Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
field heights, drainage, 'natural' differences in soil fertility and, in some instances, the
quantity and type of fertilisers used. In comparison, several organic farmers seemed proud
of their soil's lack of productivity as it produces an abundance of wild flowers. Although
soil fertility was not measured, respondents perceived considerable variability within and
between fields on farms of different sizes, types and altitudes. Although in this limited
survey sample the conventional respondents are on average less well qualified academically
than the organic farmers, CF1 and CF4 equated soil fertility to technical issues such as field
heights combined with high levels of fertilisers and the resulting crop income. This
contrasted with discussions of the 'natural' differences in soil fertility (OF2) and pride in
lack of fertiliser use (OF1). Additionally, the discussions revealed significant diversity of
opinion to the resulting plant species due to differences in field productivity. For example,
wild flowers were thought of as weeds by (CF2) contrasting with the chalk-loving wild
flowers of (OF1). Conventional farmers tended to optimise yields (to maximize their
income) which is important for maintaining food security, whereas, the organic respondents
seemed to place less importance on this issue. This is likely to be related to some of the
organic farmers having off-farm income.
Discussing natural environment aspects of respondents' farms revealed significant
differences in focus and cognition between the 'two' farmer types. For example, most
conventional respondents associated the natural environment with creating suitable
conditions for hunting and/or shooting. But, in accord with most organic respondents,
(CF1) professes to see the natural and farmed environments as one and the same and believe
that it is important for someone to 'own' the land. Table 3 showed that twice as many
conventional as organic farmers are concerned with future generations and children. This
contrasts with three times as many organic as conventional farmers' concern with being
'stewards' or 'custodians' of the countryside. Most organic farmers saw a direct relationship
between the natural and farmed environment and emphasised the conservation work they
have carried out to increase their farm's biodiversity, thereby positively influencing the
sustainability of their agricultural food production
system. Some conventional respondents
place equal importance upon a range of what would seem to some organic respondents as
irreconcilable and conflicting countryside issues, such as looking after the landscape, giving
access to the public, looking after pheasants, hunting and shooting. However, some
diversity of focus and understanding was shown within the conventional farmer group.
Hedgerows were considered one the best areas for wildlife by most conventional farmers.
All references made about hedges by conventional respondents were regarding cost,
maintenance, or lack of, in contrast to some organic farmers' reference to planting these
linear strips of woodland which are important for increasing the biodiversity
and
sustainability of the agri-environmental food production system. The value of the whole
farm for wildlife was also made by respondents OF5, OF3 and OF2 who supported such
viewpoints with examples of specific farm habitats with their associated mammals, birds
and invertebrates. Respondents' comments demonstrate a continuum of environmental
attitudes, ranging from mixed (CF3), who claims there is no difference in environmental
quality in various parts of his land, to mixed (OF1), who emphasises the total biodiversity of
his farm holding. These attitudes may be related to CF3 leaving school without formal
qualifications and gaining his 'education' 'on the job'. This contrasts with OF1 who,
although his 'A' levels were too weak to enter university, gained a Diploma in Agriculture
and has since pursued an academic interest in specific research on his farm.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search