Motivation for Growing Organic Products
People usually do things for a number of reasons or motivations and this is no less true for farmers. Many of the farmers interviewed mentioned more than one motivation but in this analysis attention is given to the one principal motivation which was decisive in understanding that farmer's behaviour.
Figure 3.2 shows five motivations (criteria 6 to 10) which compel farmers to grow organic products (if possible) and two motivations (criteria 11 and 12) which lead them to seriously consider organic production. Criterion 6 was relevant to eight farmers who emphasised organic philosophy or concern for the environment. Their concerns were general rather than specific. They may have referred to farmers dying of cancer but the experience was not manifest in their immediate family and they may have referred to the balance of nature or that the organic philosophy made sense. In each case this general concern was sufficient in itself to motivate organic farming. Criterion 7 was relevant to five farmers who were slightly more focused in their concern, and that was with respect to chemicals in food. These farmers were health conscious as consumers, that is, they were opposed to all chemicals in food, or were concerned about people eating their products. One farmer believed that organic food tasted better and that conventionally produced food was tasteless. Criterion 8 was relevant to ten farmers who said that they had experienced ill health from chemicals. In some cases the ill health was experienced by a member of their immediate family or by a family pet. In other cases the farmers observed peoples= reactions to chemicals. In any case the essential feature of criterion 8 was the first-hand experience of adverse effects from use of chemicals rather than a general aversion, in principle, to the use of chemicals. This experience was a powerful motivation for organic farming.
Criterion 9 was relevant to farmers who emphasised that organic premiums were the most significant factor in their decision making. However, there were three ways in which this interest in premiums manifested. First, smallholders and some part-time farmers needed to optimise the use of their land and to receive the best possible return on their capital investment. They were attracted to the premiums, especially those provided by Heinz-Wattie for peas, beans, sweetcorn and carrots, in order to boost per hectare returns. Second, full-time farmers who were able to put some of their farm into organic crops were attracted to the premiums. While these farmers wanted good returns it was not so much because of their overall situation but because they were going to the effort of managing part of their farm on an organic basis. For these farmers the organic crop was part of their production portfolio by moving into organic production. Third, some kiwifruit farmers had responded to low prices for conventional fruit in earlier years. Generally then, farmers covered by criterion 9 were interested in adding value and producing "higher value crops". Most (especially the smallholders and part-time farmers) had first-hand experience of the returns from conventional crops and wanted to do better.
Criterion 10 was relevant to one farmer who cited some fundamental problems with conventional production. In some cases these problems were mentioned by other farmers but these were ancillary to their main motivation. This farmer believed that his earlier superphosphate fertiliser had not worked well and that stock health could be improved. His father had not used a high level of inputs so it is likely that he was sceptical of the benefits of using chemicals. Further, as was the case with at least one other farmer who critically assessed his methods and found them wanting, he had tried using liquid fertiliser. After a period of adjusting to the demands of organic production he had converted most of his farm to organic crops.
Criteria 6 to 10 reviewed above, if they apply, relate to motivations that directly lead farmers to grow organic products if possible. The remaining two motivations lead farmers to seriously consider organic production. Criterion 11 was relevant to 12 full-time farmers who were using chemicals but who preferred not to use them. In some cases this was motivated by concern for the cost of chemicals - this element of a farm budget is easily identified and valued - and in some cases by concern about working with sprays and their potential effect on their health. There was also some suspicion about the efficacy of sprays, or at least the cost-effectiveness of sprays. One farmer had a policy of using less chemical than recommended and if there was any doubt about the need for a chemical he did not use it. Use of chemicals was related to the type and intensity of farming and the particular weed problems which were present at that time, intensive crop farmers had high use of chemicals and perhaps were more disposed to finding ways to reduce this element of their costs. Criterion 12 was relevant to three farmers who had a special concern for soil quality. Two farmers did not burn their grain stubbles and were highly conscious of soil organic structure and humus levels. One farmer always used organic fertilisers. Their orientation to the soil made them receptive to organic farming techniques. There were 13 kiwifruit farmers for whom neither criterion 11 or 12 applied and they grew Kiwigreen fruit. However, they had considered organic production.
The 28 farmers who actually considered organic production on their farm may have been exposed to some of the ideas that influenced farmers in the elimination part of the decision tree but they went further and gave organic production more consideration. However, despite their interest in organic production only five of them decided to grow organic products. There were three separate constraints for these farmers who considered organic production. First, there were the technical issues as expressed by criterion 13. There were seven farmers who believed that organic production was not possible especially since their farming entailed managing many weeds. In some cases the crop farmers grew certified seeds for premium returns and were required to ensure that there was high purity in their seed crop. Farmers of other products also did not accept that viable methods of weed control were available. Second, there were financial constraints expressed by criterion 14. There were four farmers who believed organic production was not economically viable and/or that they could not afford low returns because of the level of their mortgage. Typically, these farmers had family responsibilities and an associated high mortgage which made it difficult to contemplate organic farming when they saw it as leading to lowered and/or uncertain returns. In some respects then the farmers who have considered organic production and decided not to pursue it are influenced by factors similar to those farmers who were eliminated by Criterion 4. Third, there was a perceived incompatibility between organic production and conventional production; seven farmers saw organic production leading to lowered production or increased costs of production. These farmers were more comfortable with high levels of production and did not refer to gross margin analysis to support their preference.
Figure 3.2 shows that from the total of 62 farmers that passed Figure 3.1 criteria and entered Figure 3.2 there were 34 farmers who had a motivation to grow organic products and 28 who had a motivation to consider organic production. From the latter group there were 18 farmers who decided not to grow organic products and ten farmers who went on to grow organic products. Thus there were a total of 44 farmers who would grow organic products unless there was a constraint that prevented them.
Contact for Enquiries
Kay Brown
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0695
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0746
Contact this person
