Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:05:15.793Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farming with reduced synthetic chemicals in North Carolina

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Molly Anderson
Molly Anderson
Affiliation:
Research Associate, School of Nutrition, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155.
Get access

Abstract

The primary objectives of this study were to describe the various pest control and soil fertility management strategies used by North Carolina farmers and to characterize the types of farms and farmers using each strategy. In 1988, a survey was mailed to farmers who had shown interest in alternative methods and a randomly selected control group of conventional farmers. Cluster analysis on crops, inputs, and cultural practices used by crop farmers in the combined sample showed that they fall into three distinct groups. Very few members of the first group apply standard synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Instead, more than three-quarters of them use cover crops, compost, organic mulch, commercial fertilizers and pesticides labeled as “organic”, resistant varieties, hand weeding, mechanical cultivation, scouting, and biological pest controls. More than half of the second group did not use any nutrient and pest management inputs or practices except synthetic fertilizers, herbicides, and lime. More than three-quarters of the third group reported use of synthetic fertilizers, synthetic herbicides, and lime, but also employed most of the cultural practices reported by alternative farmers. However, they less frequently used labor-intensive practices (such as manuring, mechanical cultivation, and hand weeding) and information-intensive practices (such as scouting and companion planting). Information sources, concerns about farm chemicals, and length of farming experience discriminated better than other socioeconomic factors and farm characteristics between farmers who use conventional chemical inputs and those who use alternative practices. Group 1 farmers differed from Group 3 farmers most sharply in that they rank the cost of pest control products and their extension agents' advice lower, have lower farm incomes, read more information sources promoting reduced synthetic chemicals, own more of the land they operate, and have less farming experience. The only factors significantly discriminating Groups 1 and 2 were that Group 1 fanners rank the importance of their extension agents' recommendations lower and effects of chemical products on birds and wildlife higher, read more reduced-chemical information sources, and have less farming experience.

Keywords

low-input agriculturefertilizerspesticidesinformation sourcesvalues
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 60 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Aldrich, J. H., and Nelson, F. D.. 1984. Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models. SAGE Publications, Beverly Hills, California.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Altieri, M. A., Davis, J., and Burroughs, K.. 1983. Some agroecological and socioeconomic features of organic farming in California. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 1:97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Anderson, M. D. 1989. Practices and values of North Carolina alternative farmers. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Ecology Curriculum, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
4.Baker, B. P., and Smith, D. B.. 1987. Self-identified research needs of New York organic farmers. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2(3):107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Barlett, P. F. 1986. Part-time farming: Saving the farm or saving the life-style? Rural Sociology 51(3): 289–313.Google Scholar
6.Blobaum, R. 1982. Barriers to conversion to organic farming practices in the midwestern United States. In Lockeretz, W. (ed.). Environmentally Sound Agriculture. Praeger Scientific, New York, New York. pp. 263–278.Google Scholar
7.Buttel, F. H., Gillespie, G. W. Jr., and Power, A.. 1990. Sociological aspects of agricultural sustainability in the U.S.: A New York state case study. In Edwards, C. A., Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R. H., and House, G. (eds.). Sustainable Agriculture Systems. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa. pp. 515–532.Google Scholar
8.Buttel, F. H., Murdock, S. H., Leistritz, F. L., and Hamm, R. R.. 1987. Rural environments. In Zube, E. H. and Moore, G. T. (eds.). Advances in Environment, Behavior and Design, Volume 1. Plenum Press, New York, New York. pp. 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Data Probe, Incorporated. 1988. The New Farm Subscriber Survey. A Subscriber Demographic and Product Usage Profile—July, 1988. Rodale Press, Emmaus, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
10.Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.Google Scholar
11.Healy, R. G. 1985. Competition for Land in the American South. Agriculture, Human Settlement, and the Environment. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
12.Lasley, P., Duffy, M., Kettner, K., and Chase, C.. 1990. Factors affecting farmers' use of practices to reduce commercial fertilizers and pesticides. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45(1):132–136.Google Scholar
13.Lockeretz, W., and Madden, P.. 1987. Midwestern organic farming: A ten-year followup. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2(2):57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Madden, P. 1988. Regenerative agriculture: Beyond organic and sustainable food production. Staff Paper 147, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
15.Malia, J., and Korsching, P.. 1989. Practicing sustainable agriculture in Iowa, Part 1. The Practical Farmer 4(3):7–9.Google Scholar
16.Marston, S. J. 1979. Alternative Agriculture in Ohio 1978: Ideological Tenets and General Characteristics. M.S. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
17.Oelhaf, R. C. 1978. Organic Agriculture. Economic and Ecological Comparisons with Conventional Methods. Allanheld, Osmun and Company, Montclair, New Jersey.Google Scholar
18.Suguiyama, L. E., and Reichelderfer, K. H.. 1987. Regional variation in farm input use: The case of pesticides. Agribusiness 3(2):221–234.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.USDA. 1980. Report and Recommendations on Organic Farming. U.S. Department of Agriculture Study Team on Organic Farming, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
20.Wernick, S., and Lockeretz, W.. 1977. Motivations and practices of organic farmers. Compost Science 18(6):20–24.Google Scholar
21.Youngberg, I. G. 1978. Alternative agriculturalists: Ideology, politics, and prospects. In Hadwiger, D. F. and Browne, W. P. (eds.). The New Politics of Food. Lexington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts, pp. 227–246.Google Scholar