Classifying Conventional and Sustainable Farmers

Abstract

Researchers often compare sustainable farms with conventional farms in order to better understand sustainable farming. Unfortunately, the literature lacks a standard set of criteria for classifying farms. The present research analyzed data from a survey of North Dakota farmers to empirically compare nine approaches to classification. These classifications were modestly intercorrelated and had similar relations to four farm/farmer characteristics (number of acres farmed, net income per acre farmed, views on farm policy, and number of organizational memberships), but the different classifications were not directly interchangeable and appear to reflect quasi-independent dimensions associated with chemical use and tillage practices. It does matter how you measure.Two approaches to farming are the focus of considerable attention in today's agriculture: low-input/sustainable agriculture (LISA)

Perceptions regarding sustainable agricultural practices associated with weed management: implications to agricultural extension education

“…For instance, the use of labor in weeding operations might decrease pesticides. Young et al (1991) pointed out the lack of standard set of criteria for classifying farmers into either conventional or sustainable farmers. Their study suggested that several classifications used were intercorrelated and had similar relations to four farmer characteristics (number of acres farmed, net income per acre, views on farm policy, and number of organizational memberships).…”

“…In an effort to come up with clear criteria for the classification of approaches. Young et al (1991) formulated classification schemes that employed two approaches: (I) farmer self-classification-self-description or self-perceived, similarity/dissimilarity with other fanners; and 2) researcher classification of farmers based on farmers' attimdes and on farmers' acmal practices. Their approach revealed three types of farmers: conventional farmers, sustainable farmers and those in transition or a mixed type.…”

“…Therefore, it becomes necessary for researchers to formulate several techniques or practices that a fanner could respond to, and based on the responses received, the classification could then be drawn. On ±e other hand, as Young et al (1991) suggested, researchers could use the characteristics of the responses to identify individual farmer's attitudes and whether they are similar or dissimilar with other farmers. Young et al (1991) used two of the criteria proposed by researchers: attimdes and practices.…”

“…On ±e other hand, as Young et al (1991) suggested, researchers could use the characteristics of the responses to identify individual farmer's attitudes and whether they are similar or dissimilar with other farmers. Young et al (1991) used two of the criteria proposed by researchers: attimdes and practices. Attitudes are defined as more or less permanent feelings; thoughts and predispositions people have about certain aspects of their envirormient.…”

“…For instance. Young et al (1991) considered low input sustainable agriculture (LISA), farming techniques regarding views on soil erosion, ±e use of synthetic chemicals, and the use of energy inputs, as appropriate indicators of farmer attimdes. However, Crosson (1989) considered the use of attitudes inappropriate in a few selected categories, especially when used for comparing the impact of conventional versus LISA farming practices based only on the physical environment.…”