production and market developments (CEU, 2006). The new rules set out a complete set
of objectives, principles and basic rules for organic production, and include a new permanent
import regime and a more consistent control regime.

The use of the EU organic logo will be mandatory, but it can be accompanied by national or private
logos. The place where the products were farmed has to be indicated to inform consumers. Food
will only be able to carry an organic logo if at least 95 percent of the ingredients are organic. But
non-organic products will be entitled to indicate organic ingredients on the ingredients list only
(Europa Press release IP/07/807)”. The consortium of project EEC 2092/91 (Organic) Revision has
made contributions to inform the negotiation process on several issues, such as the integration of
objectives and principles based on values and on criteria for the approval of feed ingredients. The
final consolidated recommendations are included at the end of this report.
1.1 The objectives of (Organic) Revision

The overall objective of the project EEC 2092/91 (Organic) Revision was to provide
recommendations for the revision and further development of the Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 and
other standards for organic agriculture. Specific objectives were: - - - - - to identify the basic ethical
values and value differences of organic agriculture in Europe and develop a procedure for balancing
and integrating the basic values in developments of EU regulation (WP2); to compare the organic
standards from national and private organisations in Europe with the EU regulation in order to give
recommendations on further harmonisation of the EU regulation (WP3); to provide more
knowledge on how to achieve 100 % organic rations in diets for livestock (WP4); to provide more
knowledge on how to reduce the use of seed and vegetative propagation materials from
conventional sources in organic farming (WP5); to discuss and disseminate project results with
stakeholders (WP6).

identify the basic ethical values and value differences of organic agriculture in Europe and develop
a procedure for balancing and integrating the basic values in developments of EU regulation (WP2);
to compare the organic standards from national and private organisations in Europe with the EU
regulation in order to give recommendations on further harmonisation of the EU regulation (WP3);
to provide more knowledge on how to achieve 100 % organic rations in diets for livestock (WP4);
to provide more knowledge on how to reduce the use of seed and vegetative propagation materials
from conventional sources in organic farming (WP5); to discuss and disseminate project results
with stakeholders (WP6).

Each work package except WP1 had a work package (WP) manager and a co manager (see Table 1-
2). These had been chosen on the basis of their expertise in the particular field, regional
considerations and gender considerations to give the best possible team. The WP managers in close
cooperation with the co-managers and the coordinator were responsible for the coordination of the
work carried out in

Table 1-2: Work Package Managers and Co-Managers

WP Co-
WP WP Manager Country Country
Manager
Erik Steen
Kristensen / Lizzie Melby
Lizzie Melby Jespersen,
1 Jespersen, Denmark (DK) DARCOF Denmark (DK)
DARCOF (Administrative
(Scientific Coordinator)
Coordinator)
Hugo Fjelsted
Alrø, DARCOF / Ton Baars / Jan Netherlands
2 Denmark (DK)
Susanne Padel, de Wit, LBI (NL)
UWA
Otto Schmid, Switzerland Cristina
3 Italy (IT)
FiBL (CH) Micheloni, AIAB
Albert Sundrum, Susanne Padel, United Kingdom
4 Germany (DE)
UNKA UWA (UK)
Cristina Gerhard
5 Italy (IT) Austria (AT)
Micheloni, AIAB Plakolm, BAL
Claus Bo
Otto Schmid, Switzerland
6 Andreasen, Denmark (DK)
FiBL (CH)
DARCOF

1.3 Project outcome

Otto Schmid, FiBL CH The project produced 12 reports, 7 scientific publications in peer-reviewed
journals (see Table 1-3), and a project web-page at [Link] where all reports are
available. The project organised 3 workshops with stakeholders and had ongoing communication
with the Unit on Organic Farming in DG Agriculture, which is responsible for the Organic
Regulation. Members of the team produced in total more than 250 dissemination items in the form
of book chapters, scientific conference papers published in the proceedings, workshop
presentations, posters and papers, articles in magazines and newsletters and direct E-mail
communications both national languages and in English (See Appendix 1 to Scientific Project
Report).
Table 1-4 Project reports and publications

Del. no. Project Reports Lead Author Available at

Focus groups of
value concepts of
Susanne Padel, [Link]
2.1 organic producers
UWA [Link]
and other
stakeholders
Balancing and
integrating basic
values in the
development of
organic regulations Susanne Padel, [Link]
2.3
and standards: UWA [Link]
proposal for a
procedure using
case studies of
conflicting areas
Public organic
standards database
on the internet with
information on
3.1 differences in Otto Schmid, FiBL [Link]
relation to
EEC2092/91 from
min. 15 European
organic standards
Report on the
comparison of the
EEC Reg. 2092/91
and selected
national and
[Link]
3.2 international Otto Schmid, FiBL
[Link]
organic standards in
regards to
compliance and
identification of
specific areas
Possibilities and
limitations of
Albert Sundrum, [Link]
4.1 (1) protein supply in
UNKA [Link]
organic poultry and
pig production
Overview of supply
and demand for
organic protein
sources for feed in Susanne Padel, [Link]
4.1 (2)
EU (focus on protein UWA [Link]
sources for
monogastric
animals)
4.2 Recommendations Albert Sundrum, [Link]
for reducing feed UNKA [Link]
materials in Annex I
C and dietary
supplements in
Annex II D of the
EEC Regulation
Final proposals to
operators and
competent
4.3 authorities for Pip Nicholas, UWA [Link]
implementing the
proposals related to
feed
Report on seed
Cristina [Link]
5.1 borne diseases in
Micheloni, AIAB [Link]
organic seed
Organic production Cristina [Link]
5.2
of quality seed Micheloni, AIAB [Link]
Report on criteria
for national Andreas [Link]
5.3
evaluation of Thommen, FiBL [Link]
organic seed quality
Report on the final
stakeholder
Susanne Padel,
6.3 workshop on the [Link]
UWA
Organic Revision
Project
Table 1-5 (continued): Scientific Papers

Scientific Paper Journal and Publication Details

Röcklinsberg, H (2005): Consent and
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Consensus in policies related to food – five
Ethics 19 (3): 285-299
core values
de Wit, J and Verhoog, H (2007): Organic
NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 54
values and the conventionalisation of
(4): 449–462
organic agriculture
Alrøe, H.F. and Noe, E. (2008): What makes Int. J. Agricultural Resources, Governance and
organic agriculture move – protest, meaning Ecology 7 (1/2): 5-22. Special issue on
or market? A polyocular approach to the “Continuity and change in organic farming –
dynamics and governance of organic philosophy, practice and policy.” Available at
agriculture [Link]
Int. J. Agricultural Resources, Governance and
Padel, S (2008): Values of organic producers
Ecology 7 (1/2): 63–77. Special issue on
converting to organic farming: Results of a
“Continuity and change in organic farming –
focus group study in five European countries
philosophy, practice and policy.”
Padel, S., Röcklinsberg, H. and Schmid, O
(2008 forthcoming): Ethical principles and
Accepted by Food Policy. Special issue
values in the European Regulation for
organic food
Noe, E., H.F. Alrøe and A.M.S. Langvad
(2008): A polyocular framework for
Sociologia Ruralis 48 (1): 1–15
research on multifunctional farming and
rural development
Kjeldsen, C. and H.F. Alrøe (2007):
Embeddedness of organic food networks. To be submitted for scientific journal in 2007
Draft paper

1.6 Structure of this report

This report summaries the findings of the project that have been presented in a number of separate
reports and publications. In the Chapters 2 to 5 the approach, results and conclusions of the project
are summarized, following the structure of the different work packages. Chapter 2 summaries the
work on ethical values of organic agriculture. Chapter 3 looks at the differences in the
implementation of Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 across Europe and compares the European
Regulation with international standards. Chapters 4 and 5 summaries the findings that relate to
reducing the dependency on non-organic inputs in the case of feed and seed. The final Chapter 6
consolidates the recommendations of the whole project arising from the various different work
packages in one place. Recommendations are aimed in particular at the second stage of the ongoing
revision process of the European Regulation, the transfer of the detailed rules from the Annexes of
the Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 that is expected to start after the completion of the project.
2 Identifying core ethical values of organic agriculture and developing a procedure
for integrating them into the regulation (WP2)

2.1 Approach

The specific objectives of this work were to: - - identify the basic ethical values and value
differences in organic farming (D 2.1) and submit two scientific papers for publication (D 2.2), and
develop a procedure for balancing and integrating these basic values in standards leading to
recommendations for the further development of the Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 (D2.3). Ethical
values of organic farming were identified in a number of ways (see D 2.3 by Padel et al., 2007). Two
members of the EEC 2092/91 (Organic) Revision Project team participated in a process in co-
ordination with IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) of
formulating Principles of Organic Agriculture. The process involved a comprehensive gathering of
available sources and several rounds of stakeholder and expert consultations. The process has also
resulted in a number of publications (e.g. Alroe et al., 2006). A set of four ‘Principles of Organic
Agriculture (in short POA)’ were proposed and accepted by a large majority at the general assembly
of the word-wide members of IFOAM at the IFOAM General Assembly in Adelaide, Australia in
September 2005 (IFOAM, 2005). For further analysis, the content of each of these four principles of
Health, Ecology, Fairness and Care was broken down into value elements based on the detailed
explanations given for each of them. These were contrasted with publications identifying ethical
values and principles of organic farming, with the Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 (EC, 1991), and with
the proposal for a total revision. A focus group study comprising 16 groups with organic producers
and 10 groups with other stakeholders was carried out in five EU countries (AT, CH, IT, NL, UK)
aimed to identify the range of values associated with organic farming and important basic values
(see D 2.1 by Padel, 2005a). The analysis used a codebook based on value elements identified in the
IFOAM consultation process. The results were compared with a similar study of consumers of the
OMIARD project (QLK5-2000-01124) (Zanoli, 2004). Three case studies were carried out
comparing ethical values with current practice of organic farming in three contested areas of
‘intensity’, ‘(in)-dependency from non organic inputs’ and ‘localness’. A report building on
procedural ethics and experience with ethical dialogue in other areas outlined the implications of
the aim of integrating basic organic values in organic standards and regulations in relation to
decision making (D 2.3 by Padel et al., 2007).

2.2 Core values of organic agriculture

The collaborative process with IFOAM resulted in four Principles of Organic Agriculture (POA): the
principles of Health, Ecology, Fairness and Care. The principle of health states that organic
agriculture should sustain and enhance the health of soil,

plant, animal, human and planet as one and indivisible. The principle of Ecology places organic
agriculture in close living ecological systems and cycles, and establishes an obligation to work with
them, emulate them and help sustain them. The Principle of Fairness states that organic agriculture
should build on relationships that ensure fairness with regard to the common environment and life
opportunities. The principle of Care sets out a precautionary principle for organic agriculture and
places responsibility on the operators to protect the health and well-being of current and future
generations and the environment. These four principles of organic agriculture are ethical principles
and represent a vision to improve agriculture in a global context. However, this is not the same as
legal principles. The four principles together act as a whole and each principle also contains a set of
explanations in which a range of value elements are referred to. Even if they do not necessarily use
the same terms, they also refer to three integrative values that are frequently mentioned in the
organic farming literature, namely sustainability, naturalness and systems thinking (see Figure 2-
1).

Figure 2-
1 Value
elements
of the
IFOAM

principles of organic agriculture

In identifying ethical values, it is important to distinguish between empirical (descriptive) and

normative publications. The descriptive approach is directed at the discovery of differences (value
pluralism) and uses a broad understanding of ‘value’-similar to a ‘motive’ as a basic conviction
relating to emotions and leading to certain behaviour. The normative approach is comparable to
deontological ethics, in which certain core values or principles are formulated to assure respect for
a range of fundamental values or virtues (for example respect for others). Such ethical principles
can function both as a source of inspiration and as setting boundaries to certain activities (Padel et
al. 2007). Since 2000, there have been a number of other publications identifying the core value
base and the principles of organic farming. A comparison of these publications with the value
elements covered in each of the four IFOAM principles including the integrative values of
sustainability, naturalness and a systems approach shows that the values they are based on are
shared by most authors.

2.3 Values important to organic producers

There were few examples of differences between the importance attributed to values by the
recently converted and the established organic producers. The value of organic farming as an
alternative model for agriculture and its importance for education (AT, UK), animal welfare (CH,
UK), job satisfaction (IT) and rural employment (CH) were more important to recently converted
than established producers.
Value AT CH UK IT NL IFOAM Principle
Food quality 1 X 3 X X Health

Environmental protection 3 X 3 X X Ecology

Limiting resource use X X X X X Ecology

Health 1 2 1 X X Health

Sustainability 1(a) 2 X X Integrative

Closed production cycles X X X X Ecology

Independence X X X X

Respect for/farming with nature X 3 X X Integrative

Alternative model/Education X(d) X(d) X(d) X(d) Care

Professional challenge, pride X X X X(d)

Fairness in the food chain X X Fairness

Systems approach X X Integrative (Ecology)

Regional production site specific

Animal welfare X X(d) X(d) X(d) Fairness

Global fairness X Fairness

Social networks/wellbeing X(a) X(a) Health

Avoiding residues/non-polluting X X X X Health

Farm diversity X X (Ecology), bio-diversity

Family farm/Future generation X 3(d) (Care), future generations

Quality of life on the farm X Fairness

Value AT CH UK IT NL IFOAM Principle
Trust X (Fairness), transparency

Authenticity/freshness and taste X(d) X(d)

Integrity X Health

Rural employment X(a) (Fairness)

The focus group study showed that values of food quality, environmental protection, limited use of
resources, and health were considered as important by the producers in all countries (see Table 2-
1).

(a) The 3 most important values as voted by the participants of the focus groups are marked 1-3,
other values of importance are marked by X.

(b) In NL participants sorted values in clusters but did not vote on importance

(c) In CH discussions focused on ecological sustainability

(d) Values found more important in groups with converting producers

(e) Where the principle name is included in brackets, only the certain value elements stated was
mentioned

Source: Padel (2008 in press) and Padel et al (2007)

Sustainability, closed production cycles and independence were important in four countries AT,
CH, UK, NL). Fairness and related values were also important to many producers. They were
concerned about the future viability of organic agriculture. The financial disadvantage of organic
production, because the conventional agriculture fails to account for its externalities was illustrated
with many examples, such as the

costs of greater diversity, of crop rotations in the greenhouse or of improved animal welfare. The
downward trend for organic prices in larger trading structures and globalised markets was
experienced as a threat that may prevent organic producers from realising values that are
important to them.
There were few examples of differences between the importance attributed to values by the
recently converted and the established organic producers. The value of organic farming as an
alternative model for agriculture and its importance for education (AT, UK), animal welfare (CH,
UK), job satisfaction (IT) and rural employment (CH) were more important to recently converted
than established producers. The only values more important to established organic producers were
closed production cycles or self-sufficiency in terms of resource use. The results did not support the
widely expressed view that new entrants into organic farming are largely financially motivated and
do not engage with the values of organic agriculture. Financial values were mentioned in many
focus groups, both by experienced and converting organic producers.

The discussions of the values were intensive in all focus groups, irrespective of which type of
producers participated. However, established producers in countries with a long organic farming
history seemed to know more about “organic farming” theory and principles than the new entrants,
e.g. had knowledge of the concept of closing of production cycles or ecosystems health. It is a
challenge to the organic food and farming sector to ensure that all new entrants have the
opportunity to learn about the wider values and principles. However, this may be difficult to
achieve, particularly after periods of very rapid growth in organic agriculture.

A comparison of the values important to the stakeholders with the IFOAM principles shows
considerable overlap, but some values important to European stakeholders are not covered at the
same level of detail in the principles (Table 2-1). These include farm diversity, the family farm that
should be passed to future generations and issues of regional production and of trust, and animal
welfare and health. Independence and professional pride appeared to be values that are specific to
producers and are not represented in the principles.

2.4 Comparison of core values of organic farming with Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 and
with organic production practice

The comparison of core values of organic farming with the Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 shows that
several important values of the principles of organic agriculture are not covered by the regulation.
The regulation refers to value elements related to the IFOAM ethical principles of Ecology and
Health in the preamble, in Article 6 and in Annex I (A & B). By mentioning fair competition,
transparency and excluding GMOs, reference is also made to value elements of the Fairness and
Care Principles, but there is no reference to the agro-ecological systems approach and to the social
values.

Whether this lack of references to certain organic values in the Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 is
reflected in the current practise of organic farming in Europe was evaluated in the project through
analysis of the contested case study areas of ‘intensification’, ‘dependency on non-organic inputs’
and ‘localness’.

Intensification of farms is characterized by higher use of production factors, in particular external

inputs and resources. Organic standards and regulations distinguish between inputs from other
organic or from conventional (non-organic)

sources. Farm specialisation is an indirect indicator of intensification because it does not provide
direct evidence of a reliance on external inputs, but specialised systems are more likely to require
them. Specialisation can also be influenced by other factors, such as location and personal skills and
goals. In a cross national survey of 550 organic farms in the EU-CEE-OFP (QLK5-2-002-00917)
project in 11 EU member states only 16% of the farmers classified their farms as mixed in the sense
of deriving their main income from several enterprise categories. The majority of farms were
specialised, i.e. derived their income from mainly one category of enterprises of grazing livestock
(50%), arable (20%), permanent crops (7%), horticulture (3%) and intensive livestock (3%)
(Nieberg et al., 2005).

A further indirect indicator of intensification is the concentration of livestock farming. Uptake of

organic farming has been higher among livestock producers. Organic livestock production in the EU
is mainly concentrated in Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Spain and in the UK (EC, 2005).
The UK and the Netherlands experience problems with the supply of organic feed because of
imbalances between the organic cropping and livestock sector.

Livestock and crop production within a country are also not necessarily evenly distributed. For
example in Denmark organic animal production is concentrated on the mainland, while crop
production is mainly on the islands, resulting in a high ‘dependency on non-organic input’ of
organic farms (e.g. straw and manure) because of the distance between the regions (Kyed et al.,
2006). Organic arable production in the Netherlands also relies on N input from non-organic
sources for up to 75% of the total N used (Prins, 2005).

The limit of 170 kg N/ha/year in (EEC) 2092/91 refers only to livestock manures and not to other
fertilisers. Many pig and poultry producers in the Netherlands rely to a high degree on external feed
inputs from organic as well as non-organic sources (Prins, 2005, de Wit and Verhoog, 2007). This
results in an imbalance of the nutrient supply to their fields, and the nutrient concentration in the
range particularly close to the stables is considered an environmental problem (Aarink et al., 2005).
Therefore, the organic pig production in the Netherlands in its current form cannot be considered
as land based or sustainable (Rivera-Ferre, 2006). The reliance on external feed also implies energy
use for feed transport (Bos, 2006). Besides, large flock sizes could have a negative impact on
welfare by reducing the time available for individual animal care.

This would be particularly problematic in organic poultry production, where preventive use of
medicines and (partial) beak trimming to prevent feather picking and cannibalism are not allowed
(de Wit and Verhoog, 2007). This very limited evaluation shows that there is a need to distinguish
between the dependency on non-organic inputs and input intensification, which arise from use of
mainly organic inputs. Standards have restricted the use of many non-organic inputs. For example,
in the Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 a stepwise reduction of non-organic feeds aiming to achieve 100%
organic rations in 2011 that was introduced in 2005. They have focused less on restricting the use
of organic inputs, and the use of other non-organic inputs such as conventional manure, straw and
fertiliser remains permitted. The use of organic inputs is indirectly regulated by input costs as
organic inputs are generally more expensive than non-organic ones, but this does not function
effectively, where derogations for use of conventional inputs are allowed. The underpinning organic
core values of self-reliance and closing production cycles are difficult to codify, audit and regulate
(Lockie et al., 2006). The final case study examined ‘localness’.

It showed that realising greater localness would require substantial changes to production and
consumption patterns, and in the behaviour of all actors. Nevertheless, distance and availability are
closely related and ‘localness’ is an important organic value element and a perspective for future
development which deserves further investigation.

2.5 Procedural issues of integrating values

The organic agriculture movement is by tradition value based: values are at the very core and
influence both the thinking (theory) and the action (practice), but there is no shared single
understanding of how to realise the core values in practice. Like all values they are per se
ambiguous and require interpretation.

The value base of organic farming does not only extend to the way food is produced but also to the
way decisions on organic standards are taken. The organic movement has a tradition of dealing
with different value interpretations in a constructive manner: fairness, respect and participation
are considered important.

The project therefore also considered procedural issues in relation to integrating basic organic
values in standards and in particular in the revision of the Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 on organic
production in relation to:

general rules for decision-making,

a normative reconstruction of the value base in the specific structure of the regulation (or
standard), and

developing the detailed implementing rules (the Annexes of the EU regulation) that require further
interpretation of the value base

. All three are important in relation to the ongoing revision process of the EU Regulation and have
relevance to the private sector.

General rules for decision-making

It is important to find a model for decision-making that is coherent with the traditions of organic
agriculture i.e. aiming at broad participation, respect and democracy. Deliberative democracy or
discourse ethics is relevant because it presents certain procedural rules for a democratic process in
order to arrive at an ethically justified decision, rather than following certain ethical principles
(Benhabib, 1996, Habermas, 1983, Habermas, 1991, Gutmann and Thompson, 1996) and could be
applied to value harmonisation as well as integration into rules and regulations.

Röcklinsberg (2006) suggested five important elements of ethical dialogues in a participative and
deliberative democratic process: 1) equal respect for each discussion partner, 2) respect for
arguments and emotions, 3) context sensitivity, 4) developing a common understanding, and 5)
relating theory (values) to practice. In addition, core values or organic agriculture should be
considered in order to mirror essential organic perspectives.

This model implies that it is necessary to communicate more widely concerning the principles of
organic agriculture and to develop a common understanding by reflecting more widely how the
differences in conditions and in practices of organic farming across Europe interact with shared
principles. Organic stakeholders’ experience and expertise is necessary to relate values to practice,
and to evaluate the feasibility of any proposed new rule.

Normative reconstruction of the value base in the structure of the regulation

Ethical values will function most effectively in regulations, if they are stated in one place where they
can easily be identified. This is largely realised in the text of the new Council Regulation (EC)
834/2007, where most values are mentioned in the
Articles 1-7 (Objectives and Principles), but there is a need for interpretation as to how these core
values are to act in the structure of the regulation.

Regulation (EC) 834/2007 has a hierarchical structure, where aims, objectives and general
principles and specific principles provide the basis for rules and for all other decisions on a more
detailed level (see Figure 2-2). A deliberative procedure would offer important tools for a
normative reconstruction to determine at which level a certain value element is important.
Involving affected stakeholders could improve the coherence of the integration of core values in the
regulation and contribute to context sensitivity and to coherence between theory/values and
practice.

Figure 2- 2 How? The

Procedure for developing the detailed implementing rules

The present decision-making structure in relation to the adoption of European Council Regulations
related to Agriculture (like (EC) 834/2007) involves the European Commission and the Council of
Ministers (of the Member States). Furthermore the opinion of the European Parliament has to be
heard. Decisions on the implementing rules of Regulation (EC) 834/2007 (based on the Annexes of
(EEC) 2092/91) are taken by the Commission assisted by a regulatory committee (Article 34). This
will be similar to the Standing Committee on Organic Farming (SCOF under Article 14 of Regulation
2092/91) consisting of the national experts of the national ministries. The Commission can also
seek the advice of an Advisory Group on Organic Farming. The current decision-making structure
lacks transparency and participation from stakeholders such as organic organisations.

The decision-making structure should facilitate a coherent interpretation of the objectives and
principles for the development of the implementing rules. Apart from the procedural traits
mentioned here, the report by Padel et al. (2007) recommends that the Commission should consult
affected stakeholders and involve the Expert Panel mentioned in the European Action Plan for
Organic Food and Farming7 in the

development of the implementing rules. This could help identifying potential value conflicts before
the rules become law. One of the tasks of such an expert panel should be to consider the coherence
in the interpretation of the objectives and principles.

2.6 Conclusions
The specific objective of identifying the basic ethical values and value differences of organic
agriculture in Europe and develop a procedure how these can be integrated into regulations and
standards were achieved. The core values of organic agriculture were identified from the literature
(included in D 2.3) and through stakeholder consultation (D 2.1) and a report setting out a
procedure and recommendations was produced (D 2.3).

Basic ethical values of organic agriculture

Organic farming is an ethical value based system and the value-driven nature is one of the defining
characteristics of this approach to agriculture. Organic standards and regulations implement the
ethical values: the producer promises follow the practises based on values that are set out in an
organic standard or regulation, and the consumer receives a guarantee on what they can expect
from an organic product.

This process is mediated by the certification bodies, many of which are private organisations.
Various organic stakeholders have value expectations that are not necessarily identical (Alrøe and
Noe, 2008) but some common ethical core values can be identified.

There is concern that some of these core ethical values of organic farming are forgotten with the
increasing competition in a growing, global and more anonymous market, because they are not
covered by the governmental standards that follow the Regulation (EEC) 2092/91. Harmonisation
of the rules in regulations should be based on harmonisation of the ethical values behind the rules
and on developing of a common interpretation of the core value basis. Referring to an ethical value
base accepted by the stakeholders is likely to increase the acceptance of the EU Regulation on
organic production, strengthen consumer confidence, assist in the implementation of flexibility and
provide room for self-regulation in the organic sector. The core value base of organic agriculture
can be described by referring to four IFOAM Principles of Organic Agriculture (POA) of Health,
Ecology, Fairness and Care.

The POA are well founded in the literature, and there is much common ground between them and
the values of stakeholders. The POA also have been accepted by the organic movement
organisations that are members of IFOAM. The four Principles of Organic Agriculture of Health,
Ecology, Fairness and Care act together, and encompass the integrative values sustainability,
naturalness and systems thinking. For further analysis and comparison with standards and
regulations it is helpful to refer to the value elements that contribute to each principle (see Figure
2-1).

Under the current European Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 with the available derogations, it is possible
for organic producers to rely largely on external inputs. Arable and horticultural holdings rely on
non-organic (conventional) fertiliser input, pig and poultry producers rely on both organic and
conventional feed materials. Both practises contradict some of the agro-ecological systems
approach, aiming for closed cycles (i.e. greater resource use self sufficiency), land-related animal
production, as well as environmental protection, food quality and animal health and welfare. The
current regulation with its derogations does not strengthen the functional integrity of organic
farming systems, which is closely related to distance.

A comparison of regulatory definitions (including the Regulation (EEC) 2092/91) with the organic
core values shows that most regulations refer to elements of the IFOAM Principles of Health and
Ecology, whereas Fairness and Care are less well represented (see also Section 3.2).
Most standards and certification systems do not consider the whole value base, some organic core
values (in particular the ecological systems approach and social values) are less widely
implemented because they are more difficult to codify and audit. This does, however, not imply that
they are less important to the organic sector. In particular, social values are central to the self
understanding and mirror the ideals of organic farming as contributing to a more sustainable,
healthy and fair world that cares for its inhabitants.

In the process of revision of the Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 the European Unions has considered the
core values of organic agriculture (as described in the POA). The newly adopted Regulation (EC)
834/2007 on organic production and labelling published in July 2007 will come into force in
January 2009.

This regulation makes reference to value elements of all four principles of Health, Ecology, Fairness
and Care, but for some it is less far reaching than the POA. The objectives and principles in the new
regulation reflect better the ‘movements’ own value consensus in most areas, with the one
exception of social values.

Taking the values expressed in the objectives and principles of the new Regulation seriously
implies that these are explicated in the detailed production rules (or Annexes) that remain to be
revised. It is the stated intention of the European Commission to transfer the technical content of
the Annexes of Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 largely unchanged into the new framework. This
intention could lead to contradictions between the objectives and principles of the new regulation
and the implementing rules. The text of the new European Council Regulation (EC) 834/2007 refers
to several values that would provide the basis for working towards balanced agro-ecological
systems and for limiting the input intensification of organic farming in Europe, such as:

Recital (11): Organic farming should primarily rely on renewable resources within locally
organised agricultural systems. In order to minimise the use of non renewable resources, wastes
and by-products of plant and animal origin should be recycled to return nutrients to the land.

Article 4: Organic production shall be based on the following principles: a) the appropriate design
and management of biological processes based on ecological systems using natural resources which
are internal to the system [and] b) the restriction of the use of external inputs.

It is likely that limiting the use of external inputs and strengthening the systems approach would
contribute to greater harmonisation between the value expectations of various stakeholders and
the guarantee systems based on the Regulation, national rules and standards, and the inspection
system. This would address many concerns expressed in the ‘conventionalisation’ hypothesis and
by the organic sector.

There is limited experience within the organic sector in setting standards for some of the social
values, such as fairness, equity and responsibility. The private sector could have an important role
as a forerunner in developing standards on how these values can be codified and audited before
they are taken up by the national and international authorities. A summary of recommendation
arising from this work is included in Sections 6.1 to 6.3).

Procedural issues in relation to the integration of ethical values in organic standards

and regulations
Including ethical values in the context of a regulation implies to consider procedural issues, because
there is no single unambiguous interpretation for many of the organic core values which makes the
implementation of certain core values at various levels difficult.

When ethical values are integrated in the context of both private standards and governmental
regulations, greatest possible openness should be adopted. The interpretation of values requires
the transition from a theoretical statement to specific rules for practical action. Changes to the rules
have impact on many stakeholders.

The ongoing revision of the regulation of organic production in Europe has the aim of improving
the transparency by including principles on organic agriculture in the regulation, as well as to
reduce bureaucracy, and to maintain and enhance the integrity of organic food.

The pyramid structure of the new Regulation (EC) 834/2007 mirrors an ‘organic perspective’ in so
far, as in both cases values and principles are the point of departure for all other decisions on a
more detailed level by making broad values operational for relevant sections of the rules.

Some core ethical values of organic agriculture have been expressed as objectives and principles at
the top of the pyramid structure of the new regulation. It is necessary to develop coherent
interpretation for each of the core values for the more detailed rules, and to develop decision-
making structures that safeguard such a coherent interpretation.

This corresponds with procedural ethics, stressing the importance of the process (the ideal
procedure) to arrive at a ‘morally’ right answer as well as moral values. Stakeholders should be
involved and their feedback should be considered in the setting of standards to improve the
acceptance of a harmonised value basis. There is a need to strengthen the consultation and
participation of representative stakeholders in the decision-making concerning the (EC) 834/2007
and the implementing rules which are to be drafted before 2009, when it enters into force.

The model of participative and deliberative democracy is suited to processes of the interpretation
of ethical values and should be adopted when formulating standards. Many decision-making
procedures in relation to standard setting in the organic movement already follow a participative
and deliberative model of democracy. From the very beginning, both content and the form of
discussion are taken into consideration. Five elements are particularly important in participative
and deliberative democracy processes:

• respect for the discussion partners,

• respect for arguments and emotions,

• context sensitivity,

• a common understanding, and

• relating the theory (values) to practice (Röcklinsberg, 2006).

To achieve context sensitivity and develop a common understanding all stakeholders should at first
be given equal opportunity to state their value basis separately.

It is necessary to communicate widely about the shared value base of organic agriculture and about
how differences in practices of organic farmers across Europe (for example in relation to input use)
relate to certain core values, so that theory and practice can be related to each other in a judgement
of a suggested regulation, i.e. in the interpretation of the ethical values and rules in a certain
situation.

Such a deliberative decision-making model is particularly suited in handling potential conflicts

between ethical core values, for example between animal welfare and the environment, to allow
regional flexibility and to determine the details of the rules. Conflicts can occur at different levels,
the value level (i.e. interpretation or definitions, formulated aims, objectives and principles),

The implementation level, or a disagreement with a certain part of regulation. To resolve such
conflicts it is necessary to determine at what level the value conflicts occur, and which value(s) are
affected. In the next stage the explicit and implicit consequences of implementing a certain
interpretation of a value should be identified. A summary of recommendation arising from this
work is included in Section 6.1.

3 Differences in implementation of Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 (WP3)

3.1 Approach

Specific objectives of this work were:

- to develop a web-based database of differences in organic standards in relation to Regulation

(EEC) 2092/91 that can be used by stakeholders and policy makers, and that can be kept updated
by the different Member States and inspection bodies (D 3.1).

-to analyse whether the selected organic standards comply with the EU regulation in the area of
general provisions and crop production, and for which requirements the standards set higher levels
of regulation on animal production and to identify specific areas in the standards where revisions in
terms of harmonisation, regionalisation or simplification may be implemented in Regulation (EEC)
2092/91 and national standards, taking into account the basic ethical values (D 3.2).

A database was developed for the analysis of differences between various standards and Regulation
(EEC) 2092/91 in close collaboration with the Commission, building on experiences with the
existing Organic E-prints self archiving database ([Link] and software that is
used by DARFCOF. The database is hosted by DARCOF and allows for decentralised web-based
updating so that Member States and inspection bodies could take responsibility for the accuracy
and updating of items relating to their standards.

Project partners and national standard experts were responsible to upload international and
national regulations and standards plus the differences compared to the (EEC) 2092/91. The
project partners covered AT, CH, DK, IT, NL and UK. National experts from the IFOAM EU group
were recruited for covering of CZ, ES, FI, FR, NO, SE, Sl and PL. FiBL further uploaded the following
international standards: the Codex Alimentarius Guidelines, the IFOAM Basic Norms and Demeter
International plus the Federal Rules of the USA (NOP National Organic Programme). In total,
governmental and private standards from 14 European countries, the USA and 3 international
world wide standards were entered into the database.

Each uploaded difference consisted of a brief summary of the requirements for the particular area,
a description of the difference compared to the (EEC) 2092/91 and a justification for the difference.
Each item could be linked to one or more of the 4 principles of organic farming. Implementation
and inspection rules which are not available to the public could not be covered.

In the next step, the number of differences in each main area and compliance with the (EEC)
2092/91 was evaluated (Schmid et al., 2007). Based on the justifications for the differences, and
other evidence in literature the potential impact on consumers, the risk of trade distortion and
conflicts with the organic principles was analysed, and recommendations for harmonisation,
simplification or regionalisation of specific area of the (EEC) 2092/91 were given. Harmonisation
was defined as a process to amend one standard or a group of standards in order to achieve
equivalence among them, based on agreed common principles. Simplification referred to the
process of reducing the wording or approach in Regulation (EEC)

2092/91 and regionalisation referred to the need to consider specific constraints caused by
geography, climate, tradition, agriculture structure or governmental regulations and incentives. The
analysis also helped to identify ethically problematic areas that were considered as part of the case
studies for balancing of the POA (see Section 2.4)

3.2 Differences between national public and private standards and the Regulation
(EEC) 2092/91

The analysis of differences between the (EEC) 2092/91 and other international and national
organic standards based on expert submissions covered 34 standards from 14 European countries
and the USA. In total 714 difference were uploaded (Table 3-1) of which more then 85% were
related to Annex I provisions (Rules on production), followed by approximately 10% in relation to
Annex II (Permitted substances).

Because Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 is the legal framework for the EU, European national
governmental and private standards setters have to follow these rules and cannot be less
restrictive. Some national governmental standards, e.g. the Danish, French, and Swiss ones, contain
additional requirements based on specific national legislation and policies or due to specific
concerns of producers, processors, consumers or the general public. Many national private
standards are more detailed than the EU Regulation or the national governmental standards. Many
differences (>30) were found in standards from countries that have a long tradition of organic
farming such as Austria, Germany, Sweden or the UK. Many standards also include areas not
covered by the EU Regulation, such as wine production, aquaculture, care of the environment and
non-food production and processing.

Table 3-1: Overview of database submissions (Date: 31st of December 2006)

Table 3-2 Analysis of difference between Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 and private,
national and international standards

Main Areas Description No Countries Main Main justification

(n=714) (n=17) type’
Main regulation
Labelling (Art S) No 70%-95 category; 20 7 P Consumer
non-food labelling
Seeds and Database, derogation 12 3 P Trade
seedlings (Art. 6a) system; Ecology principle
no hybrids in cereals
Annex I A (Crop production)
Fertilising Intensity; 72 11 P Ecology principle
(IA 2 & II B) Manure use; N National legislation
Crop rotation;
Permitted inputs 31
Conversion of land Conversion periods; 37 11 P Consumer
(I A1) full farm conversion N
Pest and disease Restricted or forbidden 13 7 P Ecology principle
control (I A3) substances; N National legislation
steam sterilisation
Collection of wild More detailed 14 7 P Ecology principle
ants (I A4) requirements i
Annex I B duction)
(Livestock
Housing and range Housing, 76 12 P Animal health and
(IB 8) outdoor access N welfare
(Annex VII) 22
Animal feeding Conventional feed; 70 12 P Precaution,
(I B4) Roughage; N Ecology
Feed additives; Animal welfare
Milk for offspring
Livestock Breeding, 58 10 P Animal welfare
husbandry (I B6) Physical operations; N
Tethering
Transport
and
slaughter
Conversion of Conversion periods 40 11 P
animals (I B2) Full farm conversion N Credibility
Disease prevention and 26 7 Precaution
Withholding period
P
veterinary treatment (I Restrictions
B5) N
treatment(antibiotics)
Origin of animals (I Origin of 15 P Risk of BSE
animals B3)
6
Manure Limiting manure and 24 8 P Ecology,
(IB7) (VII) nitrogen ap ication 15 closing
Annex VI Processin nutrient
cycles

Processin Methods and additives 28 10 I, P, N Care principle,

g
Precaution
Consumer
health
Areas not covered by Regulation
Greenhouse and 2092/91 54 7 P Ecology principle
Use of energy; soil
perennials coverage, origin of
stakes
Care of Ecosystem 9 4 P Ecology principle
environment management
Soil and water 13 8 P Ecology principle
conservation
requirements
Biodiversity and 16 6 P Ecology principle
landscape
Contamination 15 8 P, N Care principle
Aquaculture Specific standards 12 8 P Animal welfare

Of the 206 submissions relating to crop production, the highest number covered input use
and crop rotation requirements (Table 3-2). The differences referred to fertilisation in
general, to permitted fertilisers and soil conditioners and to substances for pest and disease
control, as well as to conversion. Of the 294 submissions relating to livestock, most were
related to animal housing, feeding, and livestock husbandry. Differences in relation to
animal feed cover derogations for conventional feed, roughage requirements, feed additives
and milk for offspring. The high number of differences related to livestock housing and
husbandry conditions reflects the different structural and climatic conditions and
traditions.

A relatively high number of differences in the area of crop production were also recorded in
relation to rules for special cropping systems of greenhouses and perennials covering the
use of energy, water conservation, soil coverage, and the origin of stakes.

Processing is also an area with a considerable number of differences, in particular relating

to specific processing rules and processing inputs. 50 differences referred to protected
cropping (greenhouses), 28 to environmental impact and 12 to aquaculture, areas, which
are currently not regulated by the (EEC) 2092/91.

A high number of differences also occurred in relation to care of the environment, where
recorded differences refer to protection of the environment and eco-systems management,
soil and water conservation, bio-diversity and landscape conservation.

A considerable number of differences also relate to issues of conversion, both in relation to

the periods required for conversion of land and animals and as concerns the requirement of
whole farm conversion.

The differences in the database were related by the standards experts to one or more of the
POA. Of the four principles of organic agriculture, most of the submissions were related to
the principle of Health (382), with fewer submissions related to the principles of Ecology
(269), Fairness (262) and Care (251). Only 4 submissions related to social standards and
fair trade.

3.3 Conclusions
The objective to develop a standards database and to compare the organic standards from
national governmental and private organisations in Europe with the Regulation (EEC)
2092/91 in order to give recommendations on further harmonisation, of the EU regulation
were achieved.

Database development

A database setting out differences between the (EEC) 2092/91 and governmental and
private-sector standards was developed. This is available on the internet under
[Link] . 714 expert submissions covering 34 standards from 14 European
countries, the USA and 3 international standards (Codex Alimentarius Guidelines, IFOAM
Basic Norms and Demeter International) were uploaded.

The vast majority of differences (over 85%) were related to the provisions of Annex I of
Regulation (EEC) 2091/91. The differences mainly refer to the interpretation of technical
aspects at the implementation level rather than to different core values. There appears to be
a general agreement on which of the core values of organic agriculture are addressed by the
standards.

Potential areas for harmonisation of provisions in Regulation (EEC) 2092/91

Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 is the statutory legal framework that member states have to
implement. It explicitly allows differences only in relation to livestock production, where
indeed a higher number of differences were found than for plant production.

The analysis has shown potential areas for harmonisation of the regulation of organic
production at the EU level. Harmonisation of rules should focus on areas that show a high
level of differences that are important to consumers, that could distort trade, and/or that
could potentially conflict with the core organic values.

Many of the national private standards and governmental regulations provide indications
on how to handle and reduce derogations and how to set stricter rules, because the
requirements have already been implemented successfully in them. Many recorded
differences relate to fertilisation and animal feeding (see Table 3-2) which should be
considered for harmonisation.

Harmonisation of provisions related to the use of inputs, such as fertilisers, manure and
feed, should follow the overall aim of limiting intensification of organic production by the
reliance on external (conventional) inputs and of reducing environmental impact.

Extending a minimal proportion of feeds, that has to come from the holding to all livestock
species (similar or lower than the existing rule of at least 50% for herbivores), would also
limit intensification and encourage greater balance between livestock and crop production
Also conversion is an area for potential harmonisation, both concerning the periods
required for conversion of land and animals and the requirement of whole farm conversion.
The Regulation (EC) 834/2007 simplifies the rules by bringing the main provisions
together in one article. Harmonisation should also aim to introduce common rules in areas
not covered by the EU regulation but by many other standards, such as specialist plant
production systems, environmental protection and rules for processing. Environmental
protection is not considered by the European Regulation, but is an area of high policy
relevance and importance to European stakeholders as indicated by the high number of
differences. Simplification of the EU Regulation would be possible by reducing derogations
or providing clearer criteria for derogations. However, regional flexibility may be necessary
(e.g. for seed and feed where non-availability is documented).

The possibility of having different national/regional requirements is envisaged in Article 22

of Regulation (EC) 834/2007. The area of social values could not be analysed in the
database, because only very few national private standards and none of the governmental
standards have implemented such values and therefore very few differences were recorded.
Harmonisation of the rules at the EU level should be supported by better communication,
more transparency and by research into areas where limited experience with the
implementation of the regulations and standards exists. The overall aims of organic
agriculture should always be considered when harmonising the rules. A summary of
recommendation arising are included in Sections 0 to Error! Reference source not found.

4 Reducing the dependency on non-organic inputs in the area of feed (WP4)

4.1 Approach

The detailed objectives of this work were to provide knowledge on how to achieve 100 %
organic rations in diets for organic livestock by

- identifying constraints related to the restrictions in the availability of limiting amino acids
for pigs and poultry in relation to animal health, product quality, productivity and
economics and evaluating the availability of limiting amino acids, including the various
strategies used to deal with the restrictions in different European member and candidate
countries (D 4.1);

-developing evaluation criteria for including feed materials in Annex II C and dietary
supplements in Annex II D of Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 (D 4.2); and

-developing guidance to operators (D 4.3).

A meta-analysis of literature provided the basis for a detailed report on the implications of
the preferred use of home-grown feed and regulatory limitations on the use of non-organic
feedstuffs that reduce the availability of high quality protein in the nutrition of mono-gastric
animals and restrict the possibilities for adaptation of the protein supply to the specific
requirements. The objective of the report was to discuss and assess whether these
restrictions in the availability can be compensated for by other means that are in
accordance with the principles of organic agriculture. Therefore, it was of special interest to
evaluate whether nutritional imbalances encountered in practice might lead to
deteriorating product quality, or have negative impact on animal health, animal welfare or
environmental impact. The report reviewed literature in relation to the production of
broilers, turkeys, laying hens and pigs (D 4.1 (1) by Sundrum et al., 2005).

An overview of the current situation to characterise the availability of protein sources for
100% organic diets for pigs and poultry was produced. The demand and supply of organic
concentrate feeds (both cereals and protein sources) was calculated using statistical data
from other sources (EUROSTAT and two EU research projects (EU CEE-OFP: QLK5-2002-
00917; OMIARD: QLK5-2000-01124) and expert opinions on feeding of organic livestock.
An overview of supply and demand for concentrated feed in organic agriculture in the EU in
2002 to 2004 with a particular focus on protein sources for mono-gastric animals was
produced (D 4.2 (2) and update by Padel, 2005b, Padel and Lowman, 2005).

Based on this and other sources on criteria for use of organic inputs, evaluation criteria for
Annex II C: Feed materials and Annex II D: Dietary supplements of Regulation (EEC)
2092/91 were developed. The report made reference to the draft text for the total revision
of the EU Regulation on organic farming published in December 2005 8. It considered the
principles of organic farming on which the more detailed rules should be based, which have
implications on the criteria for which inputs should be permitted in the Annexes (D 4.2 by
Sundrum and Padel (2005).

Finally, the results were summarised in a guidance to operators on how to deal with
limitations in protein supply in the nutrition of mono-gastric animals in organic farming (D
4.3 by Nicholas et al., 2007).

4.2 Dietary requirements of organic pigs and poultry

Organic production of pigs and poultry is characterised by preferential use of home grown
feedstuffs and limited availability of bought-in certified organic feedstuffs. Possible
implications of the limited availability of certain feedstuffs on growth performance, traits of
product quality, and animal health depend to a large extent on the capacities of the animals
in the various stages of their development to adapt to and compensate for variation in the
nutrient supply.

The availability of limiting amino acids influences protein accretion and lean meat proportion of the
carcass, but there appears to be an antagonistic relationship between traits of meat quantity and
sensorial quality. For muscle growth, all the amino acids needed have to be available in synthesis
compatible form. Equally, a sufficient energy provision is necessary. If one of the essential amino
acids is missing, the protein biosynthesis may be reduced or the degradation of protein may be
increased. The extent of the protein synthesis or accretion is thus dependent to a large extent on a
balanced protein and energy provision via the feed. In the case of poultry, methionine is regarded as
the first limiting amino acid while with pigs, lysine is the first- and methionine or threonine are the
second-limiting ones.

As metabolic processes do not differ between organic and conventionally reared farm animals, the
recommendations for an adequate nutrient supply generally follow the same rules. The exception to
this is that the outdoor access required in organic systems creates a higher energy requirement.
However, differences in genotype, living conditions, temperature, stocking rate, group size and stress
levels all contribute to high variability in the protein accretion in organic herds, particularly for
poultry. This reduces the predictability of the specific requirements and the rate of utilisation of the
nutrients. General recommendations for the nutrient supply of farm animals as used both by
conventional and organic farmers can never reflect fully the situation on a specific farm.

Young and growing animals have the greatest feed requirements, and there is a risk in relation to
animal health and welfare at this stage, if the diet specifications are not met, although compensatory
growth is sometimes possible. Feeding different specification diets at different life stages will
improve the efficiency of the protein use. However, this needs to be balanced by increasing the
complexity of the feed management and ration planning on the farms, if many different diets need to
be mixed and stored separately and different animal groups need to be separated during feeding.

At least five diet specifications should be used when feeding organic pigs: dry sows and boars,
lactating sows, piglets (starter diet), fattening pigs (starting phase), and fattening pigs (finishing
phase). In the case of poultry, two diet specifications should be used for table birds (growing and
fattening), two for layers (growing and laying), and four to six for turkeys (depending on the
nutritional plan followed) (Sundrum et al., 2005).

The use of slow growing strains has the potential to markedly reduce the level of nutrients required
in the daily ration, particularly for organic table bird production. The Regulation (EEC) 2092/91
specifies that the capacity of animals to adapt to local conditions, their vitality, and their resistance to
disease should be considered when choosing breeds or strains. In order to reduce the gap between
nutrient requirements

and supply, it is possible to decrease the requirements by using breeds or strains that fit to the
potential nutrient capacity of the farm. Producers need to decide individually or as an industry
whether slower growing strains can be used to overcome the lack of protein supply.

In general, nutrient supply of farm animals is a function of the concentration of nutrients in the ration
and the amount of feed intake. Both variables can be modified by management; not only the
composition of the diet. Feed intake of farm animals (even when of the same age) varies considerably
within the herd and between farms and is influenced by a number of factors, such as live weight, sex,
stocking rate and the stall climate conditions (Sundrum et al., 2005). On-farm monitoring of the feed
intake in the different life stages and improvement of the living conditions can help compensate for
shortages of high quality feedstuffs.

For pigs, differences of approximately 30% in feed intake between different genotypes under
otherwise equal conditions as regards feed rations and living conditions. Crowding, group size and
group mixing are factors that markedly influence feed intake, conversion efficiency and growth rates.
Feed intake is also influenced by the condition of the feed (particle size, crude fibre type and
quantity, water binding capacity, anti-nutritive substances), the presence of pathogenic germs, and
the physiological digestion capacity of the pigs. Pigs fed with voluminous, fibre rich feed rations
showed a higher stomach volume than pigs fed only on concentrate feeds and stomach volume is
closely correlated with the long-term quantity of feed intake.

In the case of laying hens, there is an interaction between energy and methionine content, in that low
methionine content increases the feed intake while a high energy supply reduces feed intake. Hence,
laying hens are able to partially compensate for a suboptimal supply of limited amino acids by an
increased feed intake. However, a feed ration with relatively high energy content limits feed intake.
There is only limited research on feeding laying hens with 100% organic diets.

Concerning broiler production, feed intake, and feed utilization are subject to considerable variation,
which depends to a large extent on the genotype, sex and environmental conditions. Feed intake
decreases when stocking rate increases and long-standing heat stress can also lead to a depression in
feed intake (Bessei, 1993). A suboptimal level of limited amino acids in the feed ration can be
partially compensated for by increased feed intake, especially when the energy content in the diet is
reduced. Studies on organic broiler husbandry and brand programmes using slow-growing lines
(slaughtered after 81 days) show that with lower demands for performance, lower amino acid
content in the feed is required (Bellof and Schmidt, 2005). However, so far only limited research has
been carried out to investigate the implications of organic conditions on broiler production and on
the capacity of broiler strains to adapt to changes in the nutrient supply. Organic table birds tend to
be more sensitive (in terms of production) to variations in the diet than pigs. In order to reduce the
associated risk, the single components of the diet should be analysed regularly and feed intake
should be monitored regularly to calculate the formulation of the diet appropriately for the different
life stages.

There is considerable variation in terms of the availability of high quality feedstuffs, the digestibility
and utilization of amino acids of various feedstuffs, in the capacity of protein accretion and feed
intake of genotypes, and in the housing conditions. The potentially conflicting objectives of reducing
the reliance on external feed and achieving animal health and welfare have to be balanced. It is
therefore difficult to develop general recommendations for the nutrient requirements of organic
farm animals. To provide optimal nutrition for the livestock on organic farms, it necessary to carry
out on-farm assessment of nutrient availability (including feed analysis) and to monitor feed intake
and feed conversion in the various life stages.

Lowering the intensity of production is likely to lead to an increase in the total feed demand, because
of a decrease in the feed conversion rate. Some feedstuffs are readily available but lower in quality,
whereas feedstuffs of higher quality are less widely available and more expensive.

There is a need for the development of farm specific strategies to find the optimal balance between
the quantity and the quality of home grown and purchased feed materials. To ensure appropriate
nutrient supply of the animals and balance this with other objectives of self-reliance in terms of feed
supply, management tools like farm gate feed and nutrient balance, regular analysis of home-grown
feedstuffs, and the formulation of feed rations for different growth stages are essential and should
contribute to improving the efficiency in the use of home-grown feedstuffs. Adopting these strategies
will ensure that animal health and welfare are not compromised by nutrient imbalances, that the
demand for further supplementation with external feed materials can be assessed when feeding 100
% organic diets.

4.3 Balance of supply and demand

The balance of supply and demand was calculated based on land use and livestock statistics and
experts estimates. Such a calculation provides an overview of the situation in the whole of the EU. It
is influenced by a number of assumptions (including yields and rations assessments) and it does not
consider feed imports and feed sources of animal origin. The value of such calculations would
improve with up to date statistics of the land-use and animal numbers in organic farming.
In 2004 approximately 1.56 million head of organic cattle (dairy cows, suckler cows and other cattle),
1.9 million sheep (breeding stock and lambs), nearly half a million pigs (sows and finishing pigs) and
18 million chickens (layers and broilers) were kept in the EU. The most important countries keeping
bovine organic livestock are Austria, Denmark, Germany and Italy. The most important sheep
producers are France, Germany, Greece, Italy and the UK. Most pigs are kept in Denmark, France,
Germany and the UK, and the most important countries producing organic poultry are France and the
UK.

The total organic herd in the EU 25 increased between 2002 and 2004 by between 6 and 9 per cent,
depending on the stock category. Greatest increases occurred for sheep in France, Italy, Spain and the
UK. In the other livestock categories, increases in some countries were balanced by decline in others,
leading to overall small increases.

Using typical diets for different species and livestock categories, it was calculated that all organic
livestock kept in the EU between 2002 and 2004 would have required a total of approximately 1.1
million tonnes of certified organic concentrates per year. Approximately 58% of this demand would
have been used for ruminants, 25 % for poultry and 27 % for pigs. It was estimated that 65% of this
demand was covered by cereals, 26% by pulses that could be grown in most regions of the EU (peas
and beans), and 9% by high quality protein sources to supplement diets of mono-gastric animals,
such as soya or animal proteins. In the same period, approximately 1.8 tonnes of cereals and pulses
were grown for organic food production, of which approximately 85% were cereals and 15% were
pulses.

Between 2002 and 2004, the EU would have grown more than sufficient organic cereals to feed all
organic livestock on a 100% organic diet. On average, there was an average deficit for pulses, because
the land area for pulses declined between 2002 and 2004.

Shortages in organic feedstuffs in 2006 and 2007 indicate that the situation may have changed, but
more up-to-date statistical data were not available when the work was carried out. Stock numbers
may have increased, and because of climatic conditions the yields may have been lower or the
organic area grown with feed crops may have declined. It is also likely that the supply and demand is
not balanced in particular regions, because the main cereals producing countries are not necessarily
those that also keep most of the organic livestock.

For 2002 to 2004 there would be a calculated under-supply of high quality protein sources of approx.
100,000 tonnes, which is equivalent to 33,000 ha for each year. This is equivalent to 9% of the
calculated demand for concentrated feeds for the all mono-gastric organic animals. With derogations
in place this shortfall would have been met by protein from conventional sources and by fishmeal.

The deficit in protein supply (both high quality and from home-grown pulses) could be reduced by
about 50% if multiphase feeding and other strategies outlined above were widely implemented, but
this would lead to an increase in the demand for organic feed cereals and for home grown pulses.
Also, changes in the composition of the feed ration for organic ruminants (for example increased
protein content or reduced concentrate intake) are likely to have an impact on the overall availability
of organic concentrate feeds (including high quality protein) for organic pigs and poultry. It should
be further explored, whether there are other problems apart from price that prevent organic
producers from growing more organic protein rich feed materials, such as pulses and oil seeds.

4.4 A criteria based approach for feed input approval

Currently organic farm animals must be fed on organically produced feedstuffs (Annex IB 4.2) and
primarily through home-grown feedstuffs (Annex IB 4.3). In this context, feedstuffs which are not
home-grown are defined as external. Only if organic feed (either grown within or outside the farm
system) is not available in sufficient quantity and quality (Article 4.8), a set percentage (that varies
between categories of stock) of non-organic feed components can be used. These feed materials have
to be listed in Annex II of the (EEC) 2092/91.

The proposal for a total revision of Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 from December 2005 envisaged no
further use of non-organic feed materials (unless under special conditions of flexibility) and stated
the intention to specify criteria for the inclusion of feed ingredients in the Annexes.

The project report by provided an overview of issues to be considered with regard to the inclusion of
criteria for non-organic and external feed materials in the further development of the EC Regulation
2092/91 on organic food (Sundrum and Padel (2006).

It considered the suitability of a system approach as a tool for balancing the divergent and
ambivalent issues. Existing derogations to use non-organic feed materials lead to unfair competition
in the market place because they favour producers that use conventional feed materials by offering
them wider choice of feed materials at a lower cost compared to those that use 100% organic rations
whilst both have access to the same markets.

Any further development of the feed regime including the criteria for the planned EU Commission
implementing rules of the Regulation 835/2007 (the Annexes of the current EEC Regulation
2092/91) should encourage those that aim for higher integrity and follow the principles of a systems
approach, land-based organic livestock production, minimising environmental damage and
respecting high animal health and welfare.

Criteria should relate to the objectives and principles of organic production. The overall aim of
organic farming of self-sufficiency in terms of resource use suggests that the level of external and
non-organic inputs should be reduced to a minimum. This has to be balanced with the aim of high
animal health and welfare that should be not be compromised because of nutrient imbalances. Of
relevance is also the land based character of organic livestock production, and the aim of minimising
environmental damage.

Whereas using of non-organic inputs may be essential for some organic farms, the possibility of using
them provides clear economic advantage to those holdings that could produce without non-organic
input. They can use a wider range of cheaper feed materials and thus increase productivity and
profitability compared to those farmers who are restricted from using them due to national
governmental or private rules. This situation conflicts with the objectives of preventing unfair
competition in the European Regulation.

For the revision of the feed regime at the EU level two main challenges arise:

(1) Restricting further the use of non-organic ingredients whilst ensuring that animal health and
welfare is not compromised.

(2) Increasing flexibility without increasing the risk of unfair competition of products with different
levels of organic integrity in the same market.
The FAO/ WHO Codex Alimentarius Guidelines of 2004 (FAO/WHO, 2004)9 propose as criteria for
the assessment of the need of feed substances ‘necessary or essential to maintain animal health and
welfare’ and ‘to contribute to an appropriate diet for the species concerned’.

In order to effectively evaluate the need for external inputs in organic systems it is necessary to
establish the level of reference for the evaluation. The following reference levels can be identified in
relation to external and non-organic feed inputs: individual animals; the herd of farm animals; the
whole farm system; the region or country and the whole of Europe.

These criteria proposed by the Codex guidelines can only apply at the level of individual animal, but
should not be used at a higher level (such as national or European) level for several reasons:

1. The nutrient requirements of an animal are a function of the intended performance level, but
there is no consensus about the suitable level of performance on organic farms, nor a method to
assess this.

2. Standard guidance for nutrient requirements of animals does not account for variation between
animals within a herd.

3. For fattening animals, the risk of health and welfare problems due to lack of essential nutrient
supply is primarily restricted to young stock in the first weeks of life. In the following stages most
animals can compensate for nutrient imbalances as long as the genetic development does not stand
against it. In later stages the standard nutrient requirements do not prevent animals from diseases
that derive from the intensification of the production process (e.g. metabolic disorders, locomotion
disorders, sudden death) and from the negative side effects of a one sided selection for growth and
yield as is described particularly in the case of poultry production.

4. Organic farmers can use a range of measures to compensate for nutrient deficiencies at the farm
level without any or with only a minimum amount of external inputs. Hence, evaluation of the need
for external feed input can not be conducted on the basis of the nutrient requirements of farm
animals alone but has to take availability and the whole farm system into account.

The criteria 'necessity of input', ‘impact on animal health and welfare’ can be assessed on different
levels, such as the individual animals, the individual farm, the regional level and finally a national or
EU level. Sustainability and multi-functionality of agriculture and food production is particularly well
suited to be studied and developed through a system approach.

The new Regulation (EC) 834/2007 defines organic production as an “overall system of farm
management and food production that combines best environmental practices, a high level of
biodiversity, the preservation of natural resources, the application of high animal welfare
standards… “(Recital 1). I

n a systems approach an organism (or a whole farm) can only be understood and explained if all
components, properties, boundaries and internal feedback mechanism are considered. Because of
the variation between individual farms in relation to the availability of home-grown feed, the
performance level, feed intake of genotypes, and housing conditions, the necessity for supplementary
feed can only be assessed at the level of the individual farm. The principle to use as few external and
non-organic inputs as possible and as many as necessary could also be implemented on a regional
level by assessing whether a demand for and the supply of organic feed material is balanced.
This requires defining the boundaries of a region, and regional data on the availability and
requirements of organic feed. While previously the use of external and non-organic feed inputs was
regulated by EU wide derogations and a list of permitted conventional feed materials in Annex II of
the Regulation (EEC) 2092/91, it is proposed for the planned implementing rules of the new EU
Council Regulation EC/834/2007 to assess the need for the use of non organic feed materials at
several different levels of the organic food system, i.e the farm gate feed balances, regional balances
as well as a list of permitted non-organic feed materials that can be used under certain specified
circumstances.

4.5 Conclusions

Achieving 100% organic diets for pigs and poultry

The objective to provide more knowledge on how to achieve 100 % organic rations in diets
for livestock (WP4) was achieved.

A meta-analysis of literature was carried out the likely availability of organic feed materials
from organic cropping was evaluated (D 4.1, Part 1 and 2) and a guide for operators on how
to achieve 100% organic diets for pigs and poultry was produced (D 4.3). A preliminary
draft of this report was considered by the Commission in the amendments of the Regulation
(EEC) 2092/91 in August 2005, which introduced astepwise reduction of the use of non-
organic feed materials to zero by 2011 (Regulation (EC) 1294/200510).

The work was presented at a meeting of the expert group of the ‘Standing Committee on
Organic Farming’ at 1st of December 2005. A guide for operators was developed (D 4.3 by
Nicholas et al. 2007).

Organic production of pigs and poultry aims for a reduction in the production intensity in
terms of the use of external conventional inputs and a high reliance on home grown and
organic feed inputs.

This is very different to the production goals of intensive conventional production of high
live-weight gain, protein accretion and high feed conversion rates.

It is possible to formulate diets for organic cattle, pigs and poultry without conventional
feed materials. The risk of diseases and welfare problems in organic livestock production
due to suboptimal nutrient supply is restricted to the first weeks of life and can be handled
by a proper management. The protein accretion capacity in organic animal production is
generally lower compared with conventional, because of the restricted availability of
limiting amino acids and high quality protein feed materials limiting intensification.

This can contribute to better sensorial quality of products, by preventing producers from
focussing primarily on quantity traits, and limits the undesirable side effects of intensified
meat production in terms of reduced animal health and welfare and negative environmental
impact. Striving for balanced and land-related animal production has its benefits, but also
associated costs, such as decreases in live weight gain.
It is therefore important to adopt feeding strategies that minimise the increase in
production costs but that do not compromise the product and process qualities for which
organic consumers are willing to pay a premium. Because of considerable variation between
individual animals and farms in relation to feed intake, genotypes and performance levels, it
is not possible to come to general conclusions on how to deal with the limited availability of
high quality feed stuffs in the diets of pigs and poultry that are valid for all organic farms in
Europe. Feeding strategies need to be specific to the situation on each farm and each region.
The variability of specific optimisation strategies should correspond to the variability of
organic livestock production systems. This makes the farmer a very important regulator in
the system. Accuracy in the formulation of feed rations according to the requirements of
farm animals in their different life stages (multiphase feeding) and precise allocation and
monitoring of actual feed intake become essential tools in the management of organic pigs
and poultry.

It appears that Europe could grow sufficient organic cereals to feed all organic livestock on
a 100% organic diet, but the situation in relation to protein appears more uncertain. The
implementation of multiphase feeding and other improvements in the feeding strategies
could reduce the demand for high quality protein for pigs and poultry significantly. The
availability of protein feed stuffs for pigs and poultry is also influenced by the diets of
organic ruminants, because they account for more than half of the total feed demand in the
organic animal husbandry sector.

Recent shortages for organic feed indicate that the balance between supply and demand in
the market can easily be upset. Supply could be increased if more arable producers would
grow suitable crops but also decline if they fail to do so. Higher prices (particularly for
protein rich crops) are likely to stimulate higher production, but this would increase cost of
production for organic livestock producers maybe above a level that consumers are willing
to pay for. Regional imbalances occur, because the main countries producing feed materials
are not necessarily those that also keep most organic livestock. The current rules permit pig
and poultry producers to rely exclusively on purchased feed for their stock, irrespective of
where this is grown, which is not in accordance with the POA.

It is necessary to have a debate on which types of organic production systems and diets for
pigs and poultry represent the best compromise between the different principles of organic
farming, when taking decisions on the rules in this area. As the availability of limiting amino
acids is the most relevant precondition for a high protein accretion, the reduced availability
of high protein feed materials appears to be a suitable tool to limit intensification of animal
production with its undesirable side effects for animal health and welfare. The ongoing
discussion in relation to organic poultry production in particular illustrates this need for
communication and consultation on how different the core values of organic agriculture can
be interpreted. A summary of recommendation from this work is included in Section Error!
Reference source not found..

Criteria for the approval of feed inputs

The objective of providing recommendations was achieved (D 4.3 by Sundrum and Padel,
2006). The findings of this work were considered in the drafting of the criteria for the
permission of organic inputs (Article 11 of Regulation (EC) 8602/01/07 Rev 1). There is a
need to differentiate between the following categories of external feed inputs that can be
used on an organic farm and that carry different risks to the integrity of organic production:

5 Reducing the dependency on non-organic inputs in the area of seed (WP5)

5.1 Approach

The work in relation to seed had the following detailed objectives:

• To provide knowledge to overcome problems related to seed borne diseases in cereals,

legumes and vegetables (D 5.1)

• To provide knowledge to overcome problems related to selection of varieties with

sufficient quality characteristics for organic farming (task 5.2)

• To develop decision criteria and recommendations for the derogation regime on seed and
propagation materials under Commission Regulation (EEC) 1452/200311I (D 5.3.)

The report on seed quality focused on a number of questions, such as the importance of
seed borne diseases as an obstacle to production and use of organic seeds, methods to
control seed borne diseases and their effectiveness acceptable for use in organic farming,
differences in thresholds for seed borne diseases among various EU member states and
changes in health status of organically produced seed in the last years. Identification of the
relevant characteristics is also important for a good performance in organic farming and
processing of selected varieties of cereals, vegetables, fodder crops etc. The questions were
addressed through a literature review of 68 scientific publications in 2005, which was up-
dated in July 2006 on methods and products for control of seed borne diseases, potentially
acceptable in organic farming. Afterwards an expert survey (questionnaire) was carried out
with 20 experts in eight countries, involved in research, production, trade and use of
organic seeds. Documents outlining EU, international, national and private regulations,
thresholds concerning seed borne diseases on seeds (organic and conventional) were
analysed, as well as national reports on the status of organic seed health for the last 3 years.
Furthermore five national workshops were organised with stakeholders (D 5.1 by
Micheloni et al., 2007).

A survey of variety trials in organic farming, supplemented by expert consultations was

carried out to describe and analyse the requirements of organic farming systems in terms of
variety selection and breeding. Based on these studies recommendations were made for the
identification of species, for which derogations may continuously be needed (D 5.2 by
Micheloni and Plakolm, 2007).

Finally, the national reports from 12 member states on the implementation of the seed
derogation regime according to (EC) 1452/2003 were analysed. Reports from further EU
member states were not accessible and were therefore only occasionally quoted. The
national derogation reports were either downloaded from the official

organic seed websites of the EU member states or obtained directly from the derogation
officers of the respective states.

A list of criteria for the appropriateness of the available varieties for organic production and
a guide for the evaluation of the seed derogation regime was made and the relevance of
these criteria was shown for major crops. Recommendations were made on how the seed
derogation system and data-base system can be harmonised at the EU level in order to
prevent competitive advantages or disadvantages for growers in various EU member states
due to the lack of clear criteria for the derogations (D 5.3 by Thommen, 2007).

5.2 Seed health and quality

Seed borne diseases are an important factor influencing seed production and seed use in
organic agriculture, but they are not the only obstacle that exists at the moment. Awareness
of the importance of seed health in organic agriculture has increased considerably in recent
years and has been acknowledged by organizations such as ISF (International Seed
Federation) or ISTA (International Seed Testing Association).

Because of crucial role of seed health, it is important that seed treatments are identified,
which are in accordance with the organic principles and standards. In the last 5 to 10 years
several methods and products of non-synthetic seed treatments (physical, microbiological,
plant-based, etc.) have been successfully tested on different host-parasite combinations and
they are potentially available for use in organic farming. However, there are no general
treatments available that are effective for all host-pathogen combinations and currently no
treatments are permitted according to Annex II of Regulation (EEC) 2029/91.

Besides the legal restrictions on quarantine seed diseases, most of the EU member states
have legal thresholds for seed borne diseases in cereals, but these vary between member
states. This may cause distortion in trade and use of organic seeds, as one country may
allow the import of seeds (from another member state) that do not meet the thresholds in
the importing country, but that are fully certifiable in the member state where they are
produced. For vegetables

Data on the status of organic seed health are only available in very few countries. If the EU
member states kept annual records of the health status of organic seed-lots, it would enable
monitoring of the presence of seed borne diseases and calculate the likely risks, and to take
steps for their prevention.
Available data for cereals do not show a clear trend of seed health development, but
highlight the influence of the climate. The report by Micheloni et al. (2007, D 5.1) states a
trend of a general increase of tilletia caries, which may correlate with lower control levels,
especially as regards on-farm seed production. It is likely that the risk of seed-born diseases
is higher in organic farming since very few disease control agents are available.

5.3 Suitability and availability of varieties

The criteria for selection of varieties in organic farming are partly different from those in
conventional farming in relation to yield stability, processing properties and root system
development.

Valuable guidelines for cereal variety testing in organic farming have been produced by the
SUSVAR (Sustainable low-input cereal production: required variety characteristics and crop
diversity-COST Action 860). General guidelines for vegetable variety testing are difficult to
identify, because the characteristics and requirements of vegetable species are very crop
specific species.

However, it is not easy to state a clear definition of ‘appropriateness’ in relation to the

choice of variety in organic farming, as this may involve different aspects and depend on the
perspectives (producer, processor, trader etc.). In the report (D 5.2) a list of characteristics
is presented that should be considered within such a selection programme.

These include weed competitiveness, disease resistance/tolerance; nutrient use efficiency

(particularly nitrogen) and processing quality considering specific organic characteristics,
e.g. baking with whole wheat flour. There is no common evaluation of the actual
‘availability’ of a variety among EU member states. In general terms, the availability of
cereal varieties for organic production is reasonably good, whereas varieties for vegetable
production and fodder crops are less widely available and the supply varies considerably
among the member states.

5.4 Analysis of the derogation regime

Finally, the national derogation reports were analysed with respect to total seed use of
selected species and subspecies (D 5.3 by Thommen 2007). The feedback from expert
interviews and meetings regarding the implementation of the new seed regulation was
considered to make recommendations for further improvement of the organic seed
regulation.

The national annual organic seed reports of 2004 and 2005 differ much in form and quality
between member states. The data displayed in the reports show considerable differences
among the reporting EU member states in the availability of organic seeds and the
authorisations to use non-organic seeds.

If authorisations for the use of non-organic seeds or a general derogation are given this
means a financial benefit for the respective farmers. The cost of seeds is a considerable part
of the total costs of production that cannot be ignored. Farmers in countries with high rates
of authorisations allowing the use of non-organic seeds have a competitive advantage over
producers from countries, where fewer derogations are granted.

Therefore, harmonisation of the seed derogation policy on the EU-level as well as on the
national level should be of high importance for the public authorities. A number of
measures were proposed to increase the use of organic seed that have been summarised as
part of the conclusions and recommendations below.

5.5 Conclusions

The objectives to provide more knowledge on how to reduce the use of seed and vegetative
propagation materials from conventional sources in organic farming (WP5) and to develop
decision criteria and recommendations for the derogation regime were achieved. The
importance of seed health and variety choice was evaluated and the reporting by EU
members states of the number of seed derogation analysed.

An analysis of literature and national seed health reports has shown a lack of control of seed
borne diseases. This is one but not the only obstacle to production and use of organic seeds.
Because of the high emphasis on prevention in organic systems and therefore the
importance of seed health, it would be helpful if all member states would annually produce
phytosanitary reports of organic seed. Other factors that may adversely affect the use of
organic seeds are legal restrictions for quarantine diseases and -for cereals- different
thresholds for seed borne diseases.

Council Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 on organic farming does not mention any specific seed
treatment. A number of seed treatments (physical, microbiological, plant-based etc.) were
reviewed and considered acceptable for organic guidelines. Authorizing some of these
available treatments in organic farming would increase security for organic producers.
Further research about the efficacy of the new treatments for additional host parasite
combinations is much needed. Seed physiology and side effects of treatments on
germination need to be considered in such trials.

An analysis of twelve national organic seed derogation reports identified considerable

differences in the use of non-organic seeds. In general terms, the availability of appropriate
varieties is reasonably good for organic cereal production, whereas varieties for vegetables
and fodder crops are less available.

Availability varies considerably between EU member states Availability of an appropriate

variety is a criterion on which decisions about the granting of derogations for the use of
non-organic seeds are based. There are no common guidelines for the assessment of the
‘appropriateness of varieties among member states. Criteria for variety selection for organic
farming are different than in conventional farming, especially in relation to yield stability,
weed competitiveness, disease and pest tolerance, processing properties, root-system and
nutrient efficiency. However, it is not possible to define general standards for ‘appropriate’
varieties for organic systems. Establishing lists of equivalent varieties which are approved
for organic farming could provide a more objective basis for the derogation decision of
control bodies.

Any authorisation for the use of non-organic seeds gives a competitive advantage for the
respective farmers over other producers that use the expensive organic seed. The
harmonisation of the derogation policy should therefore be of high importance for the
authorities. A summary of the recommendations from the report in this work package is
included in Sections 0 and 0.

6 Recommendations

Most individual project reports of the Project EEC 2092/91 (organic) revision contain a
number of recommendations, both to the European Commission and to other actors within
the field of regulation and standards setting for organic production. Several of these
recommendations have been considered during the development and negotiation of the
new Council Regulation (EC) 834/2007 on organic production and labelling. In this chapter
of the final project report only a summary of all recommendations is presented.

Section 7.1 sets out general recommendations to the European Commission for the
development of the implementing rules of the new Council Regulation (EC) 834/2007.

The sections 7.2 to 7.7 set out more detailed recommendations in relation to specific areas
of the implementing rules, such as the crop and livestock production rules (in line with
Articles 12 and 14 (EC/834/2007), rules for conversion (in line with Article 17) and rules
for processing (in relation to Article 18). The sections refer to the relevant articles of the
new regulation for which implementation rules have to be written, as well as the numbering
in the current Annexes of Regulation (EEC) 2092/901. It includes two areas not covered by
Regulation (EEC) 2092/91, for which rules should be considered, i.e. special cropping
systems and rules for care of the environment.

Section 7.8 summarises recommendations in relation to reporting requirements and the

granting of derogations in relation to the use of organic seeds and propagation materials
(Regulation EC/1452/2003) and introducing of reporting requirements for feed materials.
Section 7.9 sets out recommendations for standards setting bodies and Section 7.10 sets out
recommendations on further research needs.

6.1 General recommendations to the European Commission in relation to the

development of the implementing rules of Regulation (EC) 834/2007

The Organic Revision Project recommends reconsidering the stated intention to transfer the
technical content all of the existing Annexes of Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 unchanged into
new implementation rules, because of some apparent contradictions between current
practises and the principles laid down in Title II of the Regulation (EC) 834/2007.
The new Regulation (EC) 834/2007 has clear statements on objectives and principles of
organic production. This provides the basis for harmonisation of the detailed rules in the
light of the core values of organic agriculture. It should be examined carefully, whether
some changes to the current rules should be proposed, in particular in relation to the use of
external inputs on organic farms with the aim to impose some restrictions on intensification
of organic agriculture. Further detailed recommendations are set out in the following
sections.

Clear limits for the total use of both organic and non-organic (conventional) N sources
(manures and fertilisers) and the use of external feed would explicate the core values of a
balanced system and self–sufficiency as regards resource use that are expressed in Article 4
a and b of the Regulation (EC) 834/2007. The principle of ‘imposing restrictions on the use
of external inputs’ should be applied to both non organic and organic inputs in the order
mentioned, and the rules for input use and input approval should encourage the
‘appropriate design and management of biological processes based on ecological systems’
as far as possible.

The current derogations for the use of non-organic feed materials and seeds lead to unfair
competition, favouring organic producers that make use of cheaper non organic inputs but
sell into the same market as organic producers that use only organic inputs. The planned
new implementing rules of the EU Commission should encourage operators to use as few
inputs as possible and as many as necessary’. Non-organic feed inputs can no longer be
considered essential from a health and welfare point of view, so the project recommends
that the current derogations for the use of non-organic feed materials should not be
extended beyond 31 December 2011. However, the organic sector in Europe needs to be
encouraged to continuously produce sufficient feed materials for the organic livestock.
Strengthening the linkages between production and use of feed materials and introducing a
reporting requirement for feed derogations could help achieving this. Besides, the reporting
regime for seed derogation should be improved and harmonised.

Differences between EU member states in the implementation of the European Regulatory

framework for organic production and labelling are not just a question of the rules, but arise
also because of differences in the interpretation of the rules at inspection/certification body
and national authority level. It is recommended to maintain and adapt the internet database
on organic standards ([Link] ) as a tool for increasing the transparency
concerning the granting of derogations by the national public and private standards setters,
in particular in relation to the flexibility provisions that is foreseen in the newly adopted
Council Regulation on organic production EC/834/2007 (Article. 22). It is further
recommended to introduce new EU wide basic common rules for special cropping systems,
such as protected cropping of vegetables and ornamentals with provisions in relation to
energy and resource use, and for permanent crops.

It should also be considered to include new implementing rules for care of the environment
at the European level in line with the stated objective of ‘encouraging processes that do not
harm the environment’ (Article 3 c). This area appears particularly important to European
stakeholders and could build on the experience of several national governmental and
private standards.

The implementing rules should aim at harmonisation at the international level with the
Codex Alimentarius FAO/WHO Guidelines and the IFOAM International Norms, although the
latter two are not directly used for inspection and certification like the Regulation (EEC)
2092/91) and its replacement.

Like most existing organic standards, Regulation (EC) 834/2007 does not cover social
values which would therefore remain an area in which the private sector may continue to
differentiate.

The rules and procedures for the participation of all stakeholders in the development of the
implementing rules should be communicated clearly. Stakeholders could be involved in
national consultations and the results of these consultations could then be presented by the
national members of the regulatory committee. Stakeholders could be also be consulted
directly by the Commission through internet consultations, as it has been done by e.g. DG
Research on several issues. The result of such consultation should be published. Besides, the
Advisory Group on Organic Farming of DG Agriculture should be frequently consulted
during the process of finalising the implementing rules of the new regulation (EC)
834/2007. A further possibility would be to hold integrative seminars with various
stakeholder representatives, when a first draft of the new rules has been published.

The Organic Farming Unit in DG Agriculture needs to have sufficient resources to carry out
the additional tasks of wider communication with and consultation of the stakeholders in
organic production.

Further, the Expert Panel for Organic Farming mentioned in Action 11 of the European
Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming 12should be set up as soon as possible, so that it
can advise the Commission also on the developing of a coherent interpretation of the
objectives and principles set out in Title II for the implementation rules.

6.2 Detailed recommendations relating to implementation rules for crop

production (in line with Article 12, currently Annex IA)

Fertilisation (in line with Article 12.1 (a)-(f), currently Annex IA2, IB 7 and II
A)

Intensity of fertilisation: It is recommended to harmonise the rules on the intensity of

fertilisation and their interpretation by setting a common upper limit for the total
application of nitrogen per ha/year (or production cycle) that covers manure as well as
other fertilisers. Harmonising fertilisation rules should follow the overall aim of reducing
the environmental impact (in line with Articles 3a, 3c, 5a, 5d, & 12b of Regulation
EC/834/2007).
This total limit should be supplemented with a limit of e.g. 50 % of the proportion of total N
that can come from conventional manures and fertilisers allowed according to Annex II A
(of EC/2092/91). Further regional studies of different production systems (especially
intensive vegetable and green house production) and climatic conditions should be carried
out to establish at which level such a common limit for N application should be set and
whether some flexibility will be necessary for nitrogen demanding special cropping
systems.

Further crop requirements: It is further recommended to set clear criteria for the crop
diversity in time and/or space (through rotation or mixed cropping), minimum winter
cover and conditions for the composition of substrates (peat) and the use of substrates
(avoid soil-less cultivation systems). These specifications could be subject to regional
variation and should consider special cropping systems, such as perennials and
horticultural system (see below).

Use of organic seeds (Article 12.1 (i)

Seed treatments: It should be considered whether some seed treatments can be permitted
for organic farming and be specified in the crop production rules or listed in Annex II B
(products for plant protection). Where applicable their evaluation should be based, on the
criteria laid down in the new Council Regulation EC/834/2007. The following options exist:

- Physical methods (e.g. brushing, thermic treatments etc.) are considered to be allowed in
organic farming (although not explicitly listed in Annex II B). The Electron treatment is
probably not allowed, because it must be considered as “ionizing radiation”.

-Micro-organisms (e.g. Pseudomonas chlororaphis) and copper based fungicides are also
allowed listed in Annex II B. These might be used as seed treatments, if they are registered
(under Dir. 91/414)13 for that purpose. P. chlororaphis is already is already registered.

-Plant based products and plant extracts (e.g. mustard powder) could also be considered
for use on organic seeds, but would need to be listed in Annex II, and registered under Dir
91/414.

-Some disinfectants which are currently allowed for disinfection of stables etc. (e.g. ethanol,
peracetic acid, hydrogen peroxide; see Dir. 2092/91, Annex II E) could also be considered
for use as seed treatments. These would probably need to be listed individually in Annex II
B, and registered under 91/414.

Labelling requirements of organic seeds: Specific labelling rules for organic seed should
be considered. If any seed treatments are listed in Annex II B and can be used, these should
be declared on the organic seed label as they may influence the germination.

It should be considered whether stricter thresholds for seed borne diseases can be
introduced for organic seed lots to avoid the spread of seed borne diseases, at least for the
most common (and widely traded) species. Further research would be needed to establish
suitable thresholds. Further detailed recommendations in relation to reporting of seed
derogations are presented in Section 0.

Implementing rules for collection of wild plants (Art 12.2)

It is recommended to further specify the requirements on collection of wild plant products

from natural habitats in the new implementing rules by defining criteria for sustainable
collection including requirements concerning registration and monitoring of the natural
habitats and the education of the collectors. Regional aspects should be considered.

Implementing rules for special cropping systems

Protected cropping: In line with Article 3a of (EC) 834/2007 (responsible use of energy
and natural resources) it is recommended to introduce basic rules for protected cropping
(in greenhouses) at the EU level that limit the consumption of fossil energy, water and other
natural resources and reduce the emission of the green house gas CO2. It is further
recommended to introduce some basic requirements for the conversion of greenhouses,
fertilisation of green house cultures and the composition of growing media for greenhouse
cultures including ornamentals.

Perennials: Basic rules for growing of perennials concerning the requirement of plant
cover in between rows to reduce the risk of soil erosion, nutrient run-off and leaching and
to increase the biodiversity in perennial crops should also be included as part of the new
implementing rules. The European Commission may build on the experience of some
national governmental and private standards setters to develop such rules.

6.3 Detailed recommendations relating to implementation rules for livestock

(in line with Article 14, currently Annex IB)

Implementing rules for livestock breeding (in line with Article 14 (c iv))

There is a need to define the term ‘slow growing strains’ for poultry (Annex IB 6.1 of
Regulation EEC2092/91) to ensure that the genetic capacity of protein accretion of such
strains is adapted to the reduced availability of high protein feedstuffs in organic farming by
specifying the growing intensity (a maximum in daily weight gain), especially for turkeys.

Implementing rules for feeding (in line with Article 14 (d), currently Annex IB 4 &
Annex II C and D)

In line with the objectives of organic production set out in Article 3 and with the livestock
production rules for feeding of Article 14(d) of Regulation (EC) 834/2007 the rules on
feeding should aim to provide an incentive for the further development of the product and
process quality of organic livestock production and strengthen the self regulating
properties of organic livestock farms as self-referencing systems.

Different categories of feed inputs need to be distinguished that carry different risks to the
integrity of organic production. Decision criteria like ‘necessity to use non organic feed
inputs’, ‘impact on animal health and welfare’ and ‘impact on the environment’ are related
to the availability and to the balance of supply and demand of feed materials and should be
assessed at the lowest possible systems level.

Organic feed from the holding: No restrictions apply, other than that for ruminants a 60%
proportion of daily dry matter intake has to consist of roughage. It is recommended to
consider raising this percentage of roughage in the daily ration of herbivores (Annex IB,
4.7), in line with the rules of several standards in Europe, but further research would be
needed to investigate at what level such a higher threshold could be set and whether any
exemptions (for example for young mammals) are necessary.

External organic feed materials from plant and animal origin and organic by products
from processing (Annex IB, 4.2 of Regulation (EEC) 2092/91): These can only be used
to a maximum of 50% of the feed intake for herbivores, but for pigs and poultry no such
limit exists in Regulation (EEC) 2092/91.

The availability of organic feed materials from the holding is farm and region specific. It is
recommended that the requirement for farm-gate feed balance sheets should be integrated
into the organic certification process and become part of the regular inspection. Farm-gate
feed balance sheets would allow monitoring the use of external resources (in line with
Article 4 b and 5b) and the risk of nutrient pollution of the environment (in line with Article
3c, Regulation EC 834/2007).

The requirement of producing at least 50% of the feed on the own farm unit or in
cooperation with other farms for herbivores should gradually be extended to all species as a
step towards harmonisation with private standard setters at the national and international
level. Guidance on what type of co-operation should be required or what boundaries apply
to a “region” should be provided.

Conventional basic feed materials from plant and animal origin and conventional
industrial by-products (Article 16 1.c Regulation EC 834/2007; Annex IB 4.8, IIC 1 & 2
of Regulation (EEC) 2092/91): Conventional feed materials are no longer essential to
formulate organic rations for mono-gastric animals, but there appear to be continuous
problems with the availability of some feed components in organic quality, in particular
high quality protein sources. Only certain non-organic products can be used and a stepwise
reduction until 2011 has been implemented.

The project recommends that the current derogations for the use of conventional feed
materials should not be extended beyond 31 December 2011. The use of cereals should be
further restricted to avoid unfair competition in the transition period until 2012. The
conditions for flexibility envisaged in Article 22 (Regulation EC/834/2007) are sufficient to
cover all events under which the use of conventional feed ingredients is likely to be
necessary in future. Such derogations should be restricted to a proven lack of availability of
suitable organic feed materials in certain regions and to emergencies. Special consideration
should be given to the feeding of mono-gastric young-stock in the first weeks of life.
Derogations should be handled at the regional/national level based on guidelines and
reporting requirements provided by the Commission.

Implementing rules for disease prevention (Article 14 e; currently Annex IB,

Disease prevention: The implementing rules to Regulation (EC/834/2007) should be kept

at a high level regarding disease prevention and veterinary treatment in order to meet
consumers’ expectations. However, care must be taken that the animal will not suffer due to
withholding of treatment because of too strict rules on medical treatment. The mandatory
introduction of animal health plans should be explored to emphasise that disease
prevention is of highest priority. Because of the problems that can be caused by the more
limited availability of high quality protein, health planning should pay special attention to
the feeding strategies for young animals in their first weeks of life.

6.4 Implementing rules for input approval (in line with Article 16)

The new Regulation (EC/834/2007) includes common criteria for evaluation of new inputs.
Decisions on which inputs are permitted or not permitted based on these criteria should be
transparent. In particular, the exceptional allowance of use of certain synthetic substances
is of concern to some stakeholders.

Pest control: Further harmonisation of the process for the approval of substances allowed
for pest and disease control in agriculture in general in the EU member states would reduce
the competitive differences, due to differences in the way plant strengtheners are dealt with
and differences in the approval of the specific products listed in Annex IIB of the (EEC)
2092/91, but this is unfortunately an issue outside the “organic” regulation.

6.5 Implementing rules for conversion (in line with Article 17)

Conversion of land: Harmonisation and simplification of the existing rules can be achieved
by imposing a standardised conversion period of 12 months (including a full growing
season) with a defined date of commencement (e.g. the date of application for inspection,
which should take place before the growing season).

Hereby a lot of bureaucracy concerning rules, use and control of in-conversion areas and
products could be avoided. At the same time it is recommended to revoke the system of
retrospective recognition, as this is not needed with a shorter conversion period. If
retrospective recognition, however, is to be maintained, the detailed provisions should be
defined and the EU member states should be obliged to provide reliable documentation.

Clear conversion rules for glasshouse production and other specialist cropping systems
should be formulated.

Conversion of livestock: It is recommended to consider harmonisation and simplification

of the different conversion periods related to land and to livestock in relation to the feeding
rules and veterinary rules as well as the use of in-conversion feed materials and the
possibility of simultaneous conversion of the whole farm.

Whole farm conversion: A medium-term perspective of full farm conversion by operators

would contribute towards consumer trust and simplify the inspection process. However,
such a period for conversion of the whole farm may vary depending on the production type,
size and the number and types of productions on the farm. Holdings with agro-forestry and
other perennial non-food production may be excluded from the requirement of full farm
conversion.

The Implementing rules of the Regulation (EC) 834/2007 should include definitions on
“holding”, “farm unit” etc. to avoid different interpretations by national authorities and
public and private certifiers.

6.6 Implementing rules for processing (in line with Article 18, Annex VI of
2092/91)

The proposed principles and criteria for processing of organic food in the newly adopted
Council Regulation (EC/834/2007) is an important step towards better harmonisation of
the rules for processing. However, the necessity and suitability of using some of the
additives currently listed (e.g. nitrates and nitrites) is much debated. Several national
governmental and private standards have excluded some of the additives and processing
aids permitted by the Regulation (EEC) 2092/91, but according to the new Council
Regulation EC 834/2007 this will no longer be possible. This could reduce the incentive to
further restrict the number of permitted ingredients and additives and thereby present an
obstacle to the further dynamic development of organic production in line with the core
principles of organic farming. The list of additives and processing aids should therefore
continuously be re-evaluated at the EU level, with the aim to further restrict the number of
additives and processing aids.

General implementing rules for processing need to be developed. It should, however, be

considered whether product-specific rules for processing methods should that define in
detail the processing technologies/method may remain a field for private standard-setting
organisations and the organic food industry, e.g. by developing a common code of practice.

6.7 Implementing rules for care of the environment (in line with Article 3c)

Of the areas currently not covered by Regulation (EEC) 2092/91, environmental protection
and ecosystem management should be considered for harmonisation by developing
common implementing rules at European level. This area is of high importance to European
stakeholders and to policy, such as agri-environment programmes supporting producers in
conversion to and maintaining organic agriculture. The European Union could build on the
experience of some private standards that specify a certain share of natural land as habitat
and/or have rules for
biodiversity protection or limit the use of non-renewable resources (soil, energy and water)
in protected cropping systems.

6.8 Reporting requirements

In relation to Commission Regulation (EC) 1452/2003 on the granting of organic

seed derogations

Harmonisation of the derogation system: There is a need to harmonise the procedures

how authorisations for the use of non-organic seeds according Regulation (EC) 1452/2003
are granted by Member States.

- A time limit of three years should be set by which the ‘general derogation’ (according to
Article 5.4) can no longer be used for arable crops and for the most important annual
vegetable species /subspecies.

- A time limit of five years should be set, by when a level of below 5% derogations for
important arable crops, annual vegetables and the most important biennial vegetables is
reached.

Annex of species for which derogations cannot be granted It is recommended that not
only species but also sub-species (crop types according use and cultivation, variety groups,
e.g. cherry tomatoes) can be listed in the Annex of the Regulation 1452/2003 on European
level.

For a defined period these Annexes should be published and tested on national level. From
2009 onwards this can be handled under the flexibility rules of the new EU Council
regulation EC/834/2007.

In cases of unforeseen shortage of organic seed, the ability of national authorities to allow
individual derogations according Article 5.1 of the Regulation (EC) 1452/2003 should cover
species listed in a to be developed Annex 1.

The following procedures are recommended to harmonise and increase the availability of
organic seed and propagation material:

- Foreign seed companies with a local distributor should be able to enter information on a
national database of a Member State.

- The national organic seed databases should include vegetative propagation material other
than potatoes.

- It remains very difficult to produce forage mixtures (grass/legumes) with 100% organic
components. Mixtures with a defined minimal proportion of organic seed should get access
to the organic seed databases.

Harmonisation of the seed derogation reports: The commission should provide a

template for reporting and set clear criteria how the data according to Article 12 of
Regulation (EC) 1452/2003 have to be presented in the national annual seed derogation
reports. For the sake of transparency, the information provided in the annual reports
should be published by the Commission (e.g. on the internet). The value of the report to the
industry could be improved, if further details would be included, such as variety name,
amount of seed used per variety, acreage planted, detailed reasons for authorisations. A list
of the most common reasons for authorisation calls is provided in the report D 5.3
(Thommen, 2007).

Seed health status of organic seed lots: Seed health authorities should be required to
include a special reporting on organic seed in their regular annual phyto sanitary reports.

Reporting in relation to feed derogations

Currently very little information is available on the actual amounts of non-organic and
organic feed materials that are used in organic animal production. Because the criteria of
‘necessity’ is closely related to availability, it should be considered whether similar
reporting requirements as for seed can be introduced in relation to feed materials and the
issuing of derogation of non-organic feed, and how the information flow about availability
of organic feed material can be improved at the national and the EU level.

6.9 Recommendations for standard setting bodies and regulators

Standard setting bodies should consider the value-based approach of organic agriculture in
which different perspectives and value expectations exist. Ethical values are per se in need
of interpretation, and there is no unambiguous interpretation of the organic core values. It
is therefore necessary to consider issues how decisions are reached, as well as which core
values are and can be covered, in relation to integrating basic ethical values in organic
standards and regulations.

All standard setting bodies should aim to adopt an open and transparent process on how to
reach decisions on explication of core values. The procedure should involve stakeholders,
through providing information and seeking feedback at certain key stages of the process.
The process should give equal consideration to different voices and stakeholders, whilst
ensuring coherence in the interpretation of the core organic values.

Organic farming in its current form has developed through the involvement of private
operators at various levels and the private organic sector fulfils statutory functions in the
organic inspection and certification systems that need to be recognised when regulating
organic agriculture.

All standard setting bodies and regulators in Europe should aim for harmonisation of the
ethical values behind the rules on the basis of the four principles of organic agriculture
(POA) of Health, Ecology, Fairness and Care, and develop a common interpretation of the
core value basis for further harmonisation of the rules.
There is limited experience in organic standards setting on how to implement some of the
core values in the rules, especially the social values of fairness and care. The important task
of developing new rules to implement these values so that they can become part of the
organic guarantee system of inspection and certification in the future is a challenge for all
standards setting bodies and offers opportunity for differentiation of private operators in
the market place.

Guidelines for decision-making processes in the context of organic standards setting should
be further developed building on important elements of ethical dialogue, such as respect for
the arguments and emotions of the discussion partners, developing a common
understanding and context sensitivity and a common understanding, and by relating theory
(values) to practise.

6.10 Research recommendations

Intensification: Further research should be carried out on how the agro-ecological systems
approach can be implemented and monitored in a balanced way so that the input driven
intensification can be limited, in particular in the area of fertilisation and animal feeding,
considering the implications on various specialist production systems different climatic
regions.

Seed health of organic seeds: Further research is needed to increase the knowledge on the
efficacy of the seed treatments that may be acceptable in organic farming for a greater range
of host/parasite combinations taking into account the seed physiology and possible side
effects on the germination. Further research is also needed to establish suitable threshold
values for seed borne diseases, which can be used as an additional criterion for the quality
of organic seeds and to establish lists of equivalent varieties of certain species as a more
objective basis for the derogation decision of control bodies.

Organic production of mono-gastric animals (pigs and poultry): Organic livestock

production can play a pioneer role to further the development of animal production
systems that are land based and that limit intensification by restricting the use of certain
inputs (feed materials) with the aim to produce products of high quality rather than
maximizing production. However, because organic and conventional production systems for
mono-gastric animals have different objectives and framework conditions, conclusions
derived from research in conventional systems are not fully transferable to organic
production.

Research should support the debate as to which types of pig and poultry production
systems represent the best compromise between the different principles of organic farming.
Further research is needed to develop feeding and overall management strategies for mono-
gastric animals under the conditions of organic farming, including the suitability and choice
of breeds/strains, feeding strategies and the composition of diets. Measures which help to
increase the sensorial product quality and the production quality in relation to animal
health and welfare should be developed and tested so that the findings can be considered in
the organic certification process. Further research is needed to assess the availability of and
requirements for vitamins in pig and poultry production under organic farming conditions.

Organic feed: There is a need for continuous assessment of the availability of organic
feedstuffs (esp. cereals and pulses) in relation to different regions and countries of the EU.
The balance between supply of and demand for organic feed materials should be monitored
regularly on a regional and on the EU level. This should enable a better basis for future
decisions on the necessity for allowing conventional feed materials according to Article 22
and make the decision process more transparent.

Animal husbandry: Further research is needed to assess the possibilities for further
simplification of the EU rules on animal husbandry and housing that complies with the
objective of achieving a high status of animal health and welfare

7 Results :

7.1 Home page : This page introduces the organic and non organic predection using
meachine learning . Users can register or log in to start exploring the system's capabilities.

About Page: This page provides an overview of the project’s goal and technology. It
describes how deep learning is used to classify organic and non organic product
predections using meachine learning
Register Page: The registration page allows users to create an account by entering their
details. After registration, users can access the heart sound classification features.

Login Page: Users can log in to the system using their credentials. This page ensures secure
access to the platform's features.
User Home Page: Here, detailed information about the project is provided. It explains the
purpose of the system and its potential applications in predection oforganic or not using the
meachine learning image classification.

In this we can see the organic products and we can buy it we can predect it.

Classification Page: On this page, users can upload image jpg files for classification. The
system will analyze the image and output the corresponding product wetherit was organic
or not.
Results: : On this page, users can upload image jpg files for classification. The system will
analyze the image and output the corresponding product wetherit was organic or not.

7.2 SYSTEM STUDY AND TESTING

However, computational condition recommendation re mains a rarely addressed and

complex challenge. Most existing work focuses only on specific elements of the chemical
context (e.g., only reagents or only solvents), or specific reaction classes. Solvent selection,
for instance, has been widely studied as a standalone problem.28 Struebing et al. combined
quantum mechanical (QM) calculations with a computer-aided molecular design procedure
to identify solvents that accelerate reaction kinetics.29 This approach was demonstrated to
be effective for specific examples, yet it is difficult to apply at a larger scale due to the high
computational cost of QM calculations.

Data-driven approaches have been employed to recommend conditions for specific types of
reactions. Marcou et al.30 built an expert system to predict the type of catalyst and solvent
used for Michael additions, trained on 198 known reactions. The problem was formulated
as multiple binary classification subproblems of whether a certain type of solvent/catalyst
would be suitable for a specific Michael reaction. However, on an external test set, only 8
out of 52 reactions had both predicted solvent and catalyst matching the true context. Lin et
al. used a similarity-based approach to recommend catalysts for desired deprotection
reactions, and demonstrated the approach in catalytic hydrogenation reactions.31 A study
by Segler and Waller tackles a broader scope of reactions using a knowledge graph model of
organic chemistry to infer complementary and analogous reactivity.32 Novel reactions are
treated as missing links in this graph. Reaction context is taken as the combination of the
first reactions that are linked with reactant molecules.

They tested this approach on 11 reactions from the literature, and for most of them the
model was able to identify the exact same or similar reagent/ catalyst as used in the
literature. This work demonstrated the feasibility of reaction context inference based on

reaction patterns, yet context compatibility and temperature prediction are not taken into
consideration. Similar to the aforementioned approach, one straightforward method for
identifying reasonable reaction conditions is to find a similar reaction in the literature and
simply employ exactly the same reaction conditions reported for that precedent

approach that many chemists may use implicitly.

This can be successful with a database of known reactions that is sufficiently large and
densely populated, but computationally, a nearest-neighbor search against millions of
species is RAM and CPU-intensive, even with optimized search strategies (e.g., using a ball
tree). Furthermore, if some information in the nearest-neighbor reaction is not present (i.e.,
data is incomplete), that information cannot be inferred. The rigidity of this approach
precludes asking questions essential to synthesis planning, such as whether the reaction
could proceed in a particular replacement solvent.

In summary, we identify some primary limitations of existing approaches:

(1) There has not been a published method that accurately predicts complete reaction
conditions (catalysts, sol vents, reagents, and temperature) suitable for use with a very
large reaction corpus.

(2) The compatibility and interdependence of chemical context and temperature are not
taken into account in previous approaches.

(3) No previous studies have performed quantitative evaluation of reaction condition

predictions on a large scale reaction data set.

There are two major challenges which have impeded progress:

(i) There is not a machine readable large data set available with catalysts/
solvents/reagents classified into different types.

(ii) For the similarit y-based approaches it is difficult to quantitatively assess the level of
“correctness” of conditions when comparing entire sets of conditions associated with
different literature reactions.

(4) Closer attention should be paid to balancing the generality/specificity of representing

chemical context. If the representation is too general, such as manually encoded
types/groups, it might not fully characterize functionality, and if it is too specific, e.g.,
copy−pasting the entire conditions from other reactions, it does not provide further
information about chemical similarity.

New tools are needed that propose reaction conditions intelligently and can handle a broad
scope of reaction classes. In this work we develop a neural-network-based model to predict
suitable reaction conditions for arbitrary organic transformations. The model is trained on
roughly 10 million

examples from the Reaxys8 database to predict the chemical species used as catalysts,
solvents, reagents, and an appropriate temperature for the reaction. Prediction results are
evaluated both quantitatively, using a variety of accuracy metrics, and qualitatively, using
multiple sets of representative examples. It is also demonstrated that the model learns the
similarity of the chemical context (e.g., different solvents/reagents) exclusively from
reaction data
7.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Aneural network model is trained to predict up to one catalyst, two solvents, two reagents,
and the temperature for a given organic reaction. Detailed data processing and model
formulation steps are described in the Methods section. The training process is essentially a
multiobjective optimization that minimizes the overall loss function which is a weighted
sum of the loss for each individual objective (namely, catalyst, solvent 1, solvent 2, reagent
1, reagent 2, and temperature). The progress of training is reflected in the change of the
overall and individual loss, which is shown in Figure 1. Validation loss (dashed red line)
decreases for 2 epochs and then reaches a plateau and stays higher than the training loss
(solid red line). Based on the plotted losses in Figure 1 the first solvent (s1, yellow lines)
and the first reagent (r1, orange lines) are the most difficult to predict, with a significantly
higher loss value than the other objectives (not including temperature). There is a large
fraction of reactions which do not have a second solvent (s2, blue lines) or reagent (r2, gray
lines), in which cases the model only needs to predict the NULL class, making these second
predictions easier to classify. The same principle applies to catalyst, where many reactions
do not use a catalyst, and others have catalysts frequently recorded as reagents. The mean
squared error for temperature (T loss, green lines) decreases steadily over the epochs,
ending in 0.46 for the training set and 0.50 for the validation set (after scaling by a factor of
0.001 K−2).
Statistical Analysis : Evaluating the results of chemical context prediction is a nontrivial
task, mainly because it is a combination of individual chemicals, and because we lack a
standard way of quantifying the “closeness” of the prediction when each exact chemical is
not predicted. Since there is often more than one possible context combination suitable for
a reaction, we do not want to focus exclusively on the top-one prediction, but also want to
examine other highly ranked suggestions. However, the number of total combinations
grows in a polynomial way (to the fifth power) with the increase of number of candidates to
include for every individual element; e.g., if the top-three candidates are to be examined for
the catalyst, both solvents, and both reagents, the total number of combinations is 243 (35),
which is almost impossible to evaluate manually, and difficult to analyze. Since the data for
catalyst, solvent 2 and reagent 2 are much more sparse than solvent 1 and reagent 1, there
is likely more value in examining longer candidate list for the latter two. Therefore, we use
the top-three reagent 1 predictions and top-three solvent 1 predictions along with the top-

two catalyst, top-one solvent 2, and top-one reagent 2 to construct 18 top combinations,
from which we can pick the top-three or top-10 combinations with the highest overall
scores, calculated as the product of softmax probabilities for each individual element

Compared to the high accuracies for the individual prediction tasks, the top-three accuracy
for the full condition recommendation (catalyst, two solvents, two reagents) is 50.1%, and
the top-10 accuracy is 57.3% (53.2% and 60.3% when including close match predictions).
However, given that these numbers represent the requirement to predict the full
combination (all five elements) of the exact recorded context, it is expected to be more
challenging than predicting individual elements. We further computed the top-10 accuracy
of a subset of the combinationscatalyst,
 solvent 1, and reagent 1as
 66.0% and 69.6% for
exact matches and close match predictions, respectively.

To evaluate the meaningfulness of the accuracies given in Table 1, we compared the trained
model with a baseline model, where top-10 combinations are chosen based on the
frequencies of the catalysts, solvents, and reagents (Supporting Information, Table S1).
Detailed comparisons and statistical parameters are given in the Supporting Information,
Table S2. It can be seen that 87.3% of the reactions do not use a catalyst; 85.6% of the
reactions do not use a second solvent, and 82.3% of the reactions do not use a second
reagent.

contexts that are at least partially different from the recorded context. Practically speaking,
however, temperature is relatively easy to change and test in experiments, so suggesting an
approximate initial guess of the temperature would be sufficiently helpful for the setup of
experiments. The top-one temperature prediction falls within the ±10 or ±20 °C range of the
recorded temperature in 36.7% and 57.7% of test cases, respectively. If we isolate reactions
whose predicted chemical context matches the recorded chemical context, these accuracies
increase to 42.6% and 65.9%. The mean absolute error (MAE) of temperature prediction for
all reactions in the data set is 25.5 °C, and when the correct chemical context is found the
MAE is 19.4 °C. Figure 2 visualizes this by plotting the predicted temperature against the
recorded temperature for a 1% sample of the testing set. The fact that the quality of
temperature prediction is significantly improved with correctly predicted chemical context
demonstrates that the prediction of temperature accounts for the compatibility with the
chemical context. This performance is also compared with a baseline model that predicts
the most frequent temperature (20 °C) for every reaction in the Supporting Information.
Figure S4 shows the distribution of temperature for the test set. While a majority of
reactions use 20 °C, the distribution spans a wide range, and simply predicting the room
temperature (20 °C) will result in a mean absolute error of 35.3 °C, which is significantly
larger than the prediction given by the trained model and would be misleading for reactions
that require high or low temperatures.

Qualitative Evaluation of Reaction Examples. In addition to the statistical analyses,

qualitative evaluation of reaction examples helps provide chemical insight in the model
predictions. We select reactions from a variety of common types of organic reactions to
evaluate the quality of model predictions. We randomly select example reactions that are
labeled by reaction type (around five for each type) and compare the true condition, top-
one prediction, and the closest prediction within top-10 candidates. The closest prediction
is defined as the prediction that has the largest number of chemical elements exactly
matching the true chemical context. The reaction types we choose to test include hydrolysis,
esterification, alkylation, epoxidation, Wittig, reduction, oxidation, deprotection,
Suzuki−Miyaura coupling, Grubbs metathesis, and Buchwald−Hartwig amination. Due to
space limitation, we only place a small part of the examples here in the main text with the
top-one prediction (Figure 3) and the rest in the Supporting Information (Table S3) with
both the top-one prediction and the closest prediction. Figure 3A is an epoxidation reaction
where two CC bonds are present.33 The recorded reagents for a nucleophilic epoxidation,
selective for the electron deficient alkene, are correctly predicted by the model. Figure 3B
shows a Fmoc deprotection reaction where either acidic or basic conditions can be used. In
this case, basic conditions are proposed by the model for removal of the Fmoc group which
does not affect the other acetate protecting groups in the molecule.34 Notably, the
predicted reagent (piperidine) is highly similar structurally and functionally to the recorded
reagent (morpholine), demonstrating the model’s ability to capture chemical similarity.
Figure 3C is a Luche reduction that needs a Lewis acid catalyst to selectivity reduce the
carbonyl, and the model recognizes this specificity by suggesting cerium(III).35 Figure 3D is
a Buchwald−Hartwig aryl amination that uses BINAP as the ligand.36

solvents are all correctly predicted by the model. Figure 3E,F is a Suzuki−Miyaura coupling
reaction37 and Grubbs meta thesis,38 respectively, for which the model also successfully
predicts the exact chemical context.
It is worth pointing out the success of predicting the context of catalytic reactions is
partially attributable to a data cleaning step that moves transition metal compounds from
the reagents f ield to the catalyst field. This only increases the overall accuracy by a small
margin (∼0.5%), but it significantly improves the quality of model predictions for catalytic
reactions in the case studies.

Synopsis
A combination of traditional reaction templates and machine learning enables the
prediction of organic reaction products in silico using open source data from the patent
literature.

Introduction

Synthesis planning is often referred to as an art. The process of identifying a suitable

pathway (i.e., series of reaction steps) which transforms some set of available reactants into
a target compound is typically performed by expert chemists with years or decades of
experience. To assist chemists with this task, computer-aided synthesis design was
introduced over 40 years ago in the form of retrosynthetic planning software.

Retrosynthesis was originally formalized by Corey and Wipke (1, 2) in their efforts to
introduce computer assistance to synthesis with Logic and Heuristics Applied to Synthetic
Analysis (LHASA). (3) Corey’s approach to codifying retrosynthesis involved the explicit
identification of molecular structures which lend themselves to disconnection or, rather,
can be produced by known reactions in the forward direction. Almost all approaches to
automated retrosynthesis, LHASA included, involve the use of reaction templates—
submolecular patterns that encode changes in atom connectivity. Recursively applying
retrosynthetic templates to a target molecule produces a candidate synthesis tree. However,
a synthetic route based on retrosynthetic templates does not always lead to a successful
forward synthesis. Templates are locally defined pattern-matching rules, inherently naive to
what is present in the rest of the molecule. It is common, therefore, for a proposed
retrosynthetic disconnection to be unviable in the forward direction. Once a synthetic route
has been proposed, it is critical to evaluate each step in the forward direction to identify
these challenges.

Forward analysis is such an important part of pathway evaluation that even the very first
retrosynthesis program, Corey’s LHASA, could identify functional group conflicts which
might lead to a lack of specificity or selectivity. (3) Another early program, Computer-
Assisted Mechanistic Evaluation of Organic Reactions (CAMEO), (4) implemented a similar
approach where nucleophilic and electrophilic sites were analyzed pairwise to determine
qualitative reactivities. Other programs like SOPHIA (5) and Eros (6) identify potentially
reactive functional groups using manually curated reactivity rules and empirical
calculations. Chematica’s Syntaurus (7) contains explicitly encoded lists of incompatible
functional groups for each retrosynthetic template.

Manual encoding of these rules has obvious disadvantages. First, it relies on the intuition
and experience of a small number of chemists. Second, it is not scalable—it is not realistic to
exhaustively define the full substrate scope and incompatibilities for every possible
reaction. Third, conflicting reactivity is rarely black and white; incompatibility depends on
the exact nature of the reacting molecules. These factors motivate the development of an
automated approach to forward reaction evaluation.
Work by Kayala et al. considers the problem of forward synthesis mechanistically, rather
than using end-to-end templates. (8, 9) They use graph-based representations of molecules
and assign approximate molecular orbitals to each so that a mechanistic step can be
considered an interaction between a donor and an acceptor orbital. Although they show
very promising results, the need for manual encoding of mechanistic rules to generate
training data could be problematic and limit scalabity. Wei et al. (10) describe the use of
neural networks to predict the outcome of reactions based on reactant fingerprints, but
limit their study to 16 types of reactions covering a very narrow scope of possible alkyl
halide and alkene reactions. Given two reactants and one reagent, the model was trained to
identify which of 16 templates was most applicable. The data set used for cross-validation
comes from artificially generated examples with limited chemical functionality, rather than
experimental data.

Quite recently, Segler and Waller describe two approaches to forward synthesis prediction.
The first is a knowledge-graph approach that uses the concept of half reactions to generate
possible products given exactly two reactants by looking at the known reactions in which
each of those reactants participates. (11) In one validation, the recorded product is found in
the list of candidate products (with a median size of 3, mean 5.3) 67.5% of the time using a
knowledge-base of eight million reactions. With “only” one million reactions, performance
drops to just 15%. The second approach uses neural networks to rank reaction templates
given reactant fingerprints. For reactions that are known to be contained in their
automatically extracted set of 8720 templates, the authors report accuracies as high as 78%,
but do not quantify the coverage of their template set; an average of just 44.5 matches per
query suggests poor coverage. (12) The data used for training and testing are not precisely
defined, nor is the code/model available for comparative purposes.

Previous studies have not relied on published experimental reaction examples due to the
challenge of only having “positive” examples, excepting Segler and Waller. (12) The
literature is heavily biased toward reactions with high yields, and reactions with negligible
or zero yields are rarely reported except for illustrative purposes, e.g., highlighting the
necessity of a catalyst. Proprietary electronic lab notebooks can contain numerous
unproductive reactions, including results of high-throughput screening, but these data are
not available in public or even commercial databases. This limitation of reaction databases
precludes many supervised learning approaches for forward synthetic prediction: one
cannot train a model directly on literature data to classify a certain reaction as productive
or unproductive, since there are almost no unproductive examples available.

In this work, we describe a model that learns to predict the major products of chemical
reactions given a set of reactant molecules by combining rigid reaction templates and
machine learning. Specifically, we report the following contributions: (1) a data
augmentation strategy whereby reaction databases are supplemented with chemically
plausible negative reaction examples; (2) the successful application of that strategy using
automatically extracted forward synthesis templates, where poor specificity is not a
hindrance and no manual curation is required; (3) a new reaction representation focused
on the fundamental transformation at the reaction site rather than constituent reactant and
product fingerprints; (4) the implementation and validation of a neural network-based
model that learns when certain modes of reactivity are more or less likely to occur than
other potential modes. Despite the literature bias toward reporting only high-yielding
reactions, we develop a successful workflow that can be performed without any manual
curation using actual reactions reported in the USPTO literature.

Approach

Overview

Our model predicts the outcome of a chemical reaction in a two-step manner: (1) applying
overgeneralized forward reaction templates to a pool of reactants to generate a set of
chemically plausible products, and (2) estimating which candidate product is the major
product as a multiway classification problem using machine learning. This is shown
schematically in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Model framework combining forward enumeration and candidate ranking. The
primary aim of this work is the creation of the parametrized scoring model, which is trained
to maximize the probability assigned to the recorded experimental outcome.

In the first stage, we apply a library of forward synthetic templates to define which products
could be produced based on the initial reactants. Rule-based enumeration has been applied
to forward synthesis analysis previously, (13, 14) but because many distinct templates can
match a given reactant set and generate hundreds or thousands of products, simple
enumeration is not inherently useful. If a particular reaction is plausible, but it proceeds at a
rate insignificant compared to other reactions, then we do not need to consider it when
evaluating the viability of a forward reaction step. In the second stage, each candidate
reaction is scored individually by the machine learning model. This model assesses the
likelihood of reactivity, akin to a reaction rate, in isolation from competing reactions. The
scores from all candidates are compared in a softmax network layer (i.e., an exponential
activation function that maps a list of numbers to a list of probabilities that sum to one) to
generate probabilities describing which product is predicted to be most abundant.
A key component of our approach is this two-step formalization. By generating candidate
products in the first step, in effect, existing reaction databases are augmented with negative
reaction examples. This circumvents the limitation of only having high-yielding reaction
data. Implicit in a reaction example A + B → C with greater than 50% yield is
that

or at least that D and E were formed to a lesser extent than the reported C, where D and E
are plausible alternate products. Including these alternate products in the training set
allows us to extract more information from each reaction entry than we otherwise could by,
e.g., training to predict the yield of only recorded reactions.

The recorded product of a reaction in the patent database is the “true” product that the
model learns to predict, while the chemically plausible alternate products generated via
templates are the “false” products which were not reported in the literature. A model can
then be trained to identify the “true” product as a multiway classification or ranking
problem. Treating recorded products as true outcomes is consistent with the literature bias
toward reporting high-yield reactions.

Data

The source of reaction examples is the set of USPTO patents granted between 1976 and
2013, preparsed by Lowe. (15) Contextual information (e.g., temperature, solvent, reaction
time) is inconsistently present, so reaction examples were reduced to reactants and
products only. Forward templates were extracted from the prefiltered set of 1,122,662
atom-mapped reaction SMILES in 1976–
2013_USPTOgrants_reactionSmiles_feb2014filters.rsmi. (16) For training and testing major
product identification, a 15 000-member subset of the full set of reactions in 1976–
2013_USPTOgrants_CML.7z (16) was used. These examples are formatted as CML
documents where distinct roles (reactant, product, reagent, solvent, catalyst) are assigned
to each molecule in the reaction. This data set was chosen over the previous one so that
spectator molecules (e.g., reagents, solvents) could be given the opportunity to react,
despite not contributing atoms to the reported products. No two reaction examples in the
data set have an identical reactant pool.

Forward Enumeration

To build the database of forward templates, we use a heuristics-driven algorithm inspired

by Law et al. (17) and Bogevig et al. (18) For each atom-mapped reaction example found in
Lowe’s USPTO database, the reaction core is defined by determining which product atoms
have a different connectivity than the corresponding reactant atoms. The reaction core is
expanded to include adjacent unmapped leaving groups and immediately neighboring
atoms. Neighboring atoms are fully generalized into any non-hydrogen substituent for
maximal generality to achieve high coverage at the expense of low specificity. A SMARTS
string encoding the submolecular pattern at the reaction core can be generated for the
reactants and for the products, which together define a reaction SMARTS string. A total of
140 284 unique reaction SMARTS strings are extracted from 1,122,662 reaction SMILES
strings. Figure S1 shows the popularity of forward templates as a function of their rank. The
five most popular templates are shown in Figure 2 with ex post facto labels. Although these
five happen to be unimolecular functional group conversions, we have not predefined
common functional groups or common transformations; moreover, the model does not rely
on manual curation, labeling, or sorting of these extracted templates.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Depiction of the top five most popular forward synthetic templates extracted from
1.1 million USPTO reactions. C[al] denotes any aliphatic carbon.

Due to imperfect canonicalization, the 140 284 templates contain some duplicates (e.g.,
same patterns with different numbering) and other redundancies (e.g., hydrolysis of ester
overlaps with hydrolysis of alkyl ether/ester). Moreover, application of templates is
computationally expensive (Figure S2), and the marginal coverage benefit of including
additional templates decreases rapidly with rank (Figure S1). To focus the model on the
most prevalent reaction types, only templates with more than 50 precedents were included
in subsequent steps; this corresponds to the top 1689 templates.

For each reaction example, all molecules (reactants, reagents, catalysts, and solvents) were
combined into a single reactant pool. The removal of annotations labeling species’ roles was
motivated by the fact that they were originally assigned using information about the
recorded product. The 1689 templates were applied to the reactant pool to generate a list of
potential products. The candidate products were each reduced to the product fragment with
the longest SMILES string to neglect any byproduct salts and approximate the “major
product”. Atom mapping is preserved so that a candidate product corresponds to a fully
atom-mapped

Figure 3. Edit-based model architecture for scoring candidate reactions. Reactions are
represented by four types of edits. Initial atom- and bond-level attributes are converted into
feature representations, which are summed and used to calculate that candidate reaction’s
likelihood score.

We also implement a baseline model, which attempts to rank candidate products based on
the products alone; no consideration is given to the reactants or corresponding reaction
edits. For this model, product molecules are represented by radius-2 Morgan circular
fingerprints of length 1024. A single hidden layer with tanh activation is used prior to the
linear output layer. The baseline scoring model is shown in S5 with its 51 301 parameters
(described in Table S4).

And finally, we implement a hybrid model, which trains the full edit-based and baseline
architectures simultaneously and uses the sum of their scores for each candidate reaction.

Results

Following the aforementioned procedures, 15 000 recorded reaction examples where the
true product was found by applying the 1689 most popular templates were taken from the
USPTO literature and augmented by adding the nonrecorded products to create a set of
5,335,669 examples. The model was trained and tested using a 5-fold cross-validation with
the Adadelta optimizer (23) and early stopping. Each fold used a 70%/10%/20%
training/validation/testing split and ceased training once the validation loss did not
improve for five epochs. The edit-based model achieves an test accuracy of 68.5%, averaged
across all folds. In this context, accuracy refers to the percentage of reaction examples
where the recorded product was assigned a rank of 1. The baseline model was similarly
trained and tested in a 5-fold CV, reaching an accuracy of 33.3%, suggesting that the set of
recorded products in the data set is fairly homogeneous. The hybrid model, combining the
edit-based representation with the proposed products’ fingerprint representations,
achieves an accuracy of 71.8%. These results are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1. Comparison between Baseline, Edit-Based, and Hybrid Models in Terms of

Categorical Crossentropy Loss and Accuracya

model loss acc. (%) top-3 (%) top-5 (%) top-10 (%)

random guess 5.46 0.8 2.3 3.8 7.6

baseline 3.28 33.3 48.2 55.8 65.9

edit-based 1.34 68.5 84.8 89.4 93.6

hybrid 1.21 71.8 86.7 90.8 94.6

Top-n refers to the percentage of examples where the recorded product was ranked within
the top n candidates.

Accuracy is a simplified metric of model performance; the actual objective during training is
minimization of the categorical crossentropy loss, −log p(xtrue), the average of the negative
natural logarithm of the probability assigned to the true candidate. By this metric, which
reflects both model accuracy and model confidence, the edit-based model (1.34) is vastly
superior to the baseline model (3.28); the hybrid model (1.21) offers an additional
improvement.

A direct comparison of prediction distributions is shown in Figure 4. As indicated by the

baseline model’s histogram of assigned probabilities in Figure 4a, the true outcome was
assigned a near-zero probability in a majority of examples; in comparison, the edit-based
model exhibits a more favorable distribution shifted toward higher probabilities—the
hybrid model even more so. This is also reflected in Figure 4b, where the distribution of
assigned ranks is short-tailed in the edit-based and hybrid models and long-tailed in the
baseline model. The shape of this tail affects overall model success as the success criterion
is relaxed from rank = 1 to rank ≥ n. Success rates of each model are shown in Figure 4c as a
function of the minimum acceptable rank (i.e., the top-n accuracy). Figure S12 in the
Supporting Information shows model performance as a function of how similar recorded
products are to others in the data set.

Figure 4
Figure 4. Performance of the three reaction prediction models as indicated by the (a)
histogram of probabilities assigned to true outcomes; (b) histogram of ranks assigned to
true outcomes, truncated to ranks 1–10; and (c) overall success rate as a function of the
minimum acceptable assigned rank. In each case, the model is attempting to select the true
product out of several hundred possible reaction products.

It is important to understand the significance of the probability the model assigns to each
candidate. Figure 5 depicts the performance of each model as a function of that model’s
“confidence”. In this context, confidence refers to the probability assigned to the highest-
ranked candidate (i.e., the highest probability assigned to any candidate product). There is a
very strong correlation of the model’s accuracy with the prediction confidence; this signifies
that the probability assigned to a candidate product does indicate the actual likelihood of
that being the major product; this is a highly desirable characteristic for a predictive model.
The distributions of prediction confidence are shown in Figure S10.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Mean model accuracy as a function of the binned model confidence, where the
model confidence refers to the probability assigned to the highest-ranked candidate.

Prediction Examples

Analysis of individual predictions gives greater insight into model behavior than statistical
measures. Figures 6 and 7 show the details of predictions from the hybrid model on test
data.

Figure 6
Figure 6. Reaction examples where the hybrid model assigned rank 1 to the recorded
product. Recorded/predicted reactions: (a) chlorination; (b) amide synthesis; (c) isoxazole
synthesis; (d) sulfamide synthesis; (e) etherfication; (f) Suzuki coupling; (g) Grignard
addition; (h) azidation; (i) alkylation.

Figure 6a depicts a functional group conversion from an alcohol to the corresponding

chloride using thionyl chloride (SOCl2). The recorded product is accurately predicted with
an assigned probability of 94.8%. Sodium bicarbonate is also present, which introduces
some competing reactivity channels (e.g., chlorination of bicarbonate), although these are
all assigned a lower probability than the true outcome.

Figure 6b depicts a reaction between a carbamate and a secondary amine that leads to the
carbamide, assigned a probability of 84.8%. The model recognizes that the tertiary amine is
not a likely candidate for reactivity and that ethoxy is a plausible leaving group.

Figure 6c depicts a ring-forming reaction between an aryl alkyne and an iminol that leads to
the isoxazole, assigned a high probability that rounds up to 100.0%.

Figure 6d depicts an S–N coupling between a primary arylamine and a sulfonyl chloride
assigned a probability of 98.1%. Although sulfonamides can be prepared using secondary
amines, the model recognizes that the diarylamine nitrogen is less reactive than the
arylamine nitrogen. It also ranks the various possible Friedel–Crafts reactions (S–C
coupling) lower.

Figure 6e depicts a simple SN2 etherfication reaction between a phenol and an alkyl
bromide, correctly predicted.
Figure 6f depicts a correctly predicted Suzuki Coupling between a pyridyl boronic acid and
a pyridyl bromide. This outcome is assigned a probability of 98.8% and a rank of 1. Even
though the necessary context (e.g., palladium catalyst) is missing and cannot be perceived
by the model, the model implicitly assumes that the reaction would be be run under typical
coupling conditions.

Figure 6g depicts a Grignard reaction using isobutyl magnesium bromide. The alkylated
substrate contains two potential carbonyl targets: an aldehyde and a nearby cyclic amide.
The model correctly predicts the addition to occur at the aldehyde to form the secondary
alcohol with high confidence.

Figure 6h depicts the preparation of an azide using sodium azide to replace the mesylate
group. This recorded outcome is assigned a rank of 1 with a probability of 77.7%.

Figure 6i depicts a correctly predicted propylation. Propyl iodide reacts with the α carbon
adjacent to a carboxylic ester. While the reaction may actually proceed through the enolate
form, the model never explicitly constructs this intermediate species.

8.1 References

1. Depuru, S. S. S. R., Rajasekaran, R. S., & Kumar, R. R. (2023). Classification of

Organic and Conventional Vegetables Using Machine Learning: A Case Study of
Brinjal, Chili, and Tomato. Foods, 12(6), 1168.
[Link]
2. Bonte, M., Fitzner, D. R., van den Broek, S. P. F. M. L., & van der Ploeg, J. J. J.
(2015). Learning to Classify Organic and Conventional Wheat – A Machine Learning
Driven Approach Using the MeltDB 2.0 Metabolomics Analysis Platform. Frontiers in
Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 3, 35.
[Link]
3. Birse, A. M., Danielson, N. D., & Holbrook, J. A. (2019). Using Machine Learning
and Multi-Element Analysis to Evaluate the Authenticity of Organic and Conventional
Vegetables. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 67(30), 8318–8326.
4. Kessler, N., Bonte, A., Lange, E., et al. (2015). Learning to Classify Organic and
Conventional Wheat - A Machine Learning Driven Approach Using the MeltDB 2.0
Metabolomics Analysis Platform. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 3,
35. [Link]
5. Depuru, S. S. S. R., Rajasekaran, R. S., & Kumar, R. R. (2023). Classification of
Organic and Conventional Vegetables Using Machine Learning: A Case Study of
Brinjal, Chili, and Tomato. Foods, 12(6), 1168.
[Link]
6. Depuru, S. S. S. R., Rajasekaran, R. S., & Kumar, R. R. (2023). Classification of
Organic and Conventional Vegetables Using Machine Learning: A Case Study of
Brinjal, Chili, and Tomato. Europe PMC.
[Link]
7. Depuru, S. S. S. R., Rajasekaran, R. S., & Kumar, R. R. (2023). Classification of
Organic and Conventional Vegetables Using Machine Learning: A Case Study of
Brinjal, Chili, and Tomato. DOAJ.
[Link]
8. Depuru, S. S. S. R., Rajasekaran, R. S., & Kumar, R. R. (2023). Classification of
Organic and Conventional Vegetables Using Machine Learning: A Case Study of
Brinjal, Chili, and Tomato. PubMed. [Link]
9. Depuru, S. S. S. R., Rajasekaran, R. S., & Kumar, R. R. (2023). Classification of
Organic and Conventional Vegetables Using Machine Learning: A Case Study of
Brinjal, Chili, and Tomato. PMC.
[Link]
10. Depuru, S. S. S. R., Rajasekaran, R. S., & Kumar, R. R. (2023). Classification of
Organic and Conventional Vegetables Using Machine Learning: A Case Study of
Brinjal, Chili, and Tomato. Europe PMC.
[Link]
11. Gambacorta, L., Faccia, M., Pati, S., Lamacchia, C., & Di Luccia, A. (2023).
Enhanced Food Authenticity Control Using Machine Learning-Assisted Analytical
Methods. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 134, 12–23.
[Link]
12. Zhang, H., Wisuthiphaet, N., Cui, H., Nitin, N., Liu, X., & Zhao, Q. (2021).
Spectroscopy Approaches for Food Safety Applications: Improving Data Efficiency
Using Active Learning and Semi-Supervised Learning. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2110.03765. [Link]
13. Bertani, F. R., Businaro, L., Gambacorta, L., Mencattin, A., Brenda, D., Di
Giuseppe, D., De Ninno, A., Solfrizzo, M., Martinelli, E., & Gerardino, A. (2020).
Optical Detection of Aflatoxins B in Grained Almonds Using Fluorescence Spectroscopy
and Machine Learning Algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04096.
[Link]
14. Zhou, P., Min, W., Zhang, Y., Song, J., Jin, Y., & Jiang, S. (2023). SeeDS: Semantic
Separable Diffusion Synthesizer for Zero-shot Food Detection. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2310.04689. [Link]
15. S. S. S. R. Depuru, R. S. Rajasekaran, and R. R. Kumar, "Classification of Organic
and Conventional Vegetables Using Machine Learning: A Case Study of Brinjal, Chili
and Tomato," Foods, vol. 12, no. 6, p. 1168, Mar. 2023. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
16. M. Bonte, D. R. Fitzner, S. P. F. M. L. van den Broek, and J. J. J. van der Ploeg,
"Learning to Classify Organic and Conventional Wheat – A Machine Learning Driven
Approach Using the MeltDB 2.0 Metabolomics Analysis Platform," Frontiers in
Bioengineering and Biotechnology, vol. 3, p. 35, Apr. 2015. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
17. A. M. Birse, N. D. Danielson, and J. A. Holbrook, "Using Machine Learning and
Multi-Element Analysis to Evaluate the Authenticity of Organic and Conventional
Vegetables," Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 67, no. 30, pp. 8318–
8326, Jul. 2019. [Online]. Available:
[Link]
nd_Multi-
Element_Analysis_to_Evaluate_the_Authenticity_of_Organic_and_Conventional_Veget
ables.
18. M. Bonte et al., "Learning to Classify Organic and Conventional Wheat - A Machine
Learning Driven Approach Using the MeltDB 2.0 Metabolomics Analysis Platform,"
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, vol. 3, p. 35, Apr. 2015. [Online].
Available: [Link]
19. M. Bonte et al., "Learning to Classify Organic and Conventional Wheat - A Machine
Learning Driven Approach Using the MeltDB 2.0 Metabolomics Analysis Platform,"
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, vol. 3, p. 35, Apr. 2015. [Online].
Available: [Link]
20. S. S. S. R. Depuru et al., "Classification of Organic and Conventional Vegetables
Using Machine Learning: A Case Study of Brinjal, Chili and Tomato," Europe PMC,
Mar. 2023. [Online]. Available: [Link]
21. S. S. S. R. Depuru et al., "Classification of Organic and Conventional Vegetables
Using Machine Learning: A Case Study of Brinjal, Chili and Tomato," DOAJ, Mar.
2023. [Online]. Available:
[Link]

Nimmu Team 2
No ratings yet
Nimmu Team 2
80 pages
Frontpg
No ratings yet
Frontpg
9 pages
Final Documentation
No ratings yet
Final Documentation
93 pages
GI FS Removed
No ratings yet
GI FS Removed
9 pages
1822 B.E Cse Batchno 41
No ratings yet
1822 B.E Cse Batchno 41
175 pages
Final Project Report
No ratings yet
Final Project Report
76 pages
Final Mini Report Merged Removed
No ratings yet
Final Mini Report Merged Removed
32 pages
Project 1
No ratings yet
Project 1
35 pages
Brain Tumor Detection with Deep Learning
No ratings yet
Brain Tumor Detection with Deep Learning
74 pages
1822 B.E Cse Batchno 126
No ratings yet
1822 B.E Cse Batchno 126
58 pages
Password Generation Using Python
No ratings yet
Password Generation Using Python
33 pages
Batch 4 - Revolutionizing Blood Cell Analysis
No ratings yet
Batch 4 - Revolutionizing Blood Cell Analysis
79 pages
Utilizing Support Vector Machines With K-Means Project Document
No ratings yet
Utilizing Support Vector Machines With K-Means Project Document
71 pages
NIRF Documentationnn
No ratings yet
NIRF Documentationnn
50 pages
Project III Report
No ratings yet
Project III Report
39 pages
Student Performance Prediction System
No ratings yet
Student Performance Prediction System
62 pages
CG Report
No ratings yet
CG Report
21 pages
Parkinson's Disease Detection
100% (1)
Parkinson's Disease Detection
88 pages
Ground Water Identifier Project
No ratings yet
Ground Water Identifier Project
47 pages
Minor
No ratings yet
Minor
53 pages
Medicinal Plant Abi
No ratings yet
Medicinal Plant Abi
62 pages
Minor Project - Face Detection (Sec-C - Group6)
No ratings yet
Minor Project - Face Detection (Sec-C - Group6)
13 pages
Chotu 101
No ratings yet
Chotu 101
28 pages
Batch No. 1
No ratings yet
Batch No. 1
72 pages
Automating e Abspdf-1
No ratings yet
Automating e Abspdf-1
50 pages
REPORT
No ratings yet
REPORT
69 pages
Project
No ratings yet
Project
47 pages
Part 1 Food
No ratings yet
Part 1 Food
12 pages
Nutrition Project Report in CSE
No ratings yet
Nutrition Project Report in CSE
35 pages
Final Minor
No ratings yet
Final Minor
18 pages
Major Project 112
No ratings yet
Major Project 112
60 pages
Lung Cancer Prediction Project
No ratings yet
Lung Cancer Prediction Project
39 pages
46 MP
No ratings yet
46 MP
59 pages
C15 Documentation
No ratings yet
C15 Documentation
75 pages
Phase 2
No ratings yet
Phase 2
53 pages
Predicting Behavior Change in SEN Students
No ratings yet
Predicting Behavior Change in SEN Students
73 pages
Ai Traffic Monitoring RPF
No ratings yet
Ai Traffic Monitoring RPF
18 pages
Project Report
No ratings yet
Project Report
80 pages
Rice Diseases Identification and Classification Report
No ratings yet
Rice Diseases Identification and Classification Report
53 pages
Main Project (Report) 5
No ratings yet
Main Project (Report) 5
97 pages
Jyotheesh RCB
No ratings yet
Jyotheesh RCB
51 pages
Ilovepdf Merged
No ratings yet
Ilovepdf Merged
66 pages
Helmet and Number Plate Detection System
No ratings yet
Helmet and Number Plate Detection System
29 pages
Ashutoosh Jhaaa
No ratings yet
Ashutoosh Jhaaa
6 pages
Final Reportrrrrttnb
No ratings yet
Final Reportrrrrttnb
60 pages
Fake Job Prediction with ML
No ratings yet
Fake Job Prediction with ML
109 pages
Student Grade Prediction Model
No ratings yet
Student Grade Prediction Model
106 pages
Mini Project Report
No ratings yet
Mini Project Report
45 pages
MajorProjectDoc CSM
No ratings yet
MajorProjectDoc CSM
84 pages
Machine Learning Based Detection of Cardiovascular Disease Using ECG Signals-1
No ratings yet
Machine Learning Based Detection of Cardiovascular Disease Using ECG Signals-1
22 pages
Finalrepost 55
No ratings yet
Finalrepost 55
9 pages
Phani csp11
No ratings yet
Phani csp11
34 pages
Track It Document
No ratings yet
Track It Document
39 pages
Performance Analysis of FACE Recognization Using SVM Algorithm
No ratings yet
Performance Analysis of FACE Recognization Using SVM Algorithm
4 pages
Final Report Project
No ratings yet
Final Report Project
71 pages
Experiment Instruction of Proximate Analysis
No ratings yet
Experiment Instruction of Proximate Analysis
7 pages
Rewards and Challenges of Being A Manager Rewards
No ratings yet
Rewards and Challenges of Being A Manager Rewards
22 pages
Lesson 6 Powers of The Mind
100% (1)
Lesson 6 Powers of The Mind
36 pages
Cake Decorating Techniques and Tips
No ratings yet
Cake Decorating Techniques and Tips
5 pages
BS 3921-1985
100% (4)
BS 3921-1985
30 pages
Africa 2030 PDF
No ratings yet
Africa 2030 PDF
212 pages
The Banking Concept of Education
100% (1)
The Banking Concept of Education
4 pages
Death Was Arrested
No ratings yet
Death Was Arrested
31 pages
SPM Results Slip Translation (For HA08)
60% (10)
SPM Results Slip Translation (For HA08)
1 page
Sosialisasi ODS & UNSC
No ratings yet
Sosialisasi ODS & UNSC
12 pages
The Luxury Strategy Break The Rules of Marketing To Build Luxury Brands 2nd Edition by JeanNoeumll KapfererVincent Bastien
No ratings yet
The Luxury Strategy Break The Rules of Marketing To Build Luxury Brands 2nd Edition by JeanNoeumll KapfererVincent Bastien
344 pages
MITPE - Learning Facilitator - Role Description
No ratings yet
MITPE - Learning Facilitator - Role Description
3 pages
1 Overallactivites
No ratings yet
1 Overallactivites
24 pages
Psycology101: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)
No ratings yet
Psycology101: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV)
18 pages
iR-ADV DX 6000
No ratings yet
iR-ADV DX 6000
171 pages
Tos Science 3 PT Q2
No ratings yet
Tos Science 3 PT Q2
4 pages
Lanzatech Syngas To Ethanol (IICHe)
No ratings yet
Lanzatech Syngas To Ethanol (IICHe)
30 pages
Digital Filters for Signal Processing
No ratings yet
Digital Filters for Signal Processing
6 pages
Special Cargo Publications Erratum I
No ratings yet
Special Cargo Publications Erratum I
4 pages
Classifying Real and Rational Numbers
No ratings yet
Classifying Real and Rational Numbers
48 pages
Project Charter-Blank Format
No ratings yet
Project Charter-Blank Format
2 pages
Rice, Richardson, Clark 2012 - Perfeccionismo, Procrastinación y Trastornos Psicologicos PDF
No ratings yet
Rice, Richardson, Clark 2012 - Perfeccionismo, Procrastinación y Trastornos Psicologicos PDF
15 pages
MOCK - Chapter - 9 - Leadership - Quiz - Without Answers
No ratings yet
MOCK - Chapter - 9 - Leadership - Quiz - Without Answers
2 pages
Arun Kumar S-1
No ratings yet
Arun Kumar S-1
2 pages
ETHIOPIA AT THE CROSSROAD - THE PERILS OF NARROW NATIONALISM Hibist Kassa2 From ASN - RB - April-May - 2021 - June-2021
No ratings yet
ETHIOPIA AT THE CROSSROAD - THE PERILS OF NARROW NATIONALISM Hibist Kassa2 From ASN - RB - April-May - 2021 - June-2021
7 pages
Rare Remedies 2
No ratings yet
Rare Remedies 2
110 pages
Dragon School
No ratings yet
Dragon School
17 pages
Test 49 - Thermodynamics - Top of Pyramid
No ratings yet
Test 49 - Thermodynamics - Top of Pyramid
6 pages
Family Law Post-Judgment Guide
100% (1)
Family Law Post-Judgment Guide
28 pages
GX240 GX270 GX340 GX390: Owner'S Manual Manuel de L'Utilisateur Manual Del Propietario
No ratings yet
GX240 GX270 GX340 GX390: Owner'S Manual Manuel de L'Utilisateur Manual Del Propietario
60 pages

Organic Documentation

Uploaded by

Organic Documentation

Uploaded by

Organic was Inorganic prediction Classification Using Machine learning

An project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of

[Link] KUMAR 22NT5A0529

[Link] REDDY 21NT1A0511

L.S.V. CHAITANYA 21NT1A05A0

Under the esteemed supervision of

MS. A. NAVYA, M. Tech

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE

VISAKHA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY

88th Division, NARAVA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530027

PROJECT GUIDE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT

Assistant Professor, DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE VIET.

[Link] KUMAR 22NT5A0529

[Link] REDDY 21NT1A0511

L.S.V. CHAITANYA 21NT1A05A0

VISAKHA INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY

PROJECT EVALUATION REPORT

……………………… project supervisor

……………………… External Examiner

……………………… Head of civil department

We are pleased to acknowledge our sincere thanks to Board of

We convey our thanks to Prof. G. VIDYA PRADEEP VARMA,

We would like to express our sincere and deep sense of gratitude to

Chapter Title Subsection

Table 1-1 Project partner Organizations and team members

Table 1-2: Work Package Managers and Co-Managers

1.3 Project outcome

Del. no. Project Reports Lead Author Available at

Scientific Paper Journal and Publication Details

1.6 Structure of this report

2.2 Core values of organic agriculture

principles of organic agriculture

In identifying ethical values, it is important to distinguish between empirical (descriptive) and

2.3 Values important to organic producers

Environmental protection 3 X 3 X X Ecology

Limiting resource use X X X X X Ecology

Sustainability 1(a) 2 X X Integrative

Closed production cycles X X X X Ecology

Respect for/farming with nature X 3 X X Integrative

Alternative model/Education X(d) X(d) X(d) X(d) Care

Professional challenge, pride X X X X(d)

Fairness in the food chain X X Fairness

Systems approach X X Integrative (Ecology)

Regional production site specific

Animal welfare X X(d) X(d) X(d) Fairness

Global fairness X Fairness

Social networks/wellbeing X(a) X(a) Health

Avoiding residues/non-polluting X X X X Health

Farm diversity X X (Ecology), bio-diversity

Family farm/Future generation X 3(d) (Care), future generations

Quality of life on the farm X Fairness

Authenticity/freshness and taste X(d) X(d)

Rural employment X(a) (Fairness)

(c) In CH discussions focused on ecological sustainability

(d) Values found more important in groups with converting producers

Source: Padel (2008 in press) and Padel et al (2007)

Intensification of farms is characterized by higher use of production factors, in particular external

A further indirect indicator of intensification is the concentration of livestock farming. Uptake of

2.5 Procedural issues of integrating values

general rules for decision-making,

General rules for decision-making

Normative reconstruction of the value base in the structure of the regulation

Figure 2- 2 How? The

Procedure for developing the detailed implementing rules

Basic ethical values of organic agriculture

Procedural issues in relation to the integration of ethical values in organic standards

• respect for the discussion partners,

• respect for arguments and emotions,

• a common understanding, and

• relating the theory (values) to practice (Röcklinsberg, 2006).

Such a deliberative decision-making model is particularly suited in handling potential conflicts

3 Differences in implementation of Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 (WP3)

Specific objectives of this work were:

- to develop a web-based database of differences in organic standards in relation to Regulation

Table 3-1: Overview of database submissions (Date: 31st of December 2006)