.. 1. . ... ... . .r ..~ ‘83. ...?....0. v . . . . .
...v.Jv... ...). ...... ... .. .... ...-.... 0.. I . .

        

7...: .(o.
... .. .... .J. a .I .7121...
n 0.; . ... .

....

.. . 0.4}..1 cot-{oI

 

 

   

. ....1‘: I...
I... . 0.....‘0.....oc..po. .. ..r- E...

... .0... L}...
...n ...:
.. . .l.’lon|.......o... ...

             

 

\

 

.. ..4:-9u .. .. ‘Q .
..v}. ’

 

mmmt

>. . .uv...l._o

' .I. .
. b .10... O
..J.I ‘4. ..-

 

 

....d . ‘.
.c.... Ir 0.
....“ v a 1‘. ....

 

.
.o

 

 

”‘f

u,

 

 

. ...... .
In. I. ....-
.o. ... ...-Into...

 

 

4:. .

 

 

“33‘?

5:

5" C 1‘“

«é... a:

. ... s ...... .2? 04”.: I ....
ac... 1. . .....v. ...Jv ... ...! » I. ‘3“ .

. 0
)ho‘ “a i in
.o\... ... .. .:.*a...... 0:. u. ..‘O‘otlvovfiO. ‘1‘i‘fio l ’LI‘Q ‘ .3 or.” 1..
. I. o. .... .. 1 .Q 2. ilk... . .111... o. cbtu Yos‘C'u-Iu. ll .... a to I08! ...“
.3. 2131 2.001;

            

”9'51"”

3*.

  

.1.“ 5.. “- ...:IJV. D. .

 

l?

 

 

  

 

. ... ..v.£.v1 . .I .911}?! ~11? (I: a; co
3‘ ... .... .. .... ‘3. . k ”nth”. h. Vttic 213.103.0810 #5 ...)...
. . . n .. .(7 . ...; ‘llt I“u..l¢l1t$111.t$i I ll...
Q . .. . a: .0. “$1.1... .I..-.. ..tu. $3.. .o .. usual-.0 :31 . {000.1 Y ... ‘.~‘ 01.73.... .‘ur‘ba 9...“ a 0...).
.1. O... .7..1v.... .84.. .. 3. 092.1 $2111....‘I1tc. K310.) 1‘

   
  

 

     

   

  
            

and"!!!

. . .. . ... a ..s. . 45...... 2.1.7.0...." . .Q.’...‘UIZ"..‘ II!"
. . .. ...; .. ... .. 0.. . . 2.1.... .chéit-tvloS‘O. )Ktllll $0.99". 016 c
.. .. . I «...»... ...). h1\...r...§.e¢¢$r.11v.l{nl.!1z¢&\1§ ... I
of . ... 1. U. '30-. 61‘ 10.3. 6.90 .\4Ai"1 80gr5“oaau‘ '
. . . f ...: .5. 21;. ti£OiQRonv $0. $0.
. .. . . .. . . .. ...-Ln}... glow-10!!! I '50.... I.
I g 0’ t l i
m. . ... o. . .. A. l o . Q61i?5¢91¢l 4.11
. . .
. . . . .. ... ....

. ... . _ . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . .. . , . _ _ .... . . . , . .. . . . . . . 2.0.9.0.”. a1 7.” 53:915....- 3“:
. . ‘Ho. ...... .. . . . .. ... . . .. ... . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . .
.. . .. .. . a. .. . . . . . .. . .

n . ...... IA

.i

. , . . . . .. . . .. . , . , ... .. .. . , . . . . o’i‘itue)3.fi‘d
.. . .....u...a09.np....0.... ... . . . . . ..... . . . . . .. . .. .. . . ... . ...,.. . .... . . .. . . .

                      

        

. .. . .v ... .. ‘0. .. f? .... I 3 v3. ..v .u..1..u. .. o a... ..‘uf.’ «Zing-...: - ...-o4 i.
. . . . .... .. . . ...!11. . .. .12... 5’11\..€u.lvvo Jl.p...¢..51.. '1‘: 8r.“
0... . . c. u. - .... . 3.4.51.3‘ .. [1.02%. . .3 c11~ . 14... 1 1.2.2,?
.. ov .00. ...v ‘0 ... I. .0. ... at... ’.‘I:.-2..o15’. 101...; 30’4...‘ O'II..I...£C¢.
.. .1... a . 30. hit-... .. ...; 2.21.31 .33. .3. q. 8.3.fo&(!c I: .0..v116{..
9‘... Q. ...... 212%; . oz .asnof .3013! -.'\~.|d. i‘vok1lil 'ic.‘ 0:. ....
.a ..I. 3:. 60.1. .4 o. u I. ..w.3‘......k.‘3.h§‘.n¥l§.l1t.o01
2.11.1. ..V...’. V..ll.~l...1..¢.££. .
2.194.301 1-.."0‘...

  

01M nun

 

 

                 

 

o, ... O..1I?o...o.ui

.. 1') 5121'. c 03.1 1.631.: «.11..

.. 3.5.... 115‘“;....vi...9..l..1§96|..u.0 011-: o ....
a.

 

up

 

. «1.1... ‘ 0.1.40.1...

...I'r..v ....

. 1. I: ...o.. t .... 3|. 11's.]...11111. 8.31.0328!

    

 

 

:l.7.v 130. 2“. M1,“.

"human" «won

            

 

              

 
  

 

  

   

 

                

 

0‘. 00. .IrP‘ .’ “H.113:
. . .‘v o O s ‘ .
. .. . . . . v. __ on . 4.1.”? OFM‘. 1... 13.3. 10.714... r
.. ...: .... a. o. - .l.. ’u.".. 0.0—. >“3..‘n.‘3< ...!!! ..x.‘-.3’-ou'
. .. I. . n. . . 9.... ...}.“l. Oil-:11! I, 3.01.113...
.... . 1.0.1. . «‘0 .. I-.I-u...a3. '1 .....O..1‘F-Oa. ’3..31u.“.u.0~.l.h’
. .. . . . . . . v . \ . 01......0.’ . 3..-... . .. 11.49.3310}? 3301'.) ~..§'.t..l
. .. . .. . . .135. .h‘o.‘~ ... .....3331i11'. tit nil". .OKI.!O!..
.. .. h ,. . . . _ . . . . . . . i . .. . . . .... 1!. 1. gtlt .1 locta IV. 4.23!-
I . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ‘- q.f35.c.t‘011l&:.q‘ ‘11].3. ...... .0."
. . ... . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . , lfit. ~21... .‘..1...€.l.
‘c . . . . .. . ll}. . O..?......1 3.1-3.0031 10...? .D
a. . . c . . (on. (v ...-4. t.
. r. .c .. ~ . o; 1011‘!» .
Q 2 u . . . .... . .0312? . .10? n. 950’ . .o t...- a.o...: .539)... ...BCVJQ .. O
0. - ... . . . . IC. 0.. o . .23....11 .1... ... -..: i‘ti‘lttbt 9.1.1..» .foilf‘aiutfi
u .. ... O. ...4 .Io.‘!.. .0.) ... ..‘o .. . .. .111. . 1. 0|. . .. -lo n-519~.vu’.7’3o :2. .. 3
o. . . .. , . 3| .00. .93. _ 1 3 I ...Y. .. .r. u \u. ...... \..$v.'. 151......1... 23". ..o
A .. . .12... 11.5.1... 115. o 9!. 39:1... I.0
. II
0. . 4 . o .
. a a I a: h
a. . ... L‘. . . . Ago-:5 ...-3.14.111...-
. . C . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . ....t‘ 0.5.10.9'5’3 .0... 310. I
u .. . . . . . . , . .. . . . , . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . , . . ...I‘. .u 1. o 1'11. 1");17330 I .... a.
’ a . . o . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .0 .53 £073.35? .....f.$1.. V
V. . . . , . . . . . . . . . .. . .. , . , . . .. . . .. . . . . ......t!‘. I... )1: ...‘C 1.2.331...) .-
A . o . . . . . . .. . . . . . , . . . ‘(.IL~.. .. .‘f..1o. ....t1115...3.t.79
i... U . . .._..
_” I. o
.
I. . . .
. . . .4 a at . . a; “:..o.vovh
. . . . . .. 1V... ....1... (.7 0...; ...fil.‘.r.l.0...-o quota-.08.... ...».
. . ’ “lo1‘. '1 ...c. you. ~. '9~§Io. l ..‘Ii... .3
0 . . .. 3... 1.3.211 .n‘..Il.. .....fi
9 . . . ..."... ‘0 39-1! 11".
_ I .
.r . .
w .
. .
... _ . . .
. _ a .
u .
s ..
a! 3
O 7 A I. to. Q. .i. . ...
V . .év 1... . to.
9. . .
I. . . .
V . . .. .
* I
~\ a
|.
I
\l
u... .
‘1 .

man-taunt".

a

a... .09... AS... 1:"!
--. .100 Oil

'

-9
a
o

 

 

.n¢\n. OIIDi’Ioo. . 1
.'V 3.00 11...: c L. 1..

u
o
o

  

O

...! 1.01- a . 3". .
. 00". .1)... Qty. v or. a: of. cum... 0......

         

munmmwflc?’ N

to

«m»
I

    

 

  
  

.. . .

F . . . . ..

_ o .

h .. . . 1. .

I . .

N. . .. .

. I I. I

u- . . . .. . .

u. . .. T . . ..-. .. . ..

' . . . o . . . . . . . . . . .n . n».?)0....'. .0 o..

is _ . . . . .. . . . _ . . . . _ o...‘ . ... o 0:..-

. v . . . _ . . . .

“.n .. . - . . ..-. v. 0.

.... . .. ... . . ... . . . . .. .. . . .a . o. . . . . . . .. . ...- ..

' I a I l ‘ v u . 1 v .

'

o.

O . . . '1 :‘1uc‘ Q'." -1‘

s. _ .. . . I . .. . . . . . . . _ . . u a. . n... .1 .\..v.v.. ......o.’.1$|$ . [13...
.1. . . ... . .. u . . ~...'.&.-o.v3 :13. 5:.."(32‘035 1.6....- .
Y. .... . .. . . . .... . . . _ .. .. V , ... . . . . . ...ov 1.43.11}... I )0 if}.
. .. . . I . . . O .. . f. . ,. ‘n .v . . . . . . . _ - a . .. . . . i ......I...... .0.) v. aloe:

0.... ,0. . n . ...... .. .. . .. . . . .. u '1...
'_.-.. u . ..
.... . . .
I-

- V . o

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

INTERPRETING THE FARM AS A SYSTEM: DIFFERENCES
IN WORLDVIEWS AMONG LARGE-SCALE NON-ORGANIC
AND ORGANIC FARMERS IN MICHIGAN’S THUMB REGION

presented by

Lesley W. Atwood

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for the
MS. degree in Community, Agriculture,
Recreation and Resource
Studies

 

 

‘
Major Professor’s Signature

fir/lb/Zmo

Date

 

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:/Prolecc&Pres/CIRC/Date0ueindd

INTERPRETING THE FARM AS A SYSTEM:
DIFFERENCES IN WORLDVIEWS AMONG LARGE-SCALE
NON-ORGANIC AND ORGANIC FARMERS IN MICHIGAN’S THUMB REGION
By

Lesley W. Atwood

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE

Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies

2010

ABSTRACT

INTERPRETING THE FARM AS A SYSTEM:
DIFFERENCES IN WORLDVIEWS AMONG LARGE-SCALE
NON-ORGANIC AND ORGANIC FARMERS IN MICHIGAN’S THUMB REGION
By

Lesley W. Atwood

Agrochemicals are the primary tool to manage weeds and diseases on non-organic
farms. These chemicals can disrupt microbial communities and increase pathogenic
fungi perpetuating the use of these products. Cover crops and crop rotation are tools
organic farmers use to manage weeds and diseases. This case study research aims to
identify key differences in the worldviews of large-scale non-organic and organic farmers
in Huron, Sanilac, Lapeer and Tuscola counties, Michigan and to illuminate how
perceptions of the farm as a system relate to preferred management strategies. This case
study includes twenty-three semi-structured interviews with non-organic and organic
farmers. Characterizations of farmers’ worldviews are drawn from their observations of
crop and soil health, perceptions of soil quality indicators and agricultural management
information channels. The results demonstrate a stark contrast in how non-organic and
organic farmers interpret the farm as a system. Non-organic farmers perceive the farm as
a linear system where management solutions focus on the individual components of the
system. Organic farmers, on the other hand, tend to view the farm as a complex system
where solutions involve nurturing the relationships among the system’s components.
Fostering an appreciation among all farmers with differing worldviews can provide each
farmer with new tools and skills which can aid in improving soil quality and crop health

on all farms.

In honor of Granddaddy Jernigan, Dr. James Austin Jernigan, who encouraged

and supported me to pursue my dreams. You are dearly missed.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first like to acknowledge my committee who helped make this research
and thesis possible: Dr. James Bingen (CARRS), Dr. John Kerr (CARRS), Dr. George
Bird (Entomology) and Dr. Antoinette WinklerPrins (Geography). Each of you
encouraged and assisted me throughout this process. I sincerely thank you for it.

Three colleagues and dear friends. also helped make this possible. Ms. Stacia
Falat, you were the sounding block for all of my ideas and presentations. Thank you for
taking the time to listen and provide feedback over the past two years. Ms. Krista Isaacs,
I truly appreciate your insight on qualitative methods at the dog park. You helped make
this possible, thank you! And Mr. Joe Scrimger, you were the inspiration for this
research. I hope it is of value to you and the agricultural community in the Thumb
Region.

Finally, I must thank my family. Mom, Dad & Louis, the three Of you helped me
throughout my life get to where I am today. I hope this along with my future endeavours

continue to make you proud.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. vii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 5
Management Strategies and the Environment ............................................. 8
Soil Knowledge .......................................................................................... 11
Communication and Information Channels ............................................... 13
CHAPTER 3
METHODS ............................................................................................................ 16
Theoretical Framework .............................................................................. 16
Study Method ............................................................................................. 18
Sampling .................................................................................................... 19
Data Analysis ............................................................................................. 21
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................ 24
Perceptions of Soil Quality ........................................................................ 28
Crop Health Observations .......................................................................... 38
Information and Communication Channels ............................................... 45
Soil Quality Indicators ............................................................................... 59
Worldviews ................................................................................................ 67
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 78
Future Research ......................................................................................... 8O
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 83
Appendix A. Non-organic farmer interview guide .................................. 84
Appendix B. Organic farmer interview guide .......................................... 86
Appendix C. Participant consent form ..................................................... 88
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 90

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1. Application Of emergent themes ........................................................... 23
Table 4-1. Grower profiles ..................................................................................... 26
Table 4-2. Grower perceptions of soil quality ....................................................... 29
Table 4-3. Rules applied to text for soil quality emergent themes ........................ 36
Table 4-4. Grower perceptions of fungal disease incidence .................................. 39
Table 4-5. Rules applied to text for fungal disease incidence ............................... 43
Table 4-6a. Non-organic growers’ communication channels ................................ 50
Table 4-6b. Organic growers’ communication channels ....................................... 50
Table 4-6c. Multiple system grower’s communication channels .......................... 50
Table 4-7. Rules applied to text for growers’ communication channels ............... 57
Table 4-8. Soil quality indicators used by growers ................................................ 61
Table 4-9. Rules applied to text for soil quality indicators .................................... 65

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1. Conceptual framework ........................................................................ 17
Figure 4—1. Grower worldview characterization continuum .................................. 68
Figure 4-2a. Epitome of non-organic grower characterization details .................. 69
Figure 4-2b. Non-organic growers’ characterization details ................................. 70
Figure 4-2c. Mixture growers’ characterization details ......................................... 71
Figure 4-2d. Organic growers’ characterization details ......................................... 72
Figure 4-2e. Epitome of organic growers’ characterization details ....................... 73

vii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Understanding ecological interdependence means understanding relationships. It
requires shifts of perception that are characteristic of systems thinking —fiom the
parts to the whole, from objects to relationships, fiom contents to patterns. A
sustainable human community is aware of the multiple relationships among its
members. Nourishing the community means nourishing those relationships.

(F ritjof Capra, 1996)

Addressing our reliance on genetically modified varieties and agrochemicals has
fundamental applied importance for all of agriculture. In 1996, the introduction and rapid
integration of genetically modified (GM) varieties in the United States changed
agriculture significantly. With these technologies along with new agrochemicals, non-
organic farmers were able to replace cultivation with chemical inputs. Glyphosate, a
broad spectrum herbicide, quickly became the most readily used chemical due to the
widespread availability and planting of glyphosate-resistant (GR) soybean and corn
varieties. GR-varieties became increasingly popular in the United States as farmers
learned more about the perceived benefits associated with these varieties. GM- seeds are
touted for their ability to increase crop yields, efficiently manage pests, tolerate climatic
variation, and decrease labor and input costs (Monsanto Company, 2009). Glyphosate is
considerably more benign than older herbicides, but it still interacts with the environment
(Busse, Ratcliff, Shestak, & Powers, 2001; Fernandez et a1., 2009). On May 17, 2010 an
editorial in the New York Times focused on our growing reliance on GR-varieties and
glyphosate and the ensuing herbicide resistant weeds (Rosenthal, Robbins, & Shipley,
2010). This type of article furthers the public’s awareness of our dependence on

agrochemicals, but does not identify any solutions to eliminate the negative outcomes we

experience from using these technologies.

Farmers’ reliance on agrochemicals and GR—varieties coupled by their impacts on
the environment has contributed to a greater interest in developing alternative farming
strategies; organic agriculture is among the most popular. Organic agriculture prohibits
the use of GM-varieties and synthetic agrochemicals. Farmers rely on cultivation, crop
rotation and healthy soils to ward off weeds and pests. It is a three year process to
transition non-organic land to organic, but rebuilding soils can take much longer.
Farmers who transition face a steep learning curve as they learn organic methods.
Learning these new management strategies may discourage some farmers from
transitioning to organic, but for others a difference in worldviews may be the hindrance.

Worldviews are commonly studied in the social sciences, but rarely discussed in
the agronomic sciences. A worldview, or paradigm, consists of a framework of ideas and
values through which a person interprets and interacts with his or hers surroundings
(Pirages & Ehrlich, 1974). Modernism, which is synonymous with an acceptance of
science in service to progress, has been the dominant worldview of the global West
(Yankelovich, 1991). This utilitarian perspective suggests humans have authority over
nature (Gadgil & Berkes, 1991). Industrial agriculture in the United States epitomizes
our captivation with the idea of progress. Continued efforts to mechanize agriculture,
increase yields and create agrochemicals to remediate disease signify our obsession with
progress. “Reigning cultural paradigms can be passed from generation to generation, and
if they aren’t challenged, they are simply accepted as truth. . .To change one’s paradigm is
a dramatic event” (Wessels, 2006). To induce successful change, the first step is to

understand the variation in worldviews among the agricultural community.

Even in close-knit rural communities there is a diversity of worldviews. For
example, in Michigan’s Huron, Sanilac, Lapeer and Tuscola counties, Michigan’s Thumb
region, large-scale agriculture has been the dominant industry for over 100 years.
Eighty-seven percent of the Thumb is cultivated, largely in soybeans (Glycine max L.),
sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L.), corn (Zea mays L.) and winter wheat (Triticum aestivum
L.), (NASS 2007). With 85% of the land under non-organic management practices where
it is common to grow soybeans, corn and sugar beets thatlare genetically modified to
resist glyphosate. Approximately 1.3% of the cultivated area in the region, or 18,500
acres, are farmed organically (N ASS 2007). The organic farms do not use GR-seed or
glyphosate to manage weeds. Given the close proximity of the organic and non—organic
farmers, as well as the agricultural history of the region, studying this community should
provide insight into how slight variations in worldviews relates to differences in preferred
agricultural management philosophy, strategies and practices.

This research seeks to identify key differences in non-organic and organic

farmers’ worldviews in the context of:

1) Observations and perceptions of adverse changes in soil quality and crop
health related to management strategies.

2) Soil quality indicators the farmers use in the field to identify healthy and
unhealthy soils.

3) Preferred communication and information channels farmers access for
management advice.

The findings from 23 semi-structured interviews show non-organic and organic farmers’
worldviews differ particularly with respect to the way they interpret the farm as a system.
Organic farmers view the farm as a complex system while the non-organic farmers

perceive it as a linear system. This finding is woven throughout the research including the

3

farmers’ observations, management practices and soil quality indicators. The channels
through which the farmers acquire management advice differ in that the organic farmers
choose experience-based channels and the non-organic farmers utilize expert-based
channels. A shared appreciation among farmers with differing worldviews will provide
new outlets for the exchange of ideas, methods and skills which can be used to improve

both soil quality and crop health on all farms.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Agriculture embodies the intimate links between social and ecological systems.
There are, however, two differing approaches to interpreting the farm in this social-
ecological system. Some perceive the natural and social systems as complex interwoven
systems (Berkes, Colding, & Folke, 2003). There is also a linear systems approach which
focuses on individual components of the system (Drinkwater, 2009). The differences in
these approaches lead to different perceptions of how a farm works. Complex and linear
systems approaches will be discussed within the context of l) agricultural management
strategies and the environment; 2) soil quality indicators and soil knowledge; and 3) the
communication channels farmers use to access management advice. The literature begins
to reveal a relationship between how the farmer perceives the farm as a system and the
ensuing management strategy he or she applies. Linear theory aligns with non-organic
agriculture while complex systems theory is the foundation for organic agriculture.

Complex systems theory is counter to conventional theory which perceives the
system as a linear system where the individual components are static. The system
responds to stimuli in a predictable sequence of events (Wessels, 2006). There are no
feedback loops in a linear system. The system, however, can be cyclical. Conventional
theory is the basis of non—organic agriculture.

A complex ecological system incorporates non-linear interactions and feedback
loops that makes the system unpredictable (Von Bertalanffy, 2006). Feedback loops are
described as either positive or negative. Negative feedback maintains the status quo and
positive feedback keeps the system moving in the direction it is already going. There are

many equilibria in a complex system, meaning its steady state is dynamic. Change within

5

the system, however, can rapidly occur if the conditions reach a system threshold.
Predicting these feedback induced changes is rarely possible because emergent properties
also exist in a complex system (Odum, 1971). The unexpected changes Often occur
rapidly without warning. Resilience to change is one example of an emergent property.
Resilience is not present when a system is broken into individual parts. The interactions
between the components of the system are, therefore, fundamental to this theory (Berkes,
et al., 2003). Social systems, although not commonly described as complex systems, can
be analyzed under these same principles.

Non-organic agriculture is “characterized by mechanization, monocultures, and
the use of synthetic inputs such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides” (Eicher, 2003). The
Sprengel-Liebig Law of the Minimum, in which crop yields are proportional to the
limiting nutrient, is a basic tenet of non-organic agriculture (Heckman, 2006).
Agronomic science, historically, has abided by this tenet through its emphasis on crop
nutrient requirements.

Non-organic agriculture radically changed in 1996 when genetically engineered
varieties became commercially available. Genetically engineered, or genetically modified
(GM), crops undergo alterations to their DNA to make, modify, improve or develop the
crop for production and management purposes (N ASS 2007). GM-varieties undergo
gene cloning or protein engineering to produce varieties with preferred traits whereas
hybrids are cross pollinated to create an offspring with preferred traits. GM-varieties of
soybeans, corn, cotton and sugarbeets, are widely used by non-organic farmers today.

" The most widely grown GM-varieties are the glyphosate-resistant (GR) varieties. These

are resistant to glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup® ready herbicides (Dill,

2005). GM-varieties became increasingly popular in the United States as farmers learned
more about the perceived benefits associated with their use. These included increased
crop yields, tolerance to climatic variation and decreases in labor costs (Monsanto
Company, 2009). In Michigan, for example, the percentage of GM-soybeans planted
increased from 50% in 2000 to 87% in 2007 (ERS, 2009). In contrast, organic
agriculture forbids the use of GM-varieties and upholds the Law of Return (Heckman,
2006)

Sir Albert Howard, the pioneer of organic agriculture, believed a farm system is
sustainable only if it abides by the Law of Return. Under this law, the farm is viewed as a
open system where there are no agricultural wastes. All crop and animal residues are
composted and used to improve soil fertility and increases organic matter (Howard,
1943). The concepts Howard presented in 1943 still resonate through the organic
agriculture community and exemplify its adherence to complex systems theory. Organic
agriculture “promotes the use of renewable resources and management of biological
cycles to enhance biological diversity, without the use of genetically modified organisms,
or synthetic pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers” (Eicher, 2003). The premise of organic
agriculture is based on a holistic approach where the farm system is in a state of dynamic
equilibrium and the farmer strives to optimize the desired biological relationships
(Harwood, 1990).

Strategies for non-organic and organic agricultures are grounded in divergent
worldviews (Beus & Dunlap, 1990). Non-organic agriculture emerged out of the
dominant social paradigm based on progress, faith in science and control over nature

(Pirages & Ehrlich, 1974; Wessels, 2006). Organic agriculture emerged as a counter

movement to this dominant paradigm. Organics is grounded in holism, decentralization
and the balance of nature (Beus & Dunlap, 1990; Drinkwater, 2009). With different
paradigms, comparative studies between these strategies Often end in conflict and debate
because of the underlying beliefs and values associated with each perspective. Beus and
Dunlap (1990) synthesized six major dimensions that proponents of non-organic and
organic (alternative) agriculture readily debate. They found centralization versus
decentralization; dependence versus independence; competition versus community;
domination of nature versus harmony with nature; specialization versus diversity; and
exploitation versus restraint as the major points of contention.

A common thread, although infrequently discussed, in the non-organic and
organic literature is complex and linear systems theory. In the following sets of
literature, I incorporate this framework into the discussion to illuminate central
differences in these management strategies that relates to a farmer’s worldview. I first
describe how organic farmers use process-oriented tactics and non-organic farmers use
component oriented tactics to manage weeds and crop disease. Second, a review of the
US. oriented soil knowledge literature raises questions regarding the differences between
how non-organic and organic farmers identify healthy soils in the field. Finally, I discuss
the heuristic-based and expert-based information channels organic and non-organic

farmers, respectively, access for agricultural management advice.

Management Strategies and the Environment
Both organic and non-organic agriculture disturb the natural ecosystem including

the biotic community and energy flows in the system (Soule & Piper, 1992). Farmers

continually manage the system so it remains at the early stages of succession. At this
stage, a greater proportion of system energy is devoted to harvestable biomass and net
productivity (Gliessman, 2007).

Recent environmental research shows organic agriculture environmentally out
performs non-organic agriculture on numerous grounds including biodiversity
(Bengtsson, Ahnstrdm, & Weibull, 2005), soil fertility (Mader et al., 2002), organic
matter content (Reganold, Elliott, Unger, & USDA, 1987) and soil biologic activity
(Fliessbach, Oberholzer, Gunst, & Mader, 2007). These findings are a result of the
cultural practices organic farmers use. First, organic farmers rely on cover crops to
impede soil erosion, feed soil biotic communities, improve soil structure and build soil
organic matter (Snapp et al., 2005). Second, diverse crop rotations are used to aid in both

weed and disease suppression (Bond & Grundy, 2001; Van Bruggen, 1995). Scientists

do not fully understand all the mechanisms of suppressive soils], but there are strong
correlations between suppressive soils and active micro-flora and micro-fauna
populations (Mazzola, 2002; Sénchez-Moreno & Ferris, 2007). In essence, organic
farmers manage weeds and disease mainly through cultural practices geared towards
improving the relationships in the system. Organically approved pesticides are used only
as a last resort.

Non-organic farmers rely on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides (Bullock, 1992;
Pimentel, Hepperly, Hanson, Douds, & Seidel, 2005). The most widely used

agrochemical is glyphosate, a broad spectrum herbicide (Woodbum, 2000). Glyphosate

 

l . . . . .

Pest suppressrve sorls postulates that $011 food webs can serve to reduce disease, Insect and
weed pest populations (Hoitink and Bohem 1999). This is an emerging concept in organic and
sustainable agriculture.

was believed to be tightly bound and inactivated by soil colloids and organic matter
(Duke and Powles 2008). Recently, however, laboratory studies found unbound
glyphosate that is consumed by rhizosphere microbial populations can result in unbalance
soil microbial communities (Fernandez, Zentner, DePauw, Gehl, & Stevenson, 2007).
The consumption of glyphosate disrupts the community diversity by altering the
population growth rates (either increases or decreases) enabling opportunistic species to
fill emptied niches. Johal & Huber (2009) also found the long-terrn use of glyphosate
significantly reduces a plant’s growth rate, weakens defense mechanisms and nutrient
absorption furthering a plant’s susceptibility to disease. Overall, these studies suggest
glyphosate increases a crop’s susceptibility to entomopathogenic fungi.

On non-organic farms, fungal diseases are managed with synthetic fungicides.
Pyraclostrobin is a broad spectrum strobilurin fungicide. It is the main ingredient in
Headline® and used on GR-sugar beets, GR-corn and winter wheat for protection from
fungal diseases like sugar beet leaf spot (Cercospora beticola Sacc.) and wheat head scab
(F usarium graminearum). This fungicide initially was found to readily form mobile
metabolites that decreased in toxicity through photolysis2 and then consumed by
microbes (Bartlett et al., 2002). Pyraclostrobin, however, was recently found to cause
adverse affects to soil microbial communities including entomopathogenic3 fungi and
other naturally occurring host specific bioinsecticides4 (Ragsdale and Koch 2008). Both

non-target entomopathogenic fungi and target weeds are controlled with chemicals on

 

2 Light induced decomposition of a chemical.
3 Fungi that parasitize an insect.
4 Insecticide made from parts or whole biotic organisms.

10

non-organic farms, demonstrating that the primary means of management is through a
linear system solution focused on etiologic components on the farm.

The methods non-organic and organic farmers use to manage weeds and diseases
are grounded in two different perceptions Of how the farm operates as a system. Non-
organic methods involve mostly chemical solutions meant to cure symptomatic
components of the system. This strategy is consistent with a linear systems approach.
Solutions geared towards enhancing the relationships and processes between the
components of the system are more characteristic of the organic methods. The organic
management aligns with a complex systems approach. These differences in management
strategies are grounded in the farmers’ soil philosophy.

Soil Knowledge

Soil knowledge is extremely complex and multifaceted. It is a mix of knowledge
and practice which is difficult to differentiate between (WinklerPrins & Sandor, 2003).
Ethnopedology (Williams & Ortiz-Solorio, 1981), a branch of ethnoecology, is “the
knowledge of soil properties and management possessed by people living in a particular
environment for some period of time” (WinklerPrins, 1999). In practice, farmers use
field observations and interpretations of the plants and soil conditions as indicators of soil
processes and ecological relationships (Sandor, WinklerPrins, Barrera-Bassols, & Zinck,
2006). Scientific inquiry, on the other hand, focuses on classifications of soils and
definitions of soil quality (Doran & Parkin, 1994; Talawar & Rhoades, 1998). Farmers
who are close to the land have developed folk taxonomies that differentiate soil taxa

(Williams & Ortiz-Solorio, 1981). Much of this literature is currently devoted to

11

indigenous communities in underdeveloped locales (Onduru & Du Preez, 2008;
WinklerPrins & Barrios, 2007).

Romig et al. (1995) and Cornell University’s Soil Health Program (2007) are
among the few applications of this field of study to farming communities in the United
States. Romig et al. (1995) provides an overview of their work which examines how
farmers in Wisconsin assess soil health. They developed a soil health scorecard based on
an interpretative framework of farmers’ knowledge of soils (Garlynd, Romig, Harris, &

Kurakov, 1994; Romig, et al., 1995). Twenty-eight farmers in Wisconsin, both non-

organic and low-input5 cash grain and dairy farmers, were interviewed. Interview
transcripts were coded for 97 soil health properties as well as frequency and sequence
discussed. The soil quality attributes were then ranked and synthesized into a scorecard.
Farmer responses were broad; they included soil, crop, water and animal properties. The
top ranked properties include soil organic matter, crop appearance, soil erosion and
earthworms. Romig et al. (1995) found the farmers interviewed rely mostly on sensory
observations when judging soil health. Farmers turned seemingly quantitative data, like
soil test results, into qualitative descriptions. They also found farmers often focus on the
practices they believe are benefiting the soil’s health (e.g. manures and reduced tillage).
The relationship between a farmer’s management strategy and his or her soil knowledge
is not fully explored in the Romig et al. project. If there were key differences between
non-organic, organic and low-input farmers’ understandings of soil knowledge it could be

beneficial to programs like Cornell University’s Soil Health Program.

 

Low-Input agriculture aims to reduce the rates of chemical fertilizers and pestICIdes.

12

The Soil Health Program (2007) takes the same concepts used by Romig et al.
(1995), but applied it to 1,500 growers in New York State and the Northeast region. To
provide farmers with more technical information of the soil’s quality, this program
performs Soil Health Tests based on the physical, chemical and biological attributes
defined by Doran and Parkin (1994). Physical attributes include, but are not limited to
references to water retention, soil texture and aggregate size. Cation exchange capacity
(CEC), pH and carbon content are all chemical attributes. The biological attributes
consist of microbial biomass, soil respiration and weeds as indicators. Overall, the
Cornell University Soil Health Program is making progress in improving the quality of
soil throughout the Northeastern region, as well as documenting soil knowledge within
the agricultural community. From the published data, it is not evident that this program
is actively looking into the relationships between management strategies and soil
knowledge. Filling this gap in the research will aid in identifying key, but subtle,

differences in farmers’ worldviews.

Com_municgtion and Intormgtion Chgnefi

Information travels through communication channels. These are conduits where
information moves from a source to a receiver (e. g. interpersonal and media), (Rogers &
Shoemaker, 1971). The source is where a message originates (e. g. personal or
institution). Communication channels are limited because no source is unbiased and
omniscient. Farmers access multiple channels and sources. These channels are often

described as networks or knowledge systems.

13

Knowledge systems are mental constructs that people develop so they can access
information from actor networks to support innovation and learning (Rdling and Jiggins,
1998). Agricultural networks ofien include researchers, extension educators and farmers.
Knowledge systems are a part of a person’s worldview. Expert and facilitative
conceptual frameworks are used to describe the prominent knowledge systems used by
farmers (Ingram, 2008).

An expert-oriented framework conceptualizes the advisers as disseminators of
information and farmers as receivers (Lyon, 1996; Ward & Munton, 1992).
Specialization of knowledge and skills is integral to this framework. Although the farmer
is considered a receiver, he or she can develop a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward
the advisor leading to distrust and, ultimately, the rejection of advice (Lyon, 1996;
Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971).

A facilitative approach is based on mutual interactions and shared understandings
(Kloppenburg, 1991; Morgan & Murdoch, 2000; Rdling & Jiggins, 1994). The farmer is
the expert on his/her own farm and must, therefore, observe and monitor the farm system
as well as learn how the farm system responds to stimuli (Roling & Jiggins, 1998). The
farmers integrate their experiential knowledge with the information they acquire through
interacting with other experience-based advisors. Facilitative knowledge systems are
prevalent in the sustainable agriculture movement literature, which includes organic
agriculture (Hassanein, 1999). Farmer-to-farmer networks are the primary means by
which information disseminates through the movement (Hassanein, 1999; Kloppenburg
Jr, 1991; Roling & Jiggins, 1998). Examples of the dissemination of information through

expert-oriented knowledge systems, on the other hand, are prevalent in the conventional

14

agriculture literature (Cerf & Hemidy, 1999; Winter, 1997). Many of these studies focus
on ways of improving the farmer to advisor relationship including building trust and co-
operation (Cerf & Hemidy, 1999; Juntti & Potter, 2002). The types of channels farmers
access for management advice ultimately influences their decisions and potentially
reinforces their perception of the farm system.

Although the literature describes how farmers use either a complex or linear
systems approach when managing their farm. Parallels have yet to be drawn with a
single case study. This is one of the goals of this research. By developing the
relationship between these literatures, a better understanding of how non-organic and

organic farmers’ worldviews influence their management strategies will be revealed.

15

CHAPTER 3
METHODS

Theoretical Framework

Agriculture is embedded in ecosystems. The term agroecosystem is used to
describe this relationship. “The agroecosystem concept provides a framework with
which to analyze food production systems as wholes, including their complex sets of
inputs and outputs and the interconnections of their component parts” (Gliessman, 2007).
This concept typically focuses solely on the biological components and overlooks the
social components of the system. Since an agroecosystem is managed by people,
integrating the farmer’s role into this framework is critical to further our understanding of
the system. The farmer’s role ranges from monitoring the biological processes and parts
to assessing the social and economical environments. These roles and the accumulation
of knowledge and experience inform his management decision. The conceptual
framework for this research is arranged as a complex system and includes the
relationships between the farmer, his decisions, the ecosystem and the ecosystem’s
responses (Figure 2-1).

Ecosystems ecology originated from a complex systems approach and is also the
foundation for sustainable and organic agriculture (Drinkwater, 2009). This differs from
an agricultural science approach in which the farm is perceived as a linear system where
it is common practice to reduce and study each component part of the system (Keller &
Brummer, 2002). By acknowledging that both the farm’s biological and social
components are part of the ecosystem, we can more effectively explore and understand
the relationships between a farmer’s preferred management strategy and the ecosystem
responses.

16

Figure 2-1. Conceptual framework.

 

> Source of Information 4

 

 

 

Advisor

 

 

 

 

Biological
Monitoring
Soil & Crop Health

 

Decision Maker
Farmer, Co-Op Agronomist, Ml Sugar
Board of Directors, Industry Consultant

 

 

 

 

 

ll

 

 

 

l Strategy |
Selection

 

 

l Practice, Tactic
Implementation f

 

 

 

 

 

Social & Economic
Monitoring

 

 

 

Ecosystem

 

 

 

l7

 

Study Method

A case study is a research strategy used to examine “a contemporary phenomenon
in its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context
are not clearly evident” (Yin, 1981). Case studies can be exploratory, explanatory or
descriptive of phenomenon. All phenomena are placed within the surrounding context
unlike in an experiment where the variables are removed from the context. Data
collection can include, but is not limited to qualitative, quantitative or observational. A
conceptual framework describes the phenomenon and is organized around the ideas,
questions and data collected that are pertinent to the research questions. Modifications to
the framework occur constantly throughout the analysis process (Miles & Huberman,
1984). Like the conceptual framework, the research questions are not rigid in that as the
study progresses new conceptualizations and questions may arise (Eisenhardt, 1989;
Miles & Huberman, 1984). Explanatory case studies result in an explanation of the
observed phenomenon derived from within-case analyses. Within-case analyses typically
consist of write-ups for each unit of the case which are used to generate insight for the
entire case (Eisenhardt, 1989). Single case studies provide insight because “case studies
as analytic units should be regarded on par with whole experiments” (Yin, 1981).

Qualitative methods are used to answer research questions that require a
multifaceted and comprehensive answer (Patton, 2002). Unlike surveys, open-ended
questions allows for unpredicted responses and for themes to emerge. However, the
quality of these data is dependent on the researcher. Objectivity is not possible with
qualitative research or any research for that matter (Dewalt & Dewalt, 2002) because

researchers, like all people, have a set of biases and perspectives. To account for this,

18

qualitative researchers strive to make the research both reliable and valid. “Reliability
refers to the extent to which results can be reproduced using the same approach under
somewhat different circumstances” (Dewalt & Dewalt, 2002). Whereas validity centers
on the accuracy and credibility of the participants’ accounts with respect to the social
phenomena (Huberrnan & Miles, 1983). Research design should include checks for both
reliability and validity. Valid and reliable qualitative data can be used to better
understand and refine the conceptual framework as well as better understand all emergent

and predicted relationships (Eisenhardt, 1989).

Sa [in

A case study approach with qualitative methods was used for this research. A
series of topical interviews with closed and open-ended questions were conducted. The
topics included agricultural management practices, soil quality indicators, information
and communication channels, observed changes in soil quality and observed changes in
crop health. A purposeful sampling strategy, which involves seeking information-rich
individuals who can provide an in-depth understanding (Patton, 2002), was used to locate
large-scale non-organic and organic field crop farmers in Huron, Tuscola, Lapeer and
Sanilac counties, Michigan. Within these four counties there are both non-organic and
organic large-scale field crop farmers with similar field crops. Non-organic farmers who
grew GR-sugarbeets, GR-soybeans and GR-corn were preferred because of their
presumed increased reliance on glyphosate to manage weeds. The inclusion of both
organic and non-organic farmers allowed for comparisons between the groups with

respect to agricultural management practices, soil quality indicators, information and

19

communication channels, observed changes in soil quality and observed changes in crop
health.

Data collection consisted of 23 semi-structured interviews which took place
between January and April 2010. Two topical interview guides were created (Rubin &
Rubin, 2005): non-organic and organic (Appendices A and B). The order in which
questions were asked was flexible to accommodate for conversation flow. Afler the first
five interviews, the non-organic farmer interview guide was modified to incorporate
emergent themes from the interviews as well as a set of literature on the interactions of
glyphosate on soil quality and crop health (Cakmak, Yazici, Tutus, & Ozturk, 2009;
Fernandez, et al., 2009; Haney, Senseman, Hons, & Zuberer, 2000). Interviews averaged
approximately an hour each. This research included 23 farms: l3 non-organic farmers,
two of which practiced non-organic no-till on all their acres; nine organic farmers; and
one who farms both non—organically and organically (Total n = 23).

Recruitment of seven of the non-organic participants occurred at the
Michigan/Ontario Sugar Beet Research Reporting Session in Bay City, Michigan on
January 19, 2010. At the meeting, I met a key informant — a Sugarbeet Advancement
technician — who introduced me to four non-organic sugarbeet farmers. Three more
meeting attendees consented to this research after I announced my project to all the
attendees. Contact information for another non-organic farmer was acquired through a
colleague who grew-up on a farm in Huron County. Finally, the recruitment of the
organic farmers began with a list often farmers a private sector independent consultant
gave me. Five of the listed farmers consented to participate in this research. All other

participants of this study, eleven others, were identified using the snowball method which

20

involves asking each participant at the end of the interview to recommend other farmers
who may be interested in participating.

All interviews were conducted face-tO-face at either the participant’s home or his
farm office. This facilitated access to documents and would feel comfortable
participating. Follow-up questions were asked over the phone. All follow-ups and
interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Prior to each interview, the participant read and signed an informed consent form
indicating that they were voluntarily participating (Appendix C). This document also
described the purpose of the research, how they would be protected, and the risks
associated with participating. Each consent form included contact information for Dr.
James Bingen (advisor), MSU’s Internal Review Board, and myself. Each participant
returned a signed copy and kept a copy for their personal records. The Human Research
Protection Program at Michigan State University (IRB# 09-1174) approved this study.
All distinguishing characteristics of the participants were removed to protect their

identities.

Data Analysis

All questions eliciting a finite set of responses were counted, and the percent of
respondents for each answer calculated. Insight on all numeric responses was provided
through emergent thematic content analysis of all transcripts as described by Miles and
Huberrnan (1994). This involved reading each transcript carefiilly for dominant themes,
reducing the data, creating data displays, and then drawing conclusions. Each transcript

was carefully read for dominant themes related to each research question and organized

21

using Nviv08 (QSR International 2009) for both non-organic and organic farmers.
Themes were adjusted and combined to reflect new themes emerging across all
interviewees with the same management practices (Rubin & Rubin, 2005). Summary
statements consisting of multiple themes per research question were created to answer
and explain quantitative values. The unit of analysis was the interviewee and the code
level was the sentence.

The emergent thematic content analysis resulted in one table for each research
objective including emergent themes, definitions, rules, examples and notes (Table 3-1).
The emergent themes were used to structure and interpret the data. For the first three
Objectives, the corresponding emergent themes were used to clarify all quantified data.
Themes from these objectives were used to characterize farmer worldviews. All
emergent themes are fully described in a table located at the end of'each section in the

next chapter.

22

Table 3-1. Application of emergent themes.

 

 

 

Theme Definition Rule Example Notes

Identified across Derived from the How the definition Excerpt from Comments related to

all interviews. transcript data. is applied in each transcripts that the application of the
transcript. exemplifies the theme (inclusions and

 

 

 

definition and rule.

 

exclusions).

 

23

 

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS and DISCUSSION

All twenty-three participating farmers grew up on a farm in Michigan’s Thumb
region (Huron, Sanilac, Tuscola or Lapeer Counties). Each farmer purchased or inherited
their family’s land. Less than half the land they currently farm, however, is owned by the
farmer. The participating farmers use a variety of farm management systems including
non-organic, non-organic no-till and organic. During the 2009 growing season, farmers
cultivated a variety of crops including soybeans, corn, sugarbeets and dry beans (Table 4-
1).

Eleven of the participants farm non-organically. They cultivate an average Of
2,000 acres. In 2009, the non-organic farmers averaged a four year crop rotation
consisting mainly of sugarbeets, soybeans, corn and winter wheat. All grow at least one
GR-crop and apply between one (for corn) and three (for sugarbeets) applications of
glyphosate on GR-varieties. They also apply between five (for sugarbeets) and none (for
corn and soybeans) fungicide applications per season. All ten farmers who grow
sugarbeets grow GR-varieties. One of the ten farmers also cultivates nematode resistant
varieties. Eight out of nine farmers who raise soybeans, grow GR-varieties. Seven
farmers produce GR-corn; one farmer grows edible grade and another uses conventional
seed. The corn, soybeans and wheat are sold mostly to cooperative elevators located
throughout the Thumb. Each cooperative holds and distributes the product to processors
and end users. All sugarbeets are transported by truck, held and processed at Michigan
Sugarbeet Company plants located in Bay City, Caro, Croswell, or Sebewaing, Michigan.

Less than half of the non-organic participants raised livestock on their farms. Within the

24

past 10 years, however, most of these farmers raised hogs, cattle or dairy cows. They
stopped raising animals because of depreciating market prices.

Two of the 23 participants (Table 4-1. Growers 12 & l3) practice non-organic no-
till farming. These farmers cultivate an average of 1,350 acres and grow two crops, GR-
soybeans and wheat. Both farmers began practicing no-till at least 10 years ago. They
spray, at most, two applications of glyphosate each season on their soybean acres.
Between one and two applications of fungicides are applied to the wheat crops. They
stopped producing corn and edible dry beans because of poor market prices. The no-till
farmers claim this practice reduces their need to invest in crop specific equipment, as
well as, simplifies farm management. The only major differences in responses between
non-organic no-till farmers and non-organic conventional-till farmers were with respect
to how these farmers assess soil quality. In all other cases, the non-organic nO-till
responses were consistent with the non-organic responses. Non-organic no-till farmers,
therefore, are grouped into the discussion on non-organic farmers for all results except
the section entitled Soil Quality Indicators.

Nine participants are certified organic growers. They farm an average of 1,568
acres. Prior to the organic transition and certification process, all but one farmed non-
organically. Most of the farmers previously grew sugarbeets. Only two of these farmers
grew GR-varieties of any kind prior to organic certification. Before switching to
organics, eight of the farmers grew edible varieties, used non-chemical input crops, or
practiced no-till. The organic growers received their organic certification between 1991

and 2006. In 2009, these farmers averaged a six year crop rotation which typically

25

 

EH02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8on3 .mgonxom 82 533 <2 fingOéoZ N—
:83:
E8 .2323 £5898,“ .maoofiwwsm cot. 283.2. <2 0:839:02 _ _
889 be 5.50 43:3 A0363 £8238 .Boofiawsm comm 28mg. <2 2§wc0éoz o—
mSwon EU .88 Java? Hangman .fioofiwwzm 8: 858m <2 £530-52 o
28?...
028mm
58 .mcmonxom .Soofimwzm com: 50qu <2 EameOA—oz m
“was? .mcmonxom one 8093 <2 2530-52 s
Eco J85: .mcmonxom .fioonawzm 85 .5093 <2 2590-52 0
memos .06 .58 Jean? .fioofimwsm omo :05: <2 flamwccéoz w
£83 5 .58 48:3 .mcmoPAOm .muoofimwsm 82 :05: <2 2590-82 v
£83 5 .E3 @853 £5218 £83395 8? :22: <2 2590-52 m
memos be 6.80 48:3 .muoofiwwsm owe :82: <2 2:35-52 N
3055 .28an .muoofiwwsm con :95: <2 2590-82 _
EEO 83 BE...»— bESU 533523 Eon—«wag; .83ch
8..o< £530

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.8595 8380 .Tv visa.

26

 

$2530.35 :80 .choEmwa

2500-5 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.oEmwhoéc: .25“ch 82:38 .3223 .cgoEmcmbv 20% £503 .03 .floofimwam 8: 208:... meow Q 25ch mm
5220 .233 0c .2on .mcwonxom .323 a. 26:90 Eco ooom 282:. 32 9:8qu mm
b>2u .283 .0“. 4833 .90 .EoO 82 282:. moon 2530 _N
20% .383 0c 4833 £5238 .923 a. 30:93 :30 ooom 232a. ooom 2590 cm
2083.
mmflw .388: .38 0320 .BBOccsm 4833223 .2on £533.... .333 an 30:90 Eco comm 023mm 89 2530 o.
282:.
£53 0263 .20 .2803 0U .32.? .WSBBm .EoU coca 023mm voom 2530 m—
ass be .23... £023 £50 o: 8:58 32 2520 t
8.8 .5220 .883 2.5.. .90 20% .maaonxg .EoU omv $093 32 2590 @—
mmfiw .035: .38 0263 £252.33 #333233 20% .maaonxom .353 a. 30:90 Eco omm Looms 02w— 2§w5 m—
ature .5226 .20 .2803 .03 .3333 .8398.“ .800 83 208:... woom 0:830 3
282:. 5.32
3033 .mcmonxom 82 $33 <2 2590-52 2
.EEU 33 35.8.. .0550 533523 Ens—ounce: .5330
moco< 93:30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$5....an .3. 2...;

27

included corn, soybeans (clear hilum varieties"), dry beans, spelt, and clover. None of the
organic farmers use herbicides or fungicides. They all manage all weeds mechanically

(e. g. rotary hoe) or with a flamer. All but two of the organic farmers became interested in
organic methods for the economic benefit of price premiums. Most of the organic
farmers sell their crops to either of two local organic cooperatives, Michigan Thumb
Organics (MTO) or Organic Bean and Grain (OBNG).

One participant (Table 4—1. Grower 23) has both non-organic and certified organic
fields. In 2009, he grew six crops. One was organic (soybeans). Two were in transition
to organic (spelt and soybeans). And five were non-organic (GR-sugarbeets, dry beans,
wheat, GR-soybeans, and GR- corn). His responses are kept separate from the organic
and non-organic answers because they were a mixture of both the organic and non-

organic findings.

Perce tions 0 Soil ual '

The more complex the network is, the more complex its pattern of
interconnections, the more resilient it will be.

(Capra, 1996)
Growers described observed changes in the quality of their soils over the past ten years.
Over half (77%) of the non-organic and all (100%) of the organic farmers observed
improvements or no change in the quality of their soils (Table 4-2). Non-organic
responses differ from the anticipated responses derived from the scientific literature

leading to questions about the continual use of glyphosate and soil quality. Farmers were

 

6 Clear hilum soybeans are used for in foods like soymilk and tofu because the seed lacks the
black speck that other soybean varieties have.

28

. $08.8 5-0:.wd 80:85 HEEowmcaE 2530-5: 8: o 3 £223 a mo : 05
m =. . . z m __ u _ *

 

 

 

 

 

 

£38. BSREQ £38. Naxomfimk
:8. 3» 38K backbwon hwacxmaé
actoatfiou @83th ”3&523 938» Eng A882: «combo—ca
@303 58% £93539 SR8 83 mwSE 38:th mow—:39 .5. Beta—335 35...»..—
Q a Xm anRSEE 3:25
o o :2 has: mthwmQ
.x; _ $2: $3 Sag s wmssu oz
5» o 3: 33¢ mséhé
«Qua» «TIE» «Qua» E3»
9:330 umkausaéaz *9.»=§M3-.§< 3 “ma— 5 3:25 :8 E mow—=30
w £§u$ «an

 

 

 

 

.uofiowaua—z

 

 

 

5:56 :8 ago 323023 5380 .Né «Earn.

29

asked to give their rationale for their observations. Different themes emerged from the
non-organic and organic responses, which begins to illustrate the relationships between
perceptions of soil quality and preferred soil management tactics. Recognizing that there
are numerous common threads between non-organic and organic farmers, these results
focus mostly on identifying differences between these groups to elucidate points of
divergent perspectives and provide insight into the variability of worldviews within the
agricultural community.

Non-organic farmers’ responses include four themes: 1) Reduced tillage, 2) Less
toxic chemicals, 3) Improved soil fertility and 4) Temporal scale (Table 4-2; defined in
Table 4-3 located at end of section). The non-organic farmers focus on the notion that
their current management practices are less harmful to the environment than their
previous practices. In other words, the farmers say their current tillage practices,
fertilizer rates and agrochemicals disturb the environment less than their previous
practices. These practices improve the quality of the soil. Farmers relate these
improvements to the adoption of GR-crops and the use of more benign agrochemicals
(e. g. glyphosate). This rationale is evident in the following passage in which a non-
organic farmer relates the reduction in tillage to his adoption of GR-crOps.

because of the GMOs and the use of Roundups we are doing something

that makes us better stewards of the soil because we don ’t have to do

something to work up the soils just to get the machinery through it. We

only do it if there is a reason to do it now.

This farmer credits the agrochemicals and GR-varieties for the soil quality improvements
he has observed.

Numerous farmers also comment on the reduced toxicity of the agrochemicals

used today compared to the agro-chemicals their predecessors used. One farmer said,

30

“Glyphosate is really quite harmless. It’s not really deadly poison like some of the other
sprays that we use or have used.” Glyphosate is often touted as having a short residual in
the soil (see Chapter 2); therefore, its environmental impacts are often perceived as

minimal or non-existent. Glyphosate is a contact herbicide meaning the spray must

contact a weed directly for it to work. Many of these farmers, however, tank mix7

glyphosate with more persistent herbicides, as recommended by MSUE and the agri-
industry representativess, to increase the longevity of the product in the soil. For
example, farmers frequently mix CanopyTM with glyphosate because it persists in the soil

between one and ten months (Sprague & Everman, 2010). Non-organic farmers prefer
persistent herbicides because it reduces the number of herbicide applications needed per
season.

Non-organic farmers apply products like glyphosate and strobulin fungicides
multiple times per season to the same fields. The non-organic farmers did not question if
the continual use of these agrochemicals influences the quality of the soil overtime.
Upon further investigation, however, it became evident that the chemical make-up of the
agrochemicals is not scrutinized by these farmers, other than how well they function.
They expect all EPA registered products to be thoroughly tested for any negative
consequences prior to it coming onto the market. This trust in the scientific and
regulating systems is exemplified in the following comment, “Somebody’s already
researched all that. So we just go by the label. That’s somebody else’s job to keep track

of that, don’t you think?” (This is discussed further in the Information & Communication

 

7 . . . . . .
ThlS refers to the practice of mrxmg more than one agrochemical together m a sprayer or
applicator.

Tank mixing recommendations were given at the 2009 Integrated Crop and Pest Management
Update hosted by Michigan State University Extension.

31

Channel themes section under the Faith in agrochemicals theme). Ultimately, concern
for how the agrochemicals interact with the soils is displaced to the experts.

The interactions agrochemicals have with soils and crops are not readily
observable to the naked eye. Chemicals and microbial populations are best analyzed
through laboratory tests. This means the best opportunity for farmers to observe any
potential impacts from the agrochemicals is through their soil test results. Almost all the
non-organic farmers, excluding the no-till farmers who interpret their tests themselves,
rely on third parties for both the soil tests and test interpretations (refer to Information &
Communication Channel section). This eliminates the opportunity for the farmer to view
laboratory results on chemical or biological changes over time.

Non-organic farmers feel soil quality improvements are related to the new
variable rate fertility practices (Theme: Improved soil fertility). Variable rate equipment
precisely applies nutrients to areas with low fertility. Farmers view this as both
environmentally responsible and economical in the sense that it can reduce the farmer’s
fertilizer bill. Non-organic farmers perform soil tests every 3-4 years and most apply
fertilizers according to the tests. Third parties, typically the Cooperative Elevator,
custom apply the nutrients using their custom application equipment. The farmers who
hire custom applicators say it is economical to outsource fertilizer applications because
the variable rate equipment is too expensive to purchase. Distancing the farmer from
control over the management of his farm is further discussed in the Information &
Communication Channels section.

Organic farmers, other than the farmer who farms both organically and non-

organically, did not mention variable rate technologies. This is likely due to the

32

fundamental differences in fertility practices between the two groups. Non-organic
farmers apply commercial fertilizers composed of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium
that are perceived as readily available to the plant. Organic farmers apply compost, green
manures and minerals that are perceived as slowly breaking down and releasing nutrients
in the soil. Both sets of farmers use chicken and cow manures to improve soil fertility.

Both non-organic and organic farmers say the process of rebuilding and degrading
the soil is slow. This notion often made it difficult for farmers to describe any observable
changes in soil quality. As one organic farmer stated, “Nothing in agriculture happens
very quick. Especially with soils, everything happens very gradually. I think the main
thing is looking at how things have changed in the last 50-60 years and it’s very obvious
to me that soil degradation has occurred!” As soils change slowly (Montgomery, 2007),
evidently it is difficult for farmers to answer this type of question. “And maybe [the soil
quality] has [changed], but we don’t see it. It’s like the little kid you see every six
months. ‘Man, you’ve grown a lot.’ But if you see him every day it is like, ‘are you ever
going to grow?’ It’s like that with the soil.” Asking farmers to describe how the soil’s
quality changes over a 40-50 year period may have provided a more comprehensive
glimpse at changes in soil quality with respect to management practices.

Even with inclinations that soil building and degradation are slow processes, most
of the organic farmers (89%) describe their soils as healthier since they converted to
organic. Four main themes emerged as the organic farmers explained why the soil
improved: 1) Soil biology, 2) Reduced compaction, 3) Feed the soil and 4) Temporal
scale (discussed previously) (Table 4-2; defined in Table 4-3). Organic farmers were

keenly aware of the soil’s biology (Theme: Soil biology). The farmers would often

33

describe the biology of the soil in terms of the soil’s odor, “You can smell a soil. If it has
a nice pleasant aroma to it you can figure things are happening. If you can’t smell
anything or it smells kind of sour, then you know that there are problems there.” A soil’s
smell was nearly absent from the non-organic descriptions of soil health (refer to Soil
Quality Indicators section). This is a striking difference between organic and non—
organic farmers in the sense that the organic farmers highly regard living soils while the
non-organic farmers focus more on soil fertility. Organic farmers relate the living soil to
the biologic activities needed to mineralize and release nutrients and make them available
to the plants at the appropriate times.

A living soil is fundamental to the organic farmers’ management strategy, and
“feeding the soil” is critical to keeping it alive. This concept was fundamental in Sir
Albert Howard’s book, An Agricultural Testament (1943), where he first describes the
basics of organic farming. The organic farmers drew parallels between healthy soils and
healthy plants as demonstrated in the following passage. “And the theory there is that if
you have your soils in fairly good shape and you have a healthy plant, then you’re not
going to have insect problems” (Theme: Feed the soil). Through feeding the soil this
farmer feeds the soil biotic community which is essential to two of the emergent
properties, suppressive soils and soil resilience, he relies upon for a healthy farm system.

The introduction of cover crops and reduction of heavy machinery also improves
the soil’s quality. Organic farmers say these two practices, along with diverse crop
rotations, improve the soil’s structure by reducing soil compaction (Theme: Reduced
compaction). One farmer who recently stopped growing sugarbeets and now farms

organically said, “The soil is a little bit easier to till already. But we’ve seen a couple

34

dramatic changes in the fact that we’re planting clover. So a couple of our fields have
seen a clover a couple times in our rotation. And we’re not raising sugar beets so we’ve
lessened the compaction considerably.” All organic farmers use cover crops in their crop
rotations. This differs from most non—organic farmers who have interest in cover crops
and have yet to integrate them into the rotation. Cover crops are not only perceived as
improving soil structure, but they also function as soil organic matter builders and food
for the soil biotic communities.

Overall, organic farmers are primarily concerned with soil health because they
benefit from the emergent properties of the system like suppressive soils. Non-organic
farmers focus primarily on mechanistic improvements and reduced toxicity of chemicals
because they are perceived as less harmful to the soils and surrounding environment. The
farm management plans these farmers use differ in that the non-organic farmers manage
individual components of the system and the organic farmers foster the processes of the
system. These results begin to illustrate some of the difference in worldviews between

non-organic and organic farmers.

35

 

883:0

085 02030 3:30:
8 0:3 :0: 0.3 :05 8:
883:0 0.3 88 05

 

 

80:80.8 :0: 8: t 8:38 0:380 :: 28: 0:
88> :0 8:083 808080: 3 3.: 80.8 : x85
_ :30: 0>._ 35 885 :3 30:3. 8 83 _ :0:3

:80: :30 _ 3:3 80.: 8: 80800 08380 05

 

.058 05 :0 883:0
388» 05 :0 388800

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88883 0 03: 0:3 :3 28: 5:88 wEov 8: 3:3 0:38 0:85 _ 8:23 083:0 0: 3:00. :0: 08: 8000:: 03.0.4
038: 88:08 3:... £083: 08330802 80. a 8:8 : W33 883.: 05. 307. 3 m_ 85:80: :0m 3:08:05
8:80 :0>00
3 0:02 :00w 3 wfixfl 0: F03 0m 0:08.83

3:08.20 :0 c2823 35 03: 0: wfiow :0: 0:.03 00. a 808.3,:

05 93 8820800: 05 023 :3 :3 : 85:5: 8 .3: 8 :9. 05 :0: 80:08: 3.53:8 A: @0588:
03: 03883 w85 :00w 30: 3 :00: 8: 08.38 05 08300m 35:0: 8 08080888 8 80:08: 35:0: 52.5%
88:08 8:0 EC. 88.3: 08380802 0: 6033: 0808033 =< :00. 8 08080888. 28. 303335

:00. 05 :0 3:33:

230808 .35 0: 35 £30808 . 05 8888 083:0

05 :0 33082 05 05 80: >333 u8>08 20:50: 03 03 :3 00:88 :5. 28:80:00.8:

08088 0: 82058: 823880800 833 880% 0: 88:32 0: =8 8 8880888: 0: 88 820 :35 :00

5828: t0:m 03: :0» 0:80:05 0m .8585: 53 33:8 0: 0.30805 05 :0 0:33: 05 8 83:80:: 858:0

05 53 82058: 8403 08300: “008:3: 8: 35 “00:00.88 83 8230::3 03: 83 3:230:33
80380: 83:8 w:_5 30: 05 .308 05 3530:: m_ 91:85: 8 8:080: .8080: 830: 05:00.. .088 82 56.0.5850
0—8: 0.3 808.3: 88.3: 08390802 8:030: 05 83.0: 88.3: < 03 5880:0083 302 0.33: 8.0%

8:80:80 :00. 05 :0 88:53

.530: :8 80 .55 .wdv :8 a: :0 3:88 .0038: 05 38:8:

8:08: 35 08:0: _ :3 08:: :88 0w 0: 05 8.68:: 523 5:03:00: 833 80:08: 08::

0: 08: 5:0: 03 302 .8003 05 85:00 0 ... 08:: 0:: 0080: 0: 8: :05 0080: 0: 808.3:

.08: 8:208 .: 0:03 4: 0:03 58.8w 05 0:03 0: :08 03 m30=0 88 0: 2880:0083 30:3 A03m0::bw
00,—: 0.3 820:0 8083: 08390802 05 35 9:3. 883.: < .w.0v 03080808.: 0M3»: h00$00-
8:02 38:3 03% :0.:.~£\0Q 050.:

 

 

 

 

 

 

.8805 808080 5:88 :00 :0: 80: 0: :0:::3 88.: .m-.. 030,—.

36

 

8:35.33

30.808 :33
.30.m>:: 8:3.08 03.3
:0.:3 5.30: .388
:0 0:08 ::3 >w0.0.:
>:.>:03 0.w0.0.:

:0 38. 83300: 8 35

533.3
a: 0:03 03 fiefifim 03 :023 333009 Q: DECO
2.95 35 .33 .33 .3. 3.3.3 .... 20 so 33.0

380.33:

:0 8.0333: ::3 8:38
0.:3w8 w8:..3: 8:3.08
:0.:3 :08 05 :00: :35

>833: ..03 :0>0::8.
8 3.38: 3:03 05

 

 

 

 

8 a 80:: 853: ..03 05 :00: 0: 80:0 :..3: 0: 38...:0 30: :33
80.5: 0805 8:... 88:3 h. 8:390 8038 0: 83:3 88:3: 3 30:3 5.30: ..03 :0 :08800 :03 0:: 300...:
30:03:88 :0 0.03. 05 :0 30.. 8 8:0:
.>:08:038 >>30: :0 w80.:03 >.:3:0:: 0.3 0.: 05 .830: 833 ...03
.3880: 05 :33 80:0 3:883 :. 35 >33 :.303 . ...: 0: 8.330 3800.: 05 :0 30:03:88 :33 0803.33 8380:: 8.83:
880 :0 30:03:88. ::30:w 0:... .8888. 8: 5.: 05 3.85 . 05 0888. 35 80:03:: 05 8 8w:3:0 0: 03: actucmficu
”0:3.08 8.:83xm. 88:3 ... 0.3380 80883338 85:08: 883: :003:0: 3. 30:03:800 30.0333:
:8 0>..
3 :0 83038 080080
:3 3. :0.:3 ..083 ...083 >530 :3 :. ..30 2303 3:08
>530 :3 5.3 2.8 . :0: 8 >530: 3:. :. 08 :0: ...3 ..03 05 >530: 8.88838 0: 3:800 .530: ..03 8 m>3.:
0: :03.0: 388800 :0 ..083 05 >..388: .20.: 05 8 8.. 30:3 :33 5.30: ..03 :0 8305:. :3 3.338800 0.8.: 05
>33 8:3.08 8:... 88:3: 0.3380 3. 30.0.: ..03 35 m>3m 88:3: 0.0: :33 00:08:: 0:... $03.5 20m.
88>: 0:83am 03% afiamamxvfi 330.:

 

 

 

 

 

 

3%...88 .3-.. 233:.

37

Crag Health Observations
Predictability and control lie at the heart of our reigning notions of progress. Our
leaders believe they can control the future by constantly adjusting the parts.

Technological advances are touted as the means to control one day those things
that we can ’t control right now, allowing progress to continue.

(Wessels, 2006)

In the past ten years, the non-organic farmers saw an increase in fungal disease
while the organic farmers observed a decrease in fungal disease (Table 4-4). Non-
organic farmers perceived a higher rate of fungal disease (92%) than organic farmers
(67%). None of the non-organic farmers observed decreases in fungal disease. Non-
organic farmers specifically say they saw increases in fungal disease, mostly on
sugarbeets (leaf spot: C ecrospera beticola Sacc.) and wheat (headscab: F usarium
graminearum). To aide in explaining these stark differences, farmers also explained why
they thought their farm was experiencing increasing or decreasing rates of fungal disease.
All answers were separated by the farmer’s management practices, organic or non-
organic, and emergent themes were compiled (Table 4-5).

Non-organic farmers frequently prefaced their observations by stating they only
recently learned how to identify and recognize the signs and symptoms of fungal diseases
(Theme: Education). One farmer described how his father managed fungal diseases by
saying, “I don’t know. A lot of these diseases we didn’t know we had then, I guess.”

Non-organic farmers frame their observations in this manner because research on fungal

diseases is relatively recentg, and fungicides were not readily available or recommended

until the 1970’s. Many of these farmers learn about pathogenic fungi and fungicides at

 

9 For the past 25 years MSU has had either a field crop plant pathologist who did not
communicate with the farmers (for 20 years) or no field crop plant pathologist at all (last 5 years).

38

@258 =:.o:.w.ov 8288a EoEomeE zeawcoéo: 3: 0:3 who—Pam =m mots—05*

 

totcuzhm

 

 

 

 

“£8.29 SCABS 83939 Amofioah «gouge—=5
when ASE»: acct? 36-20:» 830an nmhmtg mBEQmunam now—3:9
29:32 RED autumn? Qchmwuwzm. mwSNQEmwcmbS .3 2353335 .8853
XS £5 £8 3.33» S 3.33qu
$3 go .XK. 3338 98»an
go $2: $Na 2.33» 3 8.3.83
ans ans «Ens ea:
omzuMsQ Eva...” “.353: s. umaeuseéez

 

 

 

 

2:895 Banana—.52

 

S was. 5 3.5.9593 233%
Bus-a E mow—=39 6033.3.—

 

 

.oosoEoE 0.038% Bwqa («o $83383 5380 .vé «Zak.

39

MSUE’S winter meetings and summer field days (discussed further in Information and
Communication Channels). Most all of the non-organic farmers remember the first time
they saw a sprayer on a tractor or a crop-duster fly overhead. On average, these farmers
have 35 years of farming experience. Their observations and explanations stem from this
experience. The following themes emerged from their responses all of which relate to
changes in production practices and varieties. First, increases in fungal disease are a
product of increases in foliage or narrow rows (Theme: Increased foliage). Bushy plants
are more susceptible to disease because “. . .as you move things closer together there’s
less air movement and usually air movement tends to dry [things up]. Usually a plant
that stays damp for an extended period of time is where diseases tend to spread from one
plant to the other. All your mold and mildews get started growing.” Increased foliage on
plants is likely a product of either the variety or over application of nutrients during
vegetative growth (Sinclair & Horie, 1989). Farmers are inclined to plant more seeds per
acre as they strive for higher yields. Narrow row systems, however, reduce air
circulation through the field, creating a suitable environment for pathogenic fungi
development. Another potential contributing factor is the reduced amount of soil aeration
in the non-organic fields. As previously noted, non-organic farmers have reduced their
tillage practices which may allow soil moisture to accumulate creating a micro-
environment suitable for pathogenic fungal development.

Non-organic farmers also have concern with the vigor and overall health crops,

especially the sugarbeets. The farmers say sugarbeets exhibit the greatest rate of fungal

4O

disease increase. “Increased leaf spot in sugarbeets is newer”). Different genetics in the
crops increased the sugar percentage. Whenever you increase something, something else
has to give” (Theme: Susceptible varieties). Farmers wonder if the breeders are focusing
solely on sugar content and yields, which depreciates the seed’s ability to resist disease.
“You can’t buy the good traits in corn [sugarbeets or soybeans] without buying the
Roundup Ready stuff.” In 2009, sugarbeets farmers choose from 20 industry approved
sugarbeet varieties, eleven of which were GR-varieties (Michigan Sugar Company,
2009). All sugarbeet farmers interviewed chose glyphosate-resistant varieties. One
farmer uses a nematode resistant variety in some of his fields. “Well in the sugarbeet
industry, everybody went this way; I don’t think there’s conventional seed out there”
(Theme: Obsolete varieties). These farmers feel there are relatively few seeds to choose
from that offer both high yields and disease resistance which compromises the overall
health of their farm system.

While non-organic farmers view their fungal disease problems as a combination
of their production practices and the new varieties, organic farmers relate the lowered
rates of disease on their farms to production practices and crop rotations. As previously
mentioned, the organic farmers average six crops in their rotation (range: 4-8 crops).
Organic farmers say one benefit of a diverse crop rotation is the suppression of soil borne
diseases (Theme: Crop rotation). They also value the cyclical interactions between the
crops, “Without the grain we wouldn’t have the clover which means we wouldn’t have
the nitrogen for our com. But without the beans, we wouldn’t be able to plant the grain.

It’s a cycle.” The exchange of nutrients between crops proves to be important to organic

 

l . . . .
O MSU currently has a sugarbeet pathologist who meets wrth farmers regularly, but believes m
the chemical control paradigm.

41

farmers. They also find that by “pay[ing] attention to the relationship of one plant
species to the next [they can avoid] setting yourself up for a problem,” including disease
and pest problems (Theme: Healthy soils). Organic farmers are encouraging system
processes that they perceive as benefiting the crops. Along with the expected benefits of
their management practices (e. g. good soil fertility and structure) are emergent properties
like suppressive and resilient soils.

Overall, the organic farmers saw decreases in crop fungal disease which they
believe is a product of diverse crop rotations and healthy soils. Improving and
maintaining healthy relationships between system components is the strategy these
organic farmers use to decrease pathogenic fungal disease in their crops. The non-
organic farmers saw increases in crop fungal disease which they believe is a product of
bushy crops, narrow row spacing and susceptible varieties. Efforts to remedy this include
increased applications of fungicides, new varieties and increased row spacing. These
farmers strive to improve their crops by focusing on curing symptomatic components of

the system.

42

 

.5525 55 8: 525.: 55
5:53 :5.» ... .:. 55:535: :55 5. 35.55355: 35:

 

.55.:5.:5> .2055:
55 5::. wfiow 5. :5:5555:

.5>5: 55.:5.:5>-.>.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52 .:. 85.5 ...:5 :55 55.. :5: 35543154.: 35: 5: 555555: 55.5.» :55: 5:: :55 55.5.» 55555.55. 5.525.585
5.: 555555: 5555 .95.:5555 >5: :.:55 53 55 :5w 5: 55555-20 .9: 8.: 55.:5:5w 35: 55 5.55. 3%-:83
“55:5... 5.:5w:5.:5Z :52: 5: :55 55:5:5 5:55... 55.:5.:5> 20:5: 5:... 5:53:50
55.25:. :. 5. 555.53 5.5 :5w 5.:. 55.: 5:55
55 :5 5..:3 5:5: :55 :. 95.55 5:255 55 55: .355 55:5
5>5: :.:55 :5» 55... 55.555. 5.: .353 555.: 5.: .8 35:» 5: 555: 5:55: :5>5
.55553 g5: #:8555552: 55 5:5 :52: 5: 55:5 55 5.3 55:59:55 :55 5:58»? 555. 5:5
5.:5.:5> 5: 5555.555: 5:5 55 :. 5:5 55.5... 5:5: 5:5 55.5..» 555: 55.5.» 55 .5555: 538w 5: 55.:5.:5> 55555.5 5: 5.5855555
..55 55 :5 :55 55:5w:5::5 5:5: :5: 555:5 :55 555:: 5: w:..¢: :55: 5>5: 5 3 55 ..5 5.55: 55 85:5 58:: 5:5 .555: 55.:5..::5>
555555 5: 5.5.5: :5w.> ”55:5,”. 5.:5w:5-:5Z :5w.> 55 55555555 58:5“. 5585.: 55.:5.:5> 5:... 53.3593:
555.:58 58:: 5>5: =5.»
:555w5: 555.5 :5w 5w:.5 5<. . ..5:::55 5: 555:
:5» :55 55:55. 5.5:: :5 55:55. Ems: 5>5: 5: 55.2.: 55 :. 5555.55 :55:
wiow 5:.55» 5:35.58 :5.:5:5w5> 25: :5» 55:3 :5 .585... 5.: .5 w:.5555 .555
.5555.5 .55: 5>.53 :55 5:55:w .0535 :5 :5.:5:5w5> 555.5 55 .538» 5: 5:55.: 55 :. 55555.5 .535
.5w:5 5555555. ..5 55.: :5. 58:: :5w 9.53 555:5 5:5: 32w 5? .5: 5:55: 55 5: 5:5 5. 5:5,: .:5 55:5: :5 .555 .85.:
585... E55: 55.8.55: 5: 5: 555: .555 :55 :55. 58:: 5:5 555:5 :55 5.55 . 5.: :5 55555.5 .555 ..5 :55 555.8. 55555:. 5M5.~5\
5:8...5 55525:. 55.5 5...... ”55:5... 5.:5w:5.:5z 55:55 55 555.95 55:5... :5535: 5.58.5.3. 55:55:55
.3
35 58:: :5. 5 5.. 5.55 . 5m .3 58:5 5.5... 55 5. 5:88:55
5:55: 5:5 55558.5 :. :55 :55: 55 55.: 555: :.:5.5 .:5:5: . 5.55: 355. 8: 5.5 5.555358 5:5 5:w.5 :55: 55:55.
:5 5555.535 .:5 5.55. 5:55. 5:55.. ..5 8. 5 :. 555555 5: 5>5: 5.553 . 5: :55 55555.5 5:5 5:555 5: 558:5: 55355
55535:: 5:5 555:5:535 :5>535: 5:58 :555 555: 55.8: . :55 .55 5.553 . 55:5 .5585: 5:5 55:55. 58555.5 5:5 555:.
5555555. 55535:. 5.5.... ”5:55... 5.:5w:5..:5Z 5: 535 5. 5: 5:55 5:25“. 55:5 58:5 w:.::55.. totuuzhm
55:52 5:55:53 53% =5.::.:=m\5Q 535.:

 

 

 

 

 

 

55:55.55. 55555.5 .555. 8.: :55: 5: 55.855 55.3. 5-5 5.5.58

43

 

5:55..
.5 55.555895 5:5 @593
85.55: 55535:. 5.:...

5:5.

55: :5: 8558: a. 555.5 55: 5:55: :38... 5>.53
555555: :53. 5. “55555.5. :55 .5 :5. 5 5.55 . Sm
”58:5... 2:595:57.

52:58 5

8.: a: 5.55.58» w:.::55 :5: 5:5 :55: 555: 55.5555
55.: 5:5 .8 5:552:25: 5:: 5: 85555 5.555.
”55:55. 5.:5w:0

.8558: 55:5 55:5>.5

5 :85 5.55: 55:5 85:5
..55 5: 58.55.8585

:5 555:5: 55

:5 5:58:85 58:5,: 55.

5.55:
55:5 5:5 ..55 5558::
8558: 55:5 55:5>.5 <

25:35.: QED

 

.5..55 :55 a. :w55:5
:w.: 5.5>5. .5558 :55 @8555. 5:5 8:58:

5:555 :. 5555:555

 

 

555.558 ::5E5w5:5:: ::m.: 5 5: 5.55: 5.5: ..5 523 £5.55: 5:5 :5 5.55: 55:5 5558:: 5.55:

..55 555555.: 5:255: 5:55 :55 55:555m. .H55555.5 .5w:5. 55555850 5.3 5..55 53:55: :5 55:5 55585:. ..55
5525:. :5: 5555 5....5 ”:5::5... 5.:5w:0 5.:5.> 55:5.5: 55:5,. 555 55.55: 5 w:.:.5::.5$. 55:55 .355:
55:52 5~§Rm 53M =5.S=N\5Q gwtk

 

 

 

 

 

 

52.5355 .5-.. 2...;

44

information & Communication Channels
Vibrant community is essential. If the community is fragmented into isolated groups
and individuals, the diversity can easily become a source of prejudice and friction.
But if the community is aware of the interdependence of all its members, diversity
will enrich all the relationships and thus enrich the community as a whole, as well as
each individual member. In such a community information and ideas flow freely
through the entire network, and the diversity of interpretations and learning system -
even the diversity of mistakes — will enrich the entire community.
(Fritjof Capra, 1996)

Information disseminates through communication channels such as interpersonal
and media (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). The private sector channel includes all
enterprises not run by state or federal agencies that collect profits. These channels are
financially invested. Public sector channels, on the other hand, include all entities run by
the state or federal agencies. Cooperatives are “a special type of business firm owned and
operated for mutual benefit by the users (member-patrons). Actual management is by
salaried professionals. The interests of the members are represented by an elected board
of directors” (Rhodes, 1983). All communication channels are limited because no person
is unbiased and omniscient. Therefore, when a farmer seeks information or advice for a
particular problem from a single channel, the information he receives and ultimately his
solution options will be limited. When a farmer synthesizes information from a diversity
of channels, he is more likely to identify potential solutions and tailor it to a specific
problem. The following section describes the communication channels utilized by
farmers. It is divided into the private, public and cooperative sectors. How these
channels influence a farmers’ decision is also discussed. Throughout the following

discussion, the farmer who has both non-organic and organic fields is included with the

respective group, but his responses are displayed separately in Table 4-6c to show how

45

his communication channels varied depending on his management strategy, organic or
non-organic.

Ninety-two percent of non-organic farmers mentioned Michigan State University
Extension (MSUE), part of the public sector, as their primary channel of information
(Table 4-6a). Most of these farmers, however, do not meet with MSUE educators on a
regular basis. As one farmer explained, “I very seldom talk to a county agent. They
seemed to be quite unreliable when I started farming. Maybe they’re better now, but
they’re not really set up for specific questions.” Farmers primarily interact with MSUE
by using the 2010 Weed Control Guide for Field Crops (Sprague & Everman, 2010)
which provides details for herbicide, fungicide and fertilizer rates. Farmers also attend
research meetings where they accrue restricted-use pesticides (RUPs) points. Winter
grower meetings and summer field days are typically focused on non-organic variety
trials, chemical pest management strategies and potential new pests (personal
observation). There are very few if any research reports that venture beyond managing
the individual components of a farm.

The sugarbeet affiliates, consisting of MSU (public), Sugarbeet Advancement
(public and private hybrid sector) and Michigan Sugar Company (private cooperative),
were the second most mentioned communication channel (76%). While discussing
sugarbeet advisors, the farmers grouped these three organizations together. The farmers
were more interested in information related to sugarbeets than institutional frameworks.
All three of these organizations are bound by the production practice parameters set forth
by the sugarbeet industry. The parameters are passed onto the farmer, and they include

approved seed varieties and agrochemicals. The cooperative agronomist recommends

46

fertility rates and agrochemicals to the farmers. All sugarbeets must be produced by the
industry’s standards. The agronomist’s recommendations are stricter, and often more
expensive, with regards to fertility rates and agrochemical applications. Therefore, if the
farmer abides by the agronomist’s recommendations he will receive a price premium.
The primary ways farmers interact with these organizations is through local Michigan
Sugar fieldman and sugarbeet website, yearly meetings and BEETcastTM. All of these
provide the farmer with up to date sugarbeet production protocols. BEETcastTM,
however, is actively used throughout the growing season because it calculates disease
severity levels (DSVs) and informs farmers when Cercospera beticola Sacc., leaf spot, is
prone to develop (Weather Innovations Incorporated, 2007). BEETcastTM is broadcasted
on its own monitor to all subscribers. All ten interviewed sugarbeet farmers subscribe.

We use the BEE TcastTM... It’s actually on the Michigan Sugar Company

website and based on temperature and humidity conditions you will

accumulate points and when you accumulate so many points now it ’s time

to spray. And it’s different in every [area]. Our area is typically one of

the spot areas where the Cercospera is a little bit worse. And so based on

historical perspective that model is designed to push us to spray a little bit
sooner than some of the areas where it’s not usually seen as intense.

Sugarbeet farmers depend on BEETcast"M when judging whether or not a fungicide
application is appropriate (Theme: Lifts burden; Faith in agrochemicals). Many of the
farmers appreciate BEETcast and other predictive models because it eliminates the fear
of unnecessarily applying fungicides, which are expensive.

The farmers perceive the fungicides as necessary to prevent pathogenic fungi, but
the effectiveness of many of the products is unclear.

You know you ’re always looking for stuff I know we went to spraying the

wheat in the last few years, but it seems like that has helped us a lot with

some of the diseases on the wheat. 0n the beans, that’s still up in the air.

This year I still plan on spraying and running some checks again, but if I
don ’t see results. [Themez Farmer initiative] One of my friends, he really

47

believes it ’s variety selection and I almost think he is right. When it comes
to beans if you get one that is healthy from the get go it doesn’t need
fungicides to help it out. It’s got the plant health to get through to make
the yields. Corn we have tried fungicides on corn we didn ’t see any results
on it. You know a bushel, bushel and a half that ’s not economically
feasible. You might as well take that bushel loss.
As this farmer’s experience portrays fungicides are not always effective tools. This is

partly due to the lack of breadth of pathogenic fungi research. Some fungal pathogens

found in field crops today are not currently identified at the species level] I. The
fungicides, therefore, are not species specific and may be ineffective on some fungi. The
communication channels these farmers utilize, however, continue to promote fungicides
as the solution because they are directly applied to the symptomatic component of the
system.

The next two channels non-organic farmers frequently consult are Cooperative
Elevators (69%) and private sector representatives (69%). Both of these channels are part
of the private sector; both sell agricultural products. Cooperative elevators also store and
market commodities. The Cooperative Elevator Company is a private cooperative that
has served Michigan’s Thumb region since 1915. It has approximately S00
member/owners. The services the cooperative provides includes agronomy consulting,
marketing, storage, processing, seed, feed, fuel, fertilizer, herbicides, and agricultural
chemicals (Monsanto Company, 2009). The private sector representatives also sell
agrochemicals, seeds and fertilizers. They are often affiliated with chemical, seed or
fertilizer companies. Since each company is organized differently, a farmer maybe in

correspondence with a salesman, consultant or researcher on a regular basis.

 

H Correspondence with Dr. George Bird, Department of Entomology, Michigan State University.
48

These channels fill roles or carry out specialized tasks farmers are not able to
complete because of time or money constraints. For example, chemical salesmen are
paid to research and learn the ins and outs of their company’s newest products. The
salesman’s ability to explain to a farmer how he will benefit from the product and why
the product is better than the competitor’s products eliminates the need for the farmer to
research the new chemicals available each year. Instead of “spend[ing] days figuring out
all of this stuff,” the farmer is able to devote his time to other tasks (Theme: Lifts
burden). Private sector assistance, however, can come with a price. This may be
monetary or frustration (Theme: Cost of advisor). If a farmer prefers his fertilizers to be
variable rate applied by the local cooperative, he will save money by not having to
purchase the equipment, but he may become frustrated if the cooperative does not apply
the fertilizers in a timely manner (Theme: Unsatisfactory advisor). At least three farmers
described a similar scenario during this research. Farmers may also find after they
become accustomed to a product, the cost for the product dramatically increases. For
example, release of GR-sugarbeets was limited in 2008. Sugarbeet farmers who were
spraying herbicides approximately five times during a season as well as cultivating
around their beets were excited to adopt GR-varieties. These varieties promised reduced
chemical applications and higher sugar contents. After one year of growing GR-beets,
the technology fees for using the patented varieties began to increase. “Nobody dreamed
that it would end up costing us as much per acre as what our weed control programs were
before” (Theme: Cost of advisor). There was a significant undercurrent of
disgruntlement in many of the interviews, particularly when we discussed the monetary

cost of these GR-crops.

49

Table 4-6a. Non-organic growers’ communication channels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-
Communication organic
Sector Channels (n=l3) Modes of Advice
Public MSU Extension 92% Weed Control Guide for Field Crops ’r
Field Crop and Agrochemical Research Meetings
Public MSU 76% Regulates Production of Sugarbeet
. Sugarbeet Research Reporting Sessions
Hybrid i:%fi::ment Growers’ Guide for Producing Quality Sugarbeetsi
Michigan Sugarbeet Variety Trial Results it
Private Michigan Sugar Michigan Sugar Company Website
Cooperative Company F ieldman BEETcastTM (Disease Warning Model)
& Agronomist
Private Cooperative 69% Scouts for Pests
Cooperative Elevators Agrochemical Custom Applications
Agronomists, Soil Tests (Site Specific) & Fertility
Fieldmen & Recommendations
Salesmen Variable Rate Fertilizer Applications
Private Private Sector 69% Farm Visits
Representatives" Soil Tests & Fertility Consultations
Agrochemical Consultations
On-site Seed Trials
Public NRCS 23% No-till Management Equipment
Private Independent 8% Soil Tests
Consultant "“'
Private Other Farmers 0
Private Educational/ Non- 0 (not for profit)
Profit Meetings

 

*This group includes seed, agrochemical, fertilizer, and machinery salesmen

"These advisors do not sell agricultural inputs, but they provide services (e.g. soil testing).
T (Sprague & Everman, 2010)

1 (Michigan Sugar Company, 2009)
TT(Michigan Sugarbeet Research & Education Advisory Council (REACH), 2009)

50

 

Table 4-6b. Organic growers’ communication channels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Communication Organic
Sector Channels (n=9) Modes of Advice
Private Other Farmers 78% Personal Communications
Private Private Sector 67% Soil Tests & Fertility Recommendations
Representative“ On-site Seed Trials
(two strictly organic representatives mentioned)
Public MSU Extension 44% Personal Communications with Agent
(two agents mentioned)
Private Independent 33% Soil Testing & Fertility Recommendations
Consultant ** (one consultant mentioned)
Private Educational/Non 33% Michigan Organic Conference (MOFFA)
Profit Meetings Midwest Organic & Sustainable Education
Services (MOSES)
Public MSU 0 (Organic farmers do not grow sugarbeets)
Hybrid Sugarbeet
. Advancement
Private
Cooperative Michigan Sugar
Company
Fieldman &
Agronomist
Private Cooperative O
Cooperative Elevators
Agronomists,
F ieldmen &
Salesmen
Public NRCS O

 

*This group includes seed, agrochemical, fertilizer, and machinery salesmen
"These advisors do not sell agricultural inputs, but they provide services (e.g. soil testing).

51

 

Table 4-6c. Multiple system grower’s communication channels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Multiple
Systems
Sector Advisors (n=l) Modes of Advice
Private Other Farmers 100% Personal Communication
(Organic advice)
Public MSU Extension 100% Weed Control Guide for Field Crops T
Field Crop and Agrochemical Research Meetings
(Non-organic advice)
Private Cooperative 100% Agrochemical Consultations
Cooperative Elevators Soil Tests & Fertility Recommendations
Agronomists, (Non-organic advice)
Fieldmen &
Salesmen
Public MSU 100% Regulates Production of Sugarbeet
Hybrid Sugarbee t Growers Gunde for Producmg Quality Sugarbeetsx
Advancement Michigan Sugarbeet Variety Trial Results it
Private Michigan Sugar Company Website
Cooperative Michigan Sugar BEETcast“M (Disease Warning Model)
Company (Non-organic advice)
Fieldman &
Agronomist
Private Private Sector 100% On-site Seed Trials
Salesmen" (one salesman mentioned)
(Non-organic advice)
Public NRCS 0
(national)
Private Independent 0
Consultant
Private Educational/Non- 0 (not for profit)
Profit Meetings

 

 

 

 

 

*This group includes seed, agrochemical, fertilizer, and machinery salesmen
T(Sprague & Everrnan, 2010)

fi(Michigan Sugar Company, 2009)

1(Michigan Sugarbeet Research & Education Advisory Council (REACH), 2009)

52

Non-organic farmers adOpt chemicals in most cases based on the price of the
chemical, the relative ease of application and if it works. To encourage farmers to try
new chemicals, company representatives use multiple tactics including awards, freebees
and trips. During an interview with a non-organic farmer, we discussed his loyalty to a
particular chemical company. When asked why he began working with the company he
said, “The salesman was really good. He took us on pheasant hunting trips” (Theme:
Gifts). Throughout the interviews, farmers told similar stories about their first
experiences with a private sector representative and their continued loyalty to the
company. Farmers also said they typically change companies only after they are given
“great deals” on a competitor’s product and they believe they will benefit economically
by changing.

The organic farmers did not mention any gifts from the two private sector
representatives they consult. Instead, they remarked on the useful information they
acquired that was outside the scope of their purchases.

We 've got a farm back here a half mile and I’ve seen dry beans that were

this wide and this tall with white mold on them. And 1 mean I saw it. And

you know traditionally 1 think of white mold coming in when the crop is

completely canopied and you just can ’t get that air in there. And in the

first year or two we went organic we went up and talked to a guy that’s

been organic for 15 or 20 years. And we were talking about white mold

and this and that and his comment, and I ’11 never forget this, “if you get

white mold in your beans you’ve got something out of balance. You ’re not

doing things right. ” And this guy sells micro-nutrients, organic fertilizer.

You know he made that comment and two years ago we had some 50

bushel black beans. Probably the best beans we’ve ever grown

conventional or organic. I don 't know. We didn’t have any white mold in

those.

The organic farmer values the exchange of new information that can be readily used on

the farm. In fact, many of the organic farmers were skeptical of the GM-crops and

53

agrochemicals. As one young organic farmer said, “I personally don’t know a whole lot
about the glyphosate seeds and what they’re all doing. In my opinion, I don’t think it’s
needed. Just seeing what we do and what kind of yields we’re getting, I don’t think
GMO crops are a necessity like everybody else thinks” (Theme: Skeptical of
agrochemicals). The two private sector representatives that organic farmers
communicate with both work strictly with organics. This channel of information,
therefore, likely lacks information on agrochemicals and GM-crops.

The most significant difference between the non-organic and organic
communication channels stems from the non-organics reliance on agronomical science-
based channels and organic farmer’s preference for experience-based channels. The
organic farmers interviewed utilize other farmers (78%), two private sector organic
representatives (67%) and MSUE (44%) the most (Table 4-6b). Seven growers said their
primary channel of communication is other organic producers. The following passage
was taken from an organic farmer’s response when asked who he seeks pest management
advice from:

Other farmers. We obviously watch our crops ourselves and determine if

we have a problem [T heme: Observations]. If we do then we talk to

people like [organic consultants] And once and a while you’ll talk to

someone in the industry that will ofler solutions. But our first recourse is

other organic farmers that may be have had the same problems. 0r

[organic consultants who] consult with a lot of other farmers and often

times sees and recognizes problems before anybody else would.

This case exemplifies how organic farmers prefer to seek advice from multiple people
with on-farm experience as well as monitor the farm themselves. One reason organic

farmers gravitate towards one another for advice rather than the scientific community is

partly out of necessity and partly due to their previous experiences. It is a necessity

54

because there is little organic field crop research currently conducted at Michigan State
University”. The farmers say there is only one MSUE agent in the state that makes an

effort to support organic farmers. Some organic farmers have completely lost faith in
MSU and MSUE for these reasons, as well as previous experiences where the farmer felt
MSU did not have the organic farmer’s best interest in mind. The Michigan Organic
Conference put on by Michigan Organic Food and Farming Association is held on
MSU’s East Lansing campus. This conference is one of the few MSU affiliated events
the organic farmers interviewed plan to attend each year. All other MSU winter meetings
are non-organically focused so they choose not to attend.

Organic farmers did not mention the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) as a main channel. This was unexpected because many of the organic farmers
participate in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQUIP) which rewards
farmers monetarily for using organic practices. The organic farmers may, however, not
perceive this relationship as a main source of information because NRCS requires
farmers to follow the USDA organic standards. Since the organic farmers already adhere
to or exceed the standards the NRCS is not providing new information to them.

Control over how the farm is managed is central to the way organic farmers
function. They seek advice through multiple communication channels, but they
ultimately synthesize their findings, assess their own situation and then formulate a
management plan specific to their problem (Theme: Observations & Farmer initiative).

Self reliance is key to the strategies employed by the organic farmers. Organic farmers

 

'2 At MSU’s Kellogg Biological Station there are less than ten organic field crop experiments all
of which are focused on seed trials and weed control
(www.covercropsmsu.edu/organic/indexhtml).

55

value new information, which is why they utilize multiple communication channels, but
they are extremely selective in where they get the information and if they use the advice.
These results identify some of the differences between the types of

communication channels used by organic and non-organic farmers. Organic farmers
prefer ecosystem oriented experience-based channels while non-organic farmers tend to
rely on mechanistic oriented expert-based channels. The mutual interactions and shared
understandings are the base of the organic facilitative channels (Kloppenburg, 1991;
Morgan & Murdoch, 2000; Roling & Jiggins, 1994). In other words, the organic farmers
consult advisors with on-farm experience who have knowledge about the interconnected
components of the farm. They provide broad strategies for remediating a problem. The
non-organic farmers, on the other hand, mainly consult highly specialized advisors who
provide narrow tactics for specific problems. Solutions for the symptomatic parts of the
system identified which supports the linear systems management approach. Ultimately,
the type of communication and information channels the farmer seeks out reinforces his

understanding and perception of the farm system.

56

 

30255
53.50 cm: 8 cofimsmnog

.2639

a 28 maoxuamaow 03 Ho» $5 .50 6:33

a 8m 03 :5 J32 magmas : =8 _ .382
xSnEoo :05 .83 35 new o\o_ N B>o ma?
88:8 Ema So :5 .203 :8 E 5 we: 03

.EE 33w ~83?“
5 9b do 65.5 .3mb b3

.EmBa no 5w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no $th 2m 82? costar." o_§w._o-coz 95:58 5E3; a :23» a 5:5». 83m 8233. .259
.Eefl m3
.moowofia .3 EoEowflaE 05 S>o
EoEowflaa :05 75:8 £5852: SEE
.m_mo_Eo;oo&a mo 3288?. ..EE So» .8 8:03 8:3 So ca: 8 022 so» 5 3302: 98 £833 ”228208532
£3 mm .o 5 55 022. 8:83 3.58 FEE co 5 03:3 DEE H 23. 883-0335 285 3:3 .mSmgum 95635
3:388: 8: meow 888m noctmm omenwnoéoz 3 use 26: 8686 $8.8m 883-0625 £83820 $5ka
.mEoBEQ 208$ng
.39: 2t .3 cm use 038 8 WEB—conga? 8: 49.80305 “men
.255 £5 E 39:05 03 cm :2: =m 350382 bung—m $38088 8 mafia o: 35 8:95 038 8 flangesoonwm MNQREEKQOLMQ
22> mousoma EoEowm—EE ”no—ES 2530.82 .0 83m 583% 5:3 26: so 8:3. 5 5.5K
.25; 2 022 race _ .3265 GEwo—occoB
.5820: 2: $65. a: m: SE :8 _ : .uoNtoEoE 35:31? >6: wanna...—
Hoofimwzm was $£Eo=o~wm : mm: o: .xoon 18:55 new .2280 coo? .EoEowecaE bfitfl
Bushman. JESSE? bo>o $65. 85 828 20:3 b: 2: 5:3 .wccmoa =8 .w3 too: a .v—ms
no.3 wig—2: 3882? am can o>._ 233 05 .«o “no: 2t 5. 2.: no 533 a 8832? uofififioam 2:8 owmcaE
€833 Bug—Em Emsvfi :5 $3533 no “2 a 53> a: 38. 9 .2 a 32 _ ozuflcomoaoe $99: 8 ~83?“ >5an an ac .SELQKEQ.‘
=m 8 829% 0:: £5. 5:5“. figwnoéoz 2: mafia. SEEM so; be. 8 8805 558m «3355 wt:
332 figs“ ~32 233$va SSEK

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mfiofinfio 83825888 .muoBEw now US“ 8 3:9? 83% Sun uZuh.

57

 

.0880
0: wEEB 00: 08 088.5

.3
05 00 0:0 080 88: >05 0:0 T80 :00 3 00 00

.=_.::.._ 00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

85 8050085880: 300 0 E 80% >85 0088.0 05 50:00 _ .08: _ 030:: 83 000.300 8 :05 88:5 05 «0 8000 x8336
85205 00—0 0:: 88m 2890.002 0.80 0 :0 $8558 888.,— 05 808 00 0:5 000330 AKQBQWCGED
848808 >8> 0.: 0m .880
2: 00.0 .000 :08 283:0 000.3 0.: 080583
.00 880 020 58.5 08 00.50:: b: :0
85.8.”— 2890.002
.0838 :0 5:5 mac—.53
80300 05 .m...:0. and: 0. E. 80.00:. 3.08. .3. .m.:0.0.._0_05 53, 00008008 0000 800.300 5:: Q5503
00 85.80 05 858 2.88: 30:8 03 .2 880 880 :80 ov 0 0: 02M 8.; 8005008 00 50:08 0 :0 5:: 00008008 380 x9533:
:00 08.8w; 5:. 88... 3:080:02 38888 8:80 0 8:3 3:050:00 0:0 b80002 \0 860
.088—
08005 :00 65:50: 00 88:8. .00 >530 05 .000w
”30—03 :00 :0 080.500 958. was 0>0= 800 :05 :8: 0008 00:00 .80
:38: 00: 5:0 3:8: b0> 9:0: 8 50008000 :00 AN :0 005200. 080 05 05 :0 08: 0800.20
8:085 0:890 u: 0_ 8005.0 .Bamonabw 00 8:00:08 05. .. 00: 2 08 0.8588080 .8500 032508080 33550039530
05 5:: 80—0: 850 m_ “it. 8:8“— 0_8w00 005 8030 88m 3000:: 05 80585 \0 333.854
808800 08:88qu .08050305
505205 00: 08 .085 0.803 wEfiE 00 02.5 0:5 0 .00 0808 05
0:80 85 830888080 000 00 95:80 8.0: :30 b: 5 0:0 0: 00 00.: _ 0.2 83030 00:08 00:80 055880 00 0:02:05
.8800. 083i 888...: 2:85 0: 38 88.8% 0 8:3 5:0 3:08 8:8,: Batuimhemv
.832 85:00am 03% zagamxvfi .082R

 

 

 

 

 

 

8:22:00 .3 03.;

58

Soil Qualgv' Indicators

When we observe the environment, we necessarily do so on only a limited range
of scales; therefore, our perception of events provides us with only a low-
dimensional slice through a high-dimensional cake
(Levin, 1992)

The term soil quality embodies the interactions and balance between the physical,
chemical and biological attributes of soil (Doran & Parkin, 1994; Karlen et al., 1997).
Romig et al. (1995) developed a soil health scorecard for Wisconsin farmers based on
their knowledge of soils. Over the past six years, Cornell’s Soil Health Program Work
Team has developed soil measurements farmers can use to help monitor soil health in
both space and time (Cornell University, 2007). The following results build off the
Romig et al. and Comell’s Soil Health Program work. This research begins to
differentiate which visual indicators non-organic, no-till and organic farmers use to assess
soil quality, and relates it to their worldviews.

Farmers described the visual cues they use to identify a healthy from an unhealthy
soil. Responses were divided into six groups. The first three are components of soil
quality; the physical, chemical and biological attributes defined by Doran and Parkin
(1994). The second three are crop health, organic matter and no visual indicators (Table
4-8; defined in Table 4-9). Physical attributes include, but are not limited to references to
water retention, soil texture and aggregate size. Cation exchange capacity (CEC), pH and
carbon content are chemical attributes. The biological attributes consist of microbial
biomass, soil respiration and weeds as indicators. Crop health, organic matter and no
visual indicators were separated from the three defined attributes for the following

reasons. Organic matter is unique because it fimctions in all three aspects of soil quality,

physical, chemical and biological realms. Crop health is not a soil quality attribute, but

59

over half of all farmers use crop health to determine the relative health of a soil. Romig
et al. (1995) also found soil organic matter and crop health as the top two ways farmers
assess soil health. The last category, No Visual Indicators, includes responses in which
the farmer says he does not use visual indicators. This is significant to keep track of
because it may be a sign of loss of soil knowledge in a particular agricultural community.
With the exception of soil organic matter, the results shows little difference
between the types of visual indicators non-organic, non-organic no-till and organic
farmers use to evaluate soil health (Table 4-8). Farmers from all three groups use
physical and chemical attributes to assess the soil in the field: referenced by 92% of non-
organic, 100% non-organic no-till and 100% organic. Biological attributes are less
commonly used by the farmers to assess soil quality: 54% of non-organic, 100% non-
organic no-till and 67% organic. Finally, organic matter content is primarily referenced
by organic and non-organic no-till farmers (100%, 50% respectively) and rarely
referenced by non-organic farmers (31%). This finding does not mean the non-organic
farmers did not acknowledge soil organic matter during the interview. In fact, non-
organic farmers frequently mentioned organic matter when describing their soil tests. It
was not, however, a common practice to infer a relationship between organic matter
content and the quality of the soil. “We rely a lot on soil tests too to get the pH and
organic matter and balancing all of that out.” Whereas the organic farmers and one non-
organic no-till farmer drew strong connections between soil organic matter and soil
quality. Most non-organic farmers used crop health as their primary indicator of soil
health while organic farmers used it as a secondary or tertiary indicator. The order or

ranking of attributes is useful to identify which soil attributes farmers are most familiar

6O

Table 4-8. Soil quality indicators used by growers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Management
Non-
Non- organic Multiple
Visual Indicators of Soil organic No-till systems Organic
Quality (n=11) (n=2) (n=1) (n=9)
Physical Attributes 91% 100% 100% 100%
Chemical Attributes 91% 100% 100% 100%
Biological Attributes 45% 100% 0 67%
Crop Health 63% o o 55%
Organic Matter 27% 50% 100% 100%
No Visual Indicators 18% 0 0 0
Emergent Themes
Feed the Soil 9% 50% 100% 55%*
Feed the Crop 18%" 0 0 0

 

*Farmer responses were only counted under this theme if Feed the Soil was descriptively or explicitly
mentioned. If management practices were included, 100% of organic farmers would fall in this

category.

“Farmer responses were only counted under this theme if Feed the Crop was descriptively or
explicitly mentioned. If management practices were included, 100% of non-organic farmers would fall

in this category.

61

 

with, but the depth and breadth of their responses indicates a fundamental difference that
is not apparent through a ranking system.

During the interviews, it was readily apparent the organic and non-organic no-till
farmers were highly versed when it came to describing soil quality attributes compared
with the non-organic farmers. For example, one organic farmer took nine minutes to
describe how he determines if a soil is healthy, while the conversation with many of the
non-organic farmers involved a four to five word list of indicators. The non-organic no-
till farmers often stressed the improved structure and permeability of the soils, which
relates to their use of cover crops. The discourse with the organic farmers commenced
with soil assessment practices but quickly expanded into a focus on soil development and
health. These farmers emphasized the soil’s value; something many of the farmers
realized they were not cognizant of when they farmed non-organically. “I think we pay
more attention to soil now than we used to. We’re trying to help the soil not just use it as
a pot to grow something in.” The decision to provide for the soil and improve the process
in which nutrients are supplied to the plant differs from the non-organic methods in
which readily available nutrients are believed to be supplied directly to the crop. Half of
the organic farmers explicitly used the concept of “feed the soil” during the interviews
(Tables 4-8 & 4-9); while the other half put the concept into action with their
management practices. For example, when an organic farmer was asked how he
managed soil fertility he answered “Green manures, you know, plow downs, clover in the
rye, chicken manure. We use some compost, and then just crop rotations.” The process
of building the soils through the addition of green manures and slow releasing composts

is a way of feeding the soil. The farmer knows that the results of the practice are not

62

immediate, but he chooses this practice because he perceives the farm as a system in
which nourishing the beneficial relationships between the system components to
encourage appropriate system feedback.

Complex systems involve relationships between the parts of a system and the
system can feed back onto itself (Odum, 1983; Wessels, 2006). These feedback loops
make the system unpredictable. Feedback is described as positive or negative. Negative
feedback maintains the status quo and positive feedback keeps the system moving in the
direction it is already going. The organic farmer’s decision to feed the soil, as opposed to
feeding the crop, is an action that acknowledges the farm as a complex system. By
encouraging a healthy relationship between the soil and crop, the farmer strives for long
term benefits in terms of crop yield and quality. The act of feeding the complex system is
unique in that many farmers, including most of the non-organic farmers interviewed,
based on the discussion below tend to perceive the farm as a linear system.

In a linear system, the parts always follow the exact same sequences of
interactions (Wessels, 2006). A linear system can be cyclical. The system is predictable
because it lacks feedback loops. Non-organic farmers frequently perceive and manage
their farms with a linear system framework. They are keenly aware of the individual
parts of the farm, particularly chemical attributes, and manage those parts intensely.
“Feeding the crop” refers to a farmer’s goal of providing for a specific component of the
system. He anticipates the sequence of processes will proceed in a predictable fashion
after he supplies the nutrients. With respect to management practice, this is exhibited in
many of the non-organic farmers’ meticulous management of nutrient inputs and crop

outputs. As one non-organic farmer said,

63

Yeah, just how productive it is. And of course you have to, we do test for

numerous different things and it gives the level of it and that ’s what we go

by. Because you ’re going to plant a crop and it ’s going to remove so

many pounds of this ingredient. And the test will say what you have and

what ’s available. That’s a big part of it. What is available like this year,

you know.
This farmer established a benchmark for the minimum inputs required to produce a
profitable crop. Since he operates the farm as a linear system, he knows that the process
of nutrient absorption to crop yield is a predictable one. And as long as he reaches the
nutrient benchmark the system will likely proceed in a predictable fashion.

How each farmer chooses to manage his farm suggests either a linear or complex
systems approach to management. Many of the organic farmers viewed the farm as a
complex system of interrelated parts where management practices centers on the healthy
relationships and the encouragement of appropriate system feedback. And many of the
non-organic farmers perceive the farm as a linear system where the parts usually react to
stimuli in a predictable manner. Neither of these perspectives is right or wrong, per se,

but the differences in how these worldviews relate to management practices is useful to

know as we strive for more sustainable agricultural management practices.

64

 

.22.. :. 9.8.5.
.888 Em: .808 .8 28.
.88 8% .828: .888

 

 

 

 

 

888 4.8% .888 .8w8. ...8 Ana: .8
...8 8:5... 88: $25088 :. 822.8: 2 8:88 05 8 5.8.. 05 82.8: 8 3:8”. .3 .8288: mm
.28. .888: $5.8: 89. .. .0880 .3 =8 :8 so» .88 2.: 8 880 88 .22» .582. .880 2.28.. :8 8 8828.
.808 8.8.0:. 8...:axm ”8&8... 2:88-82 88 8888: $8888m :a mm :8: m. 5.8.. 8:0 «3:8: Q05
8:85
25 2 8.3.0:. 08 83.:
.80» $583 :25 8
88.2 28:28:. 8:838
o...... 89:28. 8 8.83 .982. 228a.
6:88:88 £28298.— .m.8m 05 2 :o wsom 285 8.238: 882:8 .5288... a. 58D .3 85.8:
:8 .8885 8.88.2 -828 05 :o 8. a :88: o: 03 8.8.8: a m< m2 .8 8:8 :. 2.8 2: 8 8229.88 :8 83922V
8.8.0:. 88:88.1”. 858... ......62 8288: 85.5 a 8:3 .8 $882.82 82885 NBQNMSSM
#8: is:
.88 85 .8 ..m 88:23 :5 8:2: 2:38 882:8 82:88 a. :88. .3 85.8:
8880 U ...... :8 ma 2: 8w 9 :8 $8. :8 8 8. a be: 03 m2 .8 8:3 :. 2.8 2.. 8 828:3 ..om 8:3..th
.85 8.8.8:. 88:85. 8:8... 2:88-82 8288: 888.. a 8:3 .8 $8828. 8252.0 ESEmfiU
#8: :28
38 .2 =8 882:8 .889... 8 88C .3 85.8:
Sawflwwa .83on 62:88: 85 2.8:: .02: a: 8.88 :8 05 com 8 8... . m2 .8 8:8 :. 2.8 m... 8 828:3 ..om ...SzfixtV
883 8.5.0:. 8.88am 8:5“. 2:88-82 8288: 8:8,. a 8:3 .8 88:28:. .8293: Naumwxsm
.882 $5.393 83% 28.55th 828.:

 

 

 

 

 

 

88828:. 22.8.8 :8 8.. :8. 8 828% 8.3. 5-: 935.

65

 

.w-m 2......
:. :0880 8: 0... ....0m
0... :00 ...: w:.»...::.0x0

8.45%....
gal... .088... .8888 .808 8>8
.8» .8288: 8.8:. 2:88 .8... 80.5.2.8
=3 .8» 82.00.: ».....8. .8» 8 :02...
2.2... ..8 .0 .8828. .82> .... 0... 08....-

.288 2..
:00. 2.... :. ...... ..2..3 .8.m
0... 22.8: o. 2 .8w 28.

.808
»......0.. 8.2... o. .8800
.. =8 2.. .8882

 

 

 

 

 

 

82.00.: 80.8882 88.. 258.0 2.. a»... .08. a :25» .02... 2 ..8 0.... >8... 05 ~80...
...-m 2......
:. 8.88 8.. 0... 28.0 .2822: :8 8» 0m .8 NEE 2:28.: :0280. 2. 8.0
0... :00 ...: w:.»...::.0x0 2.03 mun...» «22:8 ......» 2.022... 8.03 om 0... ».::..m o. 2 .8w 2.8 2:22.... .288 o. 80.0
8288: 80:888.). ”.08". 2:88-82 2.. ...»..m .08. m 8.59 8. 8.8.: a 2 .8. 0....- Q98 0... Emmk
.... ...... 2.. 8...... .82. ....
.2808: 8 .8880 .888... .0 M38... ».. 82.08: 2.
2:8 ... .2238: 2.8 »......0.. 2.8 2.8 0. 8w ...... 0>.8> .o 8.28.. .88.: 2.2.8.. 2.8. a 0:888: 8.8.:
2. ..w... 2. 8:2: 0.82.0 8:8... 0.890 2588 0. 80:08.0. ..< o. :02. 2 .08.: 0.58.0 2.26%.: ...:M.
882 0.83M 03% 8.....38Q 0E0:

 

 

 

 

 

 

805.....50 .a-v 2......

67

Worldviews
The web of life is a flexible, ever-fluctuating network. The more variables are kept
fluctuating, the more dynamic is the system; the greater is its flexibility; and the
greater is its ability to adapt to changing conditions.
(Fritjof Capra, 1996)

The lens through which an individual interprets and interacts with the world is his
worldview. This is the foundation of a person’s beliefs, ideas and actions. The results of
this research show fundamental differences in worldviews between organic and non-
organic farmers. To further illustrate these findings, farmers were characterized based on
the following six emergent themes: fertility strategy (Feed the Crop or Feed the Soil),
pest management practices (chemical or mechanical), opinion of agrochemicals (Faith in
or Skeptical of), Communication Channels (Expert-based or Experience-based), soil
quality indicators (crop health, physical, biological, chemical, soil organic matter), and
systems approach (Linear or Complex). Farmer characterizations were arranged along a
continuum based on common perceptions and management practices. The farmers fell
into five groups ranging from Epitome of Non-organic to Epitome of Organic (Figure 4-
1). The representation of worldviews is limited because it is based solely on one
interview per respondent. Even with this limitation, organizing the data in this manner
allows for a more comprehensive understanding of how farmer worldviews translate to
preferred management tactics.

The participants grouped at the poles were the most steadfast in their respective
worldviews. These individual’s management practices and perceptions of the farm as a
system were extreme compared with the other 20 growers. One farmer was grouped

under the Epitome of Non-organic heading (Figure 4-2a). He was placed in this group

because throughout his both his management practices and perceptions of the farm

67

 

 

 

 

 

2%ch

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

0:530 25ch mfiom fianoz oEwwcoéoz oEmwcoéo Z
we 0:823 0552 mo oEozmm
Nuz on ouz mu Tz
Bummégm w . w ; ESNSSND
$8“ch “58%ng
5833??“

.Ezscwcoo noumwtowomamno 303283 538$ .Tv «...—arm

68

Figure 4-2a. Epitome of non-organic grower characterization details.

Epitome of Non-organic

 

 

N=1

Feed the Crop
Chemical Pest Mgmt
Faith in GM-Crops
Expert-based Channels
Chemical & Crop Health Indicators
Linear Systems Approach

 

 

 

69

Figure 4-2b. Non-organic growers’ characterization details.

Non-organic

 

 

=8

Linear Systems Approach
Feed the Crop
Chemical Pest Mgmt
Faith in GM-Crops
Chemical & Physical Indicators
Expert-based Channels

 

 

 

70

Figure 4-2c. Mixture growers’ characterization details.

Mixture:
No-Till, Both, Organic

 

N=6

Linear Systems Approach
Feed the Crop
Chemical Pest Mgmt
Faith in GM-Crops
Chemical & Physical Indicators
Expert-based Channels

 

 

 

71

Figure 4-2d. Organic growers’ characterization details.

Organic

 

N=6

Complex Systems Approach
Feed the Soil
Mechanical Pest Mgmt
Skeptical of GM-Crops
Biological & Physical Indicators
Experienced-based Channels

 

 

 

72

Figure 4-2e. Epitome of organic growers’ characterization details.

Iggitome of Organic

 

N=2

Feed the Soil
Mechanical Pest Mgmt
Skeptical of GM-Crops

Experienced-based Channels
Biological & SOM Indicators
Complex Systems Approach

 

 

 

73

aligned with the following emergent themes: feed the crop, chemical pest management,
faith in GM-crops, expert-based channels, chemical and crop health indicators and a
linear systems approach. The following passage illustrates his faith in GM—crops,
reliance on expert-based communication channels and use of a linear systems approach:

Atwood: Has there been a change in the amount of fungicides you use?

Grower: Oh yeah. I’ve always used them on the beets since I started

growing them. With the sugar beet advancement stuff that started they

were telling us to spray this stufl on the beets for the Cecrosperia, leaf

spot. So I ’ve been doing that all along. Then not only with the leaf

spot, but for these last half a dozen years 1 ’ve been moving into a product

for Rhizoctonia or whatever for the root rots and the crown rots and such,

which is the Quadris. There might be a few other products out there like

the .seed treatment that I haven’t been using, but nobody ’s really

recommended it to me. I asked about it and they said, ah no don ’t use it.

On the opposite side of the continuum from the Epitome of Non-organic is the Epitome of
Organic.

Two farmers were grouped under the Epitome of Organic characterization (Table
4-2e). These farmers’ management practices and perceptions of the farm system were
characterized as feed the soil, mechanical pest management, skeptical of GM—crops,
experience-based channels of communication, biological and soil organic matter soil
quality indicators, and a complex systems approach. The following passage was taken
from one of the farmers descriptions of how he manages pathogenic fungi on his farm. In
this passage his description of mechanically managing fungal disease is grounded in his

perception of the farm as a complex system.

The disease is part biology and part mechanical. 1 ’Il briefly take you down
my process of selecting open pollinated corn...

Among a whole bunch of other qualifiers, the ear has to be tipped
downward at maturity. The husk has to cover the entire ear, none of it can
protrude. Plus it also has to naturally loosen away fiom the ear. So it can
do its job which is act as an umbrella and drying room for the grain
inside. If the husk is too tight the moisture will stay in the ear and you can

74

get mold. And that can be systemic or just be environmental from not
having enough ventilation. Also the ear can ’t stick out because then you
have insect and bird damage and that creates a vectoring point for disease
which might not be systemic but just conditional, but it is still a problem in
food crop.

Along the continuum, this group was placed under the ecological management strategy
heading.

The group in between chemical and ecological management practices is
comprised of a mixture of perspectives and interpretations found among the interview
participants. The Mixture group contains six farmers with a diversity of agricultural
management strategies including one grower who practices non-organic no-till on some
fields; two growers who practice only non-organic no-till; the grower who has multiple
systems; and two growers who are organically certified (Table 4-20). All of these
farmers contradict themselves in that their management practices do not fully align with
their worldviews. This is exemplified in the following excerpts taken from a non-organic
no-till farmer who actively questions many of the agrochemicals he uses, but continues to
use them.

Grower: Sometimes I don’t like spraying everything, but I think if you do it
responsibly it ’s a big help and it 's a good tool to use if it ’5 used correctly.

 

Atwood: Have you observed any changes in your soils that you would
relate to the applications of glyphosate in your fields?

Grower: Well sometimes we wonder about some of the algae that are
growing on the soils, if it ’s killing them or not. I don’t know if there ’s been
much studies on that. As a no-tiller we do depend a lot on the micro-
activities that’s going on in the soils.

All farmers in this group actively question chemically-based management tactics and are

beginning to explore or think about ecological-based management tactics.

75

The final two groups in the characterization continuum, Organic and Non-
organic, are situated next to the Mixture group. All farmers in Organic practice organic
management strategies while all the growers in Non-organic use non-organic
management strategies. The differences between the three interior groups are subtle.
The following passages aid in distinguishing the Organic from the Non-organic group by
demonstrating the differences in how the farmers assess and describe soil quality.

Organic: Feel and smell. Smell really if you can smell it and it smells, like

when this was a chemical farm you’d work it the first time and it smelled

good. And after that there was no smell to it at all. If you go out there

right now and grab a handful even with it being wet it will smell and it will

smell the whole summer and winter and everything. And you can see a

healthy soil from the worm activity...And the way it reacts when you get a

lot of water. If your soil is in good condition it handles the water well even
in a drought.

Non-organic: I guess the easiest thing would be looking at the top of [ the
soil] and observing whether it looks like a road, flat and sealed off and
hard, compared to looking loose and you can see the grains of the dirt
instead of just being smooth, and then of course if there ’s something
growing, just how it’s growing. Plant health, that ’s big. I guess that ’s
really how I would look across the field

The organic farmer’s description of soil quality centers on the use of biological and
physical soil quality attributes whereas the non-organic farmer relies on physical
attributes and crop health. The soil quality indicators the farmers use reinforces their
fertility management strategies, either feed the soil or feed the crop. These farmers are
either on the cusp of grasping a complex systems approach or are in the beginning stages
of understanding this approach. This finding is central to this research because as
farmers begin to view the farm as a set of processes and relationships as opposed to parts,
the farmer is more apt to interpret the crops as an interdependent component of the farm
system. The crop has a relationship with the soils and with the surrounding plants. The
figure also shows that as a farmer moves towards a complex systems approach, he strives

76

to farm in a more ecologically sound way that includes nourishing the processes between
the soil and crops and the elimination of many agrochemical inputs because they interrupt
the system’s processes.

These results allow for interesting conclusions about how farmers’ worldviews
influence agricultural management practices. The focus of this research was initially on
the potential impacts of glyphosate and fungicides on soil quality and crop health. The
data show that non-organic farmers are experiencing higher rates of fungal disease in
their crops than the organic farmers. By asking farmers directly to describe their
observations, a story centered on differences in systems approaches to agricultural
management evolved. In the end, the results demonstrate how complex and linear
systems theory applies to organic and non-organic farmers. They show how farmers with
a broad understanding of the farm system processes are more likely to seek advice from
advisors with direct farming experiences and use more ecologically-based management
practices. This finding provides useful insights into the field crop farming community

that can be used as Michigan agriculture moves towards a sustainable system.

77

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS

The framework of ideas and values a farmer uses influences how he interprets and

interacts with the farm system. This research represents one way of characterizing farmer

worldviews with respect to management strategies, systems approaches, channels of

communication and soil knowledge in an effort to understand the differences in organic

and non-organic farmer’s worldviews. Characterization of the farmers was necessary to

further our understanding of non-organic and organic farmers’ worldviews.

Results provide insight into the management practices, soil knowledge and

preferred communication channels of the growers both individually and holistically

(Figure 3-1). The major findings of this research include:

1.

4.

Both non-organic farmers and organic farmers perceive improvements or no
change in the quality of their soils. Non-organic farmers identified
improvements in chemical and physical soil quality attributes. Organic
farmers say biological and physical soil quality attributes have improved.
Non-organic farmers observe a higher incidence of fungal disease than
organic farmers in the Thumb region. Organic farmers relate the absence of
disease to the healthy relationships within the farm system while non-organic
farmers identified etiologic system components.

Organic farmers are well versed, compared to the non-organic farmers, in soil
quality assessment. The soil quality attributes organic farmers use support the
feed the soil philosophy: soil organic matter, biological and physical
attributes. Whereas non-organic farmers mostly rely on soil quality attributes
that support the feed the crop philosophy: crop health, chemical, and physical.
Non-organic farmers prefer expert-based channels of communication;
whereas, organic farmers utilize experience-based channels. Each of these

channels reinforces the farmers’ perception of the farm as a system.

78

5. Organic farmers tend to perceive the farm as a complex system and non-
organic farmers tend to view it as a linear system. The system’s framework
the farmer uses influences his use of chemically or ecologically-based

management strategies.

The worldview characterization continuum (Figure 4-1) illustrates the gradient of
worldviews that exist within a close-knit rural agricultural community. The diversity of
worldviews gives rise to multiple management strategies and perceptions of the farm
system. Within this diversity is farmer-driven innovation. Rather than polarizing farmers
based on their management practices, fostering a shared appreciation among farmers with
differing worldviews will provide new outlets for the exchange of ideas, methods, skills
and innovations which can be used to improve all farms.

The dominant paradigm which accepts science in service to progress
(Yankelovich, 1991 ), historically, has propelled agriculture in terms of mechanization,
increased yields and the development of agrochemicals. These developments have aided
farmers in streamlining the production of crops and reduced the time required to manage
the farm system. This research, however, suggests a re-evaluation of this paradigm
including the notion that humans have authority over nature. Non-organic farmers who
use GM-crops, agrochemicals and perceived the farm as a linear system saw increased
incidence of fungal disease. Future research should explore the cause of this finding, and
farmers should use these results as a starting point for changing their management
strategies to reduce disease rates. Educators and researchers should also utilize these
findings as they construct new research projects and present findings to the agricultural
community. Identifying the appropriate communication channels for the dissemination

of this information will be among the first steps.

79

Ultimately, all farmers strive to be good stewards of the land. They all respect the
bounty of the earth and want to see it maintained or improved in productivity. They will
grasp the tools, skills and ideas that ensure they continue to have a viable farm. The

appropriate information, however, must be available for them to do it.

Future Resetflll

The research began with the purpose of determining if non-organic farmers and
organic farmers were observing similar rates of fungal disease and changes in soil health.
Disease surveys and soil quality studies should be conducted to determine if glyphosate is
compounding the observed deleterious changes or if absence of diverse crop rotations and
if the narrow row spacing are influencing the incidence of disease. It was evident during
the interviews that the non-organic and organic farmers’ responses were based on
extremely different understandings of how farm systems operate. This observation led to
a focus on differences in farmers’ worldviews and perceptions of the farm as a system.
The findings of the research should be used as a platform for future research.
Identification of all the key differences between non-organic and organic worldviews will
require refocusing the interview questions.

One way to further explore farmers’ worldviews is by learning more about their
educational backgrounds. Higher education can strongly influence worldviews (Schofer
& Meyer, 2005). During the interviews there were strong indications that the organic
farmers either pursued higher levels of education or had the opportunity to travel outside

the Thumb region for extensive periods of time. Farmers, however, were not explicitly

80

asked this question. This type of information would provide further insight into the
farmer worldviews.

The research focused on two management systems: non-organic and organic.
There are, however, a wide range of agricultural management strategies. The non-
organic no-till farmers were relatively underrepresented with only two participants using
this strategy. Their responses, particularly with respect to how they assess soil quality,
hint at some fundamental differences in how these farmers understand and relate to the
farm system, opposed to the other non-organic farmers. Determining what sets this type
of farmer apart fiom other farmers will require a more extensive look at non-organic no-
till farmers. Farmers practicing other management strategies, like low input and
integrated pest management, should also be examined.

Romig et al. (1995), the Cornell Soil Health Program (2007) and this research are
some of the first applications of soil knowledge concepts to farming communities in the
United States. The majority of this research occurs in developing countries with
indigenous and traditional communities. Developed countries deserve more attention
with respect to soil knowledge research because their perceptions of a quality soil, like
indigenous communities, influence their soil management strategies. The current research
in the US. shows that farmers use crop appearance as one of their primary means of soil
quality assessment. Research on the effects of a farmer’s reliance on this indicator is
important to developing future soil knowledge research for the US. It would also prove
useful for future farmers, particularly those looking to broaden their understanding of

farm systems.

81

Finally, expansion of the proposed grower worldview characterization continuum
will require further qualitative research. Undoubtedly there are other criteria that
differentiate farmers who use ecologically-based strategies from those who use
chemically-based approaches. To ensure accurate characterizations, these criteria should
emerge from the data. Many of the criteria will likely be subtle, but will provide useful

insight into why farmers use or prefer one management practice over another.

82

APPENDICES

83

APPENDIX A

Non-Organic Farmer Interview Guide

Are you a full-time farmer? If no, please identify any off-farm sources of income.
Number of years farming?

How much land do you currently farm? Number of acres owned?

Which county(s) is your farm land located?

Who do you rely upon to learn about pests and pest management?

When you’re in the field, what visual cues indicate a healthy soil from an
unhealthy soil? (Organic matter, erosion, etc?) Please name as many indicators as
you can for both a healthy soil and an unhealthy soil.

7. When you test your soil, what nutrients and ranges determine if your soils are
healthy? What nutrients and ranges determine if your soils are unhealthy?

QWPPN?‘

2009 Growing Season Seed Choice & Environmental Impacts

8. Which crops do you grow? What is your crop rotation?
The following questions refer to the 2009 growing season.

9. Please tell me the following information for each crop you grow.
a. field size (acres)
b. Seed varieties
c. Inputs [fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, etc.]
i. brand names
ii. amount applied per acre
iii. time of year inputs are applied
iv. input application frequency
10. Prior to growing gm-crops what were you told these varieties would offer you?
a. Why did you decide not to grow gm-crop varieties?
11. From your experiences, are gm-varieties living up to what you initially heard?
Please be specific on the issues you’ve had with these varieties.
12. Over the years, has the amount of N, P, and K in the fertilizer you apply per acre
increased, decreased or remained the same? Why do you think this is?
13. What year did you first start using glyphosate?
14. When you first used glyphosate how many times a season did you apply it?

15. Since you first began using glyphosate, has there been an increase, decrease or no
change in the number of times you apply it per acre? Why?
16. Has the amount of active ingredient in the glyphosate products you apply per acre

increased, decreased, or remained the same? (name the products)

84

17.

18.
19.

20.
21.
22.
23.

24.
25.

Have you observed any changes in your soils that you would relate to the
applications of glyphosate in the fields?

How did your father manage weeds on his farm?

Have you encountered any new (unusual) diseases on your farm? In which
crop(s)? Please describe the plant’s symptoms.

What year did you first start using fungicides?

Which fungicides have you tried in the past? (list)

How frequently do you apply fungicides (#years & # times per season)?

Has the frequency of fungicide applications increased, decreased or remained the
same in the past 10 years? Why do you think this is?

How did your father manage fungal problems on his farm?

As a farmer, you have a firsthand year round glimpse at how the fertilizers,
herbicides and fungicides interact with the soil and surrounding environment.
Will you please describe for me any observations you have made regarding how
these inputs, the glyphosate (Round- Up) and pyraclostrobin (Headline)
specifically, are impacting the immediate environment including the quality of the
soil?

Soil Quality Field Observations

26.

27.

28.

29.

Do you, or a hired agency/firm, regularly sample and test your soils?

a. Which firm tests your soils?

b. How often are your soils tested? Which tests are run?

0. Do you test for heavy metals?

(1. What levels are manganese and iron at in your soil?

What changes in your soil composition and quality, if any, have you noticed over
the years? What do you think is causing these changes to occur?

What are your main concerns regarding land stewardship and soil quality in the
Thumb region?

If farmers in the Thumb region continue to farm as they currently do. do you think
the soil quality in the region will improve, degrade, or remain the same in 10
years? Why?

85

APPENDIX B

Organic Farmer Interview Guide: Questions that differ from the non-organic interview
guide are bolded.

V'PPNT‘

.\’.°‘

Are you a full-time farmer? If no, please identify any off-farm sources of income.
How many years have you been farming?

How much land do you currently farm? How much of the land do you own?
Which county(s) is this land located?

When did you begin growing your crops organically? Why did you decide to
switch to organic production?

Who do you rely upon to learn about pests and pest management?

When you’re in the field, what visual cues indicate a healthy soil from an
unhealthy soil? (Organic matter, erosion, etc?) Please name as many indicators as
you can for both a healthy soil and an unhealthy soil.

When you test your soil, what nutrients and ranges determine if your soils are
healthy? What nutrients and ranges determine if your soils are unhealthy?

2009 Growing Season Seed Choice & Environmental Impacts

9.

Which crops do you grow? What is your crop rotation?

The following questions should be answered with information fiom the 2009 growing

10.

11.

12.

l3.
14.

15.
16.

17.

season.

Please tell me the following information for each crop you grow

a. Field size (acres)

b. Varieties

c. Inputs [fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, etc.]

i. Brand names
ii. Amount applied per acre

d. Time of year inputs are applied

e. Cultivation schedule

f Input application frequency

How do you manage soil fertility?

a. If the farmer uses an organic fertilizer ask. . .What type of fertilizer do you
use? Have the quantities of N, P, & K in the fertilizer you apply per acre
increased, decreased or remained the same? Why do you think this is?

Do you think glyphosate resistant seed varieties benefit agriculture? Why or

why not?

Have you ever used an herbicide product with glyphosate? Which product?

If so, when did you first use glyphosate? And how many times a season did

you apply it? What did you use it for (e.g pre-plant burn down)?

Why did you stop using glyphosate?

Since you began growing your crops organically, have you observed any

changes in your soils that you would relate to the organic practices?

How did your father manage weeds on his farm?

86

18.

19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

24.
25.

Have you encountered any new (unusual) diseases on your farm in the past 10
years? In which crop(s)? Please describe the plant’s symptoms.

Have you experienced any fungal diseases? Which ones and in what crops?

How do you manage fungal problems in your fields?

Have you ever used an organic fungicide?

Which organic fungicides did you try & why? (list)

Has the frequency of fungal problems increased, decreased or remained the same
in the past 10 years? Why do you think this is?

How did your father manage fungal problems on his farm?

Will you please describe any observations you have made regarding how the
quality of your soils differs from the conventional farm’s soils you observed?

Soil Quality Field Observations

26.

27.

28.

29.

Do you, or a hired agency/firm, regularly sample and test your soils?

a. Which firm tests your soils?
b. How often are your soils tested? Which tests are run?
c. Do you know what levels are the Mn & Fe at in your soil?

What changes in your soil composition and quality, if any, have you noticed over
the years? What do you think is causing these changes to occur? (if answered
before skip questions)

What are your main concerns regarding land stewardship and soil quality in the
Thumb region?

If conventional farmers in the Thumb region continue to farm as they
currently do, do you think the soil quality in the region will improve,
degrade, or remain the same in 10 years? Why?

87

Appendix C

Participant Consent Form

You are being asked to participate in a research project. Researchers are required to provide a
consent form to inform you about the study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain
risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You
should feel free to ask the researcher any questions you may have.

The researcher is studying field observations farmers in Huron, Sanilac, Lapeer and Tuscola
Counties, Michigan have made with respect to environmental changes and crop inputs (e.g.
fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides). You have been selected as a possible
participant in this study because you are a farmer in either Huron, Sanilac, Lapeer or Tuscola
County. Your name was obtained from previous soil quality research and by asking farmers in
the region for potential interviewees. This research will be part of a larger case study centered on
the public discussion and future of Michigan’s Thumb region’s soil quality and agricultural
viability. The researcher is asking 10-25 farmers to participate in this study by being
interviewed. Participants in the research must be at least 18 years old.

The potential benefits for participating in this study are that it documents your perspectives on
the current and future challenges of farming in the Thumb; it can improve future agricultural
research so that it fits the needs of modern farmers; and the results will inform you of how other
local farmers responded to the interviews. It also provides an opportunity to understand better
how farming in the Thumb is or is not successful and to consider directions the farming
community might take in the future.

The potential risks for taking part in this study are that you might disclose proprietary
information. You will not be asked for information that you consider to be confidential, and you
are asked not to disclose confidential information. At worst, you would experience social and
legal risks if you disclose confidential information. Social risks may include jeopardizing
relationships with neighboring farmers and friends. However, this risk is minimal because the
interviews focus mostly on your management practices, not friends’. Legal risks may include
threats from seed and pesticide spray suppliers who believe the interviewee is harming the
integrity of the company’s products or potentially breaking a contractual agreement. This risk is
also minimal because the interviews are not centered on determining which seeds and sprays
impact the soils and the environment the most, but rather to raise critical questions you, as a
farmer, have regarding modern agricultural practices. You should feel free to ask the researchers
any question you may have at any time.

Your name and your farm’s name will be changed to fictitious names in the final report. The
researchers will keep a code sheet in locked file cabinets in their offices and on password-
protected computers. Other details about you and your business such as land owned and crops
grown will not be changed in the final report. Your confidentiality will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law.

The interview portion of the study will take 60 to 90 minutes of your time. It will be recorded if
you grant permission (below). The interview audiotapes as well as transcriptions will be kept
confidential. They will be stored on a password-protected computer in the researcher’s office for
at least three years after the project is complete (January 15, 2013) and not more than four years
after the project is complete (January 15, 2014). Paper copies of the transcripts will be stored in
locked file cabinets in the researcher’s office for at least three years and not more than four years

88

after the project is complete. Computer files will then be deleted and paper copies will be
shredded. Only the researcher and the Institutional Review Board will have access to the
interview recordings and transcripts.

Please indicate whether you agree to be audiotaped during the interview.

0 I agree to allow audiotaping of the interview.
El YES ElNO Initials

 

The results of this study may be published or presented at professional meetings. The researchers
will send you an electronic copy of all published papers if you provide your email address.

0 I would like to receive an electronic copy of all published papers.
El YES ClNO Email Address

 

Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You have the right to say no. You
may change your mind at any time and withdraw; simply notify the researchers that you no
longer wish to participate. You may choose not to answer specific questions. You will be told of
any significant findings that develop during the course of the study that may influence your
willingness to continue to participate in the research. You will not receive money or any other
form of compensation for participating in this study.

lf you have con'cems or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part
of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researchers:
0 Lesley Atwood, MS student, Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and
Resource Studies, Michigan State University, 131 Natural Resources Bldg, East Lansing,
MI 48824, 850.512.4447, aMoodle@5u.edu
0 Dr. Jim Bingen, Professor, Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and
Resource Studies, Michigan State University, 131 Natural Resources Bldg, East Lansing,
MI 48824, 517.353.1905 bingen@msu.edu

If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like
to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about his study, you
may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human research
Protection Program at 517.355.2180, Fax 517.432.4503, or email irb@msu.edu or regular mail
at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study.

Signature & Date

You will be given a copy of this form for your files.

89

REFERENCES

90

Bartlett, D. W., Clough, J. M., Godwin, J. R., Hall, A. A., Hamer, M., & Parr-Dobrzanski, B.
(2002). The strobilurin fungicides. Pest Management Science, 58(7), 649-662.

Bengtsson, J ., Ahnstrdm, J ., & Weibull, A. (2005). The effects of organic agriculture on
biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied ecology, 42(2), 261-269.

Berkes, F ., Colding, J ., & Folke, C. (2003). Navigating social-ecological systems: building
resilience for complexity and change: Cambridge Univ Press.

Beus, C., & Dunlap, R. (1990). Conventional versus Alternative Agriculture: The Paradigmatic
Roots of the Debate“. Rural Sociology, 55(4), 590-616.

Bond, W., & Grundy, A. C. (2001). Non-chemical weed management in organic farming systems.
Weed Research, 41(5), 383-405.

Bullock, D. (1992). Crop rotation. Critical reviews in plant sciences, 11(4), 309-326.

Busse, M., Ratcliff, A., Shestak, C., & Powers, R. J. S. B. a. B. (2001). Glyphosate toxicity and
the effects of long-term vegetation control on soil microbial communities. 33( 1 2-13),
1777-1789.

Cakmak, 1., Yazici, A., Tutus, Y., & Ozturk, L. (2009). Glyphosate reduced seed and leaf
concentrations of calcium, manganese, magnesium, and iron in non-glyphosate resistant
soybean. European Journal of Agronomy, 31(3), 1 14-119.

Capra, F. (1996). The Web of Life. New York: Anchor Books. Pages 297-304.

Cerf, M., & Hemidy, L. (1999). Designing support to enhance co-operation between farmers and
advisors in solving farm-management problems. The Journal of Agricultural Education
and Extension, 6(3), 157 - 170.

Cornell University. (2007). Cornell Soil Health Retrieved from:
http://soilhealth.cals.comell.edu/about/index.htm. Access date: June 1 1, 2010.

Dewalt, K. M., & Dewalt, B. R. (2002). Participant Observation: A guide for fieldworkers. New
York: AltaMira Press.

Dill, G. (2005). Glyphosate-resistant crops: history, status and future. Pest management science,
61(3), 219-224. *

Doran, J. W., & Parkin, T. B. (1994). Defining and Assessing Soil Quality. Paper presented at the
Defining Soil Quality for a Sustainable Environment, Madison, WI.

Drinkwater, L. E. (2009). Ecological Knowledge: Foundation for Sustainable Organic

Agriculture. In C. Francis (Ed.), Organic Farming: The Ecological System (pp. 19-47).
Madison, WI: Agronomy Monograph 54.

91

Eicher, A. (2003). Organic Agriculture: A Glossary of Terms for Farmers and Gardeners.
Organic Farming Program Coordinator. University of California Cooperative Extension.
Eureka.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories From Case Study Research. Academy of
Management. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532.

Fernandez, M. R., Zentner, R. P., Basnyat, P., Gehl, D., Selles, F., & Huber, D. (2009).
Glyphosate associations with cereal diseases caused by Fusarium spp. in the Canadian
Prairies. European Journal of Agronomy, 31(3), 133-143.

Fernandez, M. R., Zentner, R. P., DePauw, R. M., Gehl, D., & Stevenson, F. C. (2007). Impacts
of Crop Production Factors on Common Root Rot of Barley in Eastern Saskatchewan.
Crop Sci, 47(4), 1585-1595.

Fliessbach, A., Oberholzer, H., Gunst, L., & Mader, P. (2007). Soil organic matter and biological
soil quality indicators after 21 years of organic and conventional farming. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment, 118(1-4), 273-284.

Gadgil, M., & Berkes, F. (1991). Traditional resource management systems. Adaptive Marine
Resource Management Systems in the Pacific, 8(3-4), 127-141.

Garlynd, M., Romig, D., Harris, R., & Kurakov, A. (1994). Descriptive and analytical
characterization of soil quality/health. SSSA special publication (USA).

Gliessman, S. R. (2007). Agroecology: The ecology of sustainable food systems (Second Edition
ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.

Haney, R., Senseman, S., Hons, F., & Zuberer, D. (2000). Effect of glyphosate on soil microbial
activity and biomass. Weed Science, 48(1), 89-93.

Harwood, R. (1990). A history of sustainable agriculture. Sustainable agricultural systems. 3-19.

Hassanein, N. (1999). Changing the Way America Farms: Knowledge and Community in the
Sustainable Agriculture Movement. USA: University of Nebraska Press.

Heckman, J. (2006). A history of organic farming: Transitions from Sir Albert Howard's War in
the soil to USDA National Organic Program. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems,
21(3), 143-150.

Howard, A. (1943). An agricultural testament. New York: Oxford University Press.

Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1983). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Some
techniques of data reduction and display. Quality and Quantity, 1 7(4), 281-339.

lngram, J. (2008). Are farmers in England equipped to meet the knowledge challenge of

sustainable soil management? An analysis of farmer and advisor views. Journal of
Environmental Management, 86( l ), 214-228.

92

Juntti, M., & Potter, C. (2002). Interpreting and reinterpreting agri-environmental policy:
communication, trust and knowledge in the implementation process. Sociologia Ruralis,
42(3), 215-232.

Karlen, D. L., Mausbach, M. J., Doran, J. W., Cline, R. G., Harris, R. F., & Schuman, G. E.
(1997). Soil quality: A concept, definition, and framework for evaluation. Soil Science
Society of America Journal, 61(1), 4-10.

Keller, D., & Brummer, E. (2002). Putting food production in context: Toward a postmechanistic
agricultural ethic. BioScience, 52(3), 264-271.

Kloppenburg Jr, J. (1991). Social Theory and the De/Reconstruction of Agricultural Science:
Local Knowledge for an Alternative Agriculture]. Rural sociologi, 56(4), 519-548.

Levin, S. A. (1992). The Problem of Pattern and Scale in Ecology: The Robert H. MacArthur
Award Lecture. Ecology, 73(6), 1943-1967.

Lyon, F. (1996). How farmers research and learn: The case of arable farmers of East Anglia, UK..
Agriculture and Human Values, 13(4), 39-47.

Mazzola, M. (2002). Mechanisms of natural soil suppressiveness to soilbome diseases. Antonie
van Leeuwenhoek, 81(1), 557-564.

Michigan Sugar Company. (2009). Growers' guide for Producing Quality Sugarbeets. Bay City,
Michigan: Michigan Sugar Company Corporate Agricultural Office.

Michigan Sugarbeet Research & Education Advisory Council (REACH). (2009). Variety Trials
Results. Saginaw, Michigan: Michigan State Univeristy Extension, Saginaw County.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook: SAGE
Publications, Inc.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New
Methods. London: SAGE Publications.

Monsanto Company (2009). Benefits of Our Products. Retrieved from
http://www.monsanto.com/products/benefitsaip. Access date: May 15, 2010.

Montgomery, D. R. (2007). Dirt: The erosion of civilizations. Berkeley: University of California
Press.

Morgan, K., & Murdoch, J. (2000). Organic vs. conventional agriculture: knowledge, power and
innovation in the food chain. Geoforum, 31(2), 159-173.

Miider, P., Fliessbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P., & Niggli, U. (2002). Soil fertility and
biodiversity in organic farming. Science, 296(5573), 1694.

National Agriculture Statistical Services. (2007). The Census of Agriculture. Retrieved from
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/FulLReport/V’olume_1LChapter_2_Co
untyiLevel/Michigan/indexasp. Access date: January 10, 2010.

 

93

Odum, E. P. (1971). Fundamentals of Ecology (Third Edition ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Saunders
College Publishing.

Odum, H. T. (1983). Systems Ecology: An Introduction. New York: John wiley and Sons.

Onduru, D. D., & Du Preez, C. C. C. (2008). Farmers‘ knowledge and perceptions in assessing
tropical dryland agricultural sustainability: Experiences from Mbeere District, Eastern
Kenya. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 15(2),
145-152.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (Third Edition ed.):
Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., & Seidel, R. (2005). Environmental, energetic,
and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience,
55(7), 573-582.

Pirages, D., & Ehrlich, P. (1974). Ark 11; social response to environmental imperatives: Viking
Adult.

Reganold, J., Elliott, L., Unger, Y., & USDA, A. (1987). Long-term effects of organic and
conventional farming on soil erosion.

Rhodes, V. (1983). The large agricultural cooperative as a competitor. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 65(5), 1090.

Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of Innovations: A cross-cultural
approach (Second Edition ed.). New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

Roling, N., & J iggins, J. (1994). Policy paradigm for sustainable farming. The Journal of
Agricultural Education and Extension, 1(1), 23-43.

Roling, N. G., & Jiggins, J. (1998). The ecological knowledge systems. In N. G. Roling & M. A.
E. Wagemakers (Eds), Facilitating sustainable agriculture (pp. 283-31 1). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Romig, D. E., Garylynd, M. J., Harris, R. F., & McSweeney, K. (1995). How farmers assess soil
health and quality. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, v50(n3), p229-23 7.

Rosenthal, A., Robbins, C. A., & Shipley, D. (2010). Resisting Roundup, The New York Times.

Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data: Sage
Publications, Inc.

Sandor, J. A., WinklerPrins, A. M. G. A., Barrera-Bassols, N., & Zinck, J. A. (2006). The
Heritage of Soil Knowledge Among the World's Cultures. In B. P. Warkertin (Ed),
Footprints in the Soil: People and Ideas in Soil History (pp. 43-84). Boston, MA:
Elsevier.

Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. (2005). The worldwide expansion of higher education in the twentieth
century. American Sociological Review, 70(6), 898.

94

Sinclair, T., & Horie, T. (1989). Leaf nitrogen, photosynthesis, and crop radiation use efficiency:
a review. Crop Science, 29(1), 90.

Snapp, S. S., Swinton, S. M., Labarta, R., Mutch, D., Black, J. R., Leep, R., et al. (2005).
Evaluating Cover Crops for Benefits, Costs and Performance within Cropping System
Niches. Agron J, 97(1), 322-332.

Soule, J., & Piper, J. (1992). Farming in nature 's image: an ecological approach to agriculture:
Island Press.

Sprague, C. L., & Evennan, W. J. (2010). Weed Control Guide for Field Crops (Extension
Bulletin E-434 ed.): Michigan State University Extension.

Sanchez-Moreno, S., & Ferris, H. (2007). Suppressive service of the soil food web: effects of
environmental management. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 119(1-2), 75-87.

Talawar, S., & Rhoades, R. E. (1998). Scientific and local classification and management of soils.
Agriculture and Human Values, 15(1), 3-14.

Van Bruggen, A. (1995). Plant disease severity in high-input compared to reduced-input and
organic farming systems. Plant Disease, 79(10), 976-984.

Von Bertalanffy, L. (2006). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications.
George Braziller (publisher). Pages 295.

Ward, N., & Munton, R. (1992). Conceptualizing Agriculture-Environment Relations. Combining
Political Economy and Social-Cultural Approaches to Pesticide Pollution. Sociologia
ruralis, 32(1), 127-145.

Weather Innovations Incorporated. (2007). Weather Based Information and Management
Services Retrieved June 15, 2010, from
http://www.weatherinnovations.com/BEETcast.cfin

Wessels, T. (2006). The Myth of Progress. Lebanon, NH: University of Vermont Press. Pages
131.

Williams, B. J., & Ortiz-Solorio, C. A. (1981). Middle American Folk Soil Taxonomy. Annals of
the Association of American Geographers, 71 (3 ), 33 5-358.

WinklerPrins, A. (1999). Local Soil Knowledge: A Tool for Sustainable Land Management.
Society & Natural Resources, 12, 151-161.

WinklerPrins, A. M. G. A., & Barrios, E. (2007). Ethnopedology along the Amazon and Orinoco
Rivers: A Convergence of Knowledge and Practice. Revista Geogrofica, I42, 1 1 1-129.

WinklerPrins, A. M. G. A., & Sandor, J. A. (2003). Local soil knowledge: insights, applications,
and challenges. Geoderma, 111(3-4), 165-170. doi: 10.1016/50016-7061(02)00262-8

Winter, M. (1997). New policies and new skills: agricultural change and technology transfer.
Sociologia Ruralis, 37(3), 363-381.

95

 

 

 

 

Woodburn, A. T. (2000). Glyphosate: production, pricing and use worldwide. Pest Management
Science, 56(4), 309-312.

Yankelovich, D. (1991). Coming to Public Judgment. Making Democracy Work in a Complex
World. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.

Yin, R. K. (1981). The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers. Administrative Science Quarterly,
26(1), 58-65.

96

 

 

 

"'lllllllllllllllfilllllllllllllllll