Breaking New Ground: Farmer Perspectives on Organic Transition, a joint report released by Oregon Tilth and Oregon State University’s Center for Small Farms & Community Food Systems, highlights key recommendations for organizations and agencies that can provide support in crop research, infrastructure and market development as well as shaping public policies for transition to organic production.
BREAKING
NEW GROUND :
farmer perspectives on organic transition
Breaking New Ground:
FARMER PERSPECTIVES
ON ORGANIC TRANSITION
Garry Stephenson
Professor and Director
Lauren Gwin
Assistant Professor and
Associate Director
Center for Small Farms &
Community Food Systems
Oregon State University
Chris Schreiner
Executive Director
Sarah Brown
Education Director
Oregon Tilth, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
1
Introduction
3
Methods
4
Results
6
Characteristics of the Full Group
6
Motivations, Barriers, Resources and Support:
Results of the Full Group
8
Profiles of Specific Farmer Categories
14
Discussion
40
Recommendations
47
Conclusion 52
Acknowledgment
52
References Cited
53
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Garry Stephenson
Professor and Director
Lauren Gwin
Assistant Professor and Associate Director
Center for Small Farms &
Community Food Systems
Oregon State University
Chris Schreiner
Executive Director
Sarah Brown
Education Director
Oregon Tilth, Inc.
farmers about their experiences with
organic transition. We asked farmers
about their motivations to transition,
the obstacles they face in doing so, and
the resources and support that are most
helpful during the transition process.
WHO SHOULD READ THIS REPORT?
What we learned should be of interest to
a wide range of stakeholders and service
providers, including organic sector
businesses, organic certifiers, academic
and agency researchers, Cooperative
Extension, organic advocates, and
policymakers.
WHAT DID WE LEARN?
WHAT IS THE ISSUE?
The farms and farmers represented in
Organic transition is a hot topic: despite
increasing consumer demand for organic
food and farm products and double-digit
annual sales growth, U.S. organic production
is currently flat and unable to meet
demand. Organic food manufacturers
and other buyers have reported difficulty
sourcing enough certified organic food
ingredients domestically.
In response, the organic industry, nonprofit
organizations, universities, and public
agencies are working on multiple levels
to support farmers choosing to access the
expanding organic market.
In this report, we offer one piece of the
puzzle: findings from a national survey of
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 1
this study cover a wide range of farm
sizes, crop types, farming experience,
age, and approach to organic farming.
The structure of our survey allowed
us to identify and compare results for
four categories of farmers that together
improve our understanding of the
transition process:
• Farmers who have successfully been
through the process of transition and
are 100% certified organic.
• Farmers who are currently in the
midst of transitioning to
organic certification.
• Farmers with split certified organic
and non-organic operations.
• Farmers who have decided not to
pursue organic farming.
We found useful differences among
these categories regarding motivations,
resources, and support. However, our
most compelling findings arose regarding
obstacles – including those within a farm’s
sphere of influence and those beyond
the farmer’s control – and whether these
groups of farmers view them as major,
minor, or not an obstacle at all.
Farmers in our study echo long-standing
concerns about costs, recordkeeping,
on-farm production challenges,
infrastructure, and access to profitable
markets. Our results make it clear that there
is plenty of work to do by a wide variety of
organizations and agencies that specialize in
crop research, infrastructure development,
market development, and policy
development related to the organic sector.
Guided by compelling survey findings, this
report recommends strategies to support
the success of farmers who chose organic.
HOW WAS THE STUDY DONE?
The survey was a collaboration between
Oregon State University’s Center for Small
Farms & Community Food Systems and
Oregon Tilth, Inc. We surveyed more than
1800 farmers who participated in the
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural
Resources Conservation Services (NRCS)
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP) Organic Initiative between 2010
and 2015, with a focus on transition. The
survey’s response rate was more than 34%
and represents more than 600 producers.
We suggest that those interested and
invested in organic transition look closely
at the information in this report and
identify what they can do to provide
support, overcome obstacles, or promote
policy to support transition and retain
certified organic farmers.
BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 2
INTRODUCTION
What will encourage the
transition of more farms
and acres to organic farming
systems and certification?
1
2
Answering that question has long been
of interest to farmers,1 consumers, and
others who value the environmental,
economic, and health outcomes related to
organic production systems.
The report is useful for organizations,
agencies, and businesses working with
farmers and communities, and on policy
development to increase domestic
production of organic products.
In this report, we present the results of
a national survey of farmers regarding
the transition to organic certification,
specifically: what motivates them to
transition, what obstacles they face in
doing so, and what resources and support
are most helpful during the transition
process. The report highlights farmers
who are currently 100% certified organic,
are in the process of transitioning to
organic certification, are split certified
organic/non-organic, or have decided not
to pursue organic farming.
Organic transition is currently a hot topic:
despite increasing consumer demand
for organic food and farm products and
double-digit annual sales growth – 11%
in 2015, according to the Organic Trade
Association (OTA, 2016)2 – domestic
(U.S.) organic production is currently
flat and unable to meet demand (e.g.,
Greene, 2013; McBride and Greene,
2015). Organic food manufacturers and
other buyers have reported difficulty
sourcing enough certified organic food
ingredients domestically.
We use “farms” and “farmers” in this report to represent farms, ranches, and dairies and their operators.
Organic Trade Association (OTA). (2016). U.S. organic sales post new record of $43.3 billion in 2015.
Available at: https://www.ota.com/news/press-releases/19031#sthash.7UCqaHEt.dpuf/ (accessed 11/21/16).
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 3
In response, the organic industry, nonprofit
organizations, universities, and public
agencies are working on multiple levels
to identify and address these challenges.
This includes a specific focus on supporting
farmers who chose to transition farms and
acreage to certified organic (e.g., DiGiacomo
and King, 2015; Stephenson, G. et al., 2012;
Oregon Tilth’s Transition to Organic
Network). For example, USDA’s Natural
Resources Conservation Service (USDANRCS), through its Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) Organic Initiative
(OI), provides financial and technical
assistance to certified, transitioning, and
exempt farmers to support conservation on
their land (NRCS, n.d.).
The national survey discussed in this
report was conducted by Oregon State
University’s Center for Small Farms &
Community Food Systems and Oregon
Tilth, Inc., as part of our ongoing research
and education collaboration. The survey
also builds on the six-year partnership
between Oregon Tilth and USDANRCS aimed at supporting organic and
transitioning farmers across the U.S. This
survey is one element of OSU and Oregon
Tilth’s research on organic transition.3
The shared goal of this work is to
provide information and resources to our
partners and farmers that will support
farmers choosing to access the expanding
organic market.
In what follows, we briefly describe
our methods, present and discuss our
survey results, and end with a synthesis
and recommendations.
METHODS
We surveyed a national population of
farmers and ranchers who (a) had an
EQIP-OI contract with USDA-NRCS
between 2010 (when OI began) and 2015,
and (b) self-identified as “transitional”
participants in that program.4 The list
included 1,829 farms or individuals.
USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS) and the Organic Farming
Research Foundation (OFRF) conduct
regular national surveys of certified
organic farmers to learn the scope of
the sector as well as challenges and
resource needs.5
Other elements include Lloyd (2016) and Murray and Enelow (2016).
OI participants identify as (a) already certified organic, (b) exempt from certification, or (c) transitional; Those “who are transitioning to
organic production shall self-certify that they agree to develop and work toward implementing an Organic System Plan (OSP).”
5
The OFRF uses its survey to set research priorities (Jerkins & Ory, 2016) and therefore focuses on challenges and resource needs;
the 2011 survey also asked about motivations. See FN6 on the USDA-NASS Organic Survey relative to transitioning farmers. It is
worth noting that USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) has until recently conducted regular surveys to track organic trends
by surveying certifiers instead of farmers. See USDA-NASS, (n.d.), for guidance on comparing these and other related USDA datasets.
3
4
BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 4
The EQIP-OI dataset is unique because
it includes two segments of the organic
farming population not typically included
in the other national organic surveys:
transitioning farmers and farmers who
began the transition process but then
decided not to pursue organic farming.
Surveying these farmers provides a
valuable and unique glimpse into the
transition experience and, for the
latter, the obstacles that may prevent
completion of that process.6
We constructed our survey after
reviewing existing, survey-based
research during the last decade on farmer
motivations, barriers, and other aspects
of organic farming [Strochlic and Sierra,
2007 (CA); Stofferahn, 2009 (ND); Johnston,
2010 (NY); Lau et al., 2010 (TX); Cranfield,
Henson, and Holliday, 2010 (Canada)].7
We designed our questionnaire to be brief
in order to increase the response rate. As
a consequence, data on some aspects of
the population were not collected (e.g.,
state or region).
The survey was administered by Oregon
Tilth using an online platform (Qualtrics)
and paper questionnaires. Survey methods
followed the protocols of Dillman and
Smyth (2014) and guidance from the
Oregon State University Survey Research
Center (OSU-SRC).
Oregon Tilth, Inc., sent the OI participants
a letter on October 1, 2015, by U.S.
Mail, that provided background on
the purpose of the survey, requested
their participation, and provided
a unique access code to the online
questionnaire to assure anonymity.
Each participant received a follow-up
postcard several days later. One month
later, all non-respondents were mailed a
reminder letter and a paper copy of the
questionnaire with a pre-paid business
reply envelope. One final reminder and
paper questionnaire were mailed to the
remaining non-respondents on January 21,
2016. The OSU-SRC collected and organized
the data. Six hundred and fifteen (615)
farmers completed the questionnaire for an
adjusted response rate 8 of 34.2%.
The OSU Center for Small Farms &
Community Food Systems analyzed
the data using IBM SPSS software, with
consultation from OSU-SRC. Analysis
utilized descriptive statistics including
frequencies and cross tabulations.
Chi-square tests were used to compare
responses among data categories and detect
significant differences in the proportion
of responses. We use an alpha level of
.05 for all statistical tests. As we describe
the findings we use the term “significant”
to indicate statistically significant and
“notable” to indicate important but not
statistically significant.
The one exception is the 2014 USDA-NASS Organic Survey, the only one of NASS’s four organic surveys that includes transitioning farmers, who were
identified through the 2012 Ag Census; transitioning farms are asked only a few basic questions which complement but do not overlap with our survey.
7
See Lloyd (2016) for a more detailed review of existing research.
8
Using the American Association for Public Opinion (AAPOR) response rate calculator.
6
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 5
WHAT WE ASKED
Respondents first answered four
demographic questions: years farming,
number of acres in production, cropping
system, and farming system relative
to organic certification. We then
asked a series of questions to learn what
motivated them to transition to organic
certification, what were the obstacles,
what resources helped them, and what
additional support is needed.9 Farmers
were also given several opportunities to
provide additional comments, primarily
on how to encourage more transition
in general. We offer a selection of their
responses in this report but will provide a
deeper analysis of this qualitative data in
future publications.
RESULTS
This report focuses on key findings. We
first present results for all respondents
as a group. But as is often the case, the
aggregate doesn’t tell the full story. We
then present results for four categories of
farmers to gain insights into the transition
process from their different perspectives.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FULL
GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
Our respondents and their operations
represent a wide range of farm sizes,
crop types, farming experience, age, and
approach to organic farming (see Table 1).
The sample is dominated by smaller scale
(60.5%), vegetable farms (54.7%) operated by
farmers with less than 10 years’ experience
(55.5%) who are currently transitioning
their farms to organic certification (30.2%).
The dominance of this “typical” respondent
influences many of our results.10
WIDE RANGE OF FARMING
EXPERIENCE.
We heard from newer farmers and more
experienced farmers. More than half
(55.5%) have been farming fewer than
10 years –and are what are currently
considered by the USDA as Beginning
Farmers and Ranchers (BFRs) – but 27%
have more than 20 years of experience.
WIDE RANGE OF AGES.
The farmers are fairly evenly distributed
in age. Most farmers are middle-aged
with nearly 60% between 46 and 65.
More than 25% are under 45 years old.
The questionnaire also included a section specific to respondents’ experience with the NRCS EQIP-OI program. Analysis and reporting of those
results will occur separately.
10
Without similar demographic data for the 1,829 farms, we cannot say whether our sample is more or less representative of that population,
which itself overlaps with but is not the same as the certified organic farmers typically surveyed by USDA-NASS and OFRF.
9
BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 6
SMALLER FARMS BUT
LARGER ALSO…
Although most farms are smaller scale,
we also heard from mid-scale and largescale farmers. The majority (60.5%) farm
fewer than 25 acres, while more than 20%
farm more than 100 acres.11 BUT A
MOSTLY VEGETABLES, BUT A
WIDE ARRAY OF OTHER CROPS.
More than half of the farms (54.7%) primarily
produce vegetables. Another 13.3%
produce fruits or nuts. Nearly one-third
of the farms (32.0%) produce extensive
crops including grains and legumes
(12.6%), livestock (16.0%) and dairy (3.4%).12
TABLE 1. DEMOGRAPHICS : FULL SAMPLE
CATEGORY
PERCENT
EXPERIENCE
0 to 5 years
5 to 10 years
10 to 20 years
20 years or more
24.6
30.9
17.6
26.9
AGE
18 to 35 years
36 to 45 years
46 to 55 years
56 to 65 years
66 to 75 years
76 years or older
11.5
15.4
25.1
33.6
13.3
1.2
0 to 25 acres
26 to 100 acres
101 to 500 acres
501 to 1,000 acres
More than 1,000 acres
60.5
18.4
15.6
3.1
2.4
CROPS 13
Vegetables
Fruits/Nuts
Grain/Legumes
Livestock
Dairy
54.7
13.3
12.6
16.0
3.4
CERTIFICATION
100% Certified Organic
Transitioning
Split (Certified Organic/Non-Organic)
Not Pursuing Organic Farming
Exempt from Certification
26.8
30.2
11.2
16.4
15.3
FARM SIZE
There is a payment limit for EQIP OI financial assistance that is lower than standard EQIP. The effect of this on the sample regarding farm size is not known.
The survey asked which cropping system “best describes” their production. The online version allowed only one answer. The paper version asked
for one answer, but of 614 responses to the question 166 indicated multiple crops; 35 indicated “other.”
13
See footnote #12
11
12
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 7
VARIETY OF APPROACHES
TO ORGANIC FARMING
We asked farmers the status of their
farms relevant to organic certification.
About 30% are in the process of
transitioning to organic certification and
about 27% are currently certified organic,
having completed their certification after
finalizing their EQIP-OI contract. Split
operations – part certified organic, part
non-organic – represent about 11% of
farms. About 15% are considered “exempt”
from certification.14 Of special interest,
about 16% of the farms responded that
they are “not pursuing organic farming,”
offering us the opportunity to examine
why some farmers initially pursue it but
then change their minds. This report does
not include an analysis of “exempt” farms;
we will cover this group in future reports.
MOTIVATIONS, BARRIERS,
RESOURCES, AND SUPPORT:
RESULTS FOR THE FULL SAMPLE
MOTIVATIONS
We asked respondents what initially
motivated them to transition to organic
farming, providing a list of possible
motivations including “market or
profit” motivations and “values-based”
motivations. Table 2 indicates what
percentage of respondents said yes to
those factors.
“Exempt” as defined in the USDA National Organic Program regulations (7 CFR Part 205) means farming organically and marketing as such but
exempt from certification due to having under $5,000 in annual sales.
14
BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 8
TABLE 2. MOTIVATIONS : FULL SAMPLE
MOTIVATION
% YES
VALUES-BASED
Fits my and/or my family’s values
Concerns about environment
Potential enhancement of farm sustainability
Concerns about human health
91.3
86.7
86.5
86.3
MARKET/PROFIT
Access the expanding market for organics
Potential increase in profit
Specific market opportunity or contract from a buyer
61.6
60.8
32.7
Six of the seven motivations were
selected by at least 60% of all respondents.
However, the farmer/farm family’s
values were the most frequently cited
motivation at over 90%, followed closely
by concerns about the environment,
enhancement of farm sustainability, and
concerns about human health. Access
to the expanding market and increased
profit were less cited but still notable, and
having a specific market opportunity or
contract was the least cited. The high
ranking of values-based motivations is
not surprising considering the sample is
made up of farmers who self-selected to
participate in the EQIP OI and therefore
had a potentially higher level of interest
in organic or sustainable farming than
the general farm population.
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 9
What motivates farmers to transition
their farms to organic?
In their own words:
• “For us, it’s about our value
system. We believe we are the
stewards of the land.”
• “We believe in organic
practices because it’s
the right thing to do for
the environment. However,
to get more farmers involved,
there need to be more
economic incentives – price
premiums and/or subsidies.”
• “I think money will be the
motivating factor. I have
personal beliefs motivating
me to farm organically,
but I have seen the
benefits financially.”
OBSTACLES
Respondents were given a list of potential
obstacles to organic transition – related
to costs, production, and marketing – and
were asked whether each was a major
obstacle, a minor obstacle, or not an
obstacle. We categorize each obstacle as
being major, minor, or not an obstacle
based on the highest response percent of
40% or more (although in two instances
we allowed 39.6%). When the response
in all categories is below 40% we identify
the obstacle as having “no clear trend.”
This simple approach does not capture
subtleties of the responses. For instance,
obstacles in the “not an obstacle”
category were still typically identified
as major or minor by some farmers. We
encourage readers to examine the data
for their own assessment.
As shown in Table 3, farmers identified
two obstacles as major: weed
management, and the cost of organic
certification. Among the seven minor
obstacles, the top three are the learning
process, recordkeeping requirements
of organic certification, and the cost
of organic inputs. Four obstacles are
identified as not an obstacle including:
planning crop rotations, reduced yields,
finding buyers for organic products,
and access to technical expertise. This
finding for reduced yields is interesting,
because “yield drag” has long been
thought to be a significant challenge for
organic producers and organic agriculture
broadly,15 yet nearly 17% of our
respondents said it was a major obstacle,
and 83% said it was minor (32%) or not an
obstacle at all (51%).
Five obstacles have no clear trend
as major, minor, or not obstacles. For
instance, although the cost of labor is
considered a major obstacle for over
35% of farmers, nearly as many (33.5%)
consider it not an obstacle and less than
30% consider it a minor obstacle. In these
instances, there is no clear consensus on
the obstacle, but it does not diminish the
obstacle’s importance.
What are the obstacles to organic
transition? In their own words:
• “It’s easier to get a marriage
or driver’s license than to
do the paperwork on
organic certification.”
• “The burden of proof needs
to shift from the organic
farmer having to document
every seed, every drop of
spray … Conventional
agricultural products make
more sense to track as they
have much greater potential
negative side effects… This
shifts the cost burden.”
On the “yield gap” see Reganold and Wachter (2016) and Kniss, Savage, and Jabbour (2016).
15
BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 10
TABLE 3. OBSTACLES : FULL SAMPLE
OBSTACLES
PERCENT
MA JOR
MINOR
NOT AN
OBSTACLE
Weed management
52.9
30.7
16.4
Cost of organic certification
43.2
37.5
19.3
Learning process
16.7
47.1
36.2
Recordkeeping requirements of organic certification
40.0
43.6
16.4
Cost of organic inputs
32.7
42.6
24.7
Managing soil fertility
23.9
42.1
34.0
Availability of organic inputs (seed, fertilizer, etc.)
19.5
40.6
39.9
Obtaining organic price premiums
30.3
39.6
30.1
Obtaining organic price information
22.1
39.6
38.3
Availability of organic processing facilities
38.2
25.4
36.4
Cost of labor
36.6
29.8
33.5
Pest or disease control
35.7
38.9
25.4
Availability of labor
28.7
38.0
33.3
Obtaining adequate prices during transition
26.1
36.2
37.6
8.4
39.4
52.2
Reduced yields
16.7
32.2
51.1
Finding buyers/markets for my organic products
19.7
31.3
48.9
Access to knowledge technical expertise on
organic production
19.6
39.1
41.3
MA JOR OBSTACLE
MINOR OBSTACLE
NO CLEAR TREND
NOT AN OBSTACLE
Planning crop rotations
MAJOR
MINOR
NOT AN OBSTACLE
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 11
NO CLEAR TREND
RESOURCES
Respondents were then given a list of 10
different resources and asked to choose
up to five that would be (or would have
been) most beneficial during transition.
Table 4 ranks these resources in order of
how many respondents selected them
(number 1 is the top rank). Three of the
top five resources are production-oriented
and two of the five are market-oriented.
TABLE 4. RESOURCE RANKING : FULL SAMPLE
RESOURCE
RANK
THE GROUP’S TOP 5
Information on organic pest, disease, and weed management
Information on soil health management for organic farms
Information on organic markets (trends, opportunities, pricing)
Information on effective organic crop rotations for your region
Market development for organic products
1
2
3
4
5
LESS IMPORTANT
Information on organic crop varieties
Financial planning tools for transitioning to organic
Advance contracts from buyers during transition
Certified transition label
Organic and/or transition crop enterprise budget templates
6
7
8
9
10
Farmers also called for consumerfocused resources, for example,
“more public awareness of the
health and environmental benefits
of organic farming and why it
may cost more to bring organic to
the table.”
BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 12
SUPPORT
Once we know what topics are most
important to transitioning farmers, we
also have to learn how they prefer to
receive that information and guidance.
Respondents were asked to choose their
top two of five types of support. As
shown in Table 5, high contact support
was preferred, with mentoring from
experienced organic farmers most valued
and one-on-one technical assistance at
number two.
In person workshops—still high contact—
were ranked number 3, and books and
other printed materials and online
courses and webinars ranked lower.
The ranking of form of support does not
necessarily reject it but simply ranks
farmer preferences without regard to cost
or complexity.
TABLE 5. SUPPORT RANKINGS : FULL SAMPLE
TYPE OF SUPPORT
Mentoring from experienced organic farmers
One-on-one technical assistance during transition
In person workshops or short courses
Books or other printed materials
Online courses or webinars
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
On resources, in their own words:
• “Success speaks volumes.
If [farmers] could only see a
neighbor overcoming common
production problems, growing
grains successfully, milking
cows successfully, whatever
the crop – if they could SEE
success, they would begin to
get curious and start to do
the math!”
• “One on one mentorship with
certified organic growers
would be tremendous.”
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 13
• “[In my region] extension agents
are available for
conventional farmers but none
for organic farmers.”
• “The time required for a small
operation to manage transition
is almost insurmountable…
because of my small scale.
I haven’t made progress at all.
Having a mentor to help me get
started with the paperwork and
recordkeeping would help a lot.”
PROFILES OF SPECIFIC
FARMER CATEGORIES
While the aggregate results are useful,
they cannot tell us the full picture or
suggest how to inform or support specific
groups of farmers transitioning to organic
certification. To do this, we examined
specific categories of respondents to
see (1) how they are different in terms
of their demographics, and (2) whether
and how those differences influence
their responses regarding motivations,
obstacles, resources, and support. This
approach allows “market segmentation”
that meets the needs and attitudes of
specific groups.
Of the categories we examined, those
based on status of organic certification –
100% Certified, Split, Transitioning, and
Not Pursuing Organic Farming – showed
significant and notable differences16 and
provide the most compelling information
on the transition process for farmers.
For each of these, we provide a short
description based on demographics
and then discuss variation related to
motivations and obstacles. We discuss
resource and support rankings together at
the end of this section.
We also examined beginning farmers and ranchers, young farmers, groups by crop type (e.g., vegetables v. fruits/nuts), and exempt certification
status. Summary results for BFRs are offered in the BFR Box. The others will be discussed in future publications.
16
BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 14
BEGINNING FARMERS
AND RANCHERS
The USDA defines a beginning farmer
or rancher (BFRs) as someone who has
“…not operated a farm or ranch, or who
has operated a farm or ranch for not more
than 10 consecutive years.” BFRs are an
important category to consider because
USDA and other public agencies offer an
array of programs designed to support
BFRs; some lenders have dedicated
loan programs for BFRs; and numerous
universities and non-profit organizations
provide educational programming for BFRs.
The “BFR” category includes more than
half of the participants in this study:
55% have less than 10 years’ farming
experience, and nearly 25% have less
than five years.17 Compared with the
experienced farmers in our study, BFRs
tend to operate smaller farms, produce
vegetables, and be in the process of
transition to organic certification.
While BFRs tend to be younger as a
category than experienced farmers,
they are actually bimodal in age, with
the majority over 45 years old and the
largest segment between 46 and 65
years old.18
However, while there are significant
demographic differences between
BFRs and experienced farmers, the
two groups are fairly similar regarding
motivations. BFRs are more motivated
by organic farming values, with
a significantly higher percentage
motivated by their or their family’s
values, concerns about human health,
and concerns about the environment.
The two groups are essentially the same
regarding obstacles with no significant
differences. They agree on 3 of their 5
top resources: information on organic
pest, disease, and weed management, soil
health management for organic farms, and
organic markets. They also agree on their
top 2 forms of support: mentoring from
experienced organic farmers, and one on
one technical support.
Categories for years of experience were “0 to less than 5” and “5 to less than 10” and do not align perfectly with USDA’s definition of “not more
than 10” but are a close approximation.
18
This older set of BFRs reflects an identified category of farms “retiring to farming” from another career. See Kirkpatrick 2013.
17
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 15
PROFILE 1 :
100% certified organic
Farms that are 100% Certified
Organic represent nearly 27% of
the full sample and account for
165 of the 615 farms in this study.
We profile this group because
these farmers have successfully
transitioned in recent years and
are now fully committed to this
farming system. Consequently,
they provide a good baseline for
comparison to the other farm
categories profiled (transitioning
to organic, split operations, and
farms not pursuing organic).
MADER RANCH – HALFWAY, OR
Photograph by Deanna Lloyd
BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 16
DEMOGRAPHICS
Farmers in the 100% Certified Organic
category have a fairly even distribution
of experience from less than five years
to more than 20 years. Like the whole
sample, more than half have less than ten
years of experience, but nearly 25% have
20 or more years’ experience.19
TABLE 6. DEMOGRAPHICS : 100% CERTIFIED ORGANIC
CATEGORY
PERCENT
EXPERIENCE
0 to 5 years
5 to 10 years
10 to 20 years
20 years or more
21.8
33.3
20.0
24.8
AGE
18 to 35 years
36 to 45 years
46 to 55 years
56 to 65 years
66 to 75 + years
15.3
19.0
26.4
28.2
11.0
FARM SIZE
0 to 25 acres
26 to 100 acres
101 to 500 acres
501 to 1,000 acres
54.5
20.0
23.0
2.4
CROPS 20
Vegetables
Fruits/Nuts
Grain/Legumes
Livestock
Dairy
57.1
7.6
18.5
8.4
8.4
Nationally, 28% of certified organic farms have less than 10 years’ experience (compared with 21% of all farms) and 47% have more than 20
years’. (USDA-NASS, 2014, Table 51; USDA-NASS, 2012).
20
Of 164 responses to this question, 38 farms indicated more than one crop; 7 farms indicated “other.”
19
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 17
The 100% Certified Organic category is
slightly younger than the full sample
with about 34% of them 45 years or
younger compared to about 27% for the
full sample. Nearly 40% of 100% Certified
organic farmers are over 55 compared to
slightly over 48% for the full sample.
The majority of 100% Certified Organic
farmers in this study are farming 25 or
fewer acres. However, mid-scale farms
are well represented with more than 25%
of farms over 100 acres.
Well over 50% of the 100% Certified
Organic farms produce vegetables. In fact,
nearly two-thirds of these farms produce
intensive crops (vegetables, fruits/nuts).
However, there is still a diversity of crops
with over 35% of the farms operating
more extensive cropping systems
(grains/legumes, livestock, dairy). In fact,
regarding crop type, the 100% Certified
Organic category includes nearly 80% of
the dairy farms in our study and nearly
half of the grain/legume farms.
MOTIVATIONS TO TRANSITION
TO ORGANIC
The 100% Certified Organic farmers
reveal a high level of commitment to
some of the values-based foundations
of the organic farming movement (Table
7). These farmers rated values-based
motivations higher than the full sample.
100% Certified Organic farmers are
pragmatic too, rating “potential increase
in profit” higher than the full sample
(67.9% vs 60.8%). The importance of
“access to the expanding market for
organics” is slightly less but not different
than for the full sample (59.7% vs 61.6%).
TABLE 7. MOTIVATIONS : 100% CERTIFIED ORGANIC
MOTIVATION
PERCENT
VALUES-BASED
Fits my and/or my family’s values
Potential enhancement of farm sustainability
Concerns about environment
Concerns about human health
95.0
91.0
90.1
89.5
MARKET/PROFIT
Potential increase in profit
Access the expanding market for organics
Specific market opportunity or contract from a buyer
BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 18
67.9
59.7
34.2
OBSTACLES TO ORGANIC
TRANSITION
As shown in Table 8, 100% Certified
Organic farmers noted only weed
management as a major obstacle. These
farmers also identified seven minor
obstacles; the top three are recordkeeping
requirements of organic certification, the
cost of organic inputs, and the availability
of organic inputs. Six obstacles are
identified as “not an obstacle” and include
finding buyers for my organic products,
planning crop rotations, and reduced
yields, among others.
Now that we have a sense of 100%
Certified Organic farmers, we can use
them as the basis of comparison for
transitioning farmers, split farmers, and
farmers not pursuing organic farming.
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 19
TABLE 8. OBSTACLES : 100% CERTIFIED ORGANIC
OBSTACLES
PERCENT
MA JOR
MINOR
NOT AN
OBSTACLE
54.3
28.4
17.3
Recordkeeping requirements of organic certification
30.6
48.1
21.3
Cost of organic inputs
29.4
46.6
23.9
Availability of organic inputs (seed, fertilizer, etc.)
18.1
45.6
36.3
Managing soil fertility
25.0
43.3
31.3
Cost of organic certification
19.5
43.8
37.2
Learning process
18.9
42.8
38.4
Pest or disease control
28.9
41.5
29.6
Availability of organic processing facilities
38.9
25.7
35.4
Obtaining organic price premiums
28.3
35.8
35.8
Availability of labor
26.5
38.1
35.4
Obtaining organic price information
24.2
37.3
38.5
Finding buyers/markets for my organic products
16.0
29.0
54.9
Planning crop rotation
11.0
34.4
54.5
Reduced yields
17.6
31.0
51.4
Access to knowledgeable technical expertise on
organic production
19.3
37.9
42.9
Obtaining adequate prices during transition
24.6
32.6
42.8
Cost of labor
32.0
27.5
40.5
MA JOR OBSTACLE
Weed management
MINOR OBSTACLE
NO CLEAR TREND
NOT AN OBSTACLE
MAJOR
MINOR
NOT AN OBSTACLE
NO CLEAR TREND
BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 20
PROFILE 2 :
farms transitioning to organic farming
Farms that are still in the
process of transitioning to
organic farming represent 30%
of the full sample and account
for 186 farms. This group of
farms is of particular interest
because they are in the midst
of their three-year transition to
organic certification and offer
an important perspective. After
describing this category, we
contrast it with 100% certified
organic farmers, allowing a
glimpse of differences and
similarities between farmers in
the process of transitioning and
those who have successfully
transitioned into a 100%
organically managed system.
MEADOWOOD FARM- TURNER, OR
Photograph by Deanna Lloyd
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 21
DEMOGRAPHICS
In general, transitioning farmers do not
have many years of farm experience, are
youthful but still include middle-aged
farmers, operate mostly smaller farms,
and produce vegetables.
TABLE 9. DEMOGRAPHICS : TRANSITIONING FARMS
CATEGORY
21
PERCENT
EXPERIENCE
0 to 5 years
5 to 10 years
10 to 20 years
20 years or more
33.5
34.1
13.0
19.5
AGE
18 to 35 years
36 to 45 years
46 to 55 years
56 to 65 years
66 to 75 + years
12.1
19.9
22.1
32.0
13.8
FARM SIZE
0 to 25 acres
26 to 100 acres
101 to 500 acres
501 to 1,000 acres
65.6
17.7
11.3
5.4
CROPS 21
Vegetables
Fruits/Nuts
Grain/Legumes
Livestock
Dairy
52.5
15.3
11.9
17.8
2.5
Of 186 responses to this question, 56 farms indicated more than one crop; 12 indicated “other.”
BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 22
Transitioning farmers, as a group, have
less farming experience compared with
the full sample and the other categories
of farmers profiled in this report. Fully
two-thirds are beginning farmers and
ranchers (BFRs), with less than 10 years
of experience. This group also has the
highest number of farmers with fewer
than 5 years’ experience.
Farming experience and age are not
necessarily correlated. Transitioning
farmers, like 100% Certified Organic
farmers, are younger than the full sample
but also include older farmers: over 45%
are more than 55 years old.
Transitioning farms include a high
percentage, nearly 66%, of smaller farms
(0 to 25 acres). This is the highest rate
among the farm categories profiled in this
report and higher than the full sample
(60.5%). Still, nearly 17% of the farms are
101 to over 1000 acres.
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 23
Over half of Transitioning farms produce
vegetables, but other crops (fruits and
nuts, grains and legumes, livestock, dairy)
are well represented.
MOTIVATIONS
Transitioning and 100% Certified
Organic farmers are similar in their
values-based motivations to transition
to organic certification. Transitioning
farmers are significantly more
motivated by “access to the expanding
market for organics” than 100% Certified
Organic farmers (70.8% v. 59.7%).
Transitioning farmers are less motivated
(though not significantly) by a “potential
increase in profit” (61.2% v. 67.9%).
TABLE 10. MOTIVATIONS : TRANSITIONING V. 100%
CERTIFIED ORGANIC
MOTIVATION
TRANSITIONING (%)
100% CERTIFIED
ORGANIC (%)
VALUES-BASED
Fits my and/or my family’s values
Concerns about environment
Potential enhancement of farm sustainability
Concerns about human health
92.9
92.3
91.0
90.2
95.0
90.1
91.0
89.5
70.8
61.2
34.9
59.7
67.9
34.2
MARKET/PROFIT
Access the expanding market for organics1
Potential increase in profit
Specific market opportunity or contract from a buyer
1
p=.033
OBSTACLES
Transitioning farmers and 100% Certified
Organic farmers are similar in their view
of obstacles to transitioning to organic
certification with some exceptions. There
is strong agreement between the two
groups of farmers on weed management
as a major obstacle, but Transitioning
farmers also rate the cost of organic
certification and the recordkeeping
requirements of organic certification
as major obstacles while 100% Organic
farmers rate them as minor obstacles.
These are significant differences.
Transitioning farmers identify six
obstacles as minor and are in agreement
with 100% Organic farmers on three:
learning process, managing soil fertility,
and cost of organic inputs. One notable
difference is that Transitioning farmers
identify obtaining adequate prices during
transition as a minor obstacle, while 100%
Organic farmers rate it as not an obstacle.
Other differences are minimal and
include that Transitioning farmers do not
show a clear trend regarding the cost of
labor and pest or disease control, where
for 100% Certified Organic farmers, the
former is not an obstacle and the latter is
a minor obstacle.
BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 24
TABLE 11. OBSTACLES : TRANSITIONING V. 100%
CERTIFIED ORGANIC
OBSTACLES
TRANSITIONING (%)
MA JOR
100% CERTIFIED (%)
MINOR
NOT AN
OBSTACLE
MA JOR
MINOR
NOT AN
OBSTACLE
MA JOR OBSTACLE
Weed management
48.9
32.6
18.5
54.3
28.4
17.3
Cost of organic certification1
47.8
35.3
16.8
19.5
43.3
37.2
Recordkeeping requirements of
organic certification2
44.6
41.2
14.1
30.6
48.1
21.3
Learning process
18.1
47.8
34.1
18.9
42.8
38.4
Obtianing organic price information
19.9
43.5
36.7
24.2
37.3
38.5
Obtaining organic price premiums
27.9
43.5
28.6
28.3
35.8
35.8
Obtaining adequate prices during transition
27.9
41.6
30.5
24.6
32.6
42.8
Managing soil fertility
22.1
40.3
37.6
25.0
43.8
31.3
Cost of organic inputs
34.8
40.3
24.9
29.4
46.6
23.9
Cost of labor
36.7
28.4
34.9
32.0
27.5
40.5
Pest or disease control
36.1
37.8
26.1
28.9
41.5
29.6
Availability of labor
27.5
38.9
33.5
26.5
38.1
35.4
11.0
35.7
53.2
17.6
31.0
51.4
7.2
41.6
51.2
11.0
34.4
54.5
Finding buyers/markets for my organic products
16.9
35.5
47.6
16.0
29.0
54.9
Availability of organic inputs
22.1
33.1
44.8
18.1
45.6
36.3
Access to knowledgeable technical expertise
18.1
40.1
41.8
19.3
37.9
42.9
Availability of organic processing facilities
38.5
20.0
41.5
38.9
25.7
35.4
MINOR OBSTACLE
NO CLEAR TREND
NOT AN OBSTACLE
Reduced yields
Planning crop rotations
1
p<.001; 2p=.022 MAJOR MINOR NOT AN OBSTACLE OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 25 NO CLEAR TREND PROFILE 3 : Split farms (part organic/non-organic) Farms that are Split – that is, with parts that are certified organic and parts that are nonorganic – represent about 11% of the full sample and account for 69 farms. This group is of interest because these farmers are managing both systems on one farm. This group also appears to be a potentially significant source of additional organic acreage. The questionnaire did not cover whether these farms were in the process of or interested in adding more certified organic acreage. After describing this category, we contrast it with 100% Certified Organic farmers. BIG B FARM- AURORA, OR Photograph by Deanna Lloyd BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 26 DEMOGRAPHICS This category includes the most experienced farmers with over 68% having 10 to 20 or more years of farming experience. In fact, over 50% have 20 or more years of farming experience. This category also has the fewest least experienced farmers with only 8.7% having 0 to 5 years of farming experience. Age follows experience to some extent, and Split farmers are older, having fewer farmers in the 18 to 35-year range (13.4%) than other farmer categories profiled in this study and with a large segment in the 56 to 65 year range (37.3%). OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 27 Split farms are larger than other farm categories. More than 50% operate more than 101 acres and nearly 25% operate 501 to more than 1000 acres. There are also a notable number of smaller farmers as well, with more than 25% in the 0 to 25 acre range. Split farms include fewer vegetable farms and more fruit, nut, grain, and legume farms than other categories of farms we profile in this study. TABLE 12. DEMOGRAPHICS : SPLIT FARMS CATEGORY PERCENT 0 to 5 years 5 to 0 years 10 to 20 years 20 years or more 8.7 23.2 14.5 53.6 AGE 18 to 35 years 36 to 45 years 46 to 5 years 56 to 65 years 66 to 75 + years 13.4 11.9 26.9 37.3 10.5 FARM SIZE 0 to 25 acres 26 to 100 acres 101 to 500 acres 501 to 1,000 acres 27.5 20.3 27.5 24.6 CROPS 22 Vegetables Fruits/Nuts Grain/Legumes Livestock Dairy 40.0 22.2 24.4 13.3 0.0 EXPERIENCE MOTIVATIONS Split farmers tend to be more motivated by values-based rather than market or profit motivations but not to the degree of other farmers in this study. For instance, although Split farmers are similar to 100% Certified Organic farmers regarding potential increase in profit and access to the expanding market for organics, they are significantly less driven by the valuesbased motivations. 22 Of 69 responses, 23 farms indicated more than one crop; 1 farm indicated “other.” BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 28 TABLE 13. MOTIVATIONS : SPLIT V. 100% CERTIFIED ORGANIC MOTIVATION SPLIT (%) 100% CERTIFIED (%) 75.4 75.0 74.6 66.2 90.1 91.0 95.0 89.5 65.7 60.6 41.9 67.9 59.7 34.2 VALUES-BASED Concerns about environment1 Potential enhancement of farm sustainability2 Fits my and/or family’s values3 Concerns about human health4 MARKET/PROFIT Potential increase in profit Access the expanding market for organics Specific market opportunity or contract from a buyer 1 p=.004; 2p=.002; 3p<.001; 4p<.001 OBSTACLES Where there are some differences in demographics and significant differences in motivations between Split farmers and 100% Certified Organic farmers, there are fewer but still notable differences regarding obstacles to transition. The two farmer categories both identified weed management as the single major obstacle. What stands out is the number of minor obstacles identified by Split farmers. Split farmers rated 12 obstacles as minor compared to eight for 100% OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 29 Organic farmers. Four obstacles identified as minor by Split farmers were identified as not an obstacle by 100% Certified farmers: access to knowledgeable technical expertise, cost of labor, reduced yields (a significant difference), and obtaining organic price information. TABLE 14. OBSTACLES : SPLIT V. 100% CERTIFIED ORGANIC OBSTACLES SPLIT (%) 100% CERTIFIED (%) MA JOR MINOR NOT AN OBSTACLE MA JOR MINOR NOT AN OBSTACLE 57.6 36.4 6.1 54.3 28.4 17.3 Cost of organic certification 20.3 53.6 26.1 19.5 43.3 37.2 Availability of organic inputs (seed, fertilizer, etc.) 10.8 52.3 36.9 18.1 45.6 36.3 Recordkeeping requirements of organic certification 24.2 51.5 24.2 30.6 48.1 21.3 Learning process 16.4 50.7 32.8 18.9 42.8 38.4 Pest or disease control 29.9 46.3 23.9 28.9 41.5 29.6 Managing soil fertility 21.2 45.5 33.3 25.0 43.8 31.3 Cost of organic inputs 26.2 43.1 30.8 29.4 46.6 23.9 Access to knowledgeable technical expertise on organic production 21.5 43.1 35.4 19.3 37.9 42.9 Cost of labor 28.6 42.9 25.0 32.0 27.5 40.5 Obtaining organic price premiums 31.8 42.4 25.8 28.3 35.8 35.8 Reduced yields1 24.6 42.6 32.8 17.6 31.0 51.4 Obtaining organic price information 24.2 39.4 36.4 24.2 37.3 38.5 Obtaining adequate prices during transition 33.3 33.3 33.3 24.6 32.6 42.8 Availability of organic processing facilities 32.1 34.0 34.0 38.9 25.7 35.4 Availability of labor 28.3 35.0 36.7 26.5 43.8 31.3 Planning crop rotations 3.3 47.5 49.2 11.0 34.4 54.5 Finding buyers/markets for my organic productcts 18.2 36.4 45.5 16.0 29.0 54.9 MA JOR OBSTACLE Weed management MINOR OBSTACLE NO CLEAR TREND NOT AN OBSTACLE 1 p=.051 (Note: this is slightly above alpha level of .05) MAJOR MINOR NOT AN OBSTACLE NO CLEAR TREND BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 30 PROFILE 4 : not pursuing organic farming Farms that self-identified in our survey as “not pursuing organic farming”23 represent approximately 16% of the full sample and account for 101 farms. This group of farmers is of particular interest because they apparently have strongly considered organic farming but then changed their minds and decided not to pursue it. As distinct from farming organically but exempt from certification, which was a different option in the survey. 23 OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 31 The responses of the “Not Pursuing” group therefore provide an important perspective regarding how to increase the number of farmers who successfully transition to organic farming and certification: why did they start, why did they stop, and what resources and support might have helped? After describing this group, we contrast it with 100% Certified Organic farmers, exploring differences and similarities between farmers who have decided not to pursue organic farming and those who are now practicing it. DEMOGRAPHICS These are largely experienced farmers: more than half have more than 10 years of experience and nearly a third have more than 20 years. This group tends to be older than other farmers in the study: only 14% are under 45 years old, and more than 60% are 56 to over 75 years old. TABLE 15. DEMOGRAPHICS : “NOT PURSUING” FARMS CATEGORY 0 to less than 5 years 5 to less than 10 years 10 to less than 20 years 20 years or more 18.8 29.7 21.8 29.7 AGE 18 to less than 35 years 36 to less than 45 years 46 to less than 55 years 56 to less than 65 years 66 to less than 75 + years 6.1 8.2 24.5 39.8 21.4 FARM SIZE 0 to 25 acres 26 to 100 acres 101 to 500 acres 501 to 1,000 acres 61.4 22.8 12.9 3.0 CROPS 24 Vegetables Fruits/Nuts Grain/Legumes Livestock Dairy 51.6 14.5 6.5 25.8 1.6 EXPERIENCE 24 PERCENT Of 101 responses to this question, 29 farms indicated more than one crop; 10 indicated “other.” BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 32 Compared with 100% Certified Organic farms, these farms are much smaller: 61.4% are less than 25 acres, and only 15% are more than 100 acres. In terms of crop type, the most common is vegetables (51.6%), but compared with 100% Certified, a far higher proportion (25%) are livestock farms, and twice as many are fruit/nut farms. MOTIVATIONS Because this group of farmers has decided not to pursue organic farming, we expected significant differences from 100% Certified Organic farmers, and that is what we found. Like other farmers in OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 33 this study, Not Pursuing farmers rank values-based motivations to transition to organic certification higher than market and profit motivations. However, the group is significantly different from 100% Certified Organic farmers in terms of the percentage of farmers motivated by each factor. Not Pursuing farmers were significantly less motivated than 100% Certified Organic farmers by five of the seven factors: the four values-based motivations and a potential increase in profit. Compared with the full sample, Not Pursuing farmers were less motivated by all the factors. TABLE 16. MOTIVATIONS : “NOT PURSUING” V. 100% CERTIFIED ORGANIC MOTIVATION NOT PURSUING (%) 100% CERTIFIED (%) VALUES-BASED Fits my and/or my family’s values1 Potential enhancement of farm sustainability2 Concerns about human health3 Concerns about environment4 87.5 78.4 78.4 72.6 95.0 91.0 89.5 90.1 52.0 51.6 27.5 59.7 67.9 34.2 MARKET/PROFIT Access the expanding market for organics Potential increase in profit5 Specific market opportunity or contract from a buyer 1 p=.030; 2p=.005; 3p=.014; 4p=.001; 5p=.009 OBSTACLES The reasons this group of farmers decided not to pursue organic farming become clearer when we examine obstacles to transitioning to organic certification. Of 18 potential obstacles, eight were identified by Not Pursuing farmers as major obstacles. In contrast, 100% Certified Organic farmers identified only one major obstacle. BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 34 TABLE 17. OBSTACLES : NOT PURSUING V. 100% ORGANIC OBSTACLES NOT PURSUING (%) 100% CERTIFIED (%) MA JOR MINOR NOT AN OBSTACLE MA JOR MINOR NOT AN OBSTACLE Weed management 62.8 18.1 19.1 54.3 28.4 17.3 Cost of organic certification1 55.0 28.0 17.0 19.5 43.3 37.2 Cost of labor2 51.3 23.8 25.0 32.0 27.5 40.5 Recordkeeping requirements of organic certification3 51.1 40.9 8.0 30.6 48.1 21.3 Pest or disease control4 49.5 28.0 22.6 28.9 41.5 29.6 Cost of organic inputs5 46.7 31.5 21.7 29.4 46.6 23.9 Availability of organic processing facilities 46.6 23.3 30.1 38.9 25.7 35.4 Obtaining organic price premiums6 44.7 30.6 24.7 28.3 35.8 35.8 Learning process 11.0 54.9 34.1 18.9 42.8 38.4 Managing soil fertility 25.8 44.1 30.1 25.0 43.8 31.3 Availablity of organic inputs (seed, fertilizer, etc).) 26.7 44.1 32.2 18.1 45.6 36.3 Availability of labor 37.9 32.2 29.9 26.5 43.8 31.3 Obtaining adequate prices during transition 32.5 28.8 38.8 24.6 32.6 42.8 Obtaining organic price information 27.8 35.6 36.7 24.2 37.3 38.5 8.9 37.8 53.3 11.0 34.4 54.5 Reduced yields 25.9 23.5 50.6 17.6 31.0 51.4 Access to knowledgeable technical expertise 21.9 36.5 41.7 19.3 37.9 42.9 Finding buyers/markets for my organic products 33.0 26.1 40.9 16.0 29.0 54.9 MA JOR OBSTACLE MINOR OBSTACLE NO CLEAR TREND NOT AN OBSTACLE Planning crop rotations 1 p<.001; 2p=.012; 3p=.001; 4p=.005; 5p=.016; 6p=.030 MAJOR MINOR NOT AN OBSTACLE OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 35 NO CLEAR TREND The top major obstacles for Not Pursuing farmers include: weed management, the cost of organic certification, cost of labor, recordkeeping requirements of organic certification, pest or disease control, the cost of organic inputs, availability of organic processing facilities, and obtaining organic price premiums—a very long list of obstacles. The two groups differ significantly on the importance of six obstacles, which Not Pursuing farms identified as major and 100% Certified Organic farms identified as minor, no clear trend, or not an obstacle: • cost of organic certification In addition, while there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding weed management as a major obstacle – matching general agreement among all farmers in the study – the greater magnitude for the Not Pursuing farmers is notable. While 52.9% of the full sample and 54.3% of 100% Certified farmers identified weed management as a major obstacle, it was major for 63% of Not Pursuing farmers. • cost of labor • cost of organic inputs • recordkeeping requirements of organic certification • pest or disease control • obtaining organic price premiums BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 36 RESOURCE AND SUPPORT RANKINGS ACROSS ALL FOUR GROUPS Resource rankings for all four categories of farmers are shown in Table 18. Respondents were asked to choose their top five, and those are highlighted for each category (1 = most important). TABLE 18. RESOURCE RANKINGS BY FARMING SYSTEM RESOURCE 100% CERTIFIED TRANS. SPLIT NOT PURSUING Information on organic pest, disease, and weed management 1 1 1 1 Information on soil health management for organic farms 2 2 3 2 Information on effective organic crop rotations 3 7 5 5 Information on organic markets 4 3 2 3 Information on organic crop varieties 5 8 6 6 Market development for organic products 6 4 4 4 Organic and/or transition crop enterprise budget templates 7 9 10 9 Financial planning tools for transitioning to organic 8 5 8 8 Advance contracts from buyers during transition 9 10 7 7 Certified transition label 10 6 9 10 OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 37 100% Certified Organic farmers stress production-related information in the top five ranking of resources to support transition to organic certification. One market-related resource—information on organic markets—is in their top five. While farmers Not Pursuing organic farming have shown significant differences regarding motivations and obstacles, they are quite similar to 100% Certified Organic farmers (and the full sample) regarding resources. Transitioning farmers stress both production and market or financial resources in their top five. Like 100% Certified Organic farmers, Transitioning farmers ranked information on organic pest, disease, and weed management and information on soil health management at numbers one and two. Unlike 100% Certified Organic farmers, Transitioning farmers ranked information on organic markets, market development for organic products, and financial planning tools for transition as third, fourth, and fifth. Noteworthy is that Transitioning farmers ranked a certified transition label sixth, where other farmers ranked it ninth and tenth. Worth mention are several instances where farmers ranked a resource to assist transition as highly beneficial and yet did not rank a related obstacle as a notable barrier. For example, crop rotations, technical expertise, soil management, and information on organic markets are ranked As with 100% Certified Organic farmers (and the full sample), Split farmers stress production-related information in three of their top five resources. However, Split farmers ranked market-related resources higher in their top five than did 100% Certified Organic farmers: information on organic markets ranked second; market development for organic products ranked fourth. low as obstacles to transition, and yet they rank highly as valuable resources. In some instances, the wording is slightly different: for example, the obstacle related to crop rotations is about planning crop rotations, while the resource related to crop rotations is about rotations useful in a farmer’s specific region. Otherwise, there is not a clear explanation. SUPPORT Across the four groups, respondents preferred high contact approaches for accessing support during transition. Transitioning, Split, and Not Pursuing farmers mildly preferred online courses versus books and printed materials, the opposite of 100% Certified Organic farmers. BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 38 TABLE 19. SUPPORT RANKINGS BY FARMING SYSTEM SUPPORT 100% CERTIFIED TRANS. SPLIT NOT PURSUING Mentoring from experienced organic farmers 1* 1 1 1 One-on-one technical assistance during transition 1* 3 3 2 In person workshops or short courses 3 2 2 3 Books or other printed materials 4 5 5 5 Online courses or webinars 5 4 4 4 *Tied OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 39 DISCUSSION We set out to contribute to the national discussion about the reasons U.S. farmers do and do not transition to organic farming and certification. • What motivates them? • What obstacles do they face? • What resources and support are most helpful during transition? We had the opportunity to survey the different types of farmers who are the key to understanding how to increase the number of farms and acres managed organically: • Farmers who have successfully been through the process of transition and are 100% certified organic. • Farmers who are currently in the midst of transitioning to organic certification. • Farmers with split certified organic and non-organic operations. This report is useful for organizations, agencies, businesses, and others working with farmers and communities, and on policy development regarding increasing domestic production of organic products. Segmenting the market is always a useful approach to making progress with different audiences. Our farmer profiles—market segments—provide this opportunity. To that end, the results of this study may assist in tailoring and targeting educational programs and research to benefit 100% certified, transitioning, and split operation farmers and to minimize the number of farmers who begin the transition and subsequently decide not to pursue organic farming. We suggest that those interested and invested in organic transition look closely at the information in this report and identify what they can do to provide training, solve obstacles, or promote policy to support transition and retain certified organic farmers. • Farmers who have decided not to pursue organic farming. BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 40 WHAT DID WE LEARN? The farms and farmers represented in this study cover a wide range of farm sizes, crop types, farming experience, age, and approach to organic farming. The sample is dominated by smaller scale farms (60.5%) that primarily grow vegetables (54.7%), operated by farmers with less than 10 years’ experience (55.5%) who are transitioning their farms to organic certification (31.2%). The dominance of this “typical” respondent influences many of our results. In addition, the farmers were participants in the NRCS EQIP-OI/Transition program, which limits the generalizability of the results.25 Our study did not yield many surprises regarding what motivates farmers to transition to organic, what resources they wish they had, and what kind of support they would like. The results and variations we did find are useful to those working with farmers in the different groups profiled. The more compelling differences emerged regarding obstacles. MOTIVATIONS We saw some clear differences in motivations among the farmer categories: 100% Certified Organic farmers are highly motivated by the valuesbased foundations of organic farming. Transitioning farmers are similar to 100% Certified farmers in terms of values and significantly more motivated by access to the expanding market of organics. Split farmers are significantly less motivated by values than 100% Certified farmers but do not differ regarding market and profit motivations. Farmers not pursuing organic farming were generally less motivated than other farmers for most factors. Individuals and organizations working with farmers within these categories should take these differences in attitude into consideration as they plan their research, outreach, or policy activities. OBSTACLES When we return to the challenge at hand – that the number of farms and acres transitioning to organic certification is fairly flat, relative to demand – we find our most compelling findings in the obstacles. 25 Because we do not have access to demographic data about EQIP-OI/Transition participants, we cannot know whether our group of respondents is more or less representative of that larger population, which itself overlaps with but is not the same as the certified organic farmers typically surveyed by USDA-NASS and OFRF. OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 41 We offered farmers 18 obstacles to rate as Major, Minor, or Not an obstacle. The obstacles can be sorted into spheres of influence that are internal or external to the farm: farm level, local/regional level, and the national/international levels. These include production (farm level) obstacles, infrastructure obstacles, marketplace obstacles, and policy (administrative) obstacles. Farm level obstacles are internal and focus on farm production and farmer learning: 1. Weed management 2. Pest or disease control 3. Managing soil fertility 4. Reduced yields 5. Planning crop rotations 6. Learning process Local and regional infrastructure obstacles are external to the farm (unless the farm creates needed infrastructure internally) but directly support the farm’s ability to produce crops or products: 1. Availability of organic inputs 2. Cost of organic inputs 3. Availability of labor 4. Cost of labor 5. Availability of organic processing facilities 6. Availability of technical expertise Marketplace obstacles are external to the farm and may be local, national or international: 1. Finding buyers for organic products 2. Obtaining organic price premiums 3. Obtaining adequate prices during transition 4. Obtaining organic price information Administrative/Policy obstacles on our list primarily relate to the requirements of the USDA National Organic Program in terms of cost and complexity: 1. Cost of organic certification 2. Recordkeeping requirements of organic certification With these groupings in mind, we took a fresh look at the obstacles for this synthesis, compiling all those that each farmer category rated as major or minor. Fifteen of the 18 obstacles were rated by at least one category of farmer as major or minor. Table 20 summarizes all 18 obstacles by sphere of influence for the full sample and the four farmer categories of farming system. Obstacles highlighted in orange represent major obstacles, yellow represent minor obstacles, green represents not an obstacle, and grey cells indicate no clear trend. For this last category—no clear trend—it is important to consider these obstacles seriously even though there is no consensus. They are often major or minor obstacles for an important segment of farmers. BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 42 TABLE 20. OBSTACLES BY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND FARMING SYSTEM FULL SAMPLE 100% CERTIFIED TRANS. SPLIT NOT PURSUING X X X X X X X FARM LEVEL Weed management X Pest or disease control Learning process X X X X X Managing soil fertility X X X X X X Reduced yields Planning crop rotations LOCAL & REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE Cost of organic inputs X X Availability of organic inputs X X X X X X Cost of labor X X Access to technical expertise X X X Availability of labor X Availability of organic processing facilities MARKETPLACE X X Obtaining organic price premiums X X Obtaining adequate prices during transition X Obtaining organic price information X X X Finding buyers for organic products ADMINISTRATIVE/POLICY Cost of organic certification X X X X X Recordkeeping requirements of organic certification X X X X X TOTALS 9 9 9 13 11 2 v. 7 1 v. 8 3 v. 6 1 v. 12 8 v. 3 MA JOR V. MINOR MAJOR MINOR NOT AN OBSTACLE OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 43 NO CLEAR TREND As shown in the table, the four farmer categories agree on five of the obstacles: one as major, two as minor, and two as not an obstacle. They diverge on perceptions of the other obstacles and on the number they identify as major or minor. This number is highest for Split farmers (1 major and 12 minor) and Not Pursuing farmers (8 major and 3 minor). The table also reveals surprises regarding obstacles that are generally considered significant barriers to organic but are identified here by nearly all farmers as not a problem: reduced yields (an obstacle, and a minor one at that, only for Split farmers) and finding buyers for organic products. When we consider the spheres of influence, we can see that for all four groups, half or more of the obstacles are beyond the farm and therefore beyond the farmer’s direct influence. This demonstrates the need for research, education, and action at multiple levels, not only farm level research and education but also developing regional infrastructure or influencing state or national policy. RESOURCES AND SUPPORT In general, there is agreement across farmer categories regarding the top five resources beneficial to organic transition (Table 18). There is close consensus on the “top 5” production and market related resources (organic pest, disease, and weed management; soil health management; information on organic markets). Transitioning, Split, and Not Pursuing farmers ranked market development for organic products in their top five. Of special interest given their status, Transitioning farmers rank financial planning tools for transitioning to organic in their top 5 and a certified transition label at number 6; both resources are very low priorities for the other farmer categories. All farmers in the study preferred high contact approaches for support during organic transition: mentoring from experienced organic farmers, one-onone technical assistance, and in-person workshops (Table 19). BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 44 It would not be accurate, however, to take from this the idea that only high contact support will work. To simplify our questionnaire, we offered farmers five typical methods of receiving information important to organic transition. We did not contextualize these methods of support in terms of expense, distance, and other delivery constraints. Based on sales of books related to organic farming and the popularity of organic farming web and webinar services such as eOrganic, we believe these forms of education and problemsolving will continue to be important tools for farmers transitioning to organic certification. Hybrid forms of support that combine in-person and online approaches are also valuable. OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 45 RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSION : supporting farmers who choose organic Adopt a values-based approach to appeal to a wider audience of farmers Focus outreach to specific groups for greater success Provide individualized, in-person support Keep an eye on the special needs of Transitioning farmers Develop more effective weed (pest) management strategies Study the relationship between yield and successful transition Develop more regional handling infrastructure Evaluate transitional certification’s potential as an “on-ramp” program Support certification cost-share assistance BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 46 RECOMMENDATIONS Guided by the survey findings, we recommend the following specific strategies to support the success of farmers who choose organic. ADOPT A VALUES-BASED APPROACH TO APPEAL TO A WIDER AUDIENCE OF FARMERS. The farmer/farm family’s values were the most frequently cited motivation at over 90%, followed closely by concerns about the environment, enhancement of farm sustainability, and concerns about human health. Farmers not pursuing organic farming were generally less motivated than other farmers for most factors. Values-based motivations may position farmers for greater odds of success due to a deeper commitment to organic management systems. Certified organic farmland makes up less than 1% of the US farmland base. One could assume that many US farmers are not currently motivated by the ideals, principles, and practices of organic certification – or that these ideals, principles, and practices have not been effectively presented to most US farmers. The survey indicates that the farmers who pursue transition are generally OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 47 motivated to do so through an alignment of their personal values with benefits they ascribe to organic production. Reaching the majority of farmers in this country requires that the values intrinsic to the organic sector are communicated broadly and without boundaries. While the opportunities that come with certification are numerous and span social, environmental, and market factors, there is a common land ethic that transcends the organic sector and speaks to those who depend upon natural resources for their livelihood. We recommend working with farmers to evaluate the opportunities and choice of transitioning to organic agriculture by engaging in values-based dialogue, informed by an understanding of and sensitivity to local context and concerns. FOCUS OUTREACH TO SPECIFIC GROUPS FOR GREATER SUCCESS The demographics of our survey respondents help identify two types of farmers that may be of special interest regarding transition to organic farming. Split farm operations are a potentially significant source of additional organic acreage. They have successfully transitioned some of the operation to organic, and have additional non-organic acreage under their management. They may already be in the process of, or interested in, incrementally transitioning more acreage. The high level of farming experience among split farmers is another important factor. More experience could mean a higher chance of the farm’s continued success and stability. Yet it is important to keep in mind that this group identified 13 obstacles to transition, more than any other group. In addition, Split farmers are older than other farmer categories profiled in this study, with more than 37% in the 56 to 65 year range. Given their proximity to retirement and farm succession, we also recommend investing in support strategies targeting new and beginning farmers and ranchers (BFRs). BFRs account for more than 55% of all survey respondents. Additionally, two-thirds of the transitioning farmers category are BFRs. While BFRs and experienced farmers both ranked values-based motivations higher than market or profit motivations, a higher proportion of BFRs were motivated by their own or their family’s values as well as concern about human health and the environment. As previously discussed, these values-based motivations position BFRs for greater odds of success due to a deeper commitment level. KEEP AN EYE ON THE SPECIAL NEEDS OF TRANSITIONING FARMERS Transitioning farmers in our study were different from other farmers in important ways that need to be considered. These farmers were significantly more motivated than the other groups by access to the expanding organic market. Unlike the others, they identify three marketplace obstacles: price premiums, adequate prices during transition, and obtaining organic price information. Further, they were the only group – other than farmers no longer pursuing organic farming – that identified recordkeeping requirements as a major obstacle. Finally, while production challenges are often front and center during the transition to organic systems, financial planning is necessary to weather those bumps in the road: transitioning farmers in our study ranked financial planning tools for transition in their top 5 resources. PROVIDE INDIVIDUALIZED, IN-PERSON SUPPORT All respondents prefer high-contact approaches of support during transition. The top two methods of support are mentoring from experienced organic farmers and one-on-one technical assistance. Mentoring was the top BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 48 choice for BFRs, further emphasizing mentorship programs as a high-demand transition support mechanism. The stated preference for one-on-one technical assistance demonstrates an opportunity to provide farmer education and transition support services through focused partnerships with existing farm and land-based agencies. Land grant universities, non-profits, local conservation districts, as well as NRCS planners and Technical Service Providers have the potential to provide individualized technical support. The private sector, in particular companies seeking to expand their organic product lines, can also provide field-based technical assistance as a domestic supply chain development strategy. In addition, this survey confirms that many farmers perceive NOP recordkeeping requirements as an obstacle to certification. For both Not Pursuing and Transitioning respondents, the overwhelming majority (92% and 86% respectively) perceives recordkeeping as an obstacle - making it the most cited obstacle for both of these farmer categories. As farmers obtain certification (Split and 100% Certified), recordkeeping remains an obstacle, though minor in comparison. This difference implies that farmers who have not gone through the certification process perceive the OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 49 associated recordkeeping as more difficult than it might actually be. Mentoring and one-on-one assistance can also help farmers over this hurdle. In addition, providing farmers with effective record-keeping support requires a customized approach that is adapted to their unique social, environmental, and market conditions as well as the farmer’s personality. DEVELOP MORE EFFECTIVE WEED (PEST) MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES While access to knowledgeable technical expertise in organic production is not lacking, a significant gap exists wherein all farmer categories report weed management as a major obstacle and rank information on weed, pest, and disease as the primary resource needed during transition. There is a need to better capture and understand why this gap exists. Are the existing tools and strategies too costly, too complex, and/or not appropriate to scale? Are farmers reluctant to invest in equipment or unwilling to dedicate the space and time to holistic weed and pest management strategies? Unlike nonorganic farming, organic systems often depend on sustained, multi-season, multiyear approaches through which positive results are accrued and compounded through time. In this sense, effective outreach and support on weed and pest management in organic systems should include long-term trials and on-farm demonstration. The value of these is enhanced through participatory projects in which farmers are engaged in both design and implementation. STUDY THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN YIELD AND SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION When discussing barriers to organic transition, farmers and agricultural professionals commonly cite concerns involving reduced yield. However, our survey respondents consistently ranked this obstacle far below many others. Reduced yield was not an obstacle for three of the four profiled farmer categories. One category (Split farms) ranked it as a minor obstacle. Which specific cropping systems or practices (i.e., nutrient management, crop rotation plans) can produce comparable yields between organic and non-organic management systems? Do organic price premiums offset reduced yields by supporting the farm’s economic viability? We recommend further research to better understand why reduced yield might not be as significant of a concern as it is typically perceived to be. DEVELOP MORE REGIONAL HANDLING INFRASTRUCTURE More than 63% of all respondents identified availability of organic processing facilities as an obstacle to transition, with more than 38% identifying it as a major obstacle. Proximity and access to all the necessary infrastructure links in the organic supply chain can make the difference between profitability and economic default. This emphasizes the need for increased investment in regional infrastructure for processing, storage, and distribution of organic crops, livestock products, and value-added goods. EVALUATE TRANSITIONAL CERTIFICATION’S POTENTIAL AS AN “ON-RAMP” PROGRAM Among all respondents, having a Certified Transitional label received relatively low rankings as a beneficial resource during transition. Transitioning farmers ranked a certified transitional label sixth (out of ten), where other farmers ranked it ninth and tenth. BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 50 When the survey was administered, only a small number of certifiers offered a transitional certification program. However, this service has recently gained more exposure and awareness. USDA has approved a new transitional certification program to foster organic growth. Using standards developed by the Organic Trade Association, the National Certified Transitional Program will provide oversight to approved Accredited Organic Certifying Agents offering transitional certification to farmers. However, it is worth noting the program did not include labeling guidelines. The successful adoption of such a program will depend on buyer demand and likely cannot be driven by farmers or end consumers. While our survey results signal minimal value in a certified transitional label in the marketplace, a transitional certification program could offer valuable business-to-business functions and strengthen buyer-seller relationships. For example, it could provide additional assurance to buyers wanting to secure future organic supply from farmers in transition. Transitional certification may also support price premiums for certified transitional crops. It could also help farmers prepare for organic certification requirements by evaluating management practices, inputs, and recordkeeping during the transition period. OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 51 When evaluating transitional certification’s potential benefits, efforts should be made to identify and minimize unintended consequences. For example, concerns have been raised about certified transitional products competing for market share by undercutting the price of certified organic products. Others have expressed concerns that a certified transitional label would add to consumer confusion among many other certified attribute claims already found on food products. SUPPORT CERTIFICATION COST-SHARE ASSISTANCE Survey results clearly demonstrate the importance of certification cost-share programs. Over 80% of all respondents identified the cost of certification as an obstacle to transition, with more than 43% identifying this as a major obstacle. With the majority of respondents being smaller scale (over 60% farm less than 25 acres), the USDA NOP certification cost-share program is a key to smaller farms’ ability to access and afford organic certification. The USDA’s recent announcement to expand the scope of certification cost-share assistance to include transitional certification and state organic program fees will further help to overcome this commonly cited obstacle. CONCLUSION Our results make it clear that there is plenty of work to do by a wide variety of organizations and agencies working in the organic sector that have specializations in crop research, farmer education, infrastructure development, market development, and policy development. Farmers in our study echo long-standing concerns about costs, recordkeeping, on-farm production challenges, infrastructure, and profitable markets. This report provides an analysis and perspective valuable in formulating research, outreach and policy to address those concerns. This assessment is useful for gaining a broad view of motivations and obstacles that farmers experience while transitioning to organic farming and certification but should not be used to set priorities everywhere. Some obstacles that were rated lower in this national survey may be larger issues when examined by region or locality. This also pertains to preferred resources and support for transition. Another important consideration is that this survey only included farmers. A holistic strategy to support transitioning farmers should consider and engage other actors within the supply chain from field to fork. Successful organic transition is not only about production. It involves other sectors including storage, manufacturing, distribution and more. We recommend that organizations that have an interest in working with farmers on organic transition examine the results presented in this report and elsewhere and formulate their own customized strategies. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Oregon Tilth, the Oregon State University Center for Small Farms & Community Food Systems, and USDA-NRCS are grateful to producers who voluntarily participated in this survey. The information they provided is valuable and informs research and outreach to support transitioning and certified organic farmers. Thanks also to our external reviewers who provided valuable and expedited feedback that improved our report significantly. BREAKING NEW GROUND: FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON ORGANIC TRANSITION | 52 REFERENCES CITED Cranfield, J., Henson, S., & Holiday, J. (2010). The motives, benefits, and problems of conversion to organic production. Agriculture and Human Values 27: 291-306. DiGiacomo, G. and R. P. King. (2015). Making the Transition to Organic: Ten Farm Profiles. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE). Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, http://hdl.handle. net/11299/181352. Dillman, D. and J. Smyth. (2014). Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (4th Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Greene, C. 2013. Growth patterns in the U.S. organic industry. USDA Economic Research Service: Amber Waves. Retrieved from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2013/october/growthpatterns-in-the-us-organicindustry/ Jerkins, D. and J. Ory. (2016). 2016 National Organic Research Agenda. Santa Cruz, CA: Organic Farming Research Foundation. Available at: http://ofrf.org/sites/ofrf.org/files/staff/ NORA_2016_final9_28.pdf Johnston, S. (2010). Assessing farmer interest in transition to organic production and barriers to expansion of organic production in New York State. Report by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. Retrieved from http:// www.agriculture.ny.gov/ap/organic/docs/Abstract_Assessing_Farmer_Barriers.pdf. Kirkpatrick, J. (2013). “Retired Farmer - An Elusive Concept”. Choices. Quarter 2. Available online: http://www.choicesmagazine.org/choices-magazine/theme-articles/transitions-in-agriculture/retired-farmer--an-elusive-concept Lau, M., R. Hanagriff, D. Constance, M. York, B. VanDelist, and L. M. Higgins. (2010). Discerning Differences among Producer Groups and Organic Adoption Barriers in Texas. Journal of Food Distribution Research 40(2): 124-164. Lloyd, D. (2016). Farmer perspectives on the transition to organic agriculture: An Oregon study of farmer motivations and barriers. Oregon State University: Master’s Thesis. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1957/60003. Organic Trade Association (OTA). (2016). U.S. organic sales post new record of $43.3 billion in 2015. Available at: https:// www.ota.com/news/press-releases/19031#sthash.7UCqaHEt. dpuf (accessed 11/21/16). Reganold, J. P., and J. M. Wachter. (2016). Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nature Plants 2: 15221. doi:10.1038/ nplants.2015.221. Kniss, A. R., S. D. Savage, and R. Jabbour. (2016). Commercial Crop Yields Reveal Strengths and Weaknesses for Organic Agriculture in the United States. PLoS ONE 11(8): e0161673. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161673 Stephenson, G., L. Gwin, A. Garrett, and M. Powell. 2012. Enhancing Organic Agriculture in Oregon: Research, Education, and Policy. OSU Extension Service, Special Report #EM9050. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. Stofferahn, C. W. (2009). Personal, Farm and Value Orientations in Conversion to Organic Farming. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 33(8): 862-884. Strochlic, R. and L. Sierra. (2007). Conventional, mixed and “deregistered” organic farmers: entry barriers and reasons for exiting organic production in California. Davis, CA: California Institute for Rural Studies. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). (n.d.) “EQIP Organic Initiative.” Website: https://www.nrcs. usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/?cid=nrcs143_008224 (accessed 11/21/16). USDA National Agricultural Statistics Survey (NASS). (n.d.). 2014 and 2015 Organic Certifier Data. Available at: https:// www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Organic_Production/Organic_Certifiers/2016/USDA_Accredited_Certifying_Agent_Certified_Organic_Data_2014_2015.pdf. USDA-NASS. (2012). 2012 Census Highlights. Available at: https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Highlights/Beginning_Farmers/ USDA-NASS. (2014). Census of Agriculture: 2014 Organic Survey. Available at: https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/Organics/ McBride, W. and C. Greene. (2015.) Despite profit potential, organic field crop acreage remains USDA Economic Research Service: Amber Waves. Retrieved from: http://www.ers.usda. gov/amberwaves/2015/november/despite-profit-potential-organic-field-crop-acreage-remains-low/ Murray, T. and N. Enelow. (2016.) Investing in Organic Production: Economics of Transition (Webinar). Oregon Tilth, Sept. 7. Available at: https://tilth.org/resources/investing-organic-production-economics-transition/. OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY & OREGON TILTH | 53 This report was generously funded by the UNFI Foundation, Farm Aid, Oregon Tilth, and OSU Center for Small Farms & Community Food Systems.
All Regions
PDF
4023, 4023, OT_OSU_TransitionReport_03212017.pdf, OT_OSU_TransitionReport_03212017.pdf, 19987313, https://cms.organictransition.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/OT_OSU_TransitionReport_03212017.pdf, https://cms.organictransition.org/resource/breaking-new-ground-farmer-perspective-on-organic-transition/ot_osu_transitionreport_03212017-pdf/, , 1, , , ot_osu_transitionreport_03212017-pdf, inherit, 4022, 2024-01-08 08:10:26, 2024-01-08 08:10:26, 0, application/pdf, application, pdf, https://cms.organictransition.org/wp-includes/images/media/document.png