3.5 Discussion
Comparison of the results of this study to those reported in the literature show not so much as novel findings from New Zealand but a more comprehensive account of decision making in one study. The results confirm many of the findings from the earlier studies and highlight consistent themes in farmers' decision making. The decision tree integrates all the apparently relevant aspects of decision making in a reasonably succinct and efficient manner, and it provides some additional insights. First, it provides a more refined assessment of the different types of both organic and conventional farmers. Organic farmers can be of at least four types: Organic Hopefuls, Frustrated, Pragmatic or Committed, each having a shared viewpoint but giving expression to it in different ways. Their actual practice of organic farming is or will be influenced by their viewpoints and situation. Conventional farmers can be of at least two types: never really considered organic farming or have seriously considered it. Second, the decision tree readily identifies constraints that are preventing change to organic farming - constraints that apply to both organic and conventional farmers. These will be examined in more detail later when the prospects for encouraging organic farming are considered.
Diversity of Motivation for Organic Farming
The results of this study show that farmers come to be interested in organic farming for a variety of reasons. There are some fundamental patterns. First, some organic farmers were motivated by such unsurprising reasons as organic philosophy (criterion 6), or concern for chemicals in food (criterion 7). Others were concerned about personal health (criterion 8). These reasons can be characterised as typical of current views on food production and environmental problems which are common in contemporary urban discourse on organic farming. Second, some farmers were motivated by premiums, and this is not unexpected. Third, there were motivations relating to conventional production, either with experience of basic problems (criterion 10), antipathy to chemicals (criterion 11), or concern for the soil (criterion 12).
Fairly predictable were the findings relating to the organic movement generally. Criterion 6 and criterion 7 refer to two strands of the modern organic agriculture movement - one relating to the environment and one relating to food quality. These strands are similar to the findings in James's (1993) analysis of organic food consumption decisions in Britain. In James's study, ideas about organic food consumption were found to be incorporated into existing discourses rather than forming their own social discourse. Three prominent discourses tended to be predominant in people's decisions to eat organic food and the actual practice of organic food consumption was shaped by which discourse it was being incorporated into. The first of these discourses was environmentalism (James, 1993). The reason for eating organic food was that it had beneficial long-term effects on the environment. The second discourse was lifestylism (James, 1993). Lifestylism did overlap with the environmentalist discourse, but directly related food consumption as an indicator of having an "alternative" lifestyle to the perceived norm. The third discourse was health (James, 1993) which incorporated organic food purchasing decisions into wider concerns about food and health and was by far the most numerically significant. The important point is that James (1993) introduces the idea that organic consumption decisions were not necessarily logically derived from an ideological commitment just to environmentalism, and in fact, three different discourses all were invoked to produce the same ends. These discourses are very similar to the ideas expressed by the farmers in this study.
The farmers identified by criteria 6 and 7 (committed to organic philosophy or averse to having chemicals in food) relate to the first two discourses in James's study - environmentalism and lifestylism. Criterion 7 is also related to criterion 8 (concerns about health), and taken together they total 15 cases which have the same motivation described in James's third discourse. While the specific focus of the decisions were different (growing as against consuming organic food), the underlying structure of the decisions with these three criteria were very similar between the Canterbury study and James (1993).
Unlike James's findings, a significant group of farmers were attracted to organic production for reasons clearly situated within the experience of conventional farming (criteria 9-12). Most of these decisions centred around the desire to pursue the higher premiums for organic products or the desire to reduce the costs of spraying - both typical decision criteria within conventional farming. Somewhat surprising among the findings were the ten farmers who reported first hand experience of ill health which they attributed to chemicals (criterion 8). With the non-random sample used in the Canterbury study the proportion reporting ill health may be quite distorted, however, it is noteworthy that they mentioned health when most farmers and observers believe that conventional production is not particularly dangerous. Typically, the environmental danger of conventional farming is seen as manifesting in more generalised, adverse environmental effects. However, it must be noted that eight out of 48 kiwifruit farmers had experienced ill health which they attributed to chemicals but for only two of them was this an important aspect of their decision making. It appears that their need for profit outweighed their need for safety, or that their perceived risk from lowered profits was greater than their perceived risk from poisoning.
An expected finding was the financial motivation expressed in criterion 9. For some farmers this was very important, even though they may have also identified with some of the other motivations. Five out of seven of the farmers covered by this criterion were also Pragmatic Organic, meaning that they would switch to conventional production if premiums were to decrease in the future. Of the two farmers that were not Pragmatic Organic one was covered by criterion 15 (not enough time) while the other was a Committed Organic, but who would not grow any organic products if there were no premiums. Thus it is likely that, in general, financial motivation is not important for most farmers who are Committed Organic. Further, these premiums derive from the exporting activity of large organisations thereby highlighting the important role that such organisations can play in promoting the development of organic farming. In the case of the New Zealand Kiwifruit Marketing Board, their Kiwigreen programme and support for organic production directly influenced six farmers in their decision to grow organic kiwifruit.
The motivations for consideration of organic production that related to the unsatisfactory aspects of conventional production (criteria 10-11) were reported by full-time farmers who were perhaps more aware than we anticipated of some of the shortcomings of conventional production. They comprised a group who have considered organic production, albeit without necessarily seeking all the relevant information, and most (14) decided against organic production. Perhaps they were not motivated as strongly as the organic farmers to seek or develop alternative production methods.
Among the farmers who had considered organic farming and decided to grow organic products one can recognise the growing ascendancy of organic farming as a rejuvenation of "old style" farming, that is, farming with lowered purchased inputs. Some farmers in this group identified with, or were familiar with, low input farming or they had a parent who had not embraced high input farming. This type of farmer has not modernised or taken on the demands of high input production sometimes advocated by research centres of various types. These farmers can become "invisible" or unnoticed because they do not participate frequently in technology dissemination activities such as field days for conventional farmers and they may be more common among the farming population than is recognised currently. The farmers in this study who were from this group had come to organic farming along a different pathway of experience compared to those that had some affiliation with the current organic agriculture movement. In effect, these two groups of organic farmers had similar interests but quite distinct motivations and would appear to be unlikely bedfellows. In any case, traditional farming as practiced before World War II, approximately, has growing legitimacy now and is gaining credibility because of the organic movement. There are retired farmers and older farmers who remember the traditional farming techniques, and some of the organic farmers in this study have sought out help and advice from them. Some of these organic farmers were critical of current scientific practices although they did not appear to be aware of the diversity of approaches to farming that can derive from current science. Presumably, they would value modern scientists' input into identifying poisons among the chemicals that old style farmers may have used.
Finally, we can note the two broad responses of conventional farmers to the prospect of organic farming - some do not really consider it, while others do actually consider it but do not see it as not technically viable, not economic, or not compatible with their production preferences. Farmers in the first category were to some extent not encouraged to consider organic farming because their conventional farming was either unproblematic or profitable, or both. There was little that caused them to consider organic farming. There were some similarities between the two other types however, since there was a perceived problem with organic production that formed the basis of their decision.
The Organic Mind Shift
Attitudinal change is needed for effective change in production techniques. In large part it is not simply a question of farmers changing their techniques but changing their whole approach to farming, rather like a paradigmatic change that occurs when scientists, or others, thoroughly revise their prevailing theories or understanding of their world. One full-time organic farmer recognised this phenomenon, even within himself, during the process of adjusting from conventional farming to organic farming. Initially the BIOGRO regulations appeared daunting and unnecessary but he had, over a period of time, overcome the technical challenges and adjusted his attitudinal set as well. He emphasised that conventional farmers cannot suddenly change and become organic farmers.
A related point here is the demand that organic farming takes on managerial skill. As one farmer put it: "The best organic farmers are good conventional farmers first". This claim illustrates that organic farming is not easy, and that it requires a good knowledge of husbandry, in the broadest sense, to become an effective organic farmer. Another said: "It would have been easier to learn conventional farming first and then change to organic farming". The latter observation may be contentious because it could be argued that the demands on management required of organic farming could be more easily achieved by someone not influenced by conventional farming. However, putting this debate aside, the issue here is that organic farming requires a different approach to management and a different approach to problem solving compared to conventional farming. This is recognised by some kiwifruit farmers who see organic production as requiring too much hands on management which is unattractive to them if they seek the lowest cost per tray possible or lease 20-30 orchards in order to ensure fruit supply for your packhouse.
The key point is that there may not be a uniform farming knowledge. Kloppenburg (1991) (but see also Molnar et al., 1992; Flora 1992; Kloppenburg, 1992; Hassanein & Kloppenburg, 1995; Feldman & Welsh, 1995; Lyon, 1996) develops this point in his analysis of the failings of formal agricultural extension. The position taken by Kloppenburg is that agricultural knowledges and skills are often generated over long periods of time in specific locations involving complex interactions of different factors. Given that agricultural production takes place in such a situation, generalised knowledge systems and models - as provided by agricultural science - can often be unsuitable in specific situations. The most striking examples are taken from the failure of North American seeds and farming systems to be adapted to local conditions in the Green Revolution in India. For another example, in New Zealand, Campbell (1994) illustrated adaptation of general principles to specific settings during the rural downturn of the 1980s as experienced conventional farmers, who had a long-term knowledge of one piece of land, were able to reduce inputs and manoeuvre their farm operations in "crisis-mode" with more success than newly arrived farmers (often with large capital outlay) who were farming "by the book". Organic agriculture requires complex variables to be taken into account and often this can only take place through long-term experience attained on one farm. Thus, generalised scientific principles need to be specifically adapted to particular locations using local knowledge. One implication of this point is that for organic farmers who are forced into a different approach to problem-solving, this is not necessarily "unscientific" or characteristic of unsuccessful farmers. In fact, the opposite may apply as is being increasingly advocated in newer systems of agricultural extension like the "farmer first" approach in which farmers specify their research needs.
Policy: Research needs and Prospects for Encouraging Organic Farming
In this following discussion the assumptions are made that the aim of policy is to encourage organic farming, and that organic farming is a distinct production system compared to conventional farming. It is not assumed that policy initiatives are the responsibility of government. The main focus is on policies that could affect farmers directly, rather than on policies that could affect the context of farming such as proposals to support developments of an agricultural industry.
The first part of the decision tree relevant to policy is the list of elimination criteria. Farmers covered by criterion 1 and criterion 3 could be easily informed about organic farming because they have no particular views about it, that is, they do not have negative attitudes and would appear to be easy to persuade. Farmers covered by criterion 3 would be good candidates for organic farming because their farms are run on a low input basis. Farmers covered by criteria 2, 4 and 5 have stronger views about organic farming and would need considerable persuasion and/or provision of good evidence on the technical and economic viability of organic farming (see later discussion) and on its sustainability. The farmers most resistant to change would be those covered by criterion 2 - they have little need to change and see successful farming as that which is currently practiced.
The second part of the decision tree relevant to policy is the group of motivations covered by criteria 6 to 12. Some of these indicate needs for research to strengthen the claims that can be made to support organic farming. For example, criterion 8 refers to personal experience of ill health attributed to chemicals and it may be the case that a farmer survey could document the extent of such experiences among the farm population. Pryde (1981) surveyed farmers in 1980 to find that 4.4 per cent of the sample reported that their health was affected by chemical usage in the last 12 months. Farmers also reported other health problems, including allergies (26 per cent), which could stem from chemical use. At present there may be wider acceptance of the possibility of ill health from chemicals, and therefore, more reporting of instances. Alternatively, there may be more careful use of chemicals. Careful surveying would be needed to monitor farmer opinions and compare the present situation with 1980. Improved documentation of farmers' health and of the links between chemical use and ill health could encourage conventional farmers to reconsider their use of chemicals in ways that lead them to grow organic products.
Criterion 9 emphasises premiums and there is a need for careful analysis of the gross margins associated with growing organic products. Some New Zealand research has been conducted of this type (e.g. Lamb, 1994) and it shows that the best growers of organic crops for Heinz-Wattie can achieve excellent returns, but the lowest returns occurred for organic growers, typically on small farms. Further research is needed to cover a wider range of products and these results need to be widely publicised. This would have the effect of motivating more farmers to grow organic products (i.e. making criterion 9 more widely used), and it would address the concerns about financial viability expressed by farmers covered by criterion 4 and criterion 14. Generally, farmers' view on the economics of organic production show contrasting positions: some accept that premiums can be obtained while others deny that organic production is economic. Very few farmers were aware of gross margin data for vegetable crops in Canterbury and kiwifruit in the Bay of Plenty; the latter farmers were aware that there was an organic kiwifruit premium but guessed that it was $NZ1.00 per tray when for the last five years it has been $NZ2.21 per tray. Clearly, there is scope for more informed decision making on this topic. Better awareness of gross margins may influence some farmers constrained by criteria 15 (organic production not compatible) who could then better appreciate the possible financial benefits of lowered production. Other research on farmer goals in New Zealand (Fairweather and Keating, 1994) has identified "dedicated producers" and "flexible strategists" management styles, the former favouring profit through high production, and noted that there may be change away from a preponderance of the former to the latter. Awareness of gross margin analysis would support this change. Further, ideas about what is "good" farming and what is "tidy" farming may need to change to allow organic farming to have a greater role to play.
Not only is further research on the gross margins of organic crops needed, but attention must be given to providing premiums to encourage farmers to grow organic products. Where export premiums can be obtained then these provide the greatest incentive to farmers. As the decision tree has demonstrated, this function was vital to supporting the development of organic production. If the companies offering premiums did not operate in Canterbury and in the Bay of Plenty then it is likely that a key element of the decision tree (criterion 9 - premiums) would not be so relevant, and most of the organic farmers would be motivated by philosophy, food and health factors only.
The decision tree highlights a number of constraints to organic production and focusing on these can also guide the development of policy recommendations. The main constraints are the views popular among many conventional farmers that organic farming is not technically or economically viable or not compatible with high production (criteria 4, 13 and 15). The economic viability issue has just been discussed. On the technical side there is scope for research, demonstration and dissemination of techniques to solve technical problems. Many farmers were concerned about weed control and yet some of the organic farmers said that they had overcome most of the problems associated with this aspect of organic production. Some claimed that it was a matter of timely cultivation combined with careful observation and prompt response to emerging weeds. It seems that weed control is possible, and that there are new techniques recently developed, but that they are not so convenient as using chemicals. Preventing adoption of organic techniques is the apparent suitability of some chemicals. A popular chemical is Roundup and its apparently benign effect on the soil makes it difficult for conventional farmers to see why it is not environmentally acceptable. Another apparently benign traditional practice is the use of superphosphate fertiliser, and some farmers believe that its use is necessary to benefit soil structure and improve humus levels. There is also a need for research on the crop rotations that are viable under organic farming, and a need for a broader range of organic crops so that completely organic rotations can be used. Another element to technical development is research which would lead to improved seed dressing and cleaning technology. This would allow efficient separation of seeds harvested from grain crops with a high proportion of weed seeds. Insect pests on kiwifruit are being managed using organic techniques, and techniques to refine control are presently being developed.
The other important constraints (criterion 16 and criterion 17) relate to farmers who were still looking for an organic crop. Some in this group are perhaps best described as wishful thinkers and have small areas that will not contribute significantly to production. However, they may be useful in that they can develop new techniques or crops that will benefit the organic industry. The size of farm is a problem for many in this group. Research and publicity on the financial viability or organic farming needs to emphasise the role and importance of farm size. Hopeful Organic farmers may not actually become significant producers, although this depends on their ability and initiative to develop an organic product, and on contextual factors such as provision of research results or other technical or marketing assistance. The Frustrated Organic farmers were more practical in orientation since they were actually engaged in full-time conventional farming, and they may be quite adept at changing to organic production.
Finally, the constraint of a high mortgage was referred to by farmers covered by criterion 14 and criterion 18 but this is an ambivalent issue. On the one hand, it seems plausible that mortgage levels significantly influence decision making and finding ways to overcome this constraint would appear to be effective in encouraging organic production. Perhaps improved financial analysis might show that the barrier is more apparent than real. On the other hand, a high mortgage may have resulted from the high cost of land and therefore, the cost of entering farming and is likely to be an enduring aspect of primary production. Under competition for land it may not be possible to do anything other than intensive farming in the majority of cases (but see the point about the need for gross margin analysis made above). If this is the case then it may be more likely that organic farming will occur on the margins of commercial agriculture, such as on smallholdings and part-time farms where off-farm income provides a basis for the development of organic production systems. Where premiums for organic products are available then there is greater likelihood that organic production will occur among a broader range of farmers.
Generally, the results of this study indicate that there is considerable potential for the continued development of organic production in New Zealand. While the financial incentives have played a significant role for some farmers there are still other farmers who grow organic production in the absence of premiums. Further, among conventional farmers themselves there may be a significant proportion who have not fully embraced high input farming systems and would be well placed to convert to organic production. Some farmers in this study were not really aware of organic farming: they ignored it rather than rejected it. There were signs that low input or traditional styles of farming are gaining legitimacy and this development could, in time, encourage more farmers to try alternative systems. Further, a significant proportion of full-time farmers in this study had considered organic farming. If ways are found to address the issues of economic and technical viability of organic farming, including farmers' attitudes to change, then a major stumbling block for conventional farmers would be addressed and the conversion to organic farming would occur more quickly.
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
