National IPM Initiative
Phase I Projects
Phase I Projects
Diversified Fresh Market Vegetable Producers
|
|
Phase I Projects |
|
|
 |
 |
Opportunity to Address Grower Issues
Five team building meetings were held in New York and Pennsylvania that were convenient for growers in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. The day long meetings were held in Voorheesville and Cortland, NY, and in Bartonsville, Erie, and Lancaster, PA. Emphasis was placed upon identifying important issues affecting growers and communicating these issues to the other attendees at the meeting. Attendees included both conventional and organic growers and representatives from grower organizations; environmental organizations such as the Audubon Society of New York, Mothers & Others, the New York Sustainable Agriculture Working Group, New York Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, and the French Creek Environmental Education Project; agrochemical companies; land grant researchers and extension personnel; extension field staff; and private consultants.
Meetings began with introductions of attendees and an outline of the meeting goals and of the goals of National IPM Initiative. It was emphasized that the IPM Initiative encouraged grower involvement and that this was an opportunity for growers to participate. To encourage frank and open discussion about the issues important to the growers and to place IPM in perspective to these issues, the following questions were asked of growers:
What crops do you grow ?
Why are you a farmer?
What are your biggest concerns about your farm and about farming in general?
What are your biggest pest management concerns?
What do you need to address your concerns?
Growers were given all the time that they needed to answer these questions. Meetings focused upon these grower presentations and the discussions that followed. Non-growers were also given a series of related questions to get their perspectives on farming and vegetable producers' needs.
Through these discussions, all attendees learned the nature of fresh market vegetable production in the three state region. Some growers retail nearly all of their vegetables through farm stands, while others wholesale their produce or do a combination of retail and wholesale marketing. Farms are often diversified including vegetables, fruit and greenhouse grown vegetables or bedding plants and annual flowers. Many of the farms had been in the family for several generation farmers. The discussions also brought out the fact that in general, farmers are in the business of farming because they like it and that they don't necessarily like to spray pesticides.
Because the questions were broad, the discussions identified major issues important to the viability of vegetable farms. A number of important issues emerged as growers discussed the challenges they face in operation of their farms; these included regulations, interactions with urban neighbors, taxes, labor issues, excessive paperwork, consumers' fears related to pesticide use on farms, and urban encroachment and development, marketing, competition from out-of-state and declining prices. It was also recognized that there were opportunities to educate consumers and neighbors about farming methods and agricultural issues through interactions with the public at farm markets. Some growers stated that they make time for lots of farm tours for community groups such as churches and boy scouts and are generous with time to assist in education efforts particularly about farming practices and pesticides. Emphasis was placed on earning and maintaining the public trust, thus creating more favorable public relations. One grower attempts to improve his relationship with urban neighbors by assisting them with snowplowing, moving trees, and by giving them vegetables.
Another grower spoke about how the public's perception of farmers has changed. Based upon his experience with consumers and the public in general, he noted that the prevalent attitude is "If you're spraying, you're doing something wrong." This attitude has made his choices about pest management more complex. He has also encountered a lack of quality chemical products and has lost familiar products which further limit his ability to respond to some pests. Another key problem is that different crops require different sprays and costs associated with many different sprays. Noting that farmers are too few in number to influence politics, he sees coalitions with other groups as a very important avenue to gain influence over policy. Several growers mentioned the need to form coalitions to better educate the consumer. Several were complimentary of the effort by Wegman's supermarkets to "sell what you're doing," i.e., let the public know that you are doing the best you can by using IPM tactics. Ongoing communication and coordination amongst farmers was seen as important.
In addition to overriding issues related to farming, some specific pest management issues were identified. These included loss of tools to combat pest problems, lack of information on new pests, constraints on scouting vegetables (limited time for growers to scout, costs of scouting, travel time for scouts) and specific pest problems. Some growers emphasized the strong need for funding to keep research, extension, and IPM systems in place.
Following the grower discussions, invited speakers presented ongoing or potential opportunities that could address the identified issues. For example, at almost all meetings, Dr. Curt Petzoldt presented an overview of the Wegmans supermarkets program to promote and market IPM-grown produce. This program is a joint Wegmans, Cornell, grower, and food processor program that encourages the use of IPM on the farm. To be able to label produce as being IPM grown, farmers need to follow a set of IPM elements.
Mothers & Others Executive Director, Wendy Gordon, spoke at a team building meeting. Mothers & Others has about 35,000 members who are active on both coasts. Mothers & Others mission is consumer education and risk-assessment. Their campaign goal is to help consumers better understand the farmer. Ms. Gordon stressed that buying locally is a top priority. Mothers & Others wants to participate in projects that reward growers for sustainable agriculture and would like to see the buying power of the northeast harnessed in such a way as to create local sustainable agriculture. Ms. Gordon discussed a new project in New England that identifies the apple growers, the location of their farms, and how they grow their apples. The implication from her presentation was that possibly something similar could be developed for vegetable growers in the region.
John Santacrose represented the Audubon Society of New York State at one team building meeting. He works closely with golf courses and state parks to reduce pesticide use by encouraging management and employees to review their chemical use and to make changes by linking environmental concerns and operational costs. Mr. Santacrose looks at the public's concerns about their personal health and safety as an opportunity to build trust. Members of the team building meeting shared many questions in response to Mr. Santacrose's work. Some find it very hard to overcome their fears of trusting environmental groups or suspect that they have hidden agendas. He suggested that by learning what the sources of funding are for groups and by asking groups what their stand is on an issue, growers can build coalitions with environmental groups based on a clarity in terms which instills trust.
Dr. Molly Anderson from Tufts University's School of Nutritional Science and Policy, attended a meeting and encouraged growers to be committed to themselves and their operations first and get others to be committed too. Dr. Anderson discussed a current apple marketing strategy (Mothers and Others) which includes leaflets that are left in grocery stores for consumers, display posters and public service announcements. She noted that in a survey they conducted, 46% of consumers said they cared how the food was grown, 45% said they did not. Still within this split, 85% indicated that they would prefer to purchase IPM grown produce. In addition, 77% of the consumers responded that food safety was important to them and 37% responded that stewardship of the environment was important. Consumers were also willing to pay higher costs for their food when it was produced with more environmentally responsible methods and that they considered to be safer. Dr. Anderson stressed that agriculture is more than food production; it also preserves open space, water quality, and wildlife habitat, and adds rural character to the landscape. She added that everyone "misses" the loss of the farm when its farmers stop farming and leave the area.
Brian Hill, the Director of The French Creek Project in Pennsylvania, explained his work is a cooperative undertaking amongst neighboring property owners, local governments, academic institutions, and dedicated environmentalists. French Creek has a highly unusual biological diversity. The creek begins in New York and flows through four counties in Pennsylvania. Some neighboring farms have done very well with keeping water quality high, but others have not and the contrast is very apparent. Cooperation is essential and the advisory committee has included several farmers as well as business representatives from industry along the creek. Efforts have resulted in modified use of pesticides within certain distances from the water.
At another meeting, Dr. Jennifer Wilkins, from the Department of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell University, presented her proposed project to determine if Cornell University, which serves >20,000 meals a day, can be more effective at purchasing regionally-grown produce. With a better understanding of how Cornell University obtains its produce, opportunities for regional producers of food could become available. This presentation generated considerable discussion from the growers.
The objective of these presentations was to identify potential opportunities for growers and foster coalition/team-building. Participants in the meetings gained an improved understanding and appreciation of the growers' situations and concerns. The meetings facilitated communication among diverse parties, some of which may have previously been adversarial. These discussions have shown that there are opportunities to work together and it is often just a matter of communicating. Fostering of IPM is a readily identified common goal of all these groups. Determining where IPM fits in relative to other issues on the farm and how it can help address some of these issues was an important outcome of the meetings.
Lancaster meeting participants were asked to write responses to two questions: "From your point of view in the diversified fresh market vegetable arena, what are your most pressing concerns now and for the future?" and "What are the most pressing pest management issues/needs in diversified fresh market vegetables?" Producers and extension groups were separated from each other. Each group ranked their responses and then reported their results to all participants. Using the two highest ranking priorities, several action plans were sketched out by small groups of producers and extension workers.
Vegetable producers attending two of the team building meetings reviewed draft formats of the survey that would ultimately be mailed to growers in the three states (Objective 2). During their critiques many constructive ideas were generated and incorporated into the survey. The goal was to make the survey user friendly. Recommendations from the growers included suggestions on content and format. Growers recommended that respondents get a copy of the results. Questions on the survey related to general agricultural issues were raised by growers themselves during the team building meetings. It was clear from the comments made by the growers that these issues play an important part in their operational decisions, some of which impose financial constraints and others which create challenging pest management constraints in response to on going public concern about pesticide use. One section of the survey also gave respondents the opportunity to allocate funds to conduct research or educational activities for pest management. It was very well received by the growers at these meetings. Growers had not previously had the chance to shape the spending priorities for agricultural funds and they understand that future funding priorities will ultimately shape their operational constraints in the years ahead. Growers also raised very good questions about how results of the survey would be interpreted. Their questions suggest opportunities for future study and research funding.
Growers' response to the team building meetings was very positive and they requested future meetings be held to continue to share information and include more farmers. Everyone looked forward to receiving a list of attendees, a summary of the meeting, and results of the survey. Specific requests were made for more information on scouting and the need to revitalize a past cost sharing program for scouts in which many farmers had participated. Another request for assistance was for interns to come to growers' farms. The inclusion of researchers, environmental groups, extension, and industry representatives was seen as a good way to build coalitions that could addresses media and political concerns in ways that benefited farmers. Growers at one team building meeting suggested future meetings that would also give input to the State Research Board on how research funding should be spent. Growers saw future meetings as a way to encourage other growers to pay their assessments and to involve them in discussions about how the money is spent.
|
Previous Page: |
Next Page: |
IPM for Diversified Fresh Market Vegetables, Table of Contents
Index of Northeast Region Phase I Projects