Fall 1995 (v7n4)
	Farming Practices Survey by Jill Shore Auburn, UC SAREP Since 1992, participants at most educational meetings sponsored by UC SAREP have been surveyed about their farming practices and experiences. Many of the questions are similar or identical to those asked in 1990 by Jim Grieshop and Arnaz Raj, reported in California Agriculture, 46(2):4-7 (March/April 1992). The results reported here are from 374 responses received at 18 meetings in 1992 through 1994. The meetings addressed diverse commodities (e.g. apples, rice, vegetables, grapes, cotton) and topics (e.g. cover cropping, wildlife enhancement) and were held all over the state by UC farm advisors, private non-profit organizations, and others. Due to this diversity from meeting to meeting and year to year, results are reported here for all three years combined rather than separately for each year, since year-to-year differences may be a result of changing topics and audiences as much as changing times. As with Grieshop and Raj's earlier study, the results should not be interpreted as representative of the state's farming population as a whole, since respondents are self-selected as a result of attending a meeting and returning a survey. Nevertheless, they show some interesting patterns. Survey respondents were primarily farmers (55 percent) farm managers (22 percent), or pest control advisors or other consultants (17 percent). A small number were farm suppliers (4 percent) or UC farm advisors (1 percent). Twelve percent were "other" such as students or educators. (Respondents checked all that applied, so percentages add to more than 100 percent.) The average number of acres farmed (or managed or consulted upon) was nearly 2,000. Most respondents were male (88 percent) and non-Hispanic White (84 percent); 7 percent were Hispanic, 6 percent of Asian/Pacific Island heritage, and 1 percent each Black, Native American and "Other." When asked about specific production and marketing practices, many respondents reported substantial use of many tactics that are often associated with sustainable agriculture. (See Table 1). Table 1. Sustainable agriculture practices most widely used. Practice % of Respondents Tillage for weed 76 control Soil/tissue testing 74 green manures 71 Monitoring soil 56 moistureor plant water stress Pest-resistant 55 varieties Provide/improve habitat 55 for predators Avoid synthetic 51 pesticides Direct marketing 51 In addition, one-fifth or more of respondents planned to: use compost (purchased or produced on-farm); provide most nutrients from cover crop, compost, or manure; reduce tillage; release beneficials; use pheromones; use microbial pesticides; improve habitat for predators; and avoid synthetic pesticides. We asked people to place themselves on Grieshop and Raj's seven-point continuum between "High Conventional" and "High Ecological" where High Conventional was defined as " the effective use of new and traditional technologies and practices, chemicals, and natural resources; centralized arrangements and agricultural practices for effective management and production; and primary reliance on resources and practices that maintain desired level of production." High Ecological was defined as "high concern for environment; very judicious use of inputs; minimal reliance on man-made resources; reduced use of chemicals; and increased conservation of soil, water, and energy." People were asked to place a mark on this scale for three points in time: today, five years ago, and five years from now. The average response was somewhat toward ecological for "today" (3.3 where 1=High Ecological and 7=High Conventional), versus somewhat toward conventional for "five years ago" (4.9). Approximately two-thirds predicted future change toward the ecological end of the continuum in the next five years; nearly all the remaining third predicted no future change, rather than a change toward conventional. The average future score predicted was 2.3. Whether they had moved left or right on the continuum, we asked respondents to describe the effects on their farms. Results are reported for two contrasting groups of respondents: 1) those that reported no previous change on the continuum, or a change toward conventional (n=97, "more conventional"), and 2) those that reported more than average change (more than 1.5 points) toward ecological (n=149, "more ecological"). The results reported by the two groups are more striking for their similarities than their differences (Table 2): yields have most often held steady or increased and production costs have most often increased, for both groups. The distributions of experiences for net profits are also similar for the two groups, as are the results for disease, nematode, and weed problems. Those who had shifted more toward ecological management reported more decreases in insect problems, and more increases in labor needs. Management complexity and risk rose for both groups, but so did personal satisfaction from farming. These figures report perceived results on a qualitative scale, rather than actual field measurements of the effects of farming practices. According to this survey, those farmers who have switched to a more ecological system compare favorably to those using conventional systems. Table 2. Perceived effects on the farm of movement along continuum to "More Conventional" vs. "More Ecological." Greatly No Greatly Increased Increased Change Decreased Decreased (Percent Responding) Crop Yields More Conv. 15 33 45 5 2 More Ecol. 8 31 46 16 0 Production costs More Conv. 5 48 25 20 3 More Ecol. 5 54 25 16 1 Net profits More Conv. 5 37 27 27 5 More Ecol. 3 33 35 26 3 Insect pest problems More Conv. 2 23 49 26 0 More Ecol. 3 16 31 47 3 Disease or nematode problems More Conv. 3 18 53 26 0 More Ecol. 1 22 48 27 2 Weed problems More Conv. 5 38 33 23 3 More Ecol. 9 39 28 22 2 Labor needs More Conv. 16 34 32 18 0 More Ecol. 7 61 19 13 1 Complexity of management decisions More Conv. 28 49 21 3 0 More Ecol. 24 59 11 6 1 Financial risk or uncertainty More Conv. 26 28 33 13 0 More Ecol. 13 55 26 6 0 Personal satisfaction with farming More Conv. 15 60 15 10 0 More Ecol. 35 44 14 6 2   [ Back | Search | Feedback ]