sustainable and conventional farmers: a comparison of socio-economic characteristics, attitude, and...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln]On: 30 October 2014, At: 08:21Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sustainable AgriculturePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa20

Sustainable and Conventional Farmers: A Comparisonof Socio-Economic Characteristics, Attitude, and BeliefsSammy Comer a , Enefiok Ekanem a , Safdar Muhammad a , Surendra P. Singh a & FissehaTegegne aa Department of Agricultural Sciences , Tennessee State University , 3500 John A. MerrittBoulevard, Nashville, TN, 37209-1561Published online: 22 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Sammy Comer , Enefiok Ekanem , Safdar Muhammad , Surendra P. Singh & Fisseha Tegegne (1999)Sustainable and Conventional Farmers: A Comparison of Socio-Economic Characteristics, Attitude, and Beliefs, Journal ofSustainable Agriculture, 15:1, 29-45, DOI: 10.1300/J064v15n01_04

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J064v15n01_04

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J064v15n01_04

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J064v15n01_04

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Sustainable and Conventional Farmers:A Comparison

of Socio-Economic Characteristics,Attitude, and Beliefs

Sammy ComerEnefiok EkanemSafdar MuhammadSurendra P. SinghFisseha Tegegne

ABSTRACT. The main objective of this study was to analyze andcompare the socio-economic characteristics, attitude and beliefs of sus-tainable and conventional farmers. The results show that there was asignificant difference in the use of Sustainable Agriculture System(SAS) practices by conventional and sustainable farmers. The responseon two agriculture paradigms was significantly different among the twogroups of farmers. The probit coefficient showed that there was positiverelationship between farmers’ education, number of new farming prac-tices adopted, and SAS. The results suggest that sustainable farmerswere younger and have more off-farm income compared to convention-al farmers. It was also concluded that affiliations with different farmergroups/organizations does affect the farmer’s perception toward SAS.The results of this study would be helpful to policy makers in developingstrategies and policies to enhance SAS in order to improve the environ-ment and rural communities. [Article copies available for a fee from TheHaworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address:[email protected] <Website: http://www.haworthpressinc.com>]

Sammy Comer, Enefiok Ekanem, Safdar Muhammad, Surendra P. Singh, andFisseha Tegegne are affiliated with the Department of Agricultural Sciences, Tennes-see State University, 3500 John A. Merritt Boulevard, Nashville, TN 37209-1561.Authors are listed in alphabetical order.

Data for this study were collected under a project ‘‘Sustainable Agriculture: AStudy of Adoption and Impact on Rural Communities’’ funded by the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture.

Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, Vol. 15(1) 1999E 1999 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.haworthpressinc.com

JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE30

KEYWORDS. Conventional and sustainable agriculture, attitudes, be-liefs, paradigms, practices and probit model

INTRODUCTION

Agriculture in the United States has moved progressively from traditionalpractices relying on the soil’s inherent fertility and regenerative powers, toconventional practices that depend on high levels of chemicals and energyuse and crops produced under monoculture. Conventional agriculture hasbeen defined as ‘‘capital intensive, large-scale, highly mechanized agriculturewith monoculture of crops and extensive use of artificial fertilizers, herbi-cides, and pesticides with intensive animal husbandry’’ (Knorr and Watkins,1984). The use of conventional practices has boosted food production, butcosts have been incurred in the process. These costs are both economic andecological in nature. Examples of these costs are: persistent soil erosion withsubstantial off-site damages, contamination of surface and groundwater, lossof genetic diversity, cost-price squeeze, and decay of rural communities(Schaller, 1991). Increased use of chemicals in agriculture has also causedconsumers to worry about food safety. As a result, support is growing amongboth farmers and non-farmers for alternative agriculture systems. Systems ofagriculture that will continue indefinitely to be productive and profitable,conserve resource, protect the environment, and enhance the health and safe-ty of the citizens are desired. An ideal system that accomplishes these goals iswidely referred to as ‘‘Sustainable Agriculture (SA)’’ (Schaller, 1991).Sustainable agriculture (SA) is defined in terms of philosophy as well as

farming practices. Francis and Youngberg (1990) define sustainable agricul-ture as a philosophy that guides us to develop integrated, resource conserv-ing, and equitable farming system based on previous experience and currentknowledge. Besides this appealing philosophy, there are conflicts amongsustainable farmers as to how best to achieve sustainability because of differ-ent regions, background, economic and social characteristics. The 1990 farmbill defines sustainable agriculture as ‘‘an integrated system of plant andanimal production that will satisfy human and fibre need, enhance environ-ment quality and natural resources, sustain economic viability of farm opera-tions and improve the quality of life for farmers and society over the longterm.’’ According to Debertin (1994), SA consists of a collection of agricul-tural production practices that can be continued, or ‘‘sustained’’ over a longperiod of time. Ikerd (1990) defines sustainability as the ability to keep farmsboth ecologically sound and economically viable.The adoption of sustainable agriculture strategies/technologies has re-

ceived frequent attention in recent years, both by producers and consumers.Despite economic and non-economic disadvantages of conventional agricul-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Research, Reviews, Practices, Policy and Technology 31

ture, farmers have been slow to adopt these practices, and adoption appears tovary widely by region and crops (Greene et al., 1985; Dillman, 1984; Douce,1981; Musser et al., 1986; and Edwards, 1984). Much of the research effort in(adoption of) sustainable agriculture has been fragmented, with little coor-dination and integration. Several issues have not been adequately treated inprevious studies (Norris and Batie, 1987). While research on sustainableagriculture systems has produced information on several alternative practices,little substantive research has investigated the structure of belief and motiva-tion that drive farmers’ decisions about SAS adoption. The transition fromconventional to alternative farming system literature lack relevant socialbarriers to adoption other than profitability (National Research Council,1989). One of the major obstacles to widespread adoption of sustainableagriculture is the lack of readily available scientific information for farmersand how to disseminate this information about SAS systems to farmers(Singh and Osawaru, 1990). Most of the studies have been done from theperspective of the researcher or professional conservationist rather than tolooking at the decision making process from the farmer’s perspective. Topromote further spread of SAS for sustainable development, there is a need tobetter understand the farmers’ view point (Nowak, 1983).A good understanding of farmers characteristics, attitudes and beliefs

would help us to determine factors influencing their decisions to adopt SAand identify characteristics associated with adopters and non-adopters. Thiswill assist policy-makers in developing strategies to increase adoption ofSAS.

Objectives and Hypotheses

Empirical evidence indicate that adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Sys-tem (SAS) are influenced by several factors, such as economic constraints,ecologic, agronomic and farmers’ attitude and beliefs. The general purpose ofthis study is to identify and compare characteristics, attitudes, beliefs ofsustainable and conventional farmers leading to the identification of charac-teristics associated with adoption of Sustainable Agriculture. Based on pre-vious studies, the following hypotheses were formulated and tested for thisstudy.

a. Sustainable farmers adopt more new farming methods recommendedfor sustainable agriculture system than conventional farmers.

b. SAS is not only an environmental/social issues, but practical fromagronomic and profitability point of view.

c. Both groups have different opinion about sustainable and conventionalagriculture paradigms.

d. Sustainable farmers are younger, more educated, and most of their totalincome is derived from off-farm sources.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION

Amail survey was conducted to obtain primary data from selected farmersin middle and west Tennessee. Dyer and Haywood counties were randomlyselected in the west and Wilson and Franklin counties from the middle Ten-nessee. After four counties were selected, a list of farmers in those countieswere obtained from the Agriculture Extension Agents in the county. A ques-tionnaire was mailed to 150 randomly selected farmers from the list. Followup telephone calls were made. Fifty-six useable questionnaires were returnedrepresenting a response rate of 37.33 percent.The characteristics of sustainable and conventional farmers were compared

using appropriate statistical methods. Probit analysis was used to determinethe impact of socio-economic factors, attitude and beliefs on farmer’s percep-tion toward SAS.

Comparison of Characteristics of Sustainableand Conventional Farmers

The main objective of this study was to identify and compare the econom-ic and social characteristics, attitude and beliefs of sustainable and conven-tional farmers. Farmers were asked to identify themselves as conventional,transition to sustainable, or sustainable farmers. As there were only fewrespondents who considered themselves in transition to SA, and preliminaryanalysis did not detect any differences in responses between those choosingsustainable and transition to SA. Therefore, the two groups were combined toform one SA category. A larger percentage, 62.5 percent of selected farmersconsidered themselves as conventional while the remaining 37.5 percentconsidered themselves as sustainable farmers.

Age, Education, and Experience of Selected Farmers

Average age for two groups of selected farmers was almost the same(56.00 and 56.37 years), and similarly the average experience in farming alsodid not vary much for the two groups. However, distribution of farmers byage groups varied in the two groups. A little over one-third of the selectedfarmers were below the age of 50 years in the conventional group comparedto only 23.80 percent in the sustainable group (Table 1). Majority of thefarmers in both groups were in the age category of 51-60 years, but theirpercentage varied, 52.38 percent of the sustainable farmers were in this agecategory compared to only 31.43 percent in the conventional group.In the sustainable group, farmers were more educated (57.15% had college

education) compared to conventional farmers, only 38.89% had collegeeducation. The mean level of education for sustainable farmers was alsohigher (2.48) compared to conventional farmers (2.28), (where, 1 = primary

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE 1. Distribution of selected sustainable and conventional farmers by agegroups, education level, and farming experience.

SUSTAINABLE CONVENTIONAL TOTAL

Percent

AGE (years)

30-40 0.00 5.71 3.57

41-50 23.81 28.57 26.79

51-60 52.38 31.43 39.29

61-70 19.05 20.00 19.64

>70 4.76 14.29 10.71

EDUCATION

School 42.85 61.11 54.39

College 57.15 38.89 45.61

EXPERIENCE (years)

1-10 10.00 5.71 7.27

11-20 20.00 25.71 23.64

21-30 25.00 25.71 25.45

31-40 15.00 11.43 12.73

41-50 20.00 17.14 18.18

>50 10.00 14.29 12.73

school, 2 = high school, and 3 = college education). Distribution of farmers inthe two groups by years of farming experience was similar with averageyears of experience of 32.75 for sustainable farmers compared to 32.51 yearsfor conventional farmers (Table 1).

Annual Gross Sale from Farming and Off-Farm Income

Both sustainable (68.42%) and conventional farmers (64.71%) reportedincome from off-farm sources. Over 80% of the farmers in the sustainablegroup reported off-farm income over $20,000 in a year, compared to 64.28%for conventional farmers. Similarly 26.66% of the operator spouses reportedoff-farm income between $10,000-$20,000, and 60% over $20,000 comparedto 36.84% and 42.10% for conventional farmers, respectively.The distribution of SA and conventional farmers varied by gross annual

sales as shown in Table 2. A larger percentage of SA farmers and theirspouses earned off-farm income over $20,000, compared to conventional

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE 2. Comparison of annual gross sales from farming, off-farm income andpercent share of income from farming in total family annual income of sustain-able and conventional farmers.


Percent

ANNUAL GROSS SALE

Under 5,000 9.52 15.15 12.96

5,000-15,000 33.33 36.36 35.19

15,000-30,000 23.81 12.12 16.67

30,000-50,000 14.29 30.30 24.07

50,000-80,000 9.52 6.06 7.41

Over 80,000 9.52 0.00 3.70

IF YOU HAVE OFF-FARM INCOME 68.42 64.71 66.04

OPERATOR OFF-FARM INCOME

Under 5,000 0 14.29 8.33

5,000-10,000 10.00 14.29 12.50

10,000-20,000 10.00 7.14 8.33

Over 20,000 80.00 64.28 70.83

SPOUSE OFF-FARM INCOME

Under 5,000 6.67 5.26 5.88

5,000-10,000 6.67 15.79 11.76

10,000-20,000 26.66 36.84 32.36

Over 20,000 60.00 42.10 50.00

PERCENT INCOME FROM FARMING

Under 10 38.89 48.39 44.90

25 44.44 22.58 30.61

50 11.11 16.13 14.29

75 0.00 6.45 4.08

Over 75 5.55 6.45 6.12

farmers. As expected, a higher percentage of conventional farmers earned 50%or more of their household income from farming than the farmers in SA group.

Description/Understanding of Sustainable Agriculture

Farmers were asked to pick up to three items among the eight listed thatbest describe sustainable agriculture in their opinion. This was done to mea-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


sure the knowledge/understanding of SA among selected farmers. The resultsindicated that sustainable farmers described SAS more likely in terms ofagronomic practices, such as conservation tillage (76.20%), crop rotation(47.60%), IPM (47.60%) compared to 50.00%, 25.00%, and 30.60%, respec-tively for conventional farmers (Table 3). On the other hand, conventionalfarmers described SAS more in terms of an environmental issue (72.20%),compared to sustainable farmers (47.60%). It was also determined that farm-ers’ responses describing the concept of SAS were significantly different forthe items: conservation tillage, crop rotation, environmentally sound andsocially acceptable between sustainable and conventional farmers. This indi-cates that SA farmers consider SA practices more important than convention-al farmers.

New Farming Practices Adopted

Selected farmers were asked to indicate how many new farming methodsor practices they have adopted in the last five years with the intention ofimproving the overall sustainability of their farming operation. On average,sustainable farmers adopted almost twice (3.09) as many practices comparedto that for the conventional farmers (1.55). Most of these farming practicesare recommended for Sustainable Agriculture System (SAS). Tillage (includ-

TABLE 3. Description/understanding of sustainable agriculture system by se-lected farmers.

Term SUSTAINABLE CONVENTIONAL TOTAL

Item % Rank % Rank % Rank

a) Conservation Tillage* 76.20 1 50.00 2 59.60 2(no/minimum tillage)

b) Crop Rotation** 47.60 2 25.00 6 33.30 5

c) Integrated Pest 47.60 2 30.60 5 36.80 3Management (IPM)

d) Environmentally** 47.60 2 72.20 1 63.20 1Sound and SociallyAcceptable

e) Diversified 42.90 3 33.33 4 36.80 3Crop/LivestockFarming

f) Profitable 28.60 4 38.90 3 35.10 4

g) Organic Farming 4.80 5 16.70 7 12.30 6

* significant at the 95% level of confidence** significant at the 90% level of confidence

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


ing ridge, minimum and no tillage) ranked first (66.70%), followed by croprotation (42.90%), and pasture management (38.10%) as new methodsadopted by sustainable farmers. Whereas for conventional farmers (Table 4),tillage (41.70%) ranked first, followed by cover crop (22.22%), crop rotation,and natural and cultural pest control method (16.70%). The results alsoindicated that the responses regarding adoption of new farming practices(such as tillage, crop rotation, pasture management, integrated pest manage-ment, on-farm soil fertility program, management intensive grazing, wastemanagement system, and contour farming) were significantly different forsustainable and conventional farmers.

TABLE 4. New farming practices adopted by selected sustainable and conven-tional farmers within last five years to improve the overall sustainability of theirfarming operation.

Term SUSTAINABLE CONVENTIONAL TOTAL

Item % Rank % Rank % Rank

a) Tillage**1 66.70 1 41.70 1 50.90 1

b) Crop Rotation* 42.90 2 16.70 3 26.30 2

c) Pasture Management* 38.10 3 11.10 4 21.10 3

d) Cover Crop 33.30 4 22.22 2 26.30 2

e) Integrated Pest 28.60 5 5.60 6 14.00 5Management (IPM)*

f) On Farm Soil 23.80 6 8.30 5 14.00 5Fertility Program**

g) Natural and Cultural 19.00 7 16.70 3 17.50 4Pest Control Methods

h) Management 14.30 8 2.80 8 7.00 7Intensive Grazing**

i) Waste Management System** 9.50 9 0.00 9 3.50 8

j) Contour Farming** 9.50 9 0.00 9 3.50 8

k) Manure Incorporation 9.50 9 11.10 4 10.50 6

l) Waste Storage Structure 4.80 10 2.80 8 3.50 8

m) Others 4.80 10 2.87 7 3.50 8

1 includes ridge, minimum and no tillage* significant at the 95% level of confidence** significant at the 90% level of confidence

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


Approach to Decision Making

Sustainable and conventional farmers responded almost in a similar man-ner about their approach to decision making on their farm. The approach fordecision-making process first evaluated farming practices, methods, and en-terprises both individually and in terms of their positive and negative impactson the overall farming. Followed by individual merit or performance evaluatedfor the total system both by sustainable and conventional farmers.

Affiliation with Different Organizations/Groups

Farmer’s affiliation with different organizations/groups may affect theirperception towards agriculture and SAS. The majority of farmers in bothcategories indicated their affiliation with farm organizations such as farmbureau (Table 5). A higher percentage of conventional farmers did not belongto any organization. Also 20% of sustainable farmers said they belong tomixed groups compared to only 2.17% for conventional farmers.

Attitude and Beliefs

Two paradigms developed by Beus and Dunlap (1990) were used to mea-sure the basic beliefs and values of two distinct groups of farmers, i.e.,sustainable and conventional. Items were selected to represent all six majordimensions, i.e., Centralization vs. Decentralization; Dependence vs. Inde-pendence; Competition vs. Community; Domination of Nature vs. Harmony

TABLE 5. Affiliation with different organizations/groups of selected sustainableand conventional farmers.


Organization/groups Percent

Sustainable groups 8.57 2.17 4.94

Mixed groups1* 20.00 2.17 9.88

General farm organization2 40.00 41.30 40.74

Commodity organization3 22.86 21.74 22.22

Others 2.86 4.36 3.70

Do not belong to any* 5.71 28.26 18.52

1sustainable and conventional2such as Farm Bureau3such as Corn or Cattle Growers Association*significant at the 95% level of confidence

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


with Nature; Specialization vs. Diversity; and Exploitation vs. Restraint. Thesurvey included 18 statements to measure beliefs and values within six majordimension. Items listed as E, G, H, M, and R represented conventional agri-culture paradigm, while items A, B, C, D, F, I, J, K, L, N, O, P, and Qrepresented sustainable agriculture paradigm. Each item was measured on amulti-point scale, from strongly disagree to strongly agree (Beus and Dunlap1991). Respondents were asked to circle a number (1 to 5), indicating theiragreement or disagreement with the statement for each item, where 1 repre-sents strong disagreement and 5 represents strong agreement with the state-ment. Using the numbers the respondents, weighted averages were calculatedfor each statement and the two groups.The results indicated that there were significant differences in responses

between sustainable and conventional farmers about their attitude/beliefs(Table 6). The weighted average of responses for sustainable farmers was4.40 for the statement ‘‘sustainable agriculture is better for society,’’ com-pared to 3.43 for conventional farmers. This indicates a strong agreement bySA agriculture farmers to the belief that sustainable agriculture is better forsociety. Similarly weighted average was 3.84 for sustainable farmers for thestatement ‘‘There is a lot of local support for reduced tillage’’ compared to3.24 for conventional farmers. The responses to above two statements weresignificantly different at 95% and 90% level of confidence for sustainableand conventional farmers, respectively. There were also significant differ-ence in responses to items (L) and (P) between sustainable and conventionalfarmers.Using responses to the eighteen statements (Table 6), index1 of sustainable

and conventional agriculture paradigms was estimated for the two groups offarmers. The mean indexes of conventional and sustainable agriculture para-digms were calculated by using the responses to the statement listed torepresent such paradigm. The descriptive statistics indicates that mean indexof conventional paradigm was 59.56 and 59.08 for conventional and sustain-able farmers, respectively. While the mean index of sustainable paradigm was73.46 and 68.63 for the sustainable and conventional farmers, respectively.This analysis indicates that these eighteen items designed to measure theattitude and beliefs of two competing agricultural paradigms accomplish thisgoal fairly well. The index for statement A ‘‘Sustainable agriculture is betterfor society’’ was 88.00 for sustainable farmers compared to 68.60 for con-ventional farmers. The index for sustainable paradigm was significantly dif-ferent among sustainable and conventional farmers.

Where, 5 is the maximum score possible for each statement.

1. IndexWeighted Average

5100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE 6. Average response and index of sustainable and conventional farm-ers regarding their attitude and beliefs towards sustainable and conventionalparadigms (where, 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).


Items W. Av.1 Index W. Av.1 Index W. Av.1 Index

A) Sustainable Agriculture is better for society.* 4.40 88.0 3.43 68.6 3.78 75.6

B) There is a lot of public support for sustainable 3.15 63.0 2.77 55.4 2.91 58.2agriculture.

C) There is a lot of local support for reduced 3.84 76.8 3.24 64.8 3.45 69.0tillage.**

D) In agriculture, primary emphasis should be 3.8 76.0 3.86 77.2 3.84 76.8placed on conserving natural resources.

E) I don’t like Integrated Pest Management (IPM). 2.05 41.0 2.40 48.0 2.27 45.4

F) Integrated Pest Management increases return. 3.55 71.0 3.44 68.8 3.48 69.6

G) I don’t think Sustainable Agriculture is practical 3.16 63.2 3.09 61.8 3.11 62.2for a large number of farms.

H) Sustainable Agriculture is a fad and it will pass. 2.42 48.4 2.66 53.2 2.57 51.4

I) My children are likely to continue to farm this 2.90 58.0 2.54 50.8 2.67 53.4land after I retire.

J) Small rural communities are essential to 3.75 75.0 3.60 72.0 3.65 73.0agriculture.

K) Agriculture is essential to rural communities. 3.81 76.2 3.77 75.4 3.79 75.8

L) Consumption should be restrained to benefit 2.90 58.0 3.58 71.6 3.32 66.4future generation.*

M) In agriculture, primary emphasis should be on 2.90 58.0 2.71 54.2 2.78 55.6speed, quantity and profit.

N) Farming is a way of life, as well as a business. 4.14 82.8 3.83 76.6 3.95 79.0

O) Human are part of and subject to nature. 4.20 84.0 3.89 77.8 4.0 80.0

P) Farmers have a responsibility for maintaining 3.86 77.2 3.20 64.0 3.45 69.0the environment.**

Q) Future success of agriculture will depend on 3.45 69.0 3.46 69.2 3.45 36.0whether or not it is socially acceptable.

R) Agriculture is a business and it should be 4.24 84.8 4.03 80.6 4.11 82.2treated that way.

1 weighted average* significant at the 95% level of confidence** significant at the 90% level of confidence

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


EMPIRICAL MODEL

The following model explains the relationship between farmers’ economicand social characteristics, attitude, beliefs and Sustainable Agriculture Sys-tem (SAS). Probit model was used to estimate the coefficients in the empiri-cal model. The description of each explanatory variable with expected signand unit of observation are given below:

SUSTAINABLEi = b0 + b1DEFINE + b2NEW METHODS + b3INDEXCONVENTIONAL + b4INDEX SUSTAINABLE +b5MIXED GROUPS + b6OTHER GROUPS +b7EDUCATION + b8PERCENT FARMING +b9AGE + ei

where dependent variable is;

SUSTAINABLE = 1, if farmer is a sustainable farmer= 0, otherwise.

And independent variables;

1. DEFINE: Total number of categories, farmers used to define Sustain-able Agriculture.

2. NEW METHODS: Total number of new farming methods adoptedwithin last five years.

3. INDEX CONVENTIONAL: Index for conventional agriculture para-digm.

4. INDEX SUSTAINABLE: Index for sustainable agriculture paradigm.5. MIXED GROUPS = 1, If farmer belong to sustainable or mixed groups/

organization (sustainable and conventional).= 0, otherwise.

6. OTHER GROUPS = 1, if farmer belong to General, Commodity, orother groups/organization.

= 0, otherwise.7. EDUCATION = farmer’s education.8. PERCENT FARMING: Percent of total income from farming.9. AGE: Farmer’s age in years.

ei = error term.

The variable DEFINE represents the farmer’s knowledge and understand-ing about SAS. A large percentage of sustainable farmers defined SAS interms of agronomic practices, economic and social aspect, and in term of theenvironment. The positive sign for this variable is consistent with theKeeney’s definition (1989) of sustainable agriculture system. Studies by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


Allen and Bernhardt (1995), Buttel and Gillespie (1988), Dalecki and Bealer(1984), Harris et al. (1980), and Lockeretz and Wernick (1980) also foundsignificant differences in the farming practices of sustainable and conven-tional farmers. The variable NEWMETHODS represents the total number ofnew farming methods adopted within the last five years. Because all of thesemethods were associated with Sustainable agriculture system, we expected apositive relationship between methods adopted and perception towards SAS.The INDEX CONVENTIONAL and INDEX SUSTAINABLE variables rep-resents measures of two competing paradigmatic views. The previous studiesrevealed that there is a relationship between the paradigmatic view of agricul-tural producers and actual production practices employed (Beus and Dunlap,1991; and Allen and Bernhardt, 1995). In these studies the total score wassignificantly different between the conventional and sustainable groups. Theconventional farmer’s mean score was more on conventional agricultureparadigm and less on sustainable agriculture paradigm. Based on these find-ing we expected a positive sign for INDEX SUSTAINABLE variable andnegative sign on INDEX CONVENTIONAL variable.The other hypotheses for our analysis was that sustainable farmers are

more likely to be affiliated with the sustainable group/organization (Beus andDunlap; 1991, and Allen and Bernhardt, 1995). Empirical studies also sug-gest that sustainable farmers are younger and more educated compared toconventional farmers (Thomas et al., 1990; Lasley et al., 1990; and Gordonand Hoiberg, 1983).

EMPIRICAL RESULTS

Probit analysis was used to estimate the model (Table 7). The modelexplains the effect of farming practices, new methods adopted, age, educa-tion, percent of income from farming, attitude and beliefs of farmers towardSustainable Agriculture System (SAS).The four variables were significant with expected sign in the estimated

model. The positive sign with NEW METHODS variable suggests that thesustainable farmers were more likely to adopt these new farming practices,compared to conventional farmers. The estimated model also revealed thatfarmers’ affiliation with groups/organizations does affect their perceptionsignificantly towards SAS. The farmers affiliated with sustainable groupsalong with conventional groups reporting more sustainable behavior com-pared to those without any affiliation. The hypotheses regarding AGE andPERCENT FARMING variables were also supported by our finding. It sug-gests that sustainable farmers were younger than conventional farmers, andmost of conventional farmers’ total income comes from farming (or sustain-able farmers have more off-farm income).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


TABLE 7. Probit estimated coefficients of socio-economic characteristics, atti-tude and beliefs and its effects on farmers’ perception toward sustainableagriculture system.

Independent Variable Probit Coefficients

Define 0.35898(0.86705)

New Methods 0.39970(2.16772)*

Index Conventional 0.01155( 0.47506)

Index Sustainable 0.00977(0.38182)

Mixed Groups 1.37638(2.07111)*

Other Groups 0.13368( 0.20286)

Education 0.06037(0.10128)

Percent Farming 0.30192( 1.52007)**

Age 0.04266( 1.43994)**

Dependent Variable: Sustainable

Note: t-value in parentheses.* significant at the 95% level of confidence, one-tail test** significant at the 90% level of confidence, one-tail test

The hypotheses regarding other variables were also supported by thisestimated model. The DEFINE variable represents knowledge about sustain-able agriculture and shows that sustainable farmers would define SAS morelikely in terms of agronomic practices, economic, social, and environmentalaspects, compared to conventional farmers. Index of sustainable variableshowing attitude and beliefs, suggests that higher magnitude of sustainableindex leads towards sustainable agriculture system. The estimated modelrevealed that there was positive relationship between education and sustain-able agriculture system.Appropriate tests were performed to check the existence of multicollinear-

ity. The existence of multicollinearity was dismissed not only by looking atthe correlation matrix of explanatory variables, but also by regressing eachexplanatory variable on the remaining explanatory variables as recom-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


mended by Johnston (1984) and examining the R2s of each regression equa-tion. The presence of heteroscedasticity was rejected by plotting the residualvalue against each explanatory variable in the model (Gujarati, 1995). Gold-feld-Quandt test (Goldfeld and Quandt, 1965) were also used on all explana-tory variables as they could be a cause for heteroscedasticity.

SUMMARY

The adoption of sustainable agriculture varies among sustainable and con-ventional farmers depending on their socio-economic characteristics, andfarmer’s attitude and beliefs. The main objective of this study was to identifyand compare characteristics, attitude and beliefs of sustainable and conven-tional farmers leading to the identification of characteristics associated withadoption of SA. For this purpose, a questionnaire was mailed to randomlyselected farmers in two middle and two west counties in Tennessee.Approximately 62.50% of the farmers selected considered themselves as

conventional and 37.50% as sustainable. The sustainable farmers were moreeducated (over 57 percent with college degree) compared to conventional(38.89 percent). The average age and experience were almost similar for bothgroups, but 52.38 percent of the sustainable farmers were between 51 and 60year of age compared to only 31.43 percent for conventional farmers.The sustainable farmers are more likely to describe SAS in terms of

conservation tillage, crop rotation, and IPM compared to conventional farm-ers but conventional farmers described SAS more in term of environment(72.20%) compared to sustainable farmers (47.60%). The results also indi-cated that there was significant difference in adoption of new farming practicesbetween them. On average SA farmers adopted almost twice (3.09) as manypractices compared to conventional farmers (1.55). The adoption of newfarming practices such as tillage, crop rotation, pasture management, contourfarming, and integrated pest management (IPM) was significantly differentbetween the two group of farmers. Similarly, there was significant differencein conventional and sustainable farmers’ affiliation with different organiza-tions/groups.The other interesting finding of this study was that both group of farmers

have significantly different opinion about sustainable and conventional agri-culture paradigms. The mean index of sustainable agriculture paradigm was73.46 and 68.63 for sustainable and conventional farmers, respectively. Simi-larly, mean index of conventional agriculture paradigm was slightly differentfor both groups of farmers.Probit analysis was used to examine the relationship between socio-eco-

nomic characteristics, attitude, beliefs of conventional and sustainable farm-ers. The probit estimates indicated that NEWMETHODS, MIXED GROUPS,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


PERCENT FARMING, and AGE were significant variables with expectedsigns. There was positive relationship between new practices adopted andperception about SAS. Similarly, sustainable farmers achieved higher scoreon sustainable agriculture paradigms compared to conventional farmers. Theresults also show that farmers’ affiliation with different organization/groupsdoes affect their perception about SAS. Sustainable farmers were youngerthan conventional farmers, and most part of the total income of conventionalfarmers comes from farming.The finding of this study will be useful not only in helping to have a better

understanding of the fundamental differences between sustainable and con-ventional farmers, but also for help policy makers in developing appropriatepolicies in regard to sustainable agriculture.

REFERENCES

Allen, John, and K. Bernhardt, ‘‘Farming practices and adherence to an alternative–conventional agricultural paradigm.’’ Rural Sociology, 60(2):297-309, 1995.

Beus, Curtis, and R.E. Dunlap, ‘‘Measuring adherence to alternative vs. conventionalagricultural paradigms: a proposed scale.’’ Rural Sociology, 56(3):432-460, 1991.

Beus, Curtis, and R.E. Dunlap, ‘‘Conventional versus alternative agriculture: Theparadigmatic roots of the debate.’’ Rural Sociology, 55(4):590-616, 1990.

Buttel, Fredericks, and G.W. Gillespie, Jr. ‘‘Preferences for crop production practicesamong conventional and alternative farmers.’’ Journal of Alternative Agriculture,3:11-17, 1988.

Dalecki, Michael, and B. Bealer, ‘‘Who is the organic farmers?’’ The Rural Sociolo-gist 4 (January) 1984.

Debertin, David, ‘‘Sustainable Agriculture: Concepts, Definition and Myths’’ Uni-versity of Lexington, KY, Monograph 1994.

Dillman, Don A. ‘‘Why farmers adopt conservation tillage.’’ Conference proceed-ings, Conservation Tillage-Strategies for the Future. October 3-5, 1984, Nash-ville, Tennessee.

Douce, G.K. 1981 Georgia Integrated Pest Management Program Facts. Universityof Georgia, College of Agriculture, Department of Extension Entomology.

Edwards, Clive, A. 1984 ‘‘The concept of integrated systems in lower input/sustain-able agriculture.’’ American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, No. 4 (1987):148-152.

Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (FACTA). Public Law101-624, Title XVI, Subtitle A, Section 1603, Government Printing Office, Wash-ington, DC, 1990.

Francis, Charles and G. Youngberg, ‘‘What Is Sustainable Agriculture?’’ Wiley, NewYork 1990.

Goldfeld, S.M. and Richard E. Quandt, ‘‘Some tests for homoscedasticity.’’ Journalof the American Statistical Association, 60(310):539-547, 1965.

Gordon, L.B. and E.O. Hoiberg, ‘‘Factors affecting farmers’ adoption of conserva-tion tillage.’’ Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, May-June, 281-284, 1983.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014


Greene, C.R., Kramer, Norton R.A., Rajotte, G.W., and McPherson, R.M. ‘‘Aneconomic analysis of integrated pest management.’’ American Journal of Agricul-tural Economics, 67:567-572, 1985.

Gujarati, Damodar N. Basic Econometrics, 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill, Inc. NewYork, 1995.

Harris, Craig, K. Sharon, E. Powers, and F.H. Buttel, ‘‘Myth and reality in organicfarming: a profile of conventional and organic agriculture.’’ The Rural Sociologist3:16-22, 1980.

Ikerd, John, E. ‘‘Agriculture’s search for sustainability and profitability’’ Journal ofSoil and Water Conservation 45(1):18-23, 1990.

Johnston, John. Econometric Methods, McGraw Hill, Inc., New York, 1984.Keeney, Dennis, ‘‘Toward a sustainable agriculture: need for clarification of concepts

and terminology,’’ American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 4(3, 4): 101-5,1989.

Knorr, Dietrich, and T.R. Watkins (Eds.), ‘‘Alternation in Food Production,’’ NewYork: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1984.

Lasley, Paul, M. Duffy, K. Kettner, and C. Chase, ‘‘Factors affecting farmers’ use ofpractices to reduce commercial fertilizers and pesticides.’’ Journal of Soil andWater Conservation, January-February, 132-136, 1990.

Lockeretz, William and S. Wernick, ‘‘Commercial organic farming in the corn belt incomparison to conventional practices.’’ Rural Sociology, 45:708-22, 1980.

Singh, S.P. and Osawaru, S. ‘‘Low-input/sustainable agriculture: implications forsmall farms.’’ A paper presented at the 16th Annual Convention of the EasternEconomic Association, Cincinnati, Ohio, March 30 -April 1, 1990.

Musser, W.N., Wetzstein, M.E., Reece, S.Y., Varca P.E., Edwards, D.M., and Douee,G.K. ‘‘Beliefs of Farmers and adoption of integrated pest management.’’ Agricul-tural Economics, 38 (1):50-56, 1986.

National Research Council, ‘‘Alternative Agriculture.’’ National Academy Press,Washington, D.C. 1989.

Norris, Patricia E. and Batie, Sandra S. ‘‘Virginia farmers’ soil conservation deci-sions: an application of Tobit analysis,’’ Southern Journal of Agricultural Eco-nomics 19(1):79-90, 1987.

Nowak, Peter J. ‘‘Obstacles to adoption of conservation tillage.’’ Journal of Soil andWater Conservation 8 (March-June):162-165, 1983.

Schaller, Neill. ‘‘An agenda for research on the impacts of sustainable agriculture,’’Institute of Alternative Agriculture, Inc., Occasional Paper Series, No 2, P.1, 1991.

Thomas, J.K., H. Ladewig, and W.A. McIntosh, ‘‘The adoption of integrated pestmanagement practices among Texas cotton growers.’’ Rural Sociology, 55(3):395-410, 1990.

RECEIVED: 05/18/98REVISED: 11/06/98

ACCEPTED: 11/20/98

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ebra

ska,

Lin

coln

] at

08:

21 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

sustainable and conventional farmers: a comparison of socio-economic characteristics, attitude, and...

Documents