Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T01:22:20.032Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preferences for crop production practices among conventional and alternative farmers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Frederick H. Buttel  and
Gilbert W. Gillespie Jr
Frederick H. Buttel
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-7801.
Gilbert W. Gillespie Jr
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-7801. Research Associate, Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-7801.
Get access

Abstract

One of the major gaps in the empirical literature comparing conventional and organic farmers is the degree to which conventional farmers would prefer or can be motivated to use reduced-input practices comparable to those of alternative agriculturalists. This paper presents the results of a 1987 survey of a random sample of New York farm operators and a two-thirds sample of the membership list of the New York State chapter of the Natural Organic Farmers Association (NOFA-NY). The results show that while conventional farmers tend to have a lower preference for reduced-input practices than do alternative agriculturalists (NOFA-NY members), conventional farmers tend to prefer pest- and disease-resistant crop varieties, nonpurchased, on-farmproduced sources of fertility, and nonchemical means of disease control over high-input, chemically-based production practices. The largest differences between conventional and alternative agriculturalists are with respect to preferences for weed control practices. For six of the eight practices assessed, operators of small farms (annual gross sales less than $40,000) were intermediate in their preferences between commercial-scale farmers (gross sales $40,000 or more) and alternative agriculturalists. There was, however, virtually no difference between conventional and organic farmers in their tillage practice preferences; similar percentages of the NOFA members and commercial-scale farmers preferred minimum tillage practices, while the percentage of small farmers preferring to use as few tillage operations as possible was lower than that of both commercialscale and organic farmers. Differences between conventional and organic farmers in their production practice preferences are far smaller than differences in their environmental orientations.

Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , Winter 1988 , pp. 11 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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.Berardi, G. M. 1978. Organic and conventional wheat production: Examination of energy and economics. Agro-Ecosystems 4:367–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Buttel, F. H., Gillespie, G. W. Jr., Janke, R., Caldwell, B., and Sarrantonio, M.. 1986. Reduced-input agricultural systems: Rationale and prospects. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 1:58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Buttel, F. H., and Swanson, L. E.. 1986. Soil and water conservation: A farm structural and public policy context. In Lovejoy, S. B. and Napier, T. L. (eds.). Conserving Soil: Insights From Socioeconomic Research, pp. 26–39. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa.Google Scholar
4.Dalecki, M. G., and Bealer, B.. 1984. Who is the ‘Organic’ farmer? The Rural Sociologist 4:16–20.Google Scholar
5.Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys. Wiley-Interscience, New York, New York.Google Scholar
6.Foster, G. S., and Miley, J. D.. 1983. Organic farmers and nonorganic farmers: The social context of organic agriculture. The Rural Sociologist 3:16–20.Google Scholar
7.Harris, C. K., Powers, S. E., and Buttel, F. H.. 1980. Myth and reality in organic farming: A profile of conventional and organic farmers in Michigan. Rural Sociological Society Newsline 8:33–43.Google Scholar
8.Lockeretz, W. 1985. U.S. organic farming: What we can and cannot learn from on-farm research. In Edens, T. C. et al. (eds.). Sustainable Agriculture and Integrated Farming Systems, pp. 96–104. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan.Google Scholar
9.Lockeretz, W., Shearer, G., and Kohl, D. H.. 1981. Organic farming in the corn belt. Science 211:540–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Lockeretz, W., and Wernick, S.. 1980. Commercial organic farming in the corn belt in comparison to conventional practices. Rural Sociology 45:708–722.Google Scholar
11.Olsen, K. D., Langely, J., and Heady, E. O.. 1982. Widespread adoption of organic farming practices: Estimated impacts on U.S. agriculture. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 37:41–45.Google Scholar
12.Pimentel, D., Berardi, G. M., and Fast, S.. 1983. Energy efficiency of farming systems:Organic and conventional agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 9:359–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar