An agro-ecological assessment of grower practices in California

More documents

Recommendations

Info

258 JULIE GUTHMANdefine them, layered with the more recent history oforganic’s genesis. The purpose of this paper, however,is to address a specific empirical issue, which is theextent to which California organic farmers practice thetechniques of agro-ecology, organic farming’s mostcentral and widely accepted claim. 2 While this topicclearly links to a broader set of arguments, by narrowingit so, it allows a focus on much-needed empiricalevidence that has been heretofore only presumed.Therefore, the central theme of this paper is adescription of grower practices. These descriptions arebased on interviews and site observations with 150 ofthe 2,204 organic growers that were registered withthe state of California in 1997, both certified and noncertified.3 Interviews were conducted between Decemberof 1997 and March of 1999. Because the medianfarm size of organic operations is quite small – 4.4acres in 1994–1995 (Klonsky and Tourte, 1998), theresearch sample was stratified to capture a statisticallysignificant group of large growers as well as those withmixed conventional and organic operations. In otherwords, it was deliberately skewed in order to see iftaxonomic patterns exist in how organic agriculture ispracticed. So while not proportionately representativeof the California organic sector in grower numbers, thestudy easily captures most of the sales and acreage inthe sector.The paper proceeds in the following way: First,it looks at the claims of ecological farming, derivedfrom agro-ecology but which have been further codifiedby California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) 4and briefly discusses how these principles were usedas the basis of an agro-ecological assessment withinthe study. Next, it introduces the results of this assessment,which indicates the degree to which Californiafarmers practice agro-ecology, both in the aggregateand within broad taxonomies. Then, it turns to adetailed description of how organic farming is practicedin California, referring to each of the principleson which the assessment was based, both to note thepatterns in how specific agro-ecological principles arefollowed and to note differentiation by factors otherthan scale-based taxonomies. It concludes by suggestingsome of the ways in which the very act ofcodifying agro-ecological principles affects how theyare practiced.Defining the agro-ecological criteriaAs a general rule, sustainable agricultural systems aresupposed to minimize energy and resource use, byrecycling resources within the farming system, or atleast by using resources found near the farm. Froma technical viewpoint, the basic components of sucha system are (1) use of cover crops, mulches, andno-till practices as effective soil and water-conservingmeasures; (2) promotion of soil biotic activity throughthe regular addition of organic matter such as manureand compost; (3) use of crop rotations, crop/livestockmixed systems, agro-forestry, and legume-based intercroppingfor nutrient recycling; and (4) encouragementof biological pest control agents through biodiversitymanipulations and introduction and/or conservation ofnatural enemies (Altieri, 1995: 92).In this study, growers were assessed on the degreeof their adoption of the above sorts of practices (onorganic fields only), according to criteria developedboth to discern taxonomic difference and to determinehow regulation itself affects organic practices. Mostof the assessment was based on comprehensive interviewswith each grower studied, and thus capturedpractices as growers themselves describe them. Theseassessments, however, were often supplemented by thevisual cues of on-site observations, which in no casecontradicted descriptions as given by growers, but onlyenriched them.The criteria on which growers were assessedinclude• degree and extent of on-farm fertility managementthrough composting and cover cropping;• degree of on-farm biological pest management;• avoidance of legally restricted or controversialmaterials (explained below);• employment of innovative weed control practicessuch as mulching;• bio-diversified cropping patterns, including intercroppingand integrated livestock; and• evidence of intensive management (as opposed to“organic by neglect”). 5Growers were given one point for each criterionsubstantially met, except for the first two criteria,which were given double weight since there is a muchwider spectrum in these areas. This allowed growersto earn a middle rating for these two criteria. Forexample, a grower who cover crops a portion of thefarm every year and purchases compost from a supplierwould earn one point, one less than a grower whoprovides all the farm’s fertility needs through on farmrecycling and cover crops, but one more than a growerwho purchases all fertility needs. Points were addedand then calibrated to a one through five aggregate rating,one being assigned to growers who took none ofthese affirmative steps, and five going to those who didall. In addition, a rating of zero was assigned to growersif they were in obvious violation of organic codesand practices. When rounding was required, additionalfactors were considered, such as attention to water conservationor on-farm seed and transplant development,
RAISING ORGANIC 259Table 1. Agroecological ratings by grower type.Rating Mixed growers All-organic growers All growers0 (lowest) 1 1.5% 0 0.0% 1 0.7%1 10 14.9% 1 1.3% 11 7.6%2 40 59.7% 20 26.0% 60 41.7%3 14 20.9% 29 37.7% 43 29.9%4 2 3.0% 23 29.9% 25 17.4%5 0 0.0% 4 5.2% 4 2.8%Total observed 67 100.0% 77 100.0% 144 100.0%Table 2. Agroecological ratings by grower sales.Rating Sales: $10,000,000999,999 9,999,9990 0 0.0% 1 2.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%1 1 2.3% 2 5.3% 6 13.3% 2 11.1%2 14 32.6% 13 34.2% 19 42.2% 14 77.8%3 17 39.5% 10 26.3% 14 31.1% 2 11.1%4 9 20.9% 10 26.3% 6 13.3% 0 0.0%5 2 4.7% 2 5.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Total observed 43 100.0% 38 100.0% 45 100.0% 18 100.0%Note: Sales include all aspects of operation, not just crop value.although neither is considered in the construction oforganic rules. 6Aggregate analysisTable 1 is the distribution of ratings according towhether growers are all-organic or mixed conventionaland organic; Table 2 is the distribution of ratingsaccording to sales class, as a proxy for scale. AsTable 1 shows, the modal point for all growers interviewedwas a “2,” assigned to 60 out of 144 growers,or 42%. 7 In effect, this rating means that growersare following the letter of the law, but are relyingheavily on an “input-substitution” strategy to managetheir organic program (Rosset and Altieri, 1997),where disallowed inputs have been replaced by allowableorganic inputs. In other words, most growershave not reached what Hill (1985) calls the “designphase,” where external inputs are minimized and thefarm operates in a “balanced” and “self-regulating”manner.This modal point in part reflects the skewness ofthe sample towards large and mixed growers. Mixedgrowers disproportionately achieved a 1 to 3 rating(97% of those interviewed) with a modal rating of 2,whereas all-organic growers mainly achieved a 2 to 4rating (94% of those interviewed) with a modal ratingof 3. (When further dis-aggregated to those whohave always been organic, the modal rating goes upto 4, or 41% in that category.) Likewise, as can becalculated from Table 2, 90% of growers in the twolargest scale categories met criteria for 1 to 3 ratings,with no one in the top category higher than a 3, eventhose that are all-organic, while 90% in the two smallestscale categories received 2 to 4 ratings. Some ofthe scale-based difference has to do with the inevitableimputation of scale-based criteria in the ratingsystem itself. The fact is that if on-farm compostmakingis taken as evidence of a higher degree ofagro-ecology, it constrains large scale operations fromliving up to that standard, a limitation that is the normativebasis of agro-ecology (Altieri, 1995). But it isalso true that larger, or more well capitalized growersare more dependent on external inputs, because theycan afford to be. In other words, it may be less theideological commitment and more the inability to payfor the “silver bullet” that constrains smaller growersfrom seeking such solutions. These problems areendemic to correlation-based reasoning, but such speculationshould not blur the basic finding that growerswith mixed and/or larger operations more often do theminimum in meeting agro-ecological ideals than thosewho are fully organic and/or smaller.
Page 1: Agriculture and Human Values 17: 25
Page 5 and 6: RAISING ORGANIC 261insects will wai
Page 7 and 8: RAISING ORGANIC 2631993). In the mo
Page 9 and 10: RAISING ORGANIC 265from which manur

An agro-ecological assessment of grower practices in California

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?