V':

git-61%..
" 3.1313577:-

u.
c-Dwfi

-- 3w;

 

s...

gun-wag.
A

-.
-3.-

K

.ua'i.

3.."

E
z

3|

.
¢

‘3‘?

 

.. H"
I..

u-

 

 

 

 

 

 

..
J;
'.. 2-371 ‘
k m‘
.;.:.,..‘..».'m
J.
‘4‘ .n ‘ ~«
, u '
Io

t2:

\. ~‘
WM
3-:

ufi‘f

..
:7:

'fi;

,.

"5%

--d.

. 'zi‘g'
‘gl
3335:.53

.z.

um:
g;

P'-

r“ '

.3,
w

I:

.
Q.
a».

w.)
h.-

 

CUGSATHANT

IJIHIIIHHHIJIUIIllh{HUIIIHIHIHHIIHHHI

293 01561 9129

Mill”

 

 

 

 

! LIBRARY

3 Michigan State
University

“4—4-

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Perception Of Organic Farming In Michigan

presented by

Ali Naemi

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Masters/ degree in Mal and

Thesis Extension Education

 

(f,
4% ”241%; (Mg 444/;

Major professor

Date 12/19/96

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE ll RETURN BOX to remove thie checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or More dete due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Ie An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Inetituion
W

m1

——_—_———_

PERCEPTION OF ORGANIC FARMING IN MICHIGAN
By

Ali Naemi

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agriculture and Extension Education

1996

ABSTRACT
PERCEPTION OF ORGANIC FARMING IN MICHIGAN
By

Ali Naemi

According to the literature review most of the Michigan farms are operated
“inorganically” (also known as conventional and commercial). Inorganic agriculture has
proven to be the largest source of water pollution, soil erosion, pest resistance, and
pesticide residues in food. In addition, it is the most costly and energy inefficient system of
agriculture. Organic farming makes no use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and growth
regulators. Its goals are to decrease harm to the environment and human health, while
providing a basis for a sustainable agricultural system. Furthermore, study has shown that
organic farming can potentially be as productive and profitable as inorganic agriculture.
But not many farmers have chosen to grow crops organically. This indicates there are
constraints on the adoption of organic farming, or the perception that it is not feasible.
The objectives of this study were: a) to document the overall situation of organic farming
in Michigan; b) identify and evaluate major challenges faced by organic farmers in
Michigan; and c) suggest actions that would promote organic farming in Michigan.

A telephone interview method was used to collect data for this study. A sample

size of 60 farmers was drawn randomly from a total of 185 organic farmers listed in

“Eating Organically”, a directory of Michigan organic farmers. The data was analyzed
using descriptive, and inferential statistics.

The study found that organic farming is a relatively new phenomenon in Michigan.
Most of the respondents had only a few years of experience in organic farming. Labor
intensity of organic farming was considered as a major constraint by majority of the
respondents. No other serious constraints to organic farming were identified. Substitute
for inorganic inputs such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides was not found to be a
problem. According to respondents, the productivity and profitability of organic farming in
Michigan were perceived to be similar to that of inorganic farming. Marketing of organic
products was not found to be a major problem. Respondents indicated that experienced
organic farmers were the most useful source of information on organic farming. Being
certified as an organic farmer was not found to be a determining factor for gaining a better
market, or higher prices at home in Michigan. However, it was considered to be a
necessity for those seeking export market. More than half of the respondents perceived
organic farming to be as productive and profitable as inorganic farming in Michigan.
Majority of the respondents felt that organic farming can become a major farming system
in Michigan if it receives as much attention as inorganic farming does from farmers,

scientists, and consumers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people deserve credit for the completion of this study. My sincere gratitude
and appreciation to my major professor Dr. Murari Suvedi. My sincere thanks to
members of my advisory committee Dr. Georg Axinn and Dr. Frank Brewer for sacrificing
much of their time to help me make this study possible.

My gratitude is extended to all respondents who took time out of their busy
schedules to participate in this study. I gratefully acknowledge the Michigan Organic Food
and Farm Alliances (MOFFA), specially Dr. Sean Clark who provided me with a copy of
“Eating Organically, A Guide to Michigan’s Organic Food Producers and Related
Businesses”. My gratitude is also extended to Dr. Carol Wamhofi‘ and Dr. Kirk Heinze
for their kind support. I also thank Dr. Anil Shrestha for his professional advice
throughout this study.

Finally, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to Mary Pierce, Gloria
Bateman, and Diane Davis of the Department of Agricultural and Extension Education

their co-operation and upstanding administrative work for this study.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... viii
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
Background ............................................................................................................... 1
Significance of the Study ........................................................................................... 2
Objectives of the Study .............................................................................................. 3
Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................ 4
Definitions of Terms .................................................................................................. 4
CHAPTER 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 7
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 7
Water Pollution ......................................................................................................... 8
Soil Erosion .............................................................................................................. 8
Pesticides .................................................................................................................. 9
Pesticides and Pest Resistance ................................................................................. 10
Alternative .............................................................................................................. 10
Organic Farming ...................................................................................................... ll
Rationale for Transition to Organic Farming ............................................................ 11
Economics: ........................................................................................................ 13
Solutions to Current problems: ........................................................................... 13
Public Policy: ..................................................................................................... 13
Attitude Changes: .............................................................................................. l3
Barriers to Adoption of Organic Farming Method .................................................... 14
Yield Lost .......................................................................................................... 14
Management ...................................................................................................... 15
Government Policies .......................................................................................... 15
Marketing .......................................................................................................... l6
Prospective ........................................................................................................ l 6
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 18
Study Method ......................................................................................................... 18

Instrumentation of the Study ................................................................................... 20

Data Analysis and Interpretation .............................................................................. 20

CHAPTER 3

RESULT AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 22
Organization of the Results ...................................................................................... 22
General Background ................................................................................................ 22
Inputs ...................................................................................................................... 32
Outputs ................................................................................................................... 36
Sources of Information ............................................................................................ 37
Channels of Information .......................................................................................... 39
Marketing ............................................................................................................... 42
Suggestions ............................................................................................................. 46
Tests of Associations ............................................................................................... 47

CHAPTER 4

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 57
Summary ................................................................................................................. 57
Conclusions/Recommendations ................................................................................ 62

APPENDIX ................................................................................................................... 66

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 76

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Duration of the farms being operated organically .............................................. 24
Table 2: Respondents’ years of experience in organic farming ........................................ 25
Table 3: Respondents’ farming background .................................................................... 26
Table 4: Acres under organic farming ............................................................................. 27
Table 5: Major strategies used by farmers to prevent soil erosion ................................... 30
Table 6: Motivation for becoming an organic farmer ...................................................... 31
Table 7: Perceived level of difficulty accessing organic farming inputs in the market ....... 33
Table 8: Use of organic and/or inorganic inputs ............................................................. 34
Table 9: Perceived difficulty in managing farms without the use of chemical inputs ......... 36
Table 10: Perceived productivity/profitability of organic farming compared to inorganic
farming .......................................................................................................................... 37
Table 11: Perceived usefulness of different sources of information contacted by
respondents ................................................................................................................... 39
Table 12: Perception on the usefiilness of different channels of information .................... 41
Table 13: Marketing channels used by organic farmers ................................................... 44
Table 14: Farmers’ recommendations to MSUE ............................................................. 45
Table 15: Perceived reasons for higher prices of organic products .................................. 46
Table 16: Farmers’ Opinions on promoting organic farming in Michigan ......................... 47

Table 17: Correlation between the use of inorganic inputs and years of experience in
organic farming, years under organic farming, type of farm, on-farm experiment and

farm size . ...................................................................................................................... 48
Table 18: Correlation analysis between certified/non-certified respondents and their
preferences of sources of information on organic farming. .............................................. 49
Table 19: Correlation between respondents’ perception on the level of difficulty finding

a market for their products and other selected variables .................................................. 50
Table 20: Correlation analysis between respondents’ being certified/non-certified, and
their preferences of different channels of information on organic farming ........................ 50

vii

Table 21: Correlation analysis between respondents’ perception of the productivity,
profitability, and labor intensity of their farms compared to farms in the region, and

other selected variables. ................................................................................................. 52
Table 22: Correlation analysis between repondents’ use of organic/inorganic inputs, and
selected variables. .......................................................................................................... 53
Table 23: Correlation analysis between respondents’ type of farm, and selected

variables. ....................................................................................................................... 53
Table 24: Correlation between respondents’ having chosen organic farming and selected
variables. ....................................................................................................................... 54
Table 25: Correlation between farm size and type of farm, fiill/part-time nature, and

access to organic/inorganic inputs. ................................................................................. 55

Table 26: Correlation between respondents’ use of organic/inorganic inputs and years
under organic management, years of experience, and conducting on-farm experiment ..... 56

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l: Perceived major categories of organic farms .................................................... 23
Figure 2:Time spent on organic farm .............................................................................. 24
Figure 3: Percent farmers certified as organic ................................................................. 28
Figure 4: Percent farm ownership ................................................................................... 29
Figure 5: Percent farmers conducting experiments on farm ............................................. 29
Figure 6: Perceived labor intensity of organic farming .................................................... 32
Figure 7: Percent of farmers producing organic inputs .................................................... 33
Figure 8: Organizations approached by farmers for information on organic farming ........ 38
Figure 9: Frequency of use of information media ............................................................ 40
Figure 102Farmers’ reasons for not using Electronic Mail as a channel of information ..... 42
Figure llzLevel of difficulty in marketing organic products ............................................ 43
Figure 122Percent of farmers using the process of culling and cooling ............................. 44

ix

INTRODUCTION

Background

In the past several decades, the American farm system has geared itself towards
being an export agriculture with the goal of maximizing productivity (Papendick, 1989).
To achieve this goal, it has followed a course radically distanced from that of biodynamic
and organic farming (Koepf, 1989). Today, fewer U.S. farmers feed more people than
ever before. At U.S. consumption rates, one American wheat farmer can easily produce
enough grain annually for 10,000 people (Papendick, 1989). But this success has not come
without cost. There is much evidence today that American agriculture is being seriously
threatened by over-production of certain crops, loss of foreign markets, costs of
production higher than selling prices, and increased cases of farm—related bankruptcies and
foreclosures. And it is evident that the current farming practices are resulting in extensive
damage to natural resources and an undesirable disruption of social structure (Papendick,
1989)

Because of these concerns, many farmers have adopted alternative practices and
systems that will reduce input costs, preserve the resource base, and protect human health
(National Research Council, 1989). One of these alternative systems is known as organic

farming.

2

Organic agriculture as the term used in this study designates farming practices that make
no use of chemicals in the form of fertilizers and pesticides. Further, it refers to a system
which can sustain itself through applications of design and management procedures that
work with natural processes to conserve all resources and minimize waste and
environmental damages, while maintaining or improving farm productivity and profitability

(MacRae et al., 1990).

Significance of the Study

In recent years, organic farming has gained attention as an alternative approach
to conventional agriculture in the US. However, as the literature review indicates, the
trend has been more progressive in some states such as California, and less in others, like
Michigan. According to Michigan Agricultural Statistics, 1995, there are 54,000 farms
with a size of 10,700,000 acres being farmed in Michigan (Michigan Department of
Agriculture, 1995). There are only 185 farms (less than 0.4% of the total Michigan
farmers) listed as organic in Michigan’s organic farmer’s directory (MOFFA, 1996/1997).
This indicates that there are either constraints on the adoption of organic farming, or the
perception that organic farming is not as productive and profitable as conventional farming
in Michigan. Exploring the problems and/or benefits of organic farming in Michigan is
vital to its proper understanding. Further, it will help promote organic farming in

Michigan through further studies, proper program planning, and policy-formation.

Objectives of the Study

Farmers have a unique perspective on research problems. Their dependence on
farming makes them more likely to regard specific problems as more important than
macro-economic or broad social issues. Farmers, particularly organic farmers, work under
circumstances that may be unfamiliar to agricultural scientists with commercial farm
experience (Baker at al., 1987). Scientists tend to set their research agenda based on their
personal, social and economic considerations not necessarily related to the perceived or
real needs of farmers (Busch and Lacy, 1983). This is not to suggest that there is a
particular hostility or resistance towards farmers’ suggestions on the part of scientists.
Rather, it reflects the institutional failure of the Land Grand Universities and State
Agricultural Experiment Stations systems to provide efficient mechanisms to help facilitate
communication between farmers and scientists (Dahlberg, 1986). Identification of
problems is not the ultimate solution for promoting a system. It is only the first step
towards exploring potential solutions. The objectives of this study are to:
1. Provide documentation of the present situation of organic farming in Michigan,
2. Identify and evaluate major challenges faced by organic farmers in Michigan, and

3. Suggest actions that would promote organic farming in Michigan.

Limitations of the Study

This study had the following limitations:

1. The population under this study were those organic farmers who were listed in “Eating
Organically, a directory of, and guide to Michigan organic food producers and related
business”, complied and published by Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliances
(MOFFA, 1996). There could have been other unlisted organic farmers who were not
considered as part of the population for this study.

2. Due to the above limitation, no valid generalization could be made to other organic

farmers in Michigan that were not included in the directory.

Definitions of Terms

Alternative Agriculture: Refers to farming practices that avoid or at least minimize the
use of non-renewable production input such as synthetically compounded fertilizers,

pesticides and herbicides (Anderson, 1985).

Certified Organic: This “ is a term that assures the consumer that food and fiber
products have been grown, processed and/or handled in compliance with standards
designed to keep the products, agricultural workers, food handlers and the environment

free of harmful contaminants.” (MOFF A, 1996/ 1997)

Community Support Agriculture: “Community Support Agriculture (CSA) provides an

economic and social alternative to conventional system of food production and

5

distribution. It (CSA) is built on shared responsibility and trust. Growers agree to raise
fresh food for members. Members, in turn, purchase shares before the season begins and
thereby provide the funds to pay the farmers salaries and to operate the CSA.” (MOFF A,

1996/1997)

Farming Practices: Techniques and strategies that farmers use to operate their farms in a

certain way toward certain goals and objectives.

Nonpoint Water Pollution: “Pollution of water that does not enter waterways from a
specific “point” source, such as a pipe. Nonpoint pollutants are often carried from
dispersed, diverse sources into water channels by rain-induced runoff. Runoff from streets
, open pit and strip mines, and agricultural fields are prominent examples.” (National

Research Council, 1989)

Pesticide: A pesticide is a chemical substance that kills. “There are many types of
pesticides: insecticides (kill insects and mites); fiingicides (kill mildew, mold and other
firngus); nematicides (kill warms); and rodenticides (kill rats, and other rodents)”

(Hansen, 1992)

Organic Farmers: Refers to organic growers who are listed in “Eating Organically, A

Guide to Michigan Food Producers and Related Businesses” (MOFFA, 1996/1997).

Organic farming: Organic farming “is a production system which avoids the use of
synthetically compounded fertilizers, pesticides, growth regulators and livestock feed

additives.” (United States Department of Agriculture, 1980)

6
Organic Growers of Michigan: The Organic Growers of Michigan (OGM) is an

organization of more than 200 organic farmers, gardeners and friends who are interested
in organic growing practices and organically-raised food. Organized into eight Chapters
around Michigan, OGM spans the state from Detroit to the Western Upper Peninsula.
OGM has a certification system that assures the public that their crops are grown

according to strict organic principles (MOFFA, 1996/ 1997).

Organic Matter: “ Living biota present in the soil or the decaying or decayed remains of
animals or plants. The living organic matter in the soil decomposes the dead organic
matter. Organic matter in soil increases moisture and soluble nutrient, cation exchange,

and water infiltration and can reduce soil erosion.” (National Research Council, 1989)

Sustainable Agriculture: “Sustainable agriculture is both a philosophy and a system of
farming. It is rooted in a set of values that reflects an awareness of both ecological and
social realities and a commitment to respond appropriately to that awareness. It
emphasizes design and management processes to conserve all resources and minimize
waste and environmental damages, while maintaining or improving farm profitability.”

(MacRae, Hill, Henning, and Bently, 1990)

The Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance (MOFFA): MOFFA is a nonprofit
organization dedicated to promoting the development of viable food systems that rely on
organic methods of food production and that revitalize and sustain local communities in
Michigan. MOF FA is working to create more public awareness about the nature of
present corporately-controlled food supply and its environmental and social hazards

(MOFFA, 1996/1997).

Chapter 1
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

The American farming system has geared itself into becoming an export-oriented
agribusiness agriculture with the goal of maximizing productivity and profitability
(Papendick, 1989). It has evolved into large and highly industrialized enterprises with
limited crop rotation systems. Often the farms are managed like a manufacturing plant
with goal of mass production of a uniform crop. This trend has been encouraged by a
number of factors, such as the availability of fertile soil and an abundant water supply
(Papendick and Elliot, 1984). In addition, it has been backed up by a high level of
mechanization, improved crop varieties, and development of various synthetics to fertilize
soil and control weeds, insects and diseases (Power and Follett, 1987). Today, the United
States is one of the most productive nations in term of agriculture. A productive
agriculture is an invaluable asset, but what is disturbing is the failure of the system to
sustain itself. High yields do help maintain a profit edge, but unfortunately this often
happens at the expense or depletion of a non-replaceable resource such as soil and/or

ground water (Papendick and Elliot, 1984).

Soil erosion and high chemical use with present farming practices in the US.
have caused serious environmental and human health problems. Surface and underground
water contamination, and the presence of chemical residues in food products has become

more than just an environmental issue. It has raised serious questions about potential

8

health hazards, the cost of monitoring water and food supplies, treatment, and liabilities

(Hallberg, 1986).

Water Pollution

The US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified agriculture as the
largest source of non-point surface water pollution. Pesticides, and nitrates from
fertilizers have been detected in groundwater in many agricultural regions (National
Research Council, 1989). Non-point pollutants account for about 50 percent of all surface
water pollution (Chesters and Schierow, 1985). Nitrate from agricultural sources has been
detected in drinking water wells in levels above safety standards in many locations in
several states. In California alone, 22 different chemical pesticides have been found in
groundwater as a result of conventional agricultural practices (National Research Council,
1989). According to the US. Department of Agriculture, 350 to 400 million acres of land
used for agriculture are estimated to account for more than 50 percent of suspended

sediments deposited in surface water (US. Department of Agriculture, 1987a).

Soil Erosion

Soil erosion can cause both on-farm and off-farm damages. It has been estimated
that as a result of wind and water erosion, the American crop lands lose 2.7 to 3.1 billion

tons of top soil each year (National Research Council, 1986). According to the National

9

Resources Inventories of 1977, one-fourth of over 42 million acres of cropland
experienced serious erosion, i.e., at rates well above the maximum tolerable rate that will

permit sustainable crop production (Papendick and Elliot, 1984).

Common management practices of conventional farming such as the removal of
terraces, shelter belts, and wind breaks to develop land, and intensive tillage to increase
productivity, have accelerated wind and water erosion of the top soil. As Brown and Wolf
(1994) put it: “Grave though the loss of topsoil may be, it is a quiet crisis, one that is not
widely perceived. Often the VCI)’ practices that cause excessive erosion in the long run,
such as intensification of the cropping pattern and the plowing of marginal land, lead to

short-term production gains, creating an illusion of progress and false security.”

Pesticide

Intensive pesticide use has helped reduce devastating pest threat, especially in
continuous monocultures which are highly susceptible to severe pest damage. Along with
growing technology, pesticide use has made conventional agriculture both productive and
to some extent profitable. But it has become a serious hazard to environmental well-being
as a whole and human health in particular. In 1986, a National Cancer Institutes’ study
found that Kansas farm workers who were exposed to herbicides for more than 20 days
per year had a 6 times higher risk of developing non-Hodgkins lymphomas (NHL) than

non-farm workers (Hoar et al., 1986).

10

It is difficult to see the immediate health hazard of pesticides, but in the long run it
will take its toll. As the name ‘pesticides’ implies, pesticides are designed to kill pests,
plant and animal life deemed undesirable by human beings in agriculture or other contexts
(Hansen et al., 1992). Nevertheless, they kill useful insects and natural pest predators
along with the targeted pests indiscriminately. Among other beneficial insects, a large
number of honeybees are killed as a result of pesticide sprays annually. The loss of
honeybees, honey, and reduction in agricultural yields due to reduced pollination alone

account for at least $135 million each year (Pimentel et al., 1980).

Pesticides and Pest Resistance

In 1978, it was estimated that in California 24 out of 25 top agricultural pests were
identified as secondary pests (National Research Council, 1989). The pesticides that wipe
out their predators create or aggravate their role or dominance as pests (Van den Bosch,

1980)

According to the National Research Council, more than 440 insect and mite
species and over 70 fungus species have been identified to be resistant to some pesticides.
Pest populations which are already resistant to one or more pesticides generally develop
resistance to other chemicals more rapidly (National Research Council, 1986a). Similarly,
Metcalf (1980) argues, chemical pesticides are expensive, and provide only temporary
relief, as the explosive reproductive and evolutionary capacities of insects allow them to

develop a mechanism of resistance to these and other control strategies. In response to

II

this phenomenon, larger and more frequent applications of the previously used pesticide
becomes necessary. In some cases, more expensive, toxic, or ecologically hazardous
pesticides have to be used to achieve control. This creates significant environmental and
economic costs by initiating a cycle of shifting resistance and thus, increasing the use of

pesticides (National Research Council, 1989).

Alternative

Growing concerns about the environmental, economic and social effects of
chemical-dependent inorganic agriculture have led many farmers to reconsider their
practices and look for alternative farming systems that make agriculture more sustainable.
Many farmers are turning to farming practices that reduce input costs and environmental
damage through more intensive management and efficient use of natural and biological
resources (National Research Council,1989). Recently, there has been increasing interest
in an alternative form of agriculture, not new, but not widely practiced, known as organic

farming (Papendick, 1984).

Organic Farming

The term organic farming is used to refer to any agricultural system that is aimed
at eliminating the use of non-renewable production input such as synthetically
compounded fertilizers and pesticides. Further, it has also been recognized as a system
which reduces the cost of conventional agriculture and leads farming to sustainability

(USDA, 1980). In organic farming systems:

12

...seek to significantly reduce, or to avoid entirely, the use of synthetic
fertilizers, pesticides, growth regulators, and other agricultural chemicals.
The system relies instead on crop rotation, crop residues, animal manures,
legumes, green manures, organic wastes, cultivation, and non-chemical pest
control to maintain the organic matter and tilth of the soil, to supply
nutrients, and to control insects, weeds, and dieases. (Crosson, 1989)

Hence, others see organic farming as a system of interactions, rather than as a set
of independent farming operations. According to Harwood (1984), organic farming is a
holistic efforts, with the attitudes and lifestyle of the farm family inseparable from the well-
being of the other components of the farm system. The holistic nature of the farm implies
interaction between components such as crops with crops, crops with animals, and soil

condition and fertility with insect and disease incidence in the crops and livestock.

Rationale for Transition to Organic Farming

The main concerns for shifting to organic farming is considered to be the rising
environmental problems caused by conventional agriculture. Nonetheless, concern for the
environment, without considering profit will make organic farming a failure, as concern
for profit alone made conventional agriculture fail to sustain itself. If farmers commit
financial suicide in quest of ecological concerns, their form of agriculture would be neither
sustainable nor regenerative (Madden, 1987).

The goals of organic farming are to decrease harm to the environment and to

human health, cut the costs of conventional agriculture, improve the soil quality, and yet

13

generate a profit. Farmers adopt organic farming for many different reasons. According to
Macy and Hanafi (1987), there are four primary motivations for conventional farmers to
convert to organic farming:

Economics:

0 the shrink of conventional profit margins over the last decade as the input costs have
increased and the price received for products decreased,

0 generally, farmers tend to find ways to reduce input,

0 higher profit potential of organic farming,

0 to gain experience in low-input production, and reduce dependency on financially and
politically expensive chemicals.

Solutions to Current Farming Problems:

0 recognition of increasing problems of pesticide resistance, secondary pest outbreaks
and the need to address problems of soil erosion, ground and surface water pollution,
and diminishing air quality.

Public Policy:

0 Growing public concerns about chemical and heavy metal residues in agricultural
production may have made the farmers find it profitable to use consumer preferences
to their advantages.

Attitude Changes:

0 Farmers are also aware of the effect of pesticides on human health. By converting to

organic farming, they create a healthier working environment for their families,
employees and themselves.

l4
Barriers to Adoption of Organic Farming Method

Yield Lost

Organic farming promises a sound and sustainable future as an alternative to
inorganic farming. However, the economic impact of organic farming depends on many
factors, such as climate, soil type, cropping history of the farm, the farmers’ management
skills and many other considerations. Crop rotation generally increases yields, decreases
pest damage, and in the case of legumes, decreases fertilizer costs through nitrogen
fixation, but the full benefits of crop rotation may take several years to materialize.
Depending on the prices of farm equipment and input, adoption of rotation sometimes
reduces the net farm income, especially during the initial years of transition (Dabbert and
Madden, 1986). Weed control is one of the major problem in organic farming (Crosson,
1989). Fawcett (1983) notes that herbicides give better control of weeds in the crop row
than cultivation. It permits higher seeding densities, therefore higher crop yields.
Literature review by Crosson and Ekey (1988) indicated that alternative agriculture
farmers have lower input cost. But it is not enough to offset the yield penalty. So the
system generally is not as profitable as the conventional farming (James, 1983, Helmers et
al, 1986', Dabbert and Madden, 1986). After a long time of operating conventionally, the
use of certain kinds of pesticides and fertilizers may have disrupted natural predators and
other biota. In many cases, reestablishing these populations and the balance among them

require several years (Koepf et a1, 1979).

15

Management

Elimination of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides calls for a new and different
type of management. It requires the farmer to understand the complex relationships among
crops, weeds, insects, diseases, and soil fertility well enough to suppress threats to the
crops and encourage the factors that make the crops thrive (Crosson, 1989). It is plausible
that the organic farmers must devote more time annually to management than do
conventional farmers. Farmers’ time is scarce, and acquiring the new, complex
management requirements of alternative agriculture may be a barrier to its more

widespread adoption (Fawcett, 1983).

Government Policies

One of the obstacles to the widespread adoption of organic farming appears to be
the federal government commodity price support programs, as they are found to be
designed in a way that discriminates against alternative systems.

Many federal polices discourage adoption of alternative practices and
systems by economically penalizing those who adopt rotation, apply certain
soil conservation systems, or attempt to reduce pesticide applications.
Federal programs often tolerate and sometimes encourage unrealistically
high yield goals, inefficient fertilizer and pesticide use, and unsustainable
use of land and water. Many farmers in these programs manage their farms
to minimize present and future program benefits, sometimes at the expense
of environmental quality. (National Research Council, 1989, P. 10 )

Eligibility requirement and incentives of federal farm support programs

undermine the great potential for adoption of sustainable agriculture. By putting

16

constraints on the use of multi—year crop rotations and alternative non-program crOps,
these programs discourage farmers fiom reducing agrochemical use. And they also
encourage more intensive production with chemicals by raising the “break even point” for

chemical application (Fleming, 1987).

Marketing

One of the greatest problems faced by organic farmers is marketing. The single
most powerful factor in promoting organic farming is creating markets for organic
products. There is a set of interrelated problems in marketing organic food. Organic food
is generally more expensive than conventional food-due to the costs for sustaining and
improving a farm ecosystem. They are not conveniently available in many grocery stores,
and often do not exist throughout the year in steady supply. Because of the lack of
cosmetic treatment, some consumers object to the imperfect appearance of organic food.
The majority of consumers are not clear about terms such as organic, unsprayed,
pesticide-free, and the meaning of certification. On the other hand, some consumers do

not trust that organic food is genuinely organic (Hansen et al, 1992).

Prospective

Despite all these barriers some farmers have already made the switch to organic
farming system. Organic farming, if operated properly, can address most of the present
agricultural problems (Papendick, 1984). It can break the pest cycle, conserve soil and

water, reduce high input costs, protect the environment, and most importantly improve

17
food quality and human health. It not only has the “potential” to become as productive and

profitable as inorganic agriculture, but also to sustain itself as a system, and guarantee safe
food for everyone now and for generations to come.

Well-managed alternative farming systems nearly use less synthetic

chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and antibiotics per unit of production than

comparable conventional farmers. Reduced use of these input lowers
production costs and lessens agriculture’s potential for adverse
environmental and health effects without necessarily decreasing-and in

some cases increasing-per acre crop yields and the productivity of livestock

management systems. (National Research Council, 1989, P. 9)

Shifting to and promoting organic farming requires a change in attitude, thinking
and behavior on the part of the scientists, farmers, consumers and policy makers. The
success of some of organic farmers indicates that alternative farming practices hold
promise for many other farmers and potential benefits for the nation. But how fast and
how far this transformation will go depends on economic incentives, which are shaped by

farm policies, market forces, research priorities, and the importance that society puts on

achieving environmental goals (National Research Council, 1989).

Chapter 2
METHODOLOGY

Study Method

Using a structured, pre-tested, and coded questionnaire, a telephone interview
method was employed to carry out this study. In order to ensure that the variation
between responses were related to actual differences between the respondents rather than
variations in conducting interviews, the questions, their wording, and their sequence were
fixed and identical for every respondent. Each interview began with an introduction
including an explanation of the purpose of the interview. Only if the respondents were
found interested, the interview would begin. Prior, and during the interview, the
interviewer would try to adapt himself to the situation to establish a relationship of
confidence and trust. Each interview was conducted in an informal and relaxed
atmosphere. Questions were asked exactly as worded, and explanations were given if any

misunderstanding occurred during the interview.

Population, Sampling, and Sample Size

The population under this study consisted of organic farmers in Michigan who
grew vegetables and/or crops. Participating farmers were randomly selected from “Eating
Organically, a directory of, and a guide to Michigan’s Organic Food Producers and
Related Businesses” compiled and published by “The Michigan Organic Food and Farm

Alliance” (MOFFA, 1996). The list consisted of 204 farmers who had been identified as

18

19

organic growers and voluntary agreed to be listed. But there could have been more
organic farmers in Michigan who had not been listed in this directory. However this
directory was the only, and the most recent source of information about Michigan organic
farmers that could be attained at the time of study. The total population targeted for this
study was 185 Michigan organic farmers who were listed as vegetables and/or field crops
growers in the directory. A sample size of 10 farmers was randomly selected from the
entire population for the purpose of pre-testing the questionnaire. The pre-test interviews
were conducted to determine whether: (a) the farmers were responsive to the interview;
and if (b) the questions which had been designed for the study were understandable and
appropriate. The pre-test results indicated that the farmers were in fact responsive. It also
helped make improvements in the questionnaire. The data gathered through pre-test study

was not considered in the final analysis.

Through systematic random sampling, a sample size of 60 farmers was selected
from the remaining 185 Michigan organic farmers in the list. All of the 60 farmers in the
selected sample were contacted. But due to different reasons (such as moving, changing
phone number, quitting organic famiing, traveling at the time, having no time to be
interviewed, and not being able to follow the questions), 14 farmers were excluded from
the study. To substitute for these farmers, the names following their names in the list were
selected for interview. In cases of unsuccessful interviews, the preceding farmers in the list

were selected. This procedure was continued till a total of 60 farmers were interviewed.

20

Instrumentation of the Study

Based on the literature review and the preliminary interviews with organic farmers,
a questionnaire was finalized (Appendix A), and pre-tested. Most of the questions were
presented in forms of dichotomous, multiple choice or multiple answers. At the end of the
questionnaire, four open-ended questions were designed to allow the respondents to
describe the problems which were significant to them, to express their opinions, and to
address their particular situations. This allowed the study to consider certain problems,
and/or opinions that were not considered in the questionnaire. The entire interviews were
conducted by the author of the study. The interviews were carried out between 10 AM

and 9 PM each day, for two weeks until the survey was completed.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, version for Windows 95) was
used to analyze the data. The confidence interval set for data analysis throughout this
study was 95 percent, i.e., the alpha was set a-priori at .05. The data analysis of this study
was mainly based on descriptive statistics including; frequency, percent, mean and
standard deviation. Spearson correlation coefficient r, Eta, and contingency coefficient
were also used to examine the relationship between variables. It is important to note that
the findings of this study are exclusively applicable to the Michigan organic farmers who

were listed in “Eating Organically” (MOFFA, 1996). It is not generalizable to the entire

21

organic farmers in Michigan, or organic farming in other states. However, it may give
some insights to researchers who may wish to conduct similar studies elsewhere in the

US.

Chapter 3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Organization of Results

This chapter presents the results obtained from the survey. The discussion is based
on the sequence of study questions used in the survey, beginning with the first question of
the first section through the last question of the last section of the questionnaire. There are
seven sections in the questionnaire of which the first six sections are based on ranking,
dichotomous, and multiple choices questions. These sections are titled, General
background, Input, Output, Sources of Information, Channels of Information, and
Marketing. The seventh section is composed of open-ended questions. The responses to

the open-ended questions were also grouped for statistical analysis, using SPSS.

General Background

Type of Farm. Based on major types of plant production, in a multiple-choices question,
respondents were asked about the type of the farm they were operating. They were given
three choices: Vegetables, Field crops, and Mixed (both vegetables, and field crops). It
was found that 45% of the farms were vegetable farms. Almost one third of the farmers

grew field crops, while about 22% had mixed operations comprising of vegetable and field

crops (Figure 1).

22

23

33%

 

 

FVegetabIe (mu IFleld uopqsssu mammary]

 

Figure l: Perceived major categories of organic farms

Full-Time/Part-Time. Two-thirds of the respondents considered themselves fiill-time
farmers, and one-third of them part-time (Figure 2).

Duration Under Organic Management. The findings of this study indicate that about
28% of the farms belonged to the respondents had been under organic farming for 5 to 10
years. About 22% of the these farms had been managed organically for 1 l to 20 years, and
about 18% of them had been farmed organically for more than 20 years. However, about
32% of them were reported to have been operated organically less than 5 years. The mean
for the number of years under organic management for the farms studied was found to be

13.47 with standard deviation of 15.82 years (Table 1).

24

 

 

FFul-tine (mo ram-um (3399 |

 

Figure 2: Time spent on the farm

Table 1: Duration of the farms being operated organically

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Years of Operation Frequency (N = 60) Percent
Less than 5 years 19 31.7
Ste 10 Years 17 28.3
lltoZOYears 13 21.7
Over 21 years 11 18.3
Total 60 100
Mean = 13.47

Standard Deviation = 15.82
Minimum = 2
Maximum = 100

25

Respondents’ experience in organic farming. As indicated in table 2, almost one-fifth of
the respondents had more than 20 years experience in organic farming. The majority of the
respondents had an experience of less than 20 years in organic farming. It was found that
about one-fifth of the respondents were fairly new to organic, farming as they had an
experience of less than 5 years. About one-third of the respondents had an experience of
5 to 10 years, and about 27% of the respondents had 11 to 20 years of experience in
organic farming. The mean for the years of experience in organic farming of the Michigan

farmers was 13.4 with a standard deviation of 11.21 (Table 2).

Table 2: Respondents’ years of experience in organic farming

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Years of Experience Frequency (N = 60) Percent

Less than 5 years 13 21.7

5 to 10 years 20 33.3

11 to 20 years 16 26.7

Over 20 years 11 18.3

Total 60 100
Mean = 13.4

Standard Deviation = 11.21

Minimum = 2

Maximum = 60

Transfer. Over half (51.7%) of respondents indicated that they had shitted to organic

farming from inorganic farming. The rest of the farmers had always been organic growers

(Table 3).

26

Table 3: Respondents’ farming background

 

 

 

 

Background Frequency Percent
Converted to organic 31 51.7
farming

Never farmed in any other 29 48.3
ways

Total 60 100

 

 

 

 

 

Farm Size. It was found that the size of the organic farms studied range from 1 acre to
500 acres, except for one farm which was 1800 acres. It was notable that almost one-third
of the respondents’ farms were less than 10 acres, while one-third of them were more than
101 acres. About 8% of the respondents were operating farms of 10 to 20 acres, and
about 28% farms of 21 to 100 acres. Average farm size was found to be 104 acres, with a
standard deviation of 137.84 (Table 4). The 1800 acres farm was not included in the
calculation of the mean and the standard deviation. However, it is interesting to note that
this farm was reported to have been managed entirely organic. More importantly, the
farmer who owned this farm estimated the productivity, and labor intensity of his farm the
same as inorganic farms in the region. Further more, he believed that the profitability of his
farm was even higher than most of the commercial farms that he knew. This can be
considered a good example of a relatively large size organic farm being compatible to

inorganic farms in terms of labor intensity, productivity, and profitability.

27

Table 4: Acres under organic farming

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acres farmed Frequency Percent

Less than 10 acres 19 31.7

10 to 20 acres 5 8.3

21 to 100 acres 17 28.3

Over 101 acres 19 31.7

Total 60 100
Mean = 104

Standard Deviation = 137.84
Minimum = 1
Maximum = 500

Certification. The majority of farmers (77%) who responded were certified by Organic
Growers of Michigan (OGM), Organic Crop Improvement Association (MOFFA), or
Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance (MOFFA). According to respondents, the
advantages of being certified as opposed to not being certified included; fewer problems in
finding marketing, higher prices for their products, and access to information on organic
farming through newsletters, meetings, seminars, exhibitions, and/or demonstrations. The
non-certified farmers, comprising 23% of the respondents, either believed that being
certified was not helpful, or they were unqualified for certification (Figure 3). Among the
respondents, one of the farmers certified by OCIA, reported that having his farm certified
had helped him find a market for his soybeans in Japan-earning $21 a bushel as opposed to
$7 a bushel for non-organic produce products. This suggests that there is a good market
for organic products abroad. And those organic farmers who are looking for a better

market may want to have their farms certified.

28

 

 

[Economist—7790 DNotCerflfiedflflol

 

Figure 3: Percent farmers certified as organic

Ownership. The majority (95%) of respondents were found to operate their own farm.

Only 5% of the farmers were leasing a farm (Figure 4).

Experimentation. It was found that most of the farmers (85%), were conducting
experiments on their farms. The experiments included seed variatal trials and various

farming practices (Figure 5).

29

 

 

[1M (some ElLeeee (em |

 

Figure 4: Percent farm ownership

 

 

|Iconducmm EDoNOtCOnduct (1590]

 

Figure 5: Percent farmers conducting experiments on farm

30

Soil Erosion. The use of cover crops was found to be the most popular method of soil
erosion prevention. Crop rotation was also found to be a major method of soil erosion
control. Other methods used for soil erosion control included contour cropping, use of
wind breaks, light tillage, and residue management. The frequency and percentage of

farmers using these methods of soil erosion control is shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Major strategies used by farmers to prevent soil erosion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strategies Used Frequency Percent
Cover Cropping 52 86.7
Crop Rotation 44 73.3
Contour Cropping 10 16.7
Wind Breaks 42 70.0
Light Tillage 19 31.7
Residue Management 45 75.0

 

 

 

 

 

Motivation for organic farming. Concern for the environment and human health were
found to be the most important motivating factors for farmers to opt for organic farming.
Almost 97% of the farmers reported that they had taken up organic farming to prevent
environmental degradation and to safe-guard human health. Likewise, a healthier working
environment was seen as an important factor motivating the respondents. About 85% of
the respondents believed that a healthier working environment was an important factor in
their decision to choose farm organically. Economic factors such as reduction of capital

costs, the higher potential profits of organic farming, and more efficient use of resources

31

were also found to be important motivating factors. The frequency of responses to various

motivating factors are shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Motivation for becoming an organic farmer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Motivation Frequency Percent
Concern for environment 58 96.7
Concern for human health 58 96.7
Concern for healthier working environment 51 85.0
Consumers’ preference for organic produce 27 45.0
products

Economic reasons—reducing 25 41.7
input and capital costs

Higher profit potential of organic produce 21 35.0
products

Efficient use of resources 48 80.0
Others 13 21.7

 

 

 

 

 

Labor. Various studies have shown that organic farming is labor intensive (Carsson, in
American Journal, Vol. 4, 1989). This was also found to be true in this study as almost
82% of the respondents agreed that organic farming was labor intensive. However, about
17% of the respondents found labor intensity to be the same as that for inorganic farming.
Only about 2% reported that organic farming was less labor intensive than inorganic

farming (Figure 6).

 

 

liMoreflflQ ammo Immmsq]

 

Figure 6: Perceived labor intensity of organic farming

Inputs

Access to inputs in the market. The respondents were asked to rank the level of
difficulty experienced in obtaining organic inputs in the market for their farm operations. A
scale of 1 to 4 was used, where 1 = Very dificult, 2 = Diflicult, 3 = Not so difficult, and 4
= Not difficult at all. Computation and analysis of the responses showed that the majority
of farmers found it difficult to obtain organic inputs such as untreated seeds, compost, etc.
A few (5%) farmers found it very difficult to obtain organic inputs. However, almost 22%
of the respondents reported that it was not difficult at all to access organic inputs in the

market (Table 7).

33

Table 7: Perceived level of difficulty accessing organic farming inputs in the market

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level of Difficulty Frequency Percent
Very difficult 3 5.0
Difficult 22 36.7
Not so difficult 22 36.7
Not difficult at all 13 21.6
Total 60 100

 

 

 

 

 

Producing Inputs. The majority (92%) of the respondents reported producing some
organic inputs (mostly seeds, and compost) on their farm for their own use (Figure 7). It
was inferred that this practice of producing organic inputs on—farm was done to prevent

waste of farm by-products and to decrease reliance on off-farm organic inputs.

 

 

 

 

|Imamorganrclnmrom noonorpmdueorgnrclnpmrmj

 

 

Figure 7: Percent of farmers producing organic inputs

34
Using Organic/Inorganic Inputs. Various organizations (OGM, OCIA, and MOFFA),

associated with organic farming have developed regulations on preventing the use of
inorganic inputs while farming organically. However, some of the respondents (6.7%)
reported that they were not able to manage their farm entirely organic. The respondents
described situations where they had no choice, but to use inorganic inputs. Such inputs
included chemical fertilizers, and/or pesticides. Notwithstanding, the majority of the
respondents (93.3%), claimed that they did not use inorganic inputs in managing their

farm (Table 8).

Table 8: Use of organic and/or inorganic input

 

 

 

 

Input Frequency Percent
Organic Input Only 56 93 .3
Organic + Some inorganic 4 6.7
Input

Total 60 100

 

 

 

 

 

Substitutes for Inorganic Inputs. To operate a farm organically, substitutes have to be
used for inorganic inputs such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The respondents were
asked to evaluate the level of difficulty they had to face in finding such substitutes. On a
scale of 1 to 4, where 1 = Very difficult, 2 = Difficult, 3 = Not so difficult, and 4 = Not
difficult at all. As illustrated in Table 9, computation and analysis of these rank scores

showed that majority (45%) of the farmers found it not difficult at all to substitute

35

chemical fertilizers for organic inputs. About 40% of the respondents found it not so
difficult, 11.7% found it difficult, and 3.3% found it very difficult to substitute inorganic
fertilizers. In the case of insecticides, 60% of the respondents did not find it difficult at all
to substitute for inorganic insecticides. About 22% found it not so difficult, about 13%
found it difficult, and 3.3% found it very difficult to manage without insecticides. About
3.3% of the respondents found it very diflicult, and 11.7% found it not so difficult to
substitute for fungicide. However, 80% of the respondents found it not difficult at all to
manage their farm organically without the use of fungicides. About 12% of the
respondents found it very difficult to manage their farm without herbicides, and 12%
found it not so difficult. The majority (63.3%) of the respondents did not find substitute
for herbicides to be a problem. The lack of nematicides and rodenticides did not seem to
pose any difficulty in organic farming. Only 1 farmer found it difficult to manage his farm
without nematicides, and rodenticide. The majority (88.3%), found it not difficult at all to
manage their organic farm without the use of nematicides. Substitute for nomaticides did

not seem to be a problem at all (Table 9).

36

Table 9: perceived difficulty managing farms without the use of chemical inputs

 

Perceived Level of Difficul

 

 

Inorganic Very Not Not Mean
Inputs Difficult Difficult so Difficult at Total (Std.
Difficult All Dev.)
Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency
(%) (%) (%) (°/o)

 

Fertilizers 2(3.3) 7(11.7) 24(400) 27(450) 60 3.27
(100) (0.80)

 

 

Insecticides 3(50) 8(13.3) 13(217) 36(600) 60 3.37
(100) (0.90)

 

 

Fungicides 2 (3.3) 3 (5.0) 7 (11.7) 48 (80.0) 60 3.68
(100) (0.72)

 

 

Herbicides 7(11.7) 8(13.3) 7(11.7) 38(63.3) 60 3.27
(100) (1.09)

 

 

 

 

Nematicides 0 (0.0) l (1.7) 6 (10.0) 53 (88.3) 60 3.87
(100) (0.39)
Rodenticides 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (1.7) 59 (98.3) 60 3.98

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(100) (0.13)

 

 

Outputs

Productivity and Profitability. The respondents were asked to compare organic farming
to inorganic farming in terms of productivity and profitability (unite per acre). Four
choices of responses were given to the farmers for comparison purposes: the same, lower,
higher, and do not know. Analysis of the responses showed that almost 42% of the
farmers believed that their farms were as productive as the inorganic farms in their region.
About 18% of organic farmers saw no difference in profitability between organic farming
and inorganic fanning. However, 20% of the respondents felt that organic farming was
less profitable than inorganic farming. About 30% of the respondents felt that organic

farming was less productive than inorganic farming. About, 15% of the respondents found

37

organic farming to be more productive than inorganic farming. Similarly, the analysis
showed that majority (45%), of respondents found organic farming to be more profitable
than inorganic farming (Table 10). It is interesting to note that 45% of respondents
perceived organic farming more profitable than inorganic farming, while only 15%
perceived it more productive. The higher profitability of organic farming could be due to
higher prices of organic products.

Table 10: Perceived productivity/profitability of organic farming compared to
inorganic

 

 

 

 

 

Particulars The Same Lower Higher Do not Total
Know
Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency
Q4) f°/o) (%) (%)
Productivity 25 (41.7) 18 (30.0) 9 (15.0) 8 (13.3) 60 (100)
Profitability 11 (18.3) 12 (20.0) 27 (45.0) 10 (16.7) 60 (100)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources of information

Respondents were asked, in a series of dichotomized questions with the options of
“Yes” and “No”, whether they had contacted various sources of information on organic
farming. Sources of information focused in this study included the Michigan State
University Extension (MSUE), the Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance (MOFFA),
the Organic Crop Improvement Association (OCIA), Organic Growers of Michigan
(OGM), and other organic farmers. Computation of the responses showed that 61.7% of

the respondents had contacted MSUE, 48.3% had contacted MOFFA, 46.7% had

38
contacted OCIA, and 88.3% had contacted OGM and 98.3% had contacted others organic

farmers (Figure 8).

 

 

 

 

Other Filmer (98.3%)

OGM (88.3%)

MSU (61.7%)

MFFA (48.3%)

 

OCIA (46.7%)

 

 

 

Figure 8: Organizations approached by respondents for information on organic
farming

The respondents who had contacted these organizations were further asked to
evaluate them in terms of their usefulness on a scale of l to 4, where 1 = very useful, 2 =
usefirl, 3 = somewhat useful, and 4 = of no use. About 17% of the respondents who had
contacted MSUE found it very useful, 10% found it useful, 15% found it somewhat
useful, and 20% felt that it was of no use. Likewise, 18.33% found MOFFA to be very
usefiil, 8.33% found it useful, 18.33% found it somewhat useful, and 6.9% found it of no
use. Information from OCIA was found to be very useful by 26.66% of the respondents.
About 13.33% found OCIA to be useful, 6.66% found it somewhat useful, and none of

the respondents found OCIA to be of no use. Similarly, of the respondents who had

39
contacted OGM, 36.66% found it very usefiil, 15% usefiil, 31.66% somewhat useful, and

5% found it of no use. The analysis showed that contact with other organic farmers was
the most useful source of information for the respondents. Almost 42% of the respondents
who had contacted other organic farmers evaluated them as very useful. About 17% of the

respondents ranked farmers-to-farmers contacts as useful, and 35.8% as somewhat USCfiJI

(Table 11).

Table 11: Perceived usefulness of different sources of information contacted by

respondents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources Perceived Usefulness Total Mean
of Very Somewhat Of No (SD)
Information Useful Useful Useful Use
Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)
MSUE 10(17) 6(10) 9(15) 12 (20) 37 2.62
(62.0) (1 .2g
MOFFA 11 (18.3) 5 (8.3) 11 (18.3) 2 (3.3) 29 2.14
(48.3) (1.03)
OCIA 16 (26.6) 8 (13.3) 4 (6.6) 0 (0.0) 28 1.57
(46.6) (0.74)
OGM 22 (36.6) 9 (15) 19 (31.6) 3 (5) 53 2.06
(88.3) (1.01)
Farmer to 50(83.3) 7(11.6) 2(3.3) 0(0.0) 59 1.19
Farmer (98.3) (0.47

 

Channels of Information

Respondents were asked if they had ever used electronic mail, written literature,

meetings/seminars, exhibitions and demonstrations as channels of information Analysis of

responses showed that 15% of the respondents had used electronic mail, 96.7% had used

 

40

written literature, 90% had used meetings and seminars, and 58.3% had used exhibitions
and demonstrations as channels of information (Figure 9). It can be inferred from these
responses that written literature, and meetings/seminars are the channels of information

most widely used by the respondents.

 

   
   

Eehlbltione and Demonstration: 2 V
(58.3%)

Figure 9: Frequency of use of information media

The respondents were firrther asked to evaluate channels of information on a scale
of l to 3 in terms of their usefulness (1 = very useful, 2 = somewhat useful, 3 = of no use).
About 1.7% of the respondents evaluated radio as very useful, 10% said radio was
somewhat usefiil, and 88.3% found it of no use in terms of obtaining information on
organic farming. Likewise, 1.7% of the respondents found television very usefirl, 13.3%
found it somewhat useful, and 85% found it of no use. About 6.6% of the respondents

believed that e-mail was very useful, and it 8.3% found it somewhat useful. Most of the

41

respondents (66.6%) found written literature very useful, 26.6% found it somewhat
useful, and 3.3% found it of no use as a means of obtaining information on organic
farming. Meetings, seminars, and workshops were found to be the second most useful
channels of information. However, 33.3% found them somewhat usefiil, while 1.6% found
them to be of no use. Exhibitions and demonstrations were found to be very useful by

43.3% of the respondents, while about 15% found it only somewhat useful (Table 12).

Table 12: Perception on the usefulness of different channels of information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perceived Usefulness
Media Very Useful Somewhat Of No Use Total
Useful
Frequency (%) Frequency Frequency

1%) (%)
Radio 1 (1.7) 6 (10.0) 53 (88.3) 60 (100)
Television 1 (1.7) 8 (13.3) 51 (85.0) 60 (100)
Electronic Mail 4 (6.6) 5 (8.3) 0 (0.0) 9 (8.3)
Written Literature 40 (66.6) 16 (26.6) 2 (3.3) 58 (96.5)
Meetings/Seminars 33 (55) 20 (33.3) 1 (1.6) 54 (91.6)
Workshop
Exhibitions 26 (43.3) 9 (15) 0 (0.0) 35 (58.3)
Demonstrations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although about 44% of the respondents evaluated e-mail as a very useful source
of information, it was interesting to note that 85% of the respondents did not use e—mail as
a channel of information. Further investigation on the use of e-mail was conducted by
providing options such as not familiar, do not have access to e-mail, both, and do not use.

Analysis of the responses showed that 35% of the respondents were neither familiar with

42

e-mail, nor had access to it. About 30% of the respondents said they did not use it, 28%

said they did not have access to it, and 7.8% said they were not familiar with it (Figure

 

 

  
   

   
 

    

  

 

 

 

 

10).
.»: .mgéi-‘Hnuaf ' “‘r.mr~.ew$.3 ‘: "21:1: :I:'-:':3;3:1:I:1:-:'-:1‘-51': :7t1:3:7:77?$:i.121:1‘-:i:;i:-f'i'L 21:1;1:I'1:‘ Ii’vzir
W
I Not Familiar with (7.8%) I Do not Have Access to (27.6%)
D Not fartilerldo not have Ameee (35.3%) I Do not Uee (29.4%)
Figure 10: Farmers’ reasons for not using Electronic Mail as a channel
of information
Marketing

Various studies have found the marketing of organic products to be an important
factor in organic farming (Hansen, 1992). This survey included a query directed at
evaluating the difficulties respondents faced in marketing their products. A scale of 1 to 3
was developed (where 1 = very diflicult, 2 = somewhat diflicult, and 3 = not difficult at
all). Analysis of the responses showed that 9% of the respondents found it very difficult,
and 38% of them found it somewhat difficult to find a market for their products.
However, the majority (53%) of the respondents did not have any difficulty in marketing

their products (Figure 11).

 

43

 

 

 

 

Very Difficult (9%) Somewhat lelcult Not oincua at ALL
(38%) (53%)

Figure 11: Level of difficulty in marketing organic produce

Respondents were firrther asked to identify the type of marketing channels they
'used to distribute their products. It was found that about half of the respondents marketed
their products through wholesalers. About 48.3% used on-farm stands, 31.7% through
retailers, and 30% through other channels such as neighbors, Community Supported
Agriculture and fiiends. Similarly, about 25% used food co-operatives as marketing

channel to distribute their products (Table 13).

44

Table 13: Marketing channels used by organic farmers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marketing Channels Frequency (N = 60) Percent
On-Farm Stand 29 48.3
Retailer 19 31.7
Food Co-ops 15 25.0
Wholesaler 30 50.0
Farmers’ Market 16 26.7
Others 18 30.0

 

 

 

 

 

The processes of cooling and culling generally helps in extending the shelf-life of
organic products. The respondents were asked whether they used these methods. Majority
(72%) of the respondents reported using these methods, while 28% reported that they did

not use these practice (Figure 12).

 

 

[ Irmam nuomsr) I

 

Figure 12: Percent respondents using the process of culling and cooling

45

The respondents were also asked to express their opinion on how Michigan State
University Extension (MSUE) could improve its role in helping the organic growers.
More than half of the respondents (55%) felt that MSUE should get more involved in
organic farming. About 23% of the respondents expressed that MSUE agents should be
trained in organic farming. Likewise, about 23% of respondents emphasized that MSUE
should publish more materials related to organic farming, and educate farmers about the

organic farming and its potential benefits to the environment and human health (Table 14).

Table 14: Farmers’ recommendations to MSUE

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendations Frequency Percent
Get Involved 33 55.0
Education 14 23 .3
Publication 14 23 .3
Others/no Comments 9 15.0

 

 

 

 

 

It is generally believed that the prices of organic produce products are higher
than the prices for non-organic products. Farmers were asked to give their rationale for
the higher prices of organic products. The majority of the respondents (65%) believed that
labor intensity is the chief cause of the higher prices of organic products (Table 15).
Better quality (healthier) of organic products was quoted by about 32% of the respondents
as another contributing factor for the higher prices. However, it is interesting to note that

about 25% of the respondents mentioned the limited supply of organic products, especially

46

in winter, to be the cause of higher prices. About 10% of the respondents reported loss of

production due to insect damage, disease, and crop rotation.

Table 15: Perceived reasons for higher prices of organic products

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reason for Higher Prices of Organic Frequency Percent

Products

Labor Intensity 39 65.0

Better Quality 19 31.7

Limited Supply 15 25.0

Loss of Production 6 10.0
Suggestions

Finally, the respondents were asked to express their opinion on how organic
farming could be promoted in Michigan. Findings showed that almost half of the
respondents recommended more publicity about the benefits of organic farming to the
environment and human health. The second most frequently recommended strategy was to
increase the involvement of MSU in research on organic farming in Michigan. Several
respondents were of the opinion that Michigan State University’s recognition of “organic
farming as an alternative to inorganic farming” would help in promoting organic farming

in Michigan (Table 16).

 

47

Table 16: Farmers’ opinions on promoting organic farming in Michigan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

Frequency Percent
More research 17 28.3
Recognition of Organic Farming as a
better Alternative 5 8.3
Publicity and Education 48 80.0
More Shelves for Organic Products at
Grocery Stores 8 133
Lower the Prices of Organic Products 5 8.3
Others/no Comments 11 18.3

 

 

 

 

 

Test of Association

The responses to the questions in this section were analyzed using Spearman
correlation coefficient to determine relationship between selected ranking /continuous
variables, and ranking/categorical variables. Contingency coefficient was used to study the
relationship between selected nominal level variables. And Eta correlation coefficient was
used to examine relationships between selected continuous variables and categorical
variables.

Spearman correlation coefficient r was used to measure relationships between
respondents’ years of experience in organic farming, and their perception on the level of
difficulty in managing their farm without the use of chemical fertilizers, insecticides,
fungicides, herbicides, nematicides, and rodenticides. The results did not indicate any

significant relationship between these variables (Table 17).

 

48

The correlation between duration of the farms being under organic operation, and

the respondents’ perception on the level of difficulty managing their farm without the use

of chemical fertilizers and pesticides were also determined using Spearman correlation

coefficient, no significant correlation between these variables were found (Table 17).

Likewise, the relationships between the type of farms and the respondents’ perception on

the level of difficulty they faced managing their farm without the use of chemical fertilizers

and pesticides also showed no significant (Table17).

Table 17: Correlation between the use of inorganic inputs and years of experience in
organic farming, years under organic farming, type of farm, on-farm experiment

and farm size

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USE OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENT
CHEMICAL YEARS YEARS TYPE ON FARM FARM
EXPERIENCE UNDER OF EXPERI- SIZE
IN ORGANIC ORGANIC FARM MENT
FARMING FARMING
Fertilizers r = .074 r = .027 r = .193 r = .101 r = .103
p=.575 p=.842 p=.l43 p=.446 p=.436
Insecticides r = .128 r = .056 r = .060 r = .149 r = .236
p= .331 p: .669 p= .647 p = .256 p: .069
Fungicides r= .119 r= -.085 r= .145 r= .209 r= .186
p=.364 p=.518 p=.271 ' p=.110 p=.154
Herbicides r = .229 r = .072 r = .127 r = .028 r = .195
p=.079 p=.587 p=.333 p=.831 p=.135
Nematicides r= .120 r= .153 r= .134 r= .010 r= .043
p= .361 p: .242 p= .309 p= .941 p= .742
Rodenticides = .167 r = .163 r = .022 r = .055 r = .154
p= .203 p= .214 = .867 p= .678 = .240

 

Similarly, no significant correlation was found between conducting experiment on

farm, and respondents’ perception on the level of difficulty managing their farms without

 

49

the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides (Table 17). No significant relationship
between respondents’ farm size, and their perception on the level of difficulty managing
their farms without chemical fertilizers and pesticides were found in this study (Table 17).

The relationships between certified/non-certified respondents and their
preferences of using different sources of information on organic farming was also not
significant (Table 18).

Tablel8: Correlation analysis between certified/non-certified respondents and their
preferences of sources of information on organic farming

 

 

 

 

 

 

VARIABLE VALUE SIG. Z-TAILED
Certification/MSUE r = .006 p = .970
Certification/MOFFA = -.065 p = .738
Certification/OCIA r = .232 p = .235
Certification/OGM r = .208 = .135
Certification/Other Farmers r = -.006 p = .966

 

 

 

 

 

Further analysis of relationships between the respondents’ years of experience,
duration of their farms under organic management, their farm size, their certified/non-
certified status, and their using the cooling/culling method and the level of difficulty facing
them in finding a market for their products showed a weak, but positive relationship
between respondents’ certified/non-certified status and their level of difficulty finding a
market for their products. No significant relationship was found between duration farms

being under organic management and the other selected variables (Tab1e19).

50

Tablel9: Correlation between respondents’ perception on the level of difficulty
finding a market for their products and other selected variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VARIABLE VALUE SIG. 2-TAILED
Years of experience and Marketing r = .157 p = .230
Years under organic and Marketing r = .246 p = .058
Farm size and Marketing = -. 121 p = .356
Farm type and Marketing r = .007 p = .959
Certification and Marketing r = 254* p = .050
Cool-Culling and Marketing r = .042 p = .750

 

 

 

 

 

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

It was also found that the relationship between respondents’ being certified/non-
certified and their preferences of different channels of information on organic farming was

not significant (Table 20).

Table20: Correlation analysis between respondents’ being certified/non-certified,
and their preferences of different channels of information on organic farming

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VARIABLE VALUE SIG. 2-TAILED
Certification and Radio r = .080 p = .545
Certification and Television r = .123 p = .349
Certification and Electronic Mail r = .535 p = .111
Certification and Journal = -.O98 p = .462
Certification and Meetings/Seminars r = .059 p = .671
Certification and Exhibition/demo. r = .053 p = .761

 

 

 

 

 

51

Statistical tests were conducted on the relationships between respondents’
perception on the level of productivity, profitability, and labor intensity of their farms in
comparison to that of the inorganic farms in their areas, and the following selected
variables:

0 duration of their farms being managed organically;
0 their years of experience in organic farming;

0 their farm size, and

their being certified/non-certified.

It can be seen in Table 21 that a weak but positive relationship existed between
the respondents’ farm size and the their perception on the level of profitability of their
farms in comparison to inorganic farms in the area. this indicates that the bigger size farms
were more profitable than the smaller size farms. On the contrary, a weak, but negative
relationship was found between the respondents’ farm size, and their perception on
intensity level of their farms. This suggests larger farms were more labor intensive than the
smaller farms. A moderate, but negative relation was found between respondents’ farm
size, and their perception on the level of productivity of their farm in comparison to
inorganic farms in the area at alpha level of .01. No significant relationship was found

between farm size and other selected variables (Table 21).

52

Table 21: Correlation analysis between respondents’ perception of the productivity,
profitability, and labor intensity of their in comparison to inorganic farms in the
region, and other selected variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VARIABLE VALUE SIG. 2-TAILED
Years under organic and Productivity r = -.071 p = .617
Years under organic and Profitability r = .145 p = .309
Years under organic and Labor = -.213 p = .102
Years of experience and Productivity r = -.110 p = .440
Years of experience and Profitability r = -.210 p = .140
Years of experience and Labor r = -. 139 p = .290
Farm size and Productivity r = -.368** p = .007
Farm size and Profitability r = 306* p = .029
Farm size and Labor = -.255* p = .050
Certification and Productivity r = -.094 p = .507
Certification and Profitability r = -. 126 p = .379
Certification and Labor r = .049 p = .709

 

 

 

 

 

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 22 shows that no significant correlation was found between respondents
using Organic/Inorganic inputs, and their years of experience in organic farming, their

farms size, and duration of their farms under organic management.

53

Table22: Correlation analysis between respondents’ use of organic/inorganic inputs,
and selected variables

 

 

 

 

VARIABLE VALUE SIG. 2-TAILED
Inputs used and Years under organic r = .189 p = .148
Inputs used and Years of experience r = .028 p = .833
Inputs used and Farm size r = -.004 p = .976

 

 

 

 

 

Likewise, it can be seen from table 23 that no significant correlation was found
between the respondents’ type of farm, and their perception on the productivity,

profitability, and labor intensity of their farms in comparison to inorganic farms in the

region.

Table23: Correlation analysis between respondents’ type of farm, and the selected
variables

 

 

 

 

VARIABLE VALUE SIG. 2-TAILED
Type of Farm and Productivity r = .013 p = .929
Type of Farm and Profitability r = .269 p = .056
Type of Farm and Labor intensity r = -. 140 p = .286

 

 

 

 

 

Contingency correlation coefficient test was used to determine the relationship
between the nominal variables. This test was used to examine the relationship between
respondents’ having chosen organic farming, or shifting to organic growing, and their
reasons for having done so. The test result showed a weak relationship between

respondents’ becoming organic growers, and consumer preferences for organic products.

54

It also indicated a weak relationship between respondents’ chosen organic growing, and
profit potential of organic farming. These results suggest that most of the respondents had
chosen to farm organically for economic reasons. However, the result of the test did not
show any relationship between respondents, having chosen organic farming and the other
selected variables (Table 24). Similarly, tests conducted to study the relationship between
the respondents’ using organic/inorganic inputs, and their being certified/non—certified
showed a weak relationship (Table 24). This indicates that certified organic farmers use
less of inorganic inputs than non-certified organic growers.

Table 24: Correlation between respondents’ having chosen organic farming, or
shifted to organic growing, and selected variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VARIABLE VALUE SIG. 2-TAILED
Start/Convert and Environment r = .189 p = .137
Start/Convert and Human Health r = .189 p = .137
Start/Convert and Healthier working r = .152 p = .233
environment

Start/Convert and Consumer Preference r = .262“ p = .035
Start/Convert and Economic Reasons r = .325" p = .008
Start/Convert and Profit Potential r = .339" p = .005
Start/Convert and Efficient use of resources r = .067 p = .605

Inputs used and Certification r = .310* p = .011

 

 

 

 

**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level.

*. Correlation is significant at the .05 level.
Eta coefficient correlation was used to examine the relationships between selected

nominal variables, and interval variables. The result of these tests are summarized in

 

55

in Tables 25 and 26. The analysis indicated a weak relationship between the respondents’
type of farms, and farm sizes (Table 25). The result of Eta correlation coefficient showed a
very weak relationship between the respondents’ being full-time/part-time organic
growers, and their farm size (Table 30). The test result also suggested a very weak
relationship between respondents’ using organic/non-organic inputs, and the size of their

farms (Table 25).

Table 25: Correlation between farm size and type of farm, full/part-time nature, and
access to organic/inorganic inputs

 

VARIABLE VALUE

 

TYPE OF FARM F ULL/PART— ORGANIC/INORGAN I
TIME C INPUTS

 

Farm Size .228 .102 .033

 

 

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, the Eta correlation coefficient showed a weak relationship between
the respondents using organic/inorganic inputs and years farms being under organic
management (Table 26). Generally, farms which had been operated organically longer,
tended to be managed using less of inorganic inputs. Similarly, Table 26 shows a weak
relationship between the respondents use of organic/inorganic inputs and years of
experience in organic farming. This means that as the farmers’ years of experience in
organic farming increased, their use of inorganic inputs decreased. Likewise, it was also
found that respondents conducting experiment on their farms used less of inorganic and

more of organic inputs (Table 26).

56

Table 26: Correlation between respondents use of organic/inorganic inputs and
years under organic management, years of experience, and conducting on farm
experiment

 

 

VARIABLE VALUE
Years under organic Years of Conducting
management experience experiment

 

Organic/inorganic inputs .234 .005 .1 12

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The primary purpose of this research was to study organic farming in Michigan from the
Michigan organic farmers perspectives. The specific research objectives of the study were
to:

1. Provide documentation of the present situation of organic farming in Michigan,

2. Identify and evaluate major challenges faced by organic farmers in Michigan, and

3. Suggest actions that would promote organic farming in Michigan.

The population under this study were those organic farmers who were listed in
“Eating Organically, a directory of, and guide to Michigan organic food producers and
related business”, compiled and published by Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliances
(MOFFA, 1996). There could have been other organic farmers who were not listed in this
directory, but were part of the population of Michigan organic growers. Due to this
limitation, no valid generalization could be made to other organic farmers in Michigan
who were not included in this directory.

The data collection for this study was collected by telephone interview survey
method. A systematic random sampling was used to select 60 farmers from a population
of 185. The survey instrument of the study composed of 36 closed and 4 open-ended
questions. Because of the descriptive nature of the study, descriptive statistics was used

for data analysis, included; frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations.

57

58

Correlation analysis of Spearman correlation coefficient, contingency coefficient, and Eta
correlation were used to examine relationships between selected variable.

Most of the respondent were either vegetable, or field crop farmers. Majority of
the respondents considered themselves full-time organic growers. Data analysis showed
that majority of the respondents conduct experiment on their farms. Further data analysis
indicated that respondents who conduct experiment on their farms use less of inorganic
and more of organic inputs. On an average farms studied had been operated organically
for about 14 years. Data analysis showed a weak, but positive relationship between
duration of farms being under organic operation, and their being managed using less of
inorganic inputs.

Almost one-fifth of the respondents had more than 20 years of experience in
organic farming. The majority of the respondents had an experience of less than 20 years
in organic farming. It was found that about one-fifth of the respondents were fairly new to
organic farming as they had an experience of less than 5 years. About one-third of the
respondents had an experience of 5 to 10 years, and about 27% of the respondents had 11
to 20 years of experience in organic farming. Analysis of data for this study showed a
weak relationship between the respondents use of organic/inorganic inputs and years of
experience in organic farming. This means that as the farrners’ years of experience in
organic farming increases, they tend to use less inorganic inputs.

Majority of respondents were certified growers. The certified respondents
believed that it was to their advantages to be certified. It would help them obtain higher

prices for their products, and better access to information on organic farming through the

59

certifying agents. A positive relationship was seen between respondents’ being
certified/non-certified, and finding marketing for their organic products. Certification
seems to have an impact on farmers’ use of both organic and inorganic inputs. A positive
correlation was found between respondents’ being certified/non-certified and their use of
organic/ inorganic inputs.

The size of the organic farms studied ranged from 1 acre to 500 acres, except for
one farm which was 1800 acres. It was notable that almost one-third of the respondents’
farms were less than 10 acres in size. Data analysis showed a weak but positive
relationship between the respondents’ farm size and their perception on the level of
profitability of their farms in comparison to inorganic farms in the area. This means that
bigger size farms tend to be more profitable. But the smaller size farms seem to be more
productive than farms of bigger size, as a moderate, but negative relation was found
between respondents’ farm size, and their perception on the level of productivity of their
farm in comparison to inorganic farms in the area at alpha level of .01. The larger size
farms tend to be more labor intensive than the smaller size farms, as a weak, but negative
relationship was found between the respondents’ farm size, and their perception on labor
intensity level of their farms in comparison to inorganic farms in the region.

Majority of the respondents were certified organic growers. The advantages of
being certified as opposed to not being certified included; fewer problems in finding
marketing, receiving higher prices for the certified products, and access to information on
organic farming through certifying organizations. The non-certified farmers either believed

that being certified was not helpful, or they were unqualified for certification. However,

60
data analysis showed a weak, but positive relationship between respondents’ certified/non-
certified status and their level of difficulty finding a market for their products. This
indicates that being a certified organic grower makes a difference in finding a better
market.

None of the respondents found soil erosion to be a problem. The use of cover
crops was found to be the most popular method of soil erosion prevention. Crop rotation
was also found to be a major method of soil erosion control used by the respondents.
Other methods used for soil erosion control included contour cropping, use of wind
breaks, light tillage, and residue management.

Concern for the environment and human health were found to be the most
important motivating factors for farmers to opt for organic farming. Likewise, a healthier
working environment was seen as an important factor motivating the respondents.
Economic factors such as reduction of input and/or capital costs, the higher potential
profits of organic farming, consumer preference for organic products, and more efficient
use of resources were also found to be important motivating factors. The test result
showed a weak relationship between respondents’ becoming organic growers, and
consumer preferences for organic products. It also indicated a weak, but positive
relationship between respondents’ chosen organic growing, and profit potential of organic
farming.

Most of the respondents reported producing some organic inputs (mostly seeds,
and compost) on their farm for their own use. It was inferred that this practice of

producing organic inputs on-farm was done to prevent waste of farm by-products and to

61

decrease reliance on off-farm organic inputs. Substituting chemical inputs such as
fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides was not found to be a major problem
faced by the farmers.

Majority of the farmers believed that their farms were as productive as the
inorganic farms in their region. About 18% of organic farmers saw no difference in
profitability between organic farming and inorganic farming. However, 20% of the
respondents felt that organic farming was less profitable than inorganic farming. About
30% of the respondents felt that organic farming was less productive than inorganic
farming. About, 15% of the respondents found organic farming to be more productive
than inorganic farming. Similarly, the analysis showed that majority (45%) of respondents
found organic farming to be more profitable than inorganic farming. The higher
profitability of organic farming reasoned to be due to higher prices of organic products.

Contact with other organic farmers was found to be the most useful source of
information on organic farming. Written literature was a channel of information most
widely used by the respondents. Meetings, seminars, and workshops were found to be the
second most useful channel of information. Third most useful channels of information on
organic farming found to be exhibitions and demonstrations on organic farming. Majority
of the respondents were neither familiar with e-mail, nor had access to it.

Majority of the respondents did not have any difficulty in marketing their
products. About half of the respondents marketed their products through wholesalers and

on-farm stands. Retailers, and, neighbors, fiiends, Community Supported Agriculture and

62

food co-operatives were the second most frequently used marketing channel. Respondents
who were engaged in C SA did not express any difficulty marketing their products.

It is generally believed that the prices of organic produce products are higher
than the prices for non-organic products. Labor intensity of organic farming was found to
be a major problem faced by the respondents. It was also considered to be the chief cause
of the higher prices of organic products. Better quality (healthier) of organic products was
quoted by about one third of the respondents as another contributing factor for the higher
prices. However, it is interesting to note that about 25% of the respondents mentioned the
limited supply of organic products, especially in winter, to be the cause of higher prices.
Several of the respondents reported loss of production due to insect damage, disease, and
crop rotation.

More than half of the respondents felt that MSUE should get more involved in
organic farming. About one third of the respondents were of the opinion that MSUE
agents should get more training in organic farming. It was recommended that more
publicity about the benefits of organic farming to environment and human health; and
Michigan State University’s recognition of “organic farming as an alternative to inorganic

agriculture” would help in promoting organic farming in Michigan.

Conclusions/Recommendations
This study suggests that organic farming is a new experience in Michigan. Based

on this finding, it can be concluded that as organic growers become more familiar with

63

organic farming, they may experience less difficulty managing their farms without the use
of chemical inputs, spend less labor hours on their farms, while making a better profit.

Scarcity of organic products in Michigan can be regarded as a determining factor
for the reluctance of non-certified organic farmers to become certified, as the consumers
would buy non-certified organic products in absence of certified ones. However, if organic
products become abundant in Michigan, certification will definitely play a determining role
in the food market. Given the present situation, the need for certification may not be felt
gravely in Michigan, but it seems to have an important role in enabling the certified
organic growers take advantage of the international organic food market.

One of the major problem faced by majority of respondents was the labor
intensity of organic farming. It is important to note that those who regarded labor intensity
of organic farming the same as, or lower than that of inorganic farming, also believed that
the labor intensity of organic farming is a matter of management/timing. A good
management/ timing, they argued does not give weeds a chance to grow out of control.
The labor intensity of organic farming can also be looked at positively. It could be argued
that many jobs that disappeared as a result of commercial farming may reemerge through
practicing organic farming. However, in the absence of labor abundance in agricultural
sector, it could be regarded as a major problem.

In the present situation where organic products are scarce, there is no need for
long term shelving of these products. Unfortunately there is no effective and efficient ways
of expanding the shelf-life of fresh vegetables organically. If organic farming is to replace

inorganic agriculture in Michigan, and if organic products are going to be produced in

64

large quantity, this would be a major problem. Exploring the strategies of expanding the
shelf-life of organic products organically would increase the possibility of allocating more
shelves to organic products in grocery stores all over Michigan, all year round.

As data analysis for this study indicates, the high prices of organic products play
both a positive and a negative role in promoting organic farming in Michigan. On one
hand, it encourages the commercial farmers to shift to organic farming. On the other hand,
the prices are too high for the majority of consumers to afford. But in comparison to the
prices that consumers may inevitably pay to overcome the problems caused by inorganic
farming to the environment and human health, the higher prices for organic products seem
to be quite reasonable.

Majority of respondents reported that they were not familiar with, or did not
have access to electronic mail. Electronic mail can be a useful channel of information on
organic farming as data analysis showed it was considered usefiil by those respondents
who were familiar and had access to it. Furthermore, in a situation that farmers-to-farrners
is one of the most useful source of information on organic farming, electronic mail may
make this source of information even more usefiil.

Finally, based on the respondents’ opinions it can be concluded that organic
farming may become a major farming system in Michigan if the following actions are
considered:

1. Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) agents should become more
knowledgeable about organic farming. They know far more about chemical farming

than do they about natural growing. MSUE agents should spend more time with

65

organic farmers on seasonal basis to understand what organic farmers do season to
season to manage their farm organically. This would help them to have a better picture
of organic farming.

There is not much recognition of organic farming on the part of Michigan State
University (MSU). MSU should accept organic farming as a healthier way of farming,
and get more involved in it through more research, studies, and publications.

Organic farming is not covered by the media as an issue. Media should play a more
active role in introducing organic farming as an alternative way of farming, and
healthier way of producing food to the public.

One of the most compelling problem in organic farming is managing it without the use
of chemical inputs. More research is needed to be done on how to substitute for
chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

Consumers have to be more educated about the benefits of organic farming to both the
environment, and human health. Public awareness about the health benefits of organic
farming would increase demand for organic products. Increasing demand for organic

products would be one way of promoting organic farming in Michigan.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

Sample #

Questionnaire

My name is Ali Naemi. I am a graduate student at Michigan State University. I am
currently studying towards my Masters degree in Agriculture and Extension Education. I
am calling to ask you few questions related to my thesis research. I have selected organic
farming in Michigan as a focus of my research. I am trying to identify the constraints that
organic growers face in Michigan. The outcome of my research will help policy makers
develop programs to promote organic farming in Michigan. May I take about 15 minutes
of your time and ask you a few questions.

Before we begin, let me assure you that any information you provide me will be
kept confidential and used for research purpose only. This interview is completely
voluntary and if you do not want to answer any question, we will skip that particular
question.

General Information:

May I first verify your type of farm, farm name and address please?
1. Based on major plant production, what type of farm do operate?

(1a) Vegetables

(1b) Field crops

(1c) Mixed (vegetables, crops, fruits, Beans, etc.)

Others
2. Are you a full-time organic farmer, or just a part-time?
Full-time Part-time

3. To the best of your knowledge, how many years has your farm been operated
organically?

Years

4. How many years of experience do you have in organic farming?
Years

66

67
5. Have you converted to organic farming, or you have never farmed in any other
ways?
Converted
Never farmed any other ways

6. How many acres do you farm organically?
Acres

7. Are you a certified organic grower?

Yes (please specify the advantages of being a certified organic grower)

 

No

8. Do you own or lease the farm you are currently operating?

Own

Lease

9. Do you conduct any experiments on your farm?

Yes

No

10. There are a number of strategies that could be applied to prevent soil erosion
due to wind and/or water run-off. What strategies do you use to prevent soil erosion
in your farm?

(10a) Cover cropping management.
(106) Crop rotation management.
(10c) Contour Cropping.
(10d) Wind breaks.
(10c) Light tillage.
(10]) Residue management.

Other strategies (Please specify)

 

68

11. Now I would like to ask you one question about your motivation toward organic
farming. Why you have preferred organic farming over non-organic farming?
(Check out the following options)

(Ila) Because of the concern for environment.

(11b) Because of my concern for human health.

(11c) Because of my concern for healthier working environment on farm.

(110 Because of consumer preference for organic products.

(1 1e) Because of economic reasons (reducing my inputs and capital costs).

(11]) Because of higher profit potential of organic farming.

(1 1 g) Because of making efficient use of available land, labor, and resources.
Because of other reasons? Please Specify.

 

Inputs:

12. In your opinion, In comparison to conventional farming, organic farming is
“more labor intensive”, “less labor intensive” or “about the same”?

More Less About the same

13. Have you found accessing to organic farming inputs such as untreated seeds,
manure, etc., “very difficult”, difficult”, “not difficult”, or not difficult at all” ?

Very difficult Difficult Not difficult Not difficult at all

14. Do you produce any organic inputs such as seeds and manure at your farm?

Yes, What kind of organic inputs do you produce?

 

No

15. Do you operate your farm using organic inputs only, or you do also use non-
organic inputs such as chemical fertilizers, treated seeds, and/or pesticides from time
to time?

Organic inputs only

Use also non-organic inputs from time to time, (please specify what kind of non-

organic inputs)

 

69

To operate your farm organically, you have to manage it without the use of chemical
fertilizers and pesticides.

16. How difficult have you found managing your farm without the use of chemical
fertilizers, have you found it: “very difficult”, “difficult”, “not difficult”, or “not
difficult at all”?

Very Difficult Difficult Not Difficult Not Difficult at All

 

 

17. How difficult have you found managing your farm without the use of chemical
insecticides, have you found it: “very difficult”, “difficult”, “not difficult”, or “not
difficult at all”?

Very Difficult Difficult Not Difficult Not Difficult at All

18. How difficult have you found managing your farm without the use of chemical
fungicides, have you found it: “very difficult”, “difficult”, “not difficult”, or “not
difficult at all”?

Very Difficult Difficult Not Difficult Not Difficult at All

19. How difficult have you found managing your farm without the use of chemical
herbicides, have you found it: “very difficult”, “difficult”, “not difficult”, or “not
difficult at all”?

Very Difficult Difficult Not Difficult Not Difficult at All

20. How difficult have you found managing your farm without the use of chemical
nematicides, have you found it: “very difficult”, “difficult”, “not difficult”, or “not
difficult at all”?

Very Difficult Difficult Not Difficult Not Difficult at All

 

 

21. How difficult have you found managing your farm without the use of chemical
rodenticides, have you found it: “very difficult”, “difficult”, “not difficult”, or “not
difficult at all”?

Very Difficult Difficult Not Difficult Not Difficult at All

70
Outputs:

22. In comparison to conventional farms, in your area, would you rate the
productivity of your farm “higher”, “lower”, “at the same level”, or you “do not
know”?

The same Lower Higher Do not Know

23. In comparison to non-organic farms in your area do you rate the profitability of
your farm “lower, “higher”, “at the same level”, or you “do not know”?

The same Lower Higher Do not Know

Sources of Information:

24a. Have you ever happened to contact Michigan State University Extension
Services for information on organic farming?

Yes

No

If “NO”, go to question # 25a.

24b. On the scale of one to four, one for “very useful”, tow for “somewhat useful”,
three for “of no use”, and four for “of no use”, how do you rate the usefulness of
Michigan State University Extension Services as a source of information?

Very USCfiII Usefiil Somewhat Useful Of no use

25a. Have you ever happened to contact Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance
(MOFFA) for information on organic farming?

Yes

No

If “NO”, go to question # 26a.

71

25b. On the scale of one to three, one for “vcry useful”, tow for “somewhat useful”,
three for “of no use”, and four for “of no use”, how do you rate the usefulness of
Michigan Food and Farm Alliance, as a source of information?

Very Useful Useful Somewhat USCfiJI Of no use

26a. Have you ever happened to contact Organic Crop Improvement Association for
information on organic farming?

Yes

No

If “NO”, go to question # 27a.

26b. On the scale of one to three, one for “very useful”, tow for “somewhat useful”,
three for “of no use”, and four for “of no use”, how do you rate the usefulness of
Organic Crop Improvement Association, as a source of information?

Very Useful Useful Somewhat Useful Of no use

27a. Have you ever happened to contact Organic Growers of Michigan for
information on organic farming?

Yes

No

_——_-

If “NO”, go to question # 28a.

27b. On the scale of one to three, one for “very useful”, tow for “somewhat useful”,
three for “of no use”, and four for “of no use” how do you rate the usefulness of
Organic Growers of Michigan, as a source of information?

Very Useful Useful Somewhat Useful Of no use

28a. Have you ever happened to contact other organic farmers for information on
organic farming?

Yes

No

If “NO”, go to question # 29a.

72

28b. On the scale of one to three, one for “very useful”, tow for “somewhat useful”,
three for “of no use”, and four for “Of no use”, how do you rate the usefulness of
other organic farmers as a source of information?

Very USCfiJI Useful Somewhat Usefiil Of no use

Channels of Information:

29. On the scale of one to three, one for “very useful”, tow for “somewhat useful”,
and three for “of no use”, how do you rate the usefulness of Radio as a channel of
information, regarding organic farming?

Very Useful Somewhat Useful Of No Use

30. On the scale of one to three, one for “very useful”, tow for “somewhat useful”,
and three for “of no use”, how do you rate the usefulness of Television as a channel
of information, regarding organic farming?

Very Usefisl Somewhat Useful Of No Use

31a. Do you receive information on organic farming through Electronic Mail, such
as WWW, DTN, or Farm Datya Services?

Yes

No

If the answer is “yes”, go to question # 32a.
31b. You said, you do not use Electronic Mail as a channel of information, is it
because you are not familiar with using computer, or you do not have access to it, or
both?

Not familiar Do not have access Both
31c. On the scale of one to three, one for “very useful”, tow for “somewhat useful”,
and three for “of no use”, how do you rate the usefulness of Electronic Mail, such as

W, DTN, or Farm Datya Services as a channel of information?

Very Usefiil Somewhat Usefirl Of No Use

73

32a. Do you receive information on organic farming through journals, magazines,
bulletins, and/or newspapers?

Yes

No

If “No”, go to question # 33a.

32b. On the scale of one to three, one for “very useful”, tow for “somewhat useful”,
and three for “of no use”, how do you rate the usefulness of journals, magazines,
bulletins, and/or newspapers as a channel of information?

Very useful Somewhat Useful Of No Use

33a. Have you happened to attend any meetings, seminars, and/or workshops on
organic farming?

Yes

No

If “No”, go to question # 34a.

33b. On the scale of one to three, one for “very useful”, tow for “somewhat useful”,
and three for “of no use”, how do you rate the usefulness of meetings, seminars,
and/or workshops as a channel of information?

Very Useful Somewhat Useful Of No Use

34a. Have you happened to attend any exhibitions and/or demonstrations on
organic farming?

Yes

No

If “No”, go to question # 35.

34b. On the scale of one to three, one for “very useful”, tow for “somewhat useful”,
and three for “of no use”, how do you rate the usefulness of exhibitions, and/or
demonstrations as a channel of information?

Very Useful Somewhat Useful Of No Use

74

Marketing:

35. Do you find marketing for your products, ”very difficult”, “somewhat
difficult”, or “not difficult at all”?

Very Difficult Somewhat Difficult Not Difficult At All
36. Through what kind of market do you distribute your organic products?

(36a) On-farm stand

(36b) Retailer

(36c) Food Co-ops

(36d) Wholesaler

(36c) Farmers’ market
(36]) Other (Please explain)

 

37. Do you use culling (selection) and/or cooling methods to extend the shelf life of
your organic products?

Yes

No

Prospective:

38. In your opinion, how can Michigan State University Extension improve its role
in helping organic growers in Michigan?

39. The prices for organic products tend to be higher than prices for non-organic
products? In your opinion, what is responsible for higher prices of organic

products?

40. In your opinion, what can be done to promote organic farming in Michigan?

75
41. Would you like to make any comments?

Thank you for your time, cooperation and input. If you like, I would be very happy to
send you a summary of my research outcome.

Yes

No

Thank you

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

76

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, J. (1985). Farm Programs and Alternative Agriculture. Proposed 1895 Bill
Changes: Taking The Bias out of Farm policy. Proceedings of the Institute for
Alternative Agriculture Second Annual Symposium. Institute for Alternative
Agriculture. Greenbelt, Maryland.

Baker, B.P. & Smith, DB. (1987). Self-identified Research Needs of New York
Organic Farmers. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. 2: 107-108.

Brown, B. & Wolf, E. (1974). Soil Erosion: Quiet Crisis in the World Economy.
Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.

Busch, L., and W. B. Lacy. (1983). Science, Agriculture and the Politics of Research.
Bonlder, Colorado, Westview Press.

Chesters, A. & Schierow, L.J. (1985). A Primer on Nonpoint Pollution. Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation. 40: 14-18.

Crosson, Pierre (1989). What is Alternative Agriculture? American Journal of
Alternative Agriculture, Vol. 4.

Crosson, P., and J. Ekey. (1988). Alternative agriculture: A review and assessment of
the Literature. Discussion paper ENR 88-01. Resources for the Future,
Washington, DC.

Dabbert, S. & Madden, P. (1986). The Transition to Organic Agriculture: A multi-
year model of a Pennsylvania farm. American Journal of A lternative
Agriculture. 1(3) 99-107.

Dahlberg, Kenneth, A. (1986). Introduction: Changing Contexts and Goals and the
Need for New Evaluative Approaches. In new directions for agriculture and
agricultural research, Kenneth Dahlberg: 1-30. Totowa, New Jersey, Rowman
and Allenhold.

The Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance (MOFFA). (1996). Eating Guide to
Michigan’s Organic Food Producers and Related Businesses. Michigan,
MOFFA

77

Fawcett, R. (1983). Control of Weeds. In R. Dahlgren. Proceeding of the Management
Alternatives for Biological Farming Eorkshop. Coopertive Wildlife Research
Unit, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Fleming, M. (1987). Agricultural Chemicals in Ground Water: Preventing
Contamination and Removing Barriers Against Low-input Farm Management.
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2 (3) : 124-130.

Hallberg, GR. (1986). From Hoes to Herbicides: Agriculture and Ground Water
Quality. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.41, 357-364.

Hansen Maren; Boise, Phil; & Hasen, Jim. (1992). Increasing Organic Agriculture at
the Local Level: A Manual for Consumers, Grocers, Farmers and Policy
Makers. The Santa Barbara County Safe Food Project.

Harwood, R. (1984). Organic Farming Research at the Rodate Research Center. In
D. Bezdicek, J. F. Power, D. R. Keeny, and M J. Wright. Organic Farming;
Current Technology and Its Role in a Sustainable Agriculture. Agronomy
Society of America, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society
of America. Madison, Wisconsin. PP. 2-3.

Helmers, G., M. Langemeir, and J. Atwood. (1986). An economic analysis of
alternative cropping systems for east-central Nebraska. American Journal of
Alternative Agriculture 1: 153-158.

Hoar, S.K; Blair, A.; Holms, F.F.; Boysen, C.D.; Robert, R.J.; Hoover, R.; & Fraumeni,
J.F. Jr. Agricultural Herbicide Use and Risk of Lymphomas and Soft-tissue
Sarcoma. Journal of the Aneri Medical Association 256 (9): 1141-1147.

James, S. (1983). Economic consequence of biological farming. In R. Dahlgren.
Proceeding of the Management Alternatives for Biological Farming Workshop.
Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Koepf, Herbert (1989). The Biodynamic Farms. New York, Anthroposophic Press.

Koepf, H. H., B. D. Peterson, and W. Schaumann. (1979) Bio-dynamic Agriculture:
An Introduction. Spring Valley, N. Y.: Anthroposophic Press.

78

Lockeretz, W, G. Shearer, D. H. Kohl, and R. W. Klepper. 1984. Comparison of
organic and conventional farming in the Corn Belt. In D. Bezdicek, J. F.
Power, D. R. Keeney, andM. J. Wright. Organic Farming: Current Technology
and Its Role in a Sustainable Agriculture. Agronomy Society of America, Crop
Science Societ of America, and Soil Science Society of America. Madison,
Wisconsin.

MacRae, Rodj; Hill, Stuart B.; Henning, John; & Bently, Alison J. (1990). Policies,
Programs, and Regulations to Support the Transition to Sustainable

Agriculture in Canada. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, Volume
5, Number 2, 1990: 76-89.

Macy Fan, Anna & Russel Hanafi (1987). Summary of Nitrate in Drinking Water: An
Evaluation of the Current Standard with Specific References to
Methemoghobinemia and Reproductive Eflects. Sacramento, Calif: California
Department of Health Services, Community Toxicology Unit, Hazard Evaluation
Section.

Madden, P. (1987). Can Sustainable Agriculture be Profitable? Environment 29 (4):
19ff. 19-24.

Metcalf, L. (1980). Changing Roles of Insecticides in Crop Production: Annual
Review of Entomology 25 .' 219-256.

Michigan Department of Agriculture (1995). Michigan Agricultural Statistics.

National Research Council. (1986a). Animal Health Research Programs of the
Cooperative State Research Service: Strength, Weaknesses, and
Opportunities. Washington DC; National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (1989). Alternative Agriculture. Washington DC:
National Academy Press.

Papendick, R. I., and Elliott, L. F. (1984) Tillage and Cropping Systems for Erosin
Control and Efficient Nutrient Utilization. In: D. Bezdicek, J. F. Power, D.
R. Keeny, and M J. Wright. Organic Farming: Current Technology and Its
Role in a Sustainable Agriculture. American Society of Agronomy Special
Publication No: 46. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, PP.
69-81.

79

Papendick, R. I (1989). Why consider alternative production system? American
Journal of Alternative Agriculture, Volume 2, Number 2.

Pimental, D.; Andow, D3, Dyson-Hudson, R.; Callahan, D.; Jacobson, 8.; Irish, M.;
Kroop, 8.; Moss, A.; Schreiner, I.', Sheperd, M, Thomson, T.', & Vinzant, B.
(1980). Environment and Social Costs of Pesticides: A Preliminary
Assessment. Oikos 34:127-140.

Power, J .F . & Follett, RF. (1987). Monoculture, Scientific American 255: 78-86.

US. Department of Agriculture (1980). Report and Recommendations on Organic
Farming. US. Department of Agriculture, US. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC. 94 pp.

U. S. Department of Agriculture (1986a). Agriculture Resources- Cropland, Water,
and Conservation- Situation and Outlook Report. Ar-4. Economic Research
service. Washington, DC.

US. Department of Agriculture (1987a). Agriculture Resources- Cropland, Water,
and Conservation- Situation and Outlook Report. AR-8. Economic Research
Service. Washington, DC.

Van den Bosch, R. (1980). The Pesticide Conspiracy. Garden City, NY. : Anchor
Books.

MICHIGAN srnrs UNIV. LIBRARIES
lllll“llllllll"IHllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
31293015619129