Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
in organizations. On the other hand, reactive farmers, who tended to be
conventional producers, felt manipulated and trapped in the agricultural
system yet still demanded its security, trusted in science and technology,
specialized in a few crops, claimed to be a master over nature, but did
not recognize many ecological terms. There was a strong internal locus of
control among proactive farmers, meaning that they felt they had control
of their farming operation and their lives, with reactive farmers feeling the
opposite. Organic farmers tend to face problems head on and negotiate
around barriers, often highly motivated to operate outside the status quo
system of industrial agriculture (Duram 1997).
Overall, then, we see that comparative research on organic and conven-
tional farmers shows that organic farmers tend to have higher education
levels, have less previous on-farm experience, complain about a lack of
information on organic methods, and have more environmentally friendly
attitudes. Also, more women are active in organic farming than in conven-
tional production. There are also some regional variations and differences
among farm types (large and small-scale issues). Clearly, variations exist
between farmers who have chosen organic versus conventional methods.
[66],
(27)
Lines: 273 to 285
———
0.0pt PgVar
———
Normal Page
PgEnds: T
E
X
Fo
cus on Organic Farmers
A few studies focus solely on organic farmers, describing them on their
own terms without taking a comparative organic to conventional approach.
In an early study, the research question was simply “Who is the organic
farmer?” (Dalecki and Bealer 1984). This survey of eighty-seven organic
growers across the United States was spurred by the authors' disagreement
with an earlier study of Michigan farmers that found the average organic
net farm income was $0, thus “proving” that organic management strategies
were not profitable (Harris et al. 1980). In fact, the second study found that
organic farmers had high levels of education, earned a moderate amount on
their farm, and marketed to retail stores, farmers' markets, roadside stands,
and cooperatives. This contradicted the earlier study particularly in terms
of education levels and farm income.
In a 1983 study, fifty-eight organic producers and thirty-two consumer
members of a Kansas organic organization were surveyed (Foster and Mi-
ley 1983). This early study already depicts the lack of information sources
available to organic farmers - 95 percent of the farmers would not con-
tact extension agents, USDA, or university researchers for help with farm
practices. But overall this exploratory research identified the link between
organic producers and consumers, as both groups think food production is
[66],
(27)
