Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T09:55:49.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Self identified research needs of New York organic farmers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Brian P. Baker  and
Douglas B. Smith
Brian P. Baker
Affiliation:
Ciriacy-Wantrup Post-doctoral Fellow, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720.
Douglas B. Smith
Affiliation:
Graduate Student of Rural Sociology, Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853.
Get access

Abstract

A survey of organic farmers in New York State identified problems in need of university research. Weed management was the most frequently mentioned problem by far, identified as significant by two-thirds of the organic farmers. Only a few other problems were listed as significant, including insufficient time for farm work, lack of markets, low prices, and lack of appropriate tools. These were cited by more than a third of the farmers. Drought, insect management, and a lack of a dependable supply of labor were cited by about one-third of the respondents. The survey also examined organic farmers' information sources. They do not use conventional sources of agricultural information, such as the extension service and conventional agricultural media, as much as books, magazines, and newsletters on organic f arming, other organic f armers, and on-farm experiments. Many respondents noted that local extension agents did not know very much about non-chemical solutions to organic production problems. They considered University Extension to be accessible, but not very useful in solving problems specific to organic farming, and had many suggestions to improve Land Grant research in organic agriculture.

Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , Summer 1987 , pp. 107 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

1.Adams, R. S. (ed.). 1985. Sustainability of California agriculture: Public meetings. Adams Convention Reporting, San Rafael, California.Google Scholar
2.Aiken, W. H. 1986. On evaluating agricultural research. In New directions for agriculture and agricultural research, Dahlberg, Kenneth (ed.): 31–41. Rowman & Allenheld, Totowa, New Jersey.Google Scholar
3.Altieri, M. A., Davis, J., and Burroughs, K.. 1983. Some agroecological and socioeconomic features of organic farming in California. Biol. Agr. and Hort. 1:97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Blobaum, R. 1984. Barriers to the adoption of organic farming methods. In Alternative agriculture: Introduction and overview: 31–35. Institute for Alternative Agriculture, Greenbelt, Maryland.Google Scholar
5.Busch, L., and Lacy, W. B.. 1983. Science, agriculture and the politics of research. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
6.Buttel, F. H. 1979. Agricultural structure and agricultural policy: A preliminary report on the values and preferences of New York State farmers. Cornell University Rural Sociology Bulletin 109, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
7.Buttel, F. H. 1981. American agriculture and rural America: Challenges for progressive politics. Cornell University Rural Sociology Bulletin 120, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
8.Buttel, F. H., Gillespie, G. W., Janke, R., Caldwell, B., and Sarrantonio, M.. 1986. Reduced-input agricultural systems: Rationale and prospects. Am. J. Alt. Agr. 1:58–64.Google Scholar
9.Dahlberg, K. A. 1986. Introduction: Changing contexts and goals and the need for new evaluative approaches. In New directions for agriculture and agricultural research, Dahlberg, Kenneth (ed.): 1–30. Rowman & Allenheld, Totowa, New Jersey.Google Scholar
10.Gillespie, G. W., and Buttel, F. H.. 1983. What should be the government's role in agriculture? General summary of the 1982 New York Fanner survey, Cornell University Rural Sociology Bulletin No. 134, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
11.Lasley, P., and Bultena, G.. 1986. Farmers' opinions about third-wave technologies. Am. J. Alt. Agr. 1:122–126.Google Scholar
12.Lockeretz, W. 1986. Alternative agriculture. In New directions for agriculture and agricultural research, Dahlberg, Kenneth (ed.): 291–311. Rowman & Allenheld, Totowa, New Jersey.Google Scholar
13.Madden, P. 1987. Can sustainable agriculture be profitable? Environment 29(4):19ff.Google Scholar
14.New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (1984). New York agricultural statistics: 1983. New York Crop Reporting Service, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
15.United States Bureau of the Census. 1984. 1982 United States census of agriculture: Geographic area series 1, 32 (New York). U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
16.Wernick, S., and Lockeretz, W.. 1977. Motivations and practices of organic farmers. Compost Science 20(6):20–24.Google Scholar