Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T21:54:01.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of farm management style on adoption of biologically integrated farming practices in California

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

Sonja Brodt ,
Karen Klonsky ,
Laura Tourte ,
Roger Duncan ,
Lonnie Hendricks ,
Cliff Ohmart  and
Paul Verdegaal
Sonja Brodt
Affiliation:
University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program, Davis, CA, USA.
Karen Klonsky*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis, CA, USA.
Laura Tourte
Affiliation:
UC Cooperative Extension, Santa Cruz County, Watsonville, CA, USA.
Roger Duncan
Affiliation:
UC Cooperative Extension, Stanislaus County, Modesto, CA, USA.
Lonnie Hendricks
Affiliation:
UC Cooperative Extension, Merced County, Merced, CA, USA.
Cliff Ohmart
Affiliation:
Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission, Lodi, CA, USA.
Paul Verdegaal
Affiliation:
UC Cooperative Extension, San Joaquin County, Stockton, CA, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: klonsky@primal.ucdavis.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We consider the adoption of biologically integrated agricultural practices from the perspective of farm management style. Adoption decisions for farming practices must fit into a broader farm decision-making context that incorporates economic, environmental, social, family and personal considerations, as well as use of agricultural information sources. Drawing from a study of California almond and winegrape growers, we demonstrate that management styles differ substantially among farmers, these differences affect use of information sources and adoption of biologically based practices on the farm, and such adoption does not negatively affect crop performance. We used Q-methodology, a method for eliciting qualitative data using a variant of factor analysis, to identify three distinct management styles among a purposive sample of 40 growers. The Environmental Stewards' management style places higher priority on conservation of natural resources than on getting the highest possible yields or profits. Production Maximizers, with a different style, prioritize more traditional goals of producing the highest possible yields and quality and focusing resources on the farm rather than on outside concerns. Networking Entrepreneurs, on the other hand, value learning about innovative techniques in social contexts such as informational field days, evaluate new information with a business-like attitude and enjoy off-farm interests. A two-season mail survey of farming practices and information sources demonstrated that differences in management styles affect the adoption of practices. Environmental Stewards were more likely to practice biological pest control and encourage wildlife and less likely to use the most toxic chemicals. Production Maximizers had a greater tendency to use prophylactic and broad-spectrum chemicals, while Networking Entrepreneurs preferred more innovative biological pest controls but tended to avoid time-consuming cultural practices. Production Maximizers were distinguished by less use of more social forms of communication, such as attending field days and talking with other growers. Crop health and quality indicators showed that almost all growers were managing their crops very successfully, regardless of management style or choice of practices. These results hold important implications for efforts to increase the adoption of sustainable agriculture, especially by showing that contents and methods of outreach efforts must vary to accommodate diverse farm management styles.

Keywords

sustainable agricultureintegrated pest managementfarm management styleQ-methodologypest control advisers (PCA)extensionadoptionalmondswinegrapes
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 237 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. 4th ed. The Free Press, New York.Google ScholarPubMed
2Glynn, C.J.McDonald, D.G. and Tette, J.P. 1995. Integrated pest management and conservation behaviors. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50(1):25–29.Google Scholar
3Ridgley, A. and Brush, S.B. 1992. Social factors and selective technology adoption: the case of integrated pest management. Human Organization 51(4):367–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Fernandez-Cornejo, J. 1996. The microeconomic impact of IPM adoption: theory and application. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 25(2):149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Lighthall, D.R. 1995. Farm structure and chemical use in the corn belt. Rural Sociology 60(3):505–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Lighthall, D.R. 1996. Sustainable agriculture in the corn belt: production-side progress and demand-side constraints. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 11(4):168–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Moore, C.V. and Villarejo, D. 1998. Information and Pesticide Management: A Study of the Impact of Information Availability and Pesticide Use in California Almond and Walnut Production. California Institute for Rural Studies, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
8Thomas, J.K.Ladewig, H. and McIntosh, W.A. 1990. The adoption of integrated pest management practices among Texas cotton growers. Rural Sociology 55(3):395–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Waller, B.E.Hoy, C.W.Henderson, J.L.Stinner, B. and Welty, C. 1998. Matching innovations with potential users, a case study of potato IPM practices. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 70(2–3): 203–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
11Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50:179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Community Alliance with Family Farmers Foundation and Almond Board of California. 1995. BIOS for Almonds: A Practical Guide to Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems Management. CAFF Foundation, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
13Fairweather, J.R. and Keating, N.C. 1994. Goals and management styles of New Zealand farmers. Agricultural Systems 44:181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Stephenson, W. 1953. The Study of Behavior: Q–Technique and Its Methodology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
15Brown, S.R. 1980. Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
16 PQ Method. No date. Software adapted for personal computer by Peter Schmolck, University of the Federal Armed Forces Munich, from QMethod code developed by John Atkinson, Kent State University in 1992. Available at Web site http://www.rz.unibw-muenchen.de/~p41bsmk/qmethod/ (verified 29 September 2004).Google Scholar
17Weiss, R.S. 1968. Statistics in Social Research: An Introduction. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
18Clausen, S.E. 1998. Applied Correspondence Analysis: An Introduction. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Villarejo, D. and 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 for Rural Studies, Davis, CA.Google Scholar
20Bentley, W.J.Hendricks, L.Duncan, R.Silvers, C.Martin, L.Gibbs, M. and Stevenson, M. 2001. BIOS and conventional almond orchard management compared. California Agriculture 55(5):12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Dlott, J. and Haley, J. 1998. Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission grower and PCA feedback questionnaire: report of results. Appendix IV. In Ohmart, C.P. (ed.). Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission's Biologically Integrated Farming System for Winegrapes: Final Report. Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission, Lodi, CA.Google Scholar
22Brodt, S.Klonsky, K. and Tourte, L. 2001. Farmers’ goals and management styles: adoption of alternative farming practices. Paper presented at the Western Economics Association Annual Meeting, 5 July, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar