Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T21:21:30.254Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Organic vegetable production in the U.S.: Certified growers and their practices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo ,
Catherine Greene ,
Renata Penn  and
Doris Newton
Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo*
Affiliation:
Economists with the Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1800 M St., NW, Room 4052, Washington, DC 20036-5831.
Catherine Greene
Affiliation:
Economists with the Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1800 M St., NW, Room 4052, Washington, DC 20036-5831.
Renata Penn
Affiliation:
Economists with the Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1800 M St., NW, Room 4052, Washington, DC 20036-5831.
Doris Newton
Affiliation:
Economists with the Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1800 M St., NW, Room 4052, Washington, DC 20036-5831.
*
Corresponding author is J. Fernandez-Cornejo; jorgef@econ.ag.gov.
Get access

Abstract

Organic farming systems differ fundamentally from conventional ones in their primary focus on management practices that promote and enhance ecological harmony. Organic farmers also tend to have a different socioeconomic profile. In this study, we summarize average socioeconomic characteristics and production practices of a national sample of about 300 certified organic vegetable growers from 14 states and compare them to a large sample of about 6,900 conventional vegetable growers. We also examine the specific materials used by organic growers for pest and nutrient management.

Organic vegetable growers tend to be younger, more educated, less experienced in farming, and less likely to have grown up on a farm than conventional vegetable growers, and tend to operate smaller farms. Over three-quarters of the organic vegetable growers surveyed have small operations (less than 10 acres of vegetables), and they are much younger and work fewer days in off-farm jobs than conventional small growers. In contrast to conventional marketing practices, nearly half the surveyed organic growers, and the majority of small ones, market their vegetables directly to consumers through farmers' markets and other direct marketing channels.

The organic growers rely primarily on traditional organic processes such as green manuring (legumes), animal manuring, composting, and crop rotation to supply crop nutrients, and on cultural and biological tools, including pest-resistant plant varieties, water management techniques, adjustment of planting and harvesting dates, and beneficial organisms, for pest management. Animal meal, fish products, and lime are their most frequently reported supplemental nutrient sources (14, 20 and 28%, respectively, reported using these materials), and Pyrellin EC and petroleum-based soaps were the most frequently reported supplemental pest management materials (used by 6 and 8%, respectively). The pest and nutrient materials used by the organic growers are generally consistent with current guidelines of major certification organizations that provide services to organic growers, and there is high consistency among those guidelines and national recommendations for most of these materials.

Keywords

organic farmingecological productionvegetable cropsnutrient managementpest management
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 1998 , pp. 69 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

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.Anderson, M.D. 1990. Farming with reduced synthetic chemicals in North Carolina. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 5:60–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Baker, B.P., and Smith, D.B.. 1987. Self identified research needs of New York organic farmers. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 2:107–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Batte, M.T., Forster, D.L., and Hitzhusen, F.J.. 1993. Organic agriculture in Ohio: an economic perspective. J. Production Agric. 6:536–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Bruhn, C.M., Diaz-Knauf, K., Feldman, N., Harwood, J., Ho, G., Ivans, E., Kubin, L., Lamp, C., Marshall, M., Osaki, S., Stanford, G., Steinbring, Y., Valdez, I., Williamson, E. and Wunderlich, E.. 1992. Consumer food safety concerns and interest in pesticiderelated information. J. Food Safety 12:253–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.CCOF. 1996. 1996 CCOF materials list. California Certified Organic Farmers, D. Bowen Executive Director, in Noah's Ark Organic Farmer Homepage (http://www.rain.org/sals/m1.html).Google Scholar
6.Cuperus, G., Owen, G., Criswell, J.T., and Henneberry, S.. 1996. Food safety perceptions and practices: implications for extension. Amer. Entomologist (Winter):2–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Davies, A., Titterington, A.J., and Cochrane, C.. 1995. Who buys organic food? A profile of the purchasers of organic food in Northern Ireland. British Food J. 97(10):17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Dunn, J.A. 1995. Organic foods find opportunity in the natural food industry. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Food Review. 18(September-December):7–12.Google Scholar
9.Dunn, J.A. 1996. International organic market report. BioFair, Camara de Comercio de Costa Rica. November.Google Scholar
10.Farm Aid News. 1995. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, December.Google Scholar
11.Gillespie, G.W. Jr., Lyson, T.A., and Power, A.. 1995. Crop rotation patterns among New York potato growers: Insights from conventional and sustainable agricultural theory. J. Sustainable Agric. 7:5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Goldman, B., and Clancy, K.L.. 1991. A survey of organic produce purchases and related attitudes of food cooperative shoppers. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 6:89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Greene, C., and Calvin, L.. 1997. “Organically grown” vegetables: U.S. acreage and markets expand during the 1990's. VGS-271. Vegetables and Specialties: Situation and Outlook Report. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. pp. 19–23.Google Scholar
14.Howell, D. 1989. Organic agriculture: What the states are doing. Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
15.Jackson, G.W. 1997. Conservation provisions for the 1990 Farm Bill and their impacts on small farms. In D. Ebodaghe (ed). National Farm Conference. Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service and Land Grant University System. March. pp. 42–45.Google Scholar
16.MacCormack, H. 1992. The Oregon tilth certified organic standards and guidelines handbook. Tilth Certification Committee, Tualatin, Oregon.Google Scholar
17.McGlaughin, E.W., and Pierson, T.R.. 1983. The fresh fruit and vegetable marketing system: A research summary. Agric. Econ. Staff Paper 83–44, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing.Google Scholar
18.NOSB. 1994. Final recommendation. Addendum Number 2: Botanical pesticides policy. National Organic Standards Board. Rohnert Park, California.Google Scholar
19.NOSB. 1995a. Summary of NOSB recommendations for materials considered at Orlando. National Organic Standards Board and National Organic Program Staff.Google Scholar
20.NOSB. 1995b. Progress report on the proposed national list. National Organic Standards Board and National Organic Program Staff.Google Scholar
21.NOSB. 1995c. Summary of NOSB recommendations for materials and final recommendation, Addendum Numbers 25–27. National Organic Standards Board.Google Scholar
22.NOSB. 1996. Summary of NOSB recommendations for materials considered at Indianapolis. National Organic Standards Board.Google Scholar
23.OCIA. 1995. Materials list. In Organic Crop Improvement Association 1996: International Standards. Organic Crop Improvement Association.Google Scholar
24.OFRF. 1993. 1993 National organic farmers's survey results. Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, California.Google Scholar
25.OFRF. 1996. 1995 National organic farmers survey results. Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, California.Google Scholar
26.Thomas, V.G., and Kevan, P.G.. 1993. Basic principles of agroecology and sustainable agriculture. J. Agric. and Environmental Ethics 6:1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1995a. Z1994. Vegetable chemical use survey. Data documentation manual. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
28. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1995b. 1995 NASS list frame evaluation. NASS Staff Report SSB-95-02. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
29.Weaver, R.D., Evans, D.J., and Luloff, A.E.. 1992. Pesticide use in tomato production: Consumer concerns and willingness-to-pay. Agribusiness 8:131–42.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle Scholar