Farmer goals and management styles: Implications for advancing biologically based agriculture

AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS Agricultural Systems 89 (2006) 90–105 www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy

Farmer goals and management styles: Implications for advancing biologically based agriculture Sonja Brodt

a,1

, Karen Klonsky

a,*

, Laura Tourte

b

a

b

Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA University of California Cooperative Extension, Santa Cruz County, 1432 Freedom Boulevard, Watsonville, CA 95076, USA Received 13 May 2004; received in revised form 3 August 2005; accepted 17 August 2005

Abstract This paper examines differences in the management styles of a purposive sample of almond and winegrape growers in CaliforniaÕs Central Valley, including participants and non-participants in biologically integrated farming systems programs. Using Q methodology, we elicited rankings of economic and social values and goals as they relate to farm production, environmental stewardship, family and community, and leisure. These rankings led to three distinct management styles, labeled as Environmental Stewards, Production Maximizers, and Networking Entrepreneurs. The results demonstrate that farmers make decisions following diverse management strategies and suggest that outreach programs aimed at advancing biologically based farming practices must address these differences to be most effective. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Biologically integrated farming systems; California; Extension; Farm management style; Q methodology

*

1

Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +1 530 752 3563. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Klonsky). Former Postdoctoral Scholar.

0308-521X/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2005.08.005

S. Brodt et al. / Agricultural Systems 89 (2006) 90–105

91

1. Introduction Consumer groups, environmental organizations, researchers, and farmers are increasingly expressing concern about the predominant use of toxic chemicals in food production and the apparent lack of widespread adoption of alternative, biologically based crop management techniques. This concern has spawned numerous outreach programs around the world that aim to convince farmers to change their practices in order to enhance the environmental sustainability of agriculture. Yet, while such programs place much attention on the technical details of farming practices, less attention is focused on the overall farm management contexts within which these details must fit. We argue that, in order to better design and promote biologically based farming alternatives, we must first gain a clearer understanding of the full spectrum of farm management styles by which individual farm operators make farming decisions because different farmers can reach the same decision from different sets of values. To illustrate this concept, this paper draws from a study of two related agricultural outreach programs in California, known collectively as the Biologically Integrated Farming Systems programs. We study both participants and non-participants in these programs to develop a typology of grower management styles which hold important implications for the design of outreach programs that aim to advance biologically oriented farming practices in California and elsewhere. Management is increasingly being recognized as a crucial factor underlying farm operations and something that can vary greatly from farmer to farmer. Olsson (1988), for instance, reviewed several Swedish studies that determined that management is a key element in the variable economic success of individual farms and other businesses, surpassing even quality and quantity of land, labor, and capital in importance. The role of decision making in management and the influence of personal characteristics, goals, and values on decision-making processes have also long been recognized by agricultural economists (Gasson, 1973; Johnson et al., 1961). More recently, researchers have integrated farmersÕ goals and values in both economic spheres as well as social and lifestyle spheres into a comprehensive concept of individual management style (Bennett, 1980; Olsson, 1988; Colby, 1991; Fairweather and Keating, 1994). These researchers have shown that management style is an amalgam not only of different goal orientations, but also of different strategies farmers used to achieve their goals, depending partly on their available physical and human resources and partly on attitudes towards factors such as risk, family life, the future, and so on. Several previous studies have sought to identify and describe farm management styles for particular groups of farmers. For example, Walter (1997) describes four different categories used by 68 Illinois farmers to define the Ôsuccessful farmerÕ. The categories comprise the ‘‘Stewards’’, who emphasize caring for the land, the ‘‘Managers’’, who emphasize attention to record-keeping and sound judgment, the ‘‘Conservatives’’, who control costs to keep the farm a family enterprise, and the ‘‘Agrarians’’, who value farming as a way of life and are willing to work hard on the farm and in community activities. Using a similar approach, Fairweather and Keating (1994) identified three distinct styles among 50 New Zealand farmers. The

92

S. Brodt et al. / Agricultural Systems 89 (2006) 90–105

‘‘Dedicated Producers’’ were strongly business and production oriented, the ‘‘Flexible Strategists’’ sought more of a balance with off-farm and family activities, and the ‘‘Environmentalists’’ prioritized environmental conservation and incorporation of family into the farm business.

2. Methodology 2.1. Origins and rational of Q methodology In order to illuminate the goals and management strategies of individual farmers, we turned to a quantitative technique for the analysis of subjectivity known as Q methodology. This approach was developed by William Stephenson, a psychologist and physicist, who in 1935 elaborated a technique to ‘‘invert’’ factor analysis. By inverting the rows and columns in a typical factor analysis, Stephenson turned the focus toward intercorrelations of people based on each individualÕs overall pattern of all traits tested for, and away from intercorrelations of individual traits, based on how many people were tested for them (Stephenson, 1953; Brown, 1980). By doing so, Stephenson enabled the quantitative study of small sample sizes and even single cases, because the study population now becomes the set of tests or questions, rather than the sample of people being tested. In addition, he expanded the methodology to include a technique for systematically measuring an individualÕs subjectivity through a statement sorting exercise, designed to minimize the interference of researcher bias. Subjects are asked to sort a series of statements that pertain to the research topic according to their degree of agreement or disagreement with each statement, on a scale from ‘‘most agree’’ to ‘‘most disagree’’. The design of the sorting board requires responses to conform to a pattern that approximates a normal distribution, so that subjects are forced to prioritize among statements and cannot simply choose the same response for a large number of statements. Subjects therefore have the opportunity to reveal their own internal frames of reference (subjectivity) through the manner in which they arrange the statements with respect to one another. Q methodology, thus, encompasses both the sorting exercise as well as the factor analysis of the sorting results. Other investigators have used this methodology to investigate values and attitudes related to agriculture and land use, including farmer management styles (Fairweather and Keating, 1994) and public preferences for land use changes (Swaffield and Fairweather, 1996). 2.2. Q methodology in our study In this study, each farmer individually was asked to sort a set of 48 statements, each designed to express either a belief, a general value, or a management goal. Statements were developed based on previous research (Fairweather and Keating, 1994) and with input from a panel of academic researchers, public agency representatives, and farmers. Each statement was carefully worded to include elements of one of

S. Brodt et al. / Agricultural Systems 89 (2006) 90–105

93

three economic factors and one of four satisfaction factors. Economic factors include considerations of profit, stability, and growth (including a willingness and ability to handle risk). Satisfaction factors include considerations for family, leisure, the type of work environment (working outdoors, working independently, and so on), and a sense of social responsibility for resource conservation. For example, the following statement addresses profit concerns as well as family concerns: ‘‘The profitability of the farm is important to me because I want to preserve it for future generations.’’ Four statements for each of the 12 possible combinations of economic and satisfaction factors were included, resulting in a final set of 48 statements. In all cases, terms such as ‘‘community service’’, ‘‘successful farmer’’, ‘‘economic viability’’, and others were left undefined, allowing the farmers to use their own interpretations when assessing the statements. The statements and the sorting exercise were pretested on researchers and several farmers for clarity and duration of time required. During the actual interviews, each farmer first completed the sorting exercise. We then encouraged him or her to explain verbally the rationale used in sorting the statements and how it relates to his or her own farming operation. Each farmer also completed a brief questionnaire on background information, including age, farming experience, education, and farm size. The resulting statement scores (ranging from +5 to 5) from all participating farmers were entered into a software program known as PQ Method, originally developed as Q method by John Atkinson at Kent State University and adapted for personal computers by Peter Schmolck (http://www.rz.unibw-muenchen.de/ ~p41bsmk/qmethod). This program performed a principal components analysis and a varimax rotation to identify a small number of heavily loaded factors (groupings of farmers). Each factor is then considered as describing a distinct management style, as represented by the sorting responses of the group of farmers most closely associated with it. 2.3. Study sample The purposive sample comprises 40 farmers growing perennial crops, including 21 almond growers and 19 winegrape growers, in CaliforniaÕs agriculturally productive Central Valley. Within each crop, we selected about half the group from among the general farming population in the study areas and half from among the participants of two related community-based programs aimed at increasing the adoption of biologically integrated farming practices. For almonds, the ‘‘Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems’’ (BIOS) program is run by the non-profit organization Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF). The term ‘‘Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems’’ was modeled after the term ‘‘integrated farming’’, as commonly used in Europe (Robert Bugg, University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, Davis, CA, 2003, personal communication), and implies a whole systems approach that considers the impact of management practices on all organisms and ecological relationships in the farming system. The BIOS program integrates the expertise of almond growers, researchers, University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) farm advisors and state-licensed pest control

94

S. Brodt et al. / Agricultural Systems 89 (2006) 90–105

advisors (PCAs) in the process of providing assistance and support to growers wishing to reduce synthetic fertilizer and pesticide use (CAFF Foundation, 1995). BIOS-recommended practices include cover cropping, releasing beneficial insects, enhancing habitat for natural predators, applying natural fertilizers such as compost, and using selective ‘‘soft’’ pesticides such as Bacillus thuringiensis as needed. Nine almond growers in Merced and Stanislaus Counties who are enrolled in the BIOS program were selected for this study. In addition, 12 almond growers not participating in BIOS were selected from Merced, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin Counties. In winegrapes, this study draws from members of the Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission (LWWC), which has implemented its own Biologically Integrated Farming Systems (BIFS) program. BIFS grew out of the success of the initial BIOS program in almonds and involves university-farmer partnerships to identify and implement proven integrated pest and fertility management techniques, similar to those described above. This study includes 11 growers actively participating in the LWWC BIFS program, and eight additional growers further south in San Joaquin County who are not part of the LWWC nor of the BIFS program. The project also sampled across various other farmer characteristics. These characteristics include size of farm, with farms ranging from about five to 3600 total hectares; age and experience; with farmers ranging from less than five years of farming experience to over 30 years; and gender, with two female respondents.

3. Results After considering several different iterations of the process that delineates the final factors, or management styles, in PQ Method, we found that the results with three factors and the results with four factors both offered the most usable and coherent farmer groupings and the most valuable insights into differences in management styles. Subsequently, the three-group outcome became the preferred outcome, because it offered both logical representation as well as better opportunities for statistical analysis using data from other parts of the study not detailed here. The three farmer groups, were labeled as ‘‘Environmental Stewards’’, ‘‘Production Maximizers’’, and ‘‘Networking Entrepreneurs’’. The Environmental Stewards placed the highest priority on working in cooperation with nature. The Production Maximizers strive to produce the highest crop quality and highest yields. The Networking Entrepreneurs showed the highest interest in off-farm activities and social interactions. Together these three groups account for 48% of the total variance in the statement sortings. 3.1. Statements of consensus across three farmer groups All three groups gave very similar scores on several statements, thereby providing an overall context of perennial crop production in California in the 1990s. The following four statements drew agreement from all groups:

S. Brodt et al. / Agricultural Systems 89 (2006) 90–105

95

ÔWorking outdoors and watching my crop develop is the best part of farming.The profitability of the farm is important to me because I want to preserve it for future generations. Field days and workshops help me to be innovative because I can exchange the latest information with other farmers. Investing in new technology such as precision type spray equipment is a good way to reduce pesticide use and protect the environment.Õ The first two statements suggest a preference for farming as a lifestyle and a dedication to preserving that lifestyle for future generations. The third and fourth statements demonstrate a forward-looking orientation that encourages experimentation with new techniques. This latter characteristic seems to be a particularly distinguishing feature of high-value California agriculture. The large capital investments required for perennial fruit and nut crops, intensive production practices, high quality demands of processors and consumers, and tightening environmental regulations result in a very competitive environment where technology is constantly changing and the need to update frequently is paramount to economic survival. Such an environment would tend to favor those farmers with the most future-oriented, innovation-seeking attitudes. The following three statements, with which all three groups disagree, reveal similar characteristics as the statements discussed above: ÔEconomic viability overrides all other farming considerations. My family does not take part in management decisions. Experimenting with new methods of production takes too much time away from off-farm activities.Õ Disagreement with the first two statements demonstrates that farmers gain utility from farming beyond economic compensation and that inclusion of the family in the farming business contributes to that utility. Disagreement with the third statement reveals that farmers are willing to sacrifice time away from the farm when necessary to improve the farming operation. It could be inferred from these statements that inclusion of the family in decision making also means that the family accepts and enables the time commitment necessary for effective farm management. Notably, three of the consensus statements suggest that staying on top of new technology has become standard operating procedure for these growers indicating a willingness to experiment with and invest in new technologies. These sentiments were echoed in the interviews in which all of the growers indicated that adoption of new methods is part of successful farming. Not one said anything to the effect of ‘‘My father did it that way’’ or ‘‘IÕve always done it that way’’. To the contrary, changing varieties and practices were considered critical to remaining economically viable. This pervasive attitude is most likely attributable to the high value of these crops and a highly competitive marketplace. 3.2. Distinguishing characteristics of three farmer groups In this section we will highlight the distinguishing characteristics of each of the three groups; Environmental Stewards, Production Maximizers, and Networking Entrepreneurs, based on their rankings of goal statements.

96

S. Brodt et al. / Agricultural Systems 89 (2006) 90–105

3.2.1. Environmental stewards This group includes 17 growers whose defining characteristic is a high valuation of environmental stewardship, as shown by the statements for which their scores differed significantly from the other two groups (Table 1). They are most interested in managing resources in cooperation with nature and decreasing pesticide use on the farm as a way of improving living and working conditions. They place higher priority on conservation of natural resources than on getting the highest possible yields or profits. Consequently, they are less averse than growers in the other groups to sacrificing some yield or quality for the sake of using more environmentally friendly or resource conserving techniques. Many of these growers, however, distinguish yield from quality, noting in interviews that everything they do on the farm is specifically to enhance crop quality, which may explain their greater willingness to sacrifice yield (Table 1). These farmers also scored neutral on taking land out of production for the sake of biodiversity preservation, a statement with which the other two groups strongly disagreed. In the words of one farmer, who represents the more environmentally extreme end of the group, ‘‘sustainability is more important than money.’’ Another expressed his belief that ‘‘the vineyard is a living being.’’ Finally, in marked contrast to the beliefs expressed by some members of the other groups, one Environmental Steward maintained that ‘‘the act of farming itself is destructive’’, drawing attention to his belief that farmers must act with caution and care. The Environmental Stewards are also the least concerned with how they compare to other farmers in their communities, except on issues of crop quality (Table 1). 3.2.2. Production maximizers This group consists of 14 growers who are most focussed on their farm businesses and on producing the highest possible yields and quality (Table 1). The strong business focus is particularly exemplified by one farmer who maintained that working closely with a financial advisor throughout the year was very important to him. Another farmer mentioned that, while he notices some of the lifestyle benefits of farming, ‘‘first and foremost it is a business’’. In contrast to the Environmental Stewards who strive to work in cooperation with nature, some Production Maximizers take a more industrial approach to farming. For example, one farmer declared that ultimately farmers are ‘‘dueling with Mother Nature’’ and must be ‘‘aggressive and committed’’. While this particular farmerÕs wording was somewhat extreme for this group, other group members expressed similar thoughts. For instance, one farmer questioned the increasing attention on conservation, countering that natural resources are adequate and need only be used more efficiently, and that human activities such as dam building do not hurt the environment, but only change it. This opinion contrasts markedly with the earlier cited Environmental StewardÕs view that farming is inherently destructive. Production Maximizers are strongly committed to making a living from their farms in order to support their families and secure their futures. Accordingly, they tend to be least interested in off-farm activities, whether employment or community oriented activities (Table 1). Their commitment is illustrated by one farmer who

S. Brodt et al. / Agricultural Systems 89 (2006) 90–105

97

Table 1 Statements distinguishing the three management styles Goal Statements

Ranking of Goal Statements Environmental Stewards

Statements relating to environmental protection concerns  I consider a decrease in pesticide use one way to +5* improve living and working conditions on the farm  My long-term goal is to learn how to manage +5* resources in cooperation with nature  I want to increase biodiversity on my farm even if it 0* takes land out of production 4*  I can not see using environmentally friendly management techniques if they sacrifice yield or crop quality  I use whatever fertilizers and pesticides are necessary 4* to get the job done  I am not willing to sacrifice farm profitability to 5* conserve water or other resources Statements relating to off-farm involvement  A successful farmer concentrates on production and is not sidetracked by interests or activities outside the farm  My goal is to make enough money to maintain a balanced lifestyle that incorporates interests outside of the farm  Expanding my farm business is not as important to me as community service  Off-farm employment provides financial stability as well as an opportunity for social interaction

3*

+2

2** 1**

Statements relating to production concerns and social competitiveness  I strive to produce the highest quality crop in my +4 area  I strive to produce the highest yields in my area 1*  Production goals take priority over personal goals 2**  I always want to stay one step ahead of other 3* farmers  As long as my business is growing IÕm not concerned 1* with what other people think  As long as production is OK I do not mind how the 2** farm looks Statements relating to obtaining and sharing information  I watch how successful farmers farm and often do 0* what they do  I incorporate the advice of a chemical supplier PCA +1* in making production decisions.  I do not like to discuss my yields and grades with 1* others *

p < 0.05,

**p

Production Maximizers

Networking Entrepreneurs

+2**

0**

0*

1*

5

3

1*

+1*

+1*

+3*

1

1

+2*

5*

3*

+3

4*

0**

4*

0**

+5*

+3

+4* +1* 0

+1* 4** 0

3

3

4

4

2*

+5*

+3*

+5*

+1*

3*

< 0.01 that this group is significantly distinguished from the other two groups.

98

S. Brodt et al. / Agricultural Systems 89 (2006) 90–105

maintained that investing off-farm would be a sign that the farmerÕs ‘‘heart is not in farming’’ and that he lacks confidence in his ability to farm. Despite their lesser interest in community involvement, Production Maximizers are not immune to community opinion, and they display both a competitive edge and a concern with appearance of the farm. Their spirit for business rivalry is demonstrated in their drive to produce the highest yields and quality in their area (Table 1), and they also indicated a slight reluctance to reveal too much to others or to get ideas from other farmers (Table 1). In contrast to the neutral rating by the Environmental Stewards, the Production Maximizers matched Group 3, the Networking Entrepreneurs, in giving a strong ‘‘disagree’’ ranking ( 4) to the statement As long as production is okay I do not mind how the farm looks (Table 1). In fact, attention to farm appearance figured prominently in several group membersÕ comments. One farmer even felt that the attention he pays to landscaping, as evidenced by plantings of roses in the vineyard, can play a role in improving the image of farmers and farming. Another farmer was even more specific in expressing his belief that if a farm looks ‘‘unkempt’’ to outsiders, they may associate that characteristic with the product itself and think twice about buying that commodity. These statements demonstrate that appearance concerns, relating to practices such as weed management and cover cropping, are not necessarily separable from business concerns for these farmers. 3.2.3. Networking entrepreneurs This group of nine farmers distinguishes itself from the previous two groups by placing relatively less emphasis on earning a living from the farm and showing a correspondingly stronger interest in off-farm activities and social interaction (Table 1). Networking Entrepreneurs really enjoy networking with their peers and other experts in order to acquire farm information, and they also expressed a willingness to share information about their own farms (Table 1). Moreover, several farmers in this group who hold off-farm positions as pest control advisors, a certified arborist, and a local Farm Bureau director noted that these outside activities allow for cross-fertilization of knowledge from different areas. Their strong emphasis on the critical role of information in farm management demonstrates an entrepreneurial confidence in new technologies and a willingness to seek out new information and risk new ideas. Comments by the farmers in this group also show that, rather than being less business oriented, their off-farm activities in many cases motivate them to be more entrepreneurial and business-minded on the farm. One farmer acknowledged that, while there is some perceived ‘‘mystique’’ to farming, his goal is to detach himself from this mystique and to ‘‘think business’’ only. Their off-farm activities, perhaps, make these farmers more keenly aware of time and labor costs of different practices on the farm and how these costs affect opportunities for off-farm involvements. This different prioritization of costs leads to a slightly different evaluation of biologically based practices. A greater emphasis on cost-and-return thinking based on yield and quality as opposed to more philosophical environmentalist orientations was expressed by the farmer who stated that ‘‘if environmentally friendly practices are good, then they will produce yield and quality’’ and by the farmer who noted that

S. Brodt et al. / Agricultural Systems 89 (2006) 90–105

99

he is willing to use ‘‘biorational tools’’ but only when he is confident that they will ‘‘perform’’. In addition, this group was the only one that firmly agreed with the statement I use whatever fertilizers and pesticides are necessary to get the job done (Table 1). 3.3. Demographic characteristics Farmers in the sample span a range of ages, farming experience, and acreage farmed (Table 2). In contrast, almost all farmers in the study have attained a high level of formal education, with most having attended college and only one in each group having stopped at a secondary school diploma (Table 2). The small sizes of the three groups limits the ability to draw conclusions about differences between them from standard statistical testing of demographic variables, which predictably yielded non-significant results. Inspection of the data, however, revealed a few notable trends that warrant further investigation. In terms of age, the Production Maximizers group comprises a somewhat greater proportion of members over age 55 than the other two groups, while the Environmental Stewards group is more concentrated in the younger ages, with 41% at age 45 or younger (Table 2). Correspondingly, the Production Maximizers and Networking Entrepreneurs consist wholly of farmers with over 10 years of farming experience, Table 2 Demographic characteristics of management style groups Environmental Stewards (N = 17)

Production Maximizers (N = 14)

Networking Entrepreneurs (N = 9)

Percent Age (years) < or =45 46–55 56–65 >66

41 29 24 6

36 7 43 14

22 56 11 11

Farming experience (years) 0–10 11–20 21–30 >30

24 18 35 24

0 14 36 50

0 33 44 22

Education Secondary school only Attended and/or completed college Membership in BIOS/BIFS

6 94 76

7 93 29

11 89 44

433 26 2227

115 6 283

Hectares Total farm size Mean Smallest Largest

630 7 3644

100

S. Brodt et al. / Agricultural Systems 89 (2006) 90–105

while the Environmental Stewards include the only farmers with less than 10 years of experience. It is possible that the greater age of the Production Maximizers in some part generates their more inward-turned orientation. One farmer even noted that he used to be very involved with the BIOS program when he was younger, but that the program has become too politically involved for him now that he is older. It is also almost a cliche´ that younger farmers have grown up in an era of heightened environmental concern and therefore may be more likely to take a stewardship approach to farming. Farm size distributions (Table 2) show that the Networking Entrepreneurs tend to have much smaller farms than farmers in the other two groups, which is consistent with the EntrepreneursÕ greater focus on off-farm activities and employment. The Environmental Stewards span the spectrum of farm size and also have some of the biggest farms in the sample. The distribution of BIOS/BIFS participants is, not surprisingly, rather skewed (Table 2). The majority of Environmental Stewards are participants, while the majority of Production Maximizers are not. The Networking Entrepreneurs stand between these two extremes with almost equal proportions of participants and non-participants. The fact that individuals with an ethic of environmental stewardship would tend to select themselves into a voluntary pesticide reduction program may not be surprising. However, the fact that the BIOS and BIFS programs also include moderate numbers of participants from the other two groups demonstrates that these programs exercise a broad appeal in attracting farmers with diverse ideologies and farming strategies. 3.4. Farmer attitudes towards the use of synthetic pesticides and perceptions of environmental and economic risks Farmers in the study tended to express one of two basic attitudes towards the predominance of pesticide use in farming: either that it is a problem and they themselves are trying to cut down, or that current usage does not pose any undue environmental risk. The former attitude was much more common among the Environmental Stewards. In addition to their statement sorting results, several of these farmers mentioned in interviews that they were trying to cut down on the use of synthetic chemicals as much as possible, and that they wanted to produce the best crop with the ‘‘softest’’ chemicals possible. In addition, while only one farmer in the group has certified organic acreage, at least four others mentioned that they would prefer to farm organically or use some organic practices, but they felt that using only organic practices is too risky. The Environmental Stewards also disagreed with the statement Farmers have always been concerned about the environment and do not need anyone else telling them what to do, with one in particular noting his belief that some farmers need more regulation to keep them from jeopardizing farming in general. In contrast, Production Maximizers and Networking Entrepreneurs only weakly disagreed with the above statement. Interviews revealed several individuals who clearly felt that farmers are already being responsible towards the environment and that current practices are not unduly harmful. One Production Maximizer in

S. Brodt et al. / Agricultural Systems 89 (2006) 90–105

101

particular expressed regret that a lot of ‘‘good pesticides’’ are being taken away from farmers through over-regulation. Another farmer stated that ‘‘pesticides that are used at the rates used are not harmful’’. Apart from these more obvious or expected responses, farmer interviews also showed quite a bit of crossover between groups. For instance, several Environmental Stewards noted that, while they are concerned about environmental impacts of farming, ‘‘there is a line’’ beyond which they will not go, usually due to perceived economic risks. On the other hand, one Production Maximizer stated clearly that ‘‘economic viability does not override safety and environmental concerns’’, and one Networking Entrepreneur noted that ‘‘farming must be profitable but not at the expense of the environment’’. Ultimately, the results do suggest strongly that almost all farmers in the sample are aware of current pesticide issues, both in terms of their potential hazards within their own farming systems as well as public concerns about pesticide use in general. Beyond environmental risks, the groups also differ somewhat in their perceptions of economic risks associated with pesticide use or reduction, and the degree to which they prioritize such concerns within their overall management strategies. We should note, however, that differences in risk perception seem relatively small compared to differences in perceptions of other issues. All three groups tended to give neutral ratings to statements directly dealing with the risk inherent in farming, including the statementBiological (sustainable) farming is risky. These results suggest that, for this group of farmers, at least, risk-taking, whether tied to pesticide reduction or other strategies, is seen as an inherent aspect of farming, and is probably tied to the perceived need to remain innovative. Finally, there was a notable minority of farmers who questioned the whole tone of statements such as I am not willing to sacrifice farm profitability to conserve water or other resources. These farmers rejected the implication that environmental stewardship and profitability are inherently incompatible and that as a farmer one must choose between strategies that reduce pesticides, for example, and those that secure profitability. Some negated the either/or proposition simply by noting that reducing pesticide use could indeed save money. Others went further and implicitly or explicitly contrasted short-term economic horizons with long-term horizons. For example, one Environmental Steward noted that biologically integrated farming is a smart strategy in the long run, and likened it to ‘‘putting money in the bank’’. A Production Maximizer, however, addressed the issue most directly in saying that ‘‘environmental stewardship and higher yields. . . should go hand in hand for long-term profitability’’.

4. Discussion: Diversity of farmersÕ goals and values in advancing alternative practices This study demonstrates that farmers hold many unique combinations of goals and values that result in different management strategies, even when they are growing the same crops within the same geographical region. Moreover, the fundamental features of the different management styles revealed in this study strongly resemble those identified in other studies from different parts of the world. As noted earlier,

102

S. Brodt et al. / Agricultural Systems 89 (2006) 90–105

Fairweather and Keating (1994) identified three styles among diverse pastoralists and crop farmers in New Zealand that bear many similarities to our three styles. Their ‘‘dedicated producers’’, similar to our Production Maximizers emphasis working hard on the farm, while ‘‘flexible strategists’’, like our Networking Entrepreneurs, emphasis working smart so that they can save time for family and off-farm pursuits. Finally, the ‘‘environmentalists’’ resemble our Environmental Stewards in their desire to be close to nature while still earning a livelihood. These authors also emphasize that, similar to our sample, all the farmers in their sample were business-oriented in terms of wanting to stay in business so that they can keep farming; hence these management styles go beyond a simple ‘‘business versus lifestyle’’ dichotomy of farmer priorities. WalterÕs (1997) fiscal ‘‘conservatives’’, community lifestyle-oriented ‘‘agrarians’’, and environmentally oriented ‘‘stewards’’ in Illinois also bear resemblance to our management styles. Beyond simply identifying the specific details of management styles in any particular population of farmers, however, we aim here to illustrate how an understanding of the diversity of management styles can be translated into public and private outreach and research efforts, especially those that aim to promote alternative, biologically integrated farming practices. One implication of this diversity is that outreach activities should be varied in both format and content to match farmersÕ ranges in learning styles and value systems. Our data show that while Networking Entrepreneurs enjoy exchanging information through social interaction, Production Maximizers might be more reluctant to share information in a group setting. Therefore, social formats such as field days and seminars should be augmented with more individualistic formats such as newsletters, websites, and one-on-one contact. Introduction of innovative practices should include information on a variety of factors that reflect differences in farmersÕ values and priorities, such as financial performance, farm appearance, time and labor requirements, and environmental consequences. This range in content pertaining to new practices would be more likely to satisfy the range of management priorities evidenced by the three farmer groups. These suggestions, in turn, hold implications for both the scope and methods of applied agricultural research. Experimental testing of new practices and technologies should investigate an expanded array of associated inputs and outputs that are not typically included in experimental designs including time, equipment and labor requirements, costs per unit of production, farm appearance, information needs, risk, creation or depletion of wildlife habitat, and impacts on air and water quality. Indeed, some of these types of information cannot be generated realistically without the involvement of farmers and use of on-farm trials in research. Beyond broadening the format and content of outreach and research, the results of this study also imply a need for rethinking the fundamental approach to using outreach and research for encouraging adoption of technology. Within the innovation adoption and diffusion tradition, the emphasis is often on identifying ‘‘barriers to adoption’’ of desired practices (Hrubovcak et al., 1999). Our results, suggest, however, that such an approach by itself inadequately addresses farm management. First, looking for ‘‘barriers’’ presumes that the technologies or techniques in ques-

S. Brodt et al. / Agricultural Systems 89 (2006) 90–105

103

tion are universally desirable to everyone, and that everyone would naturally want to use them if only they could overcome the identified barriers or if the barriers were removed. Such a presumption necessarily rests on a faulty assumption of homogeneity among farmers, both in their goals and in the strategies they choose to reach those goals. It would therefore fail to account, for example, for the presence of farmers who may feel that the technology they are currently using is already environmentally sustainable or for whom increasing resource conservation is simply not a major goal in their farm operation. Nor can it adequately account for the differences between a farmer who decides to pursue certified organic production and a farmer who sets aside land in a conservation easement. Both farmers might be striving to attain similar environmental goals but through different means. The second shortcoming of the barriers to adoption approach is that it recognizes only the negative side of technology adoption, i.e. factors that prevent adoption, and misses the positive side, i.e. incentives to adoption. By doing so, this perspective promotes a view of farmers as passive recipients of various structural and environmental constraints that are mostly beyond their own control. While such constraints are indeed often significant and must not be ignored, an alternative view of farmers might see them more as agents actively pursuing their varied goals, making proactive decisions and acting within their broader constraints, as opposed to simply reacting to them. All of the farmers participating in this study, for instance, revealed themselves to be actively interested in pursuing new technologies albeit for different reasons. Furthermore, these reasons might be different from those of the originators or promoters of the new technology (for example, some farmers might be interested in saving time and money while other farmers and some outreach organizations are most interested in minimizing a particular chemical load on the environment). Moreover, a choice not to adopt something may stem from a lack of incentive to do so within a given goal orientation, rather than the presence of some type of barrier beyond the farmerÕs control. Finally, the implications of this study can be extended one step further, to the nature of the outreach organizations themselves. Following the premise of this paper, it is not surprising that differences in goals among institutions have manifest themselves in differences in outreach styles, and that therefore a plurality of organizations working in the field might be the best way to address the plurality of management styles exhibited by farmers. In this particular case, the outreach programs included in this study resulted from partnerships between the publicly funded UCCE and private, non-profit organizations. While UCCE has traditionally emphasized expert-led seminars, with limited opportunities for farmer interactions, the two private organizations focus on farmer-to-farmer learning forums with more interactive formats. These more informal venues, while still relying heavily on UCCE expertise, are more likely to appeal to a distinct set of farmers such as the Networking Entrepreneurs, who are more socially oriented and value the experiential knowledge of their peers. They may hold less appeal, however, to the Production Maximizers, who are not as socially inclined and may place higher value on the more personal, independent learning they might achieve in an expert-led seminar or in one-on-one contact with extension personnel.

104

S. Brodt et al. / Agricultural Systems 89 (2006) 90–105

With respect to content, publicly funded institutions generally focus on the demands of the mainstream of constituents who support their programs. By partnering with private organizations, however, the BIFS programs in this study can also offer content that focuses on a somewhat more specialized audience, comprising the constituents of these organizations (in the case of CAFF, family farmers and ecologically oriented farmers). As a result, the BIFS programs can incorporate content that has more chance of appealing to growers outside of the mainstream, such as the Environmental Stewards, who hold values in line with the missions of these private organizations. The success in catalyzing change already exhibited by the BIFS programs (Villarejo and Moore, 1998; UC SAREP, 1998; Brodt et al., 2004) lends support to our thesis that a synergy of public and private organizations can advance the extension-related missions of both organizations sometimes beyond what either one could accomplish on its own, precisely because this synergy enhances their capacities to address the diversity of farmers documented here.

5. Conclusion Ultimately, the results of this study remind us that farmers are more than just ‘‘farmers’’ – they are part of the larger society and they form values and goals within the cultural context of that society. This embedded relationship implies that as long as some parts of the larger society value business efficiency as a primary goal or espouse a ‘‘more is better’’ mentality, then it should not be surprising that some farmers within that society also prioritize production efficiency and high yields. Similarly, as long as some parts of society are concerned about environmental issues and long-term sustainability, then there will be farmers who echo these concerns in their farming strategies. Therefore, while farmer-targeted outreach programs can make a difference, we also cannot expect farmers to adopt management strategies whose values are inconsistent with their personal values. On the other hand, we can expect that shifts in overall social values will also be reflected in the values of the farming community. We are already observing such a value shift in this study, with many of the farmers not directly participating in BIOS or BIFS programs (considered to be the ‘‘conventional’’ farmers in this study) nevertheless revealing some environmental stewardship values. At the same time, the results of this study demonstrate that growers may become interested in the same biological farming practices for reasons other than environmental concerns. In other words, different farmers can reach the same farming decision from very different sets of values. For example, the Production Maximizers may see a business benefit in reducing the use of synthetic pesticides because doing so may cut costs and create new marketing opportunities. The Networking Entrepreneurs find value in interacting with other farmers and sharing new ideas and therefore are intrinsically inclined toward the innovations of biologically integrated agriculture. Further, reducing the number of inputs allows them more free time for highly valued off-farm activities. It follows that research, education, and outreach activities with the ultimate purpose of advancing biologically based agriculture must look beyond environmental benefits in promoting their programs in order to be truly successful.

S. Brodt et al. / Agricultural Systems 89 (2006) 90–105

105

Acknowledgements We wish to thank the 40 growers who shared so much of their time and goodwill. Many thanks for their invaluable assistance are also due to the other members of our project team, including Lonnie Hendricks, Roger Duncan, Paul Verdegaal, Cliff Ohmart, Glenn Anderson, Jill Klein, Mark Cady, Gail Feenstra, and Jill Auburn. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the invaluable guidance on Q methodology extended by John Fairweather. This study was funded by the USDA CREES Fund for Rural America and the USDA National Research Initiative.

References Bennett, J.W., 1980. Management style: A concept and a method for the analysis of family-operated agricultural enterprise. In: Barlett, P.F. (Ed.), Agricultural Decision Making: Anthropological Contributions to Rural Development. Academic Press, New York, pp. 203–237. Brodt, S., Klonsky, K., Tourte, L., Duncan, R., Hendricks, L., Ohmart, C., Verdegaal, P., 2004. Influence of farm management style on adoption of biologically integrated farming practices in California. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 19 (4), 237–247. Brown, S.R., 1980. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. Yale University Press, New Haven. Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF) Foundation and Almond Board of California, 1995. BIOS for Almonds: A Practical Guide to Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems Management. CAFF Foundation, Davis, CA. Colby, M.E., 1991. Environmental management in development: the evolution of paradigms. Ecol. Econ. 3, 193–213. Fairweather, J.R., Keating, N.C., 1994. Goals and management styles of New Zealand farmers. Agric. Syst. 44, 181–200. Gasson, R., 1973. Goals and values of farmers. J. Agric. Econ. 24, 521–542. Hrubovcak, J., Vasavada, U., Aldy, J., 1999. Green Technologies for a More Sustainable Agriculture. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 752. Resource Econ. Div., Econ. Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Johnson, G.L., Halter, A.N., Jensen, H.R., Thomas, D.W. (Eds.), 1961. A Study of Managerial Processes of Midwestern Farmers. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA. Olsson, R., 1988. Management for success in modern agriculture. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 15, 239–259. Stephenson, W., 1953. The Study of Behavior: Q-Technique and Its Methodology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Swaffield, S.R., Fairweather, J.R., 1996. Investigation of attitudes towards the effects of land use change using image editing and Q sort method. Landscape Urban Plan 35, 213–230. University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (UC SAREP). 1998. Implementing a Biologically Integrated Farming System for Winegrapes in the Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape District. Final Report. UC SAREP, Davis, CA. Available from: http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/bifs/. Villarejo, D., Moore, C.V., 1998. How Effective are Voluntary Agricultural Pesticide Use Reduction Programs? A Study of Pesticide Use in California Almond and Walnut Production. California Institute of Rural Studies, Davis, CA. Walter, G., 1997. Images of success: how Illinois farmers define the successful farmer. Rural Soc. 62, 48– 68.