COABC Research Needs Study - certifiedorganic.bc.ca · COABC Research Needs Study Prepared for...

COABC Research Needs Study

Prepared for

Certified Organic Associations of British Columbia (COABC)

Prepared byR. Smith & Associates

Contact Information

R. Smith & AssociatesBox 181, Groundbirch, B.C. V0C 1T0

Phone/Fax [email protected]@neonet.bc.ca

July 2003

R. Smith & Associates COABC Research Needs Study

ii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary………..……………………….………………………….…………11. Introduction……………………………………………………………….……………22. The research process...................................................................................................... 4

Data collection ............................................................................................................................4Regional variation ......................................................................................................................5

3. Setting the stage ............................................................................................................. 64. Research Results……...…………………………………………………................…10

Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 10Results by Region ..................................................................................................................... 13Region 1: South Okanagan / Similkameen / Kootenay-Boundary ....................................... 13Region 2: Fraser Valley/ Vancouver Island / Gulf Islands ................................................... 18Regulated marketing................................................................................................................ 18Trends ....................................................................................................................................... 19Region 3: North Okanagan / Thompson / Cariboo................................................................ 23Region 4: Prince George / Peace River / North West ............................................................ 29

5. Research Resources ..................................................................................................... 346. Recommendations and Conclusions ........................................................................... 44

6.1 Project Evaluation and Monitoring .................................................................................. 446.2 Organizational Development and Professional Development......................................... 456.3 The role of entrepreneurs .................................................................................................. 45

References ........................................................................................................................ 51

Appendix 1: Semi-structured Interview Questions......…..…………......…….............…..50

Appendix 2: Workshop guide……..……..…………...………...…..............................…52

Appendix 3: Reference Web Sites………..…………………………............................…53

Appendix 4: Radially organized teams...........………………….………….............…..…54

Tables

Table 1: Research regions in British Columbia ................................................................................. 5Table 2: OSDP projects approved to date – June 01/2003............................................................... 11Table 3: Summary of research priorities for all regions (ranked) .................................................... 12Table 4: Research needs; South Okanagan / Similkameen / Kootenay-Boundary (unranked) ........ 15Table 5: Research needs; Fraser Valley / Vancouver Island / Gulf Islands region (unranked)........ 20Table 6: Research needs; North Okanagan / Thompson / Cariboo region (unranked)..................... 25Table 7: Research needs: Prince George, Peace River, Bulkley Valley (unranked) ........................ 31

Figures

Figure 1: The research process __________________________________________________________ 4Figure 2: Research themes ______________________________________________________________ 7


1

Executive Summary

This study was initiated by the CertifiedOrganic Associations of B.C. (COABC) toassess the research needs of organicproducers in the province.

The opinions of producers were collectedthrough a combination of interviews andworkshops, and analyzed and condensed toprepare the prioritized and annotated list ofareas of interest presented in Table 3. Thedefinition of research was expanded toinclude many topics beyond primaryagronomic research in order to include thevarious interests presented to us.

The highest ranked priority, and thecommon thread connecting the very diverseinterests and needs of the province’s organicgrowers, is soil fertility and management.Other issues were ranked in order of theirrelative importance to the organiccommunity as a whole, even thoughdifferent groups or sectors may see theseissues as less or more important.

In order to better understand these diverseinterests, we have looked at somecharacteristics of the B.C. organiccommunity itself. The needs and interests ofB.C. producers appear to diverge accordingto ‘product volume’ and ‘market focus’.Those producers with larger volumes ofproducts concentrating on mass marketshave more interest in, and generally arealready involved with, formal agronomicresearch; producers working with more localmarkets, more diverse product lines, orsmaller total volumes are more concernedwith other business and socio-economicissues.

We have also reviewed other research needsstudies and information sources tocorroborate the findings from ourparticipatory process. Although researchmethodologies, analyses and reporting stylesvary widely, the issues discussed in all wereremarkably similar in spite of the varyingdegrees of maturity of the organic industryin different countries. The ranking of these

issues, in terms of importance to the localorganic producers, does vary from study tostudy, and will no doubt vary over time asthe industry undergoes the changes inherentin exponential growth.

In addition to the prioritized list of areas ofinterest in Table 3, we have recommendedorganizational and procedural changes thatwill assist the B.C. organic community todevelop a research and education agenda inthe short term, and ultimately accommodatethe evolving professional developmentneeds of producers.

Finally, this report suggests the possibilityof inclusion of all the actors and sectors oforganic production in the province by wayof a subtle but important change inapproach, that of focusing on investment inindustry human resources, rather thanexclusively on investment in researchprojects.


2

1. Introduction

The Certified Organic Association of BritishColumbia (COABC) ‘research needs study’was initiated in February 2003. COABC, anumbrella organization that representsorganic certification organizations (COs) inBritish Columbia, has been guided by aprovince wide strategic planning processcompleted in 2002. This strategic planningprocess coincided with a funding award ofone million dollars from the Agri-FoodFutures Fund (AFFF) to initiate the OrganicSector Development Program. Thisprogram distributes the AFFF funding on acost-sharing basis and according to thestrategic priorities.

The Organic Sector Development Program(OSDP) is a three-year initiative runningfrom the 2002/2003 to 2005/2006 fiscalyear. The strategic plan has set out a generalfunding framework totalling 2.3 milliondollars. The strategic planning processidentified three main goals, which covermany of the most relevant and present issuesfacing the organic sector in B.C.:

• Forty-five to sixty-five percent of the fund1

is allocated to projects addressingproduction capacity.

• Thirty to forty percent of the fund isassigned to marketplace development andpromotion.

• Five to ten percent is assigned toenvironmental stewardship projects.

The AFFF funds must be matched byindustry with in-kind and cash contributionson a 50:50 basis, according to recentgovernment research funding directives.Research projects addressing productioncapacity have been allocated between$450,000 and $650,000 from the AAFFfund2 and will be matched with an equal 1 The ‘fund’ refers to a conglomerate of sectorcontributions, private funding, government programsand the AFFF Organic Sector Initiative funding. Thisfund totals 2.3 million dollars of which a portion isconsidered in-kind funding. Please review thestrategic planning document for a more thoroughoutline of this funding.2 The funding provided from the AFFF cash fund willbe referred to as ‘OSDP cash funding’ from hereon.

amount from industry. This research needsstudy was given initial parameters thatincluded roughly one million dollars overthree years of funding, following the aboveaccounting ($450,000 to $650,000 fromAFFF plus equivalent from industry), andthe broad goal of investigating potentialprojects that would increase productioncapacity within the organic sector of B.C.

The stated justification for funding researchprojects that will increase productioncapacity, taken from the Strategic Plan(OSDP Strategic Plan 2002, p. 3), is that“increased capacity is needed for the growthof the British Columbia market. Increasedproduction will stimulate infrastructuredevelopment which will in turn enhancequality and encourage further marketgrowth.” The strategic plan is partiallypredicated upon the perception that“domestic organic production is insufficientto meet the strong consumer demand” andthat “…present and future demand faroutstrips supply in most commodities…anddemand continues to be filled by importedproducts” (OSDP Strategic Plan 2002, p.1,2).

The Strategic Plan has outlined a number ofinitial projects under the productioncapacity goal that are to be funded with bothOSDP cash and partner (in-kind and cash)funding. These are:

1) A labeling handbook that outlinesprovincial and federal regulationswith $1,280 OSDP cash funding(80% of total),

2) A technology transfer project(CyberHelp) that providesinformation technology training forproducers and an on-lineinformation resource with $30,000OSDP cash funding (7.5% of total),

3) A brand name list that will provideup-to-date listing of organic inputsand Canadian brand nameequivalents with $1,600 OSDP cashfunding (80% of total),

4) This research needs study with$28,000 OSDP cash funding (80%of total),


3

5) A project to improve farm planningtools with OSDP cash funding of$5,000 (33% of total),

6) A ‘Canada Organic Initiative’ thatprovides general base funding foradvocacy with OSDP cash fundingof $8,000 (80% of total),

7) Initial and general base funding forprojects that explore improvedaccess to capital and land fororganic industry purposes withOSDP cash funding of $10,000(50% of total).

Specific partners have been identified forfour of these projects including the PacificAgricultural Certification Society, theUniversity of British Columbia, the OrganicAgricultural Centre for Canada, the B.C.Farm Business Management Council, theB.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Agri-Food,and Human Resources DevelopmentCanada. The other three projects have onlyidentified sectors that may be interested inpartnering.

A careful interpretation of the sevenprescribed projects and the generalparameters of the research needs studyshows that a number of priorities havealready been assigned to the productioncapacity funding. The dollar valuesassigned to the different projects alsoindicate some of the weighting of priorities.The other significant project alreadyunderway is a marketing research and plandevelopment project under the secondstrategic theme. This project has received$120,000 with OSDP cash funding of$60,000. Because of this strategic plan, thisresearch needs study was directed to look atproduction capacity issues generally andprimary agronomic research specifically.The results of our research identify somespecific agronomic research needs, but alsoinclude other issues of equal or greaterimportance to the organic producers whoparticipated with us in this project.

Many different factors affect the ability of afarm business or sector to ‘increaseproduction capacity’; among them:infrastructure development, technologytransfer, access to information, access to

capital (and land), regulatory constraints orbenefits, organizational change,communications capabilities, businessplanning capabilities, marketingimprovements, etc. as well as primaryproduction research and information.

Different sectors and different regions of theprovince will have different needsdepending on their proximity to newmarkets, stability of existing markets, influxof new organic producers, conversion toorganic of existing conventional producers,and degree of current technological andresearch investment. This study will presentfindings from a series of interviews andworkshops held across the province. Thefindings from this research indicates thatsome producers have specific productionresearch needs that address quality andefficiency issues, while other producers haveneeds that fall well outside the realm ofprimary agronomic research. The statedindustry strategy to ‘increase productioncapacity’ does not fit the business plans orinterests of other producers. This report willstrongly emphasize the need to expand thedefinition of ‘research’ to properly focusenergy and finances on projects and issuesthat will drive the industry for the benefit ofall producers.


4

2. The research process

This study uses three main techniques in theresearch process. Key informant interviews,group workshops, and secondary datacollection through literature review andorganizational profiles all providedimportant information at different stagesthroughout the research. The ‘sequential

mixed method design’ used qualitativemethods for primary data collection in thefirst stage of work and some quantitativeresearch in the second stage. Figure 1 belowdiagrams the different stages of researchused in this study.

Figure 1: The research process

Data collection

Phase one of the research included keyinformant interviews and a series ofworkshops or small group discussions. Thekey informants were determined by each ofthe researchers in the four regions of theprovince; the majority were organicproducers. They were selected with a

purposive sampling method, i.e. severalwere contacted based on prior knowledge oftheir interest or involvement with theirparticular sector and these participants werein turn able to direct the researchers towardother potential participants. The sample ofkey informants was not random and was notselected to be statistically significant. Each

Sequential mixedmethod design ofresearch plan

Division of regions andassignment of researchers

Phase 1a: Key informantinterviews

Phase 1b: Workshops andsmall group discussions

Phase 2: Literaturereview and informalorganizationalprofiling

Thematic summary ofinterviews

Design of workshops

Summary of workshops

Identification of researchneeds and generalthemes about researchpriorities

Summary report andrecommendations


5

of the key informants was asked questionsbased on a common set of questions(Appendix 1) and these questions variedonly because of the particular sector inwhich the participant was involved. Theworkshops were held after the completion ofthe interviews. The design of the workshopswas based on the results and key findingsfrom the interview stage. Each workshopconsisted of an average of ten participants,generally from five to twelve people andoften included some of the key informantsfrom the interview stage as well asadditional people based on interest. Theseworkshops were organized by theresearchers in each of the four regions, inconjunction with in-kind support from asmall number of certification organizationrepresentatives. The workshops usedcommon focus group techniques with afacilitated discussion aided by participanthandouts. Appendix 2 provides a copy of thehandouts used in each of the workshops.

Regional variation

This research needs study is tasked withexamining the needs of producers across theprovince, and in the many different organicsectors. The province was arbitrarily dividedinto four regions, and a separate researcherfrom the research team focused his/herefforts in each region (see Table 1).

Table 1: Research regions in BritishColumbia

Region Researcher Mainorganicsectors

Fraser Valley andVancouver Island

SarahDavidson

Groundcrops,berries,tree fruit,poultry,dairy

Kootenays andSouth Okanagan

OscarSomasco

Treefruits,groundcrops,beef,dairy

North Okanagan,Cariboo/Thompson

ElaineSpearing

Groundcrops,treefruits,seedproviders,beef

Prince George,Peace River

Bill Smith Beef,grain,poultry,groundcrops

Organic producers in each of the regions ofthe province have a diversity of interests,although there are important regionaldifferences. There is a focus on tree fruits inthe South Okanagan/ Similkameen region,on ground crops in the North Okanagan andThompson regions, and the Fraser Valleyhas a large number of producers and a highconcentration of organic ground cropproduction, dairy and poultry producers, andberry producers. Vancouver Island mirrorsthis concentration although there are fewerproducers. The Prince George and PeaceRiver region has the fewest number ofcertified organic producers and the largestacreage in organic production, focusedmainly on beef and grain production. Smalldairy, beef, greenhouse, seed, herb, nursery,specialty field crop, ground crop andspecialty livestock producers are scatteredthroughout each region. An importantchallenge in the research process wasaccounting for the differences in size ofcertified organic operations and themarketing foci of producers in each region.There is as much difference between thesame sectors in different regions of theprovince as there are between differentsectors. For example, the ground cropproducers in the Kamloops area arerelatively small, focused on local and directmarketing outlets, and generally have abroader business focus, while many of thosein the Fraser Valley have larger productionvolumes and market into larger distributionchannels. The research needs of these twogroups are considerably different and thispoint will be elaborated upon in this report.


6

3. Setting the stage

At the outset of our work for this project,each of our researchers became immediatelyaware of the many different understandingsof the current state and future direction ofthe organic sectors in British Columbia.There was a noticeable difference in thetopics discussed at the various workshops,depending on the regional and the sectoralinterests of the majority of participants.Some workshops consisted of producerswell established in their sector, with largeroperations and seasonal employees, and whoplaced considerable emphasis on marketing.These producers discussed issues such as theneed to increase production to meet fallingpremiums, and to open new marketchannels.

In other workshops, attended mostly by‘small’ producers3, the primary concern washuman resource constraints. Marketing wasan issue, but was generally focused onpenetrating local markets and maintainingthe integrity of farmers’ markets and homebox delivery operations. These producerswere most concerned about limitations oftime and labour required for the scale oftheir operation. Very often a family teamwas doing most of the labour, accounting,and marketing as well as maintaining one ortwo off-farm jobs. These two producercharacterizations are presented forillustrative purposes and can be seen asopposite ends of a continuum (see Figure 2).Many of the producers in the province fallsomewhere along this continuum.

Another theme across the workshops wascertification as a driver of increasedmarketing penetration and increasedproduction capacity versus other, moreprocess-driven models for the organicsector.

Some participants felt that certification andthe accompanying COABC brandingprogram (the checkmark), or better, aCanadian organic branding program,

3 The terms ‘small producer’ or ‘large producer’ arearbitrary and are used here to denote a difference,mainly in production volume or cash flow fromorganic production.

encouraged or could encourage newconsumer loyalty. Stringent certification,improved labeling and handling procedures,increased food safety protocols, combinedwith grower or grower agent branding wouldensure marketplace acceptance andincreased market penetration. We will referto this as a ‘product-driven’ approach.

Other producers felt that this product-drivenapproach was at high risk of diminishing thereal intent of organic production as a‘process-driven’ approach. The mainargument for a process-driven approach toincrease production capacity was that itcould be more resilient given potential andcurrent pressures facing all agriculturalindustries. For example, advents intechnology and monitoring capabilities maybe able to find contamination in all farmproducts because of our industrial setting.This could jeopardize any purely product-driven approach that emphasizes only brand-name (certified organic) loyalty. A goodexample would be the recent finding of abovine spongiform encephalitis (BSE)infected cow in northern Alberta, nowjeopardizing all beef production in Canada.Regulators have been reiterating theprocedural integrity of Canada’s beefhandling system, but face difficulty becausemarketing has always emphasized productquality.

Both possible approaches for increasingproduction, product-driven and process-driven, when applied to increasingproduction capacity, have merit and providetheir own advantages to the industry as awhole.

These two recurring and cross-cuttingthemes, product- versus process-drivenproduction approaches, and small versuslarge (for sake of characterization)producers help illustrate much of the energyin the interviews and workshops. Thesethemes are not necessarily exclusive, butrepresent two foci to which many currentefforts in organic production can beattributed. Organics as an industry andorganics as a movement are descriptors thatare used in the remainder of this report.


7

Figure 2: Research themes

Please note that this diagram is qualitativeand based on researcher observations andour thematic approach. Its value isexplanatory and descriptive rather than aquantitative representation of organicproduction in British Columbia.

‘Organics as an industry’ is often an aptdescriptor for those producers falling intothe upper right portion of the quadrant inFigure 2. This is not always the case,however, and it is possible to imaginescenarios where small process-drivenoperations were the drivers of organic

production and faced increased competition,reduced premiums, and imposed regulation,although this is not the trend. It is ‘organicsas an industry’ that is characterized by thesefalling premiums for organic products,increased competition from new entrants toorganic production, especially largeconventional farms who are converting toorganic methods. This group also faces stiffcompetition from imported organicproducts, forcing (and allowing) producersto compete in an international marketplace.Organics as an industry in British Columbia

Product-driven approach toincrease production capacity

Process-driven approach toincrease production capacity

Largerproducers(productionoutput andcash flow)

Smallerproducers(productionoutput andcash flow)

n

n

A

B

A – Organics as an industryapproach

B – Organics as a movementapproach


8

also places a good deal of effort onmaintaining and developing distributionnetworks for organic products.

Section 4 describes the results of theresearch relevant to this approach, and themain research needs themes are importsubstitution, improved production andquality control techniques, and regulatoryimprovements. It is critical for the ‘organicsas an industry’ approach to be ahead of thecurve with their branding and certificationprocess, quality control techniques, and beready to proactively deal with newregulatory issues such as environmentalfarm planning or best management practices.These pressures are common to allagricultural industries in Canada,conventional and organic, and organicproducers must be able to professionallywork with and compete against otheragricultural industries in Canada.

‘Organics as a movement’ is a conglomerateof different approaches to organicagriculture production, all especiallyconcerned with location and ruralenvironments (quite often these producersare outside the ‘Lower Mainland/Okanagan’sphere of influence). In discussions withproducers aligning with this approach, largerissues around community economicdevelopment predominate. Importantly,‘organics as a movement’ is also concernedwith being competitive and producingorganic products for consumption in aneconomically viable manner. A commonmisconception is that this approach issomehow less professional or less business-oriented. In fact, innovation in businesspractices, such as that employed byDiscovery Organics and others, maysignificantly change how this group is ableto compete with or in mass markets.However, at the moment, the capture oflocal community markets seems to be aprimary goal of this thematic group.Participants in this research study weredirecting much of their marketing effort atlocal customers, farmers markets, localstores, local restaurants, and local home boxdelivery. Education and consumer habitchange goals tie in with this marketingeffort. While this has some commonalitywith ‘organics as an industry’, increasing

production capacity was not seen as the onlyor best way to accomplish this. (A portion ofthe production of this group already hassome difficulty finding ‘the market’.) Ruralagricultural development and revitalizationprovide more of an inclusive driver oforganics as a movement. In this way, theprocess of organic production provides abasis for sustainable development.

Section 4 also describes the results of theresearch relevant to this approach. The mainthemes were the need for:

• improved access to information (e.g.production techniques),

• information sharing, (market information,regulatory information),

• infrastructure development,

• organizational needs.

In contrast to the organics as an industryapproach, there was little call for primaryagronomic research. Producers in thiscategory expressed more interest inorganizational and business developmentthat improves the ability of local organicagriculture to anticipate, respond, and/orlead socio-economic change in agricultureand in local communities.

In the opinion of the authors of this report,underlying these expressions is a concern forthe viability of farming operations in allregions of the province. Some producers’corollary responses during the interviewprocess provide evidence for this. Thisimportant fundamental concern is reflectedin the assignment of priorities to thespectrum of ‘research needs’ identified bythis group.

The divergence evident in the B.C. organiccommunity is a reflection of trends observedin the rest of agriculture in North America,where the emergence of the increasingnumbers and impact (in terms of production,socio-economic benefits, etc.) of smallerfarms is being recognized. As the Sereconreport to the Yukon Government observed,policy of governments and industryassociations needs to reflect this changingreality (Serecon, 2000).


9

The preceding discussion underscores theneed for the organic sectors in BritishColumbia to watch many of the upcomingstructural issues within all agriculturalindustries. There are trends toward increasedenvironmental regulation, increased labelingrequirements, increased requirements forformal production protocols, and continuingconsolidation and regulatory restrictions inthe processing and handling sectors,concurrent with a decrease in governmentprotection of agriculture, decreasedsubsidies to producers, and many challengestoward exclusionary industry practices suchas quota systems. Commodity sectors in allagricultural industries face falling prices andmore aberrant price cycles. These factors asthey relate to research needs are explored inmore detail in Section 6.

Given the trends facing agriculture, bothconventional and organic, the OSDPdecision makers should strategically placefunding dollars and direct research andeducation into issues of critical importanceto the various organic sectors in BritishColumbia. Encouraging the inclusion andparticipation of all the actors in the differentorganic sectors is vital. The diversity that ispresent within organic agriculture in B.C. atpresent, as portrayed with the ‘organics asan industry’ and ‘organics as a movement’divergence model, is beneficial for allsectors and evidence of the many issues thatmust be addressed by organic agriculture.Research funding should also encouragethis diversity and fund projects thatexamine aspects of both product-driven andprocess-driven production. Long-termfunding is also important to providecontinuity for research projects, andorganizational development in support ofresearch could potentially provide coherentdirection for all producers.

This sets the stage for a discussion of theresults presented in the next section. Thereexists a strong potential for the OSDPfunding to account for the diversity withinand between organic sectors in BritishColumbia and strategically address thepriorities identified from this research.


10

4. Research Results

Introduction

The results presented in this section are thefinal product of the research process detailedin Section 2. The task of this study was toinvestigate the research needs of organicproducers in British Columbia. Theseresearch needs were to be specific to topicsthat addressed production capacity issues,although these issues became somewhatmore diffuse as we began to talk toproducers. The results below are presentedby region; these regions are the arbitraryresearch regions used by our fourresearchers and not ecologically oragriculturally organized.

Our definition of ‘research’ as explained tothe participants initially was centered aroundagronomic research, including importantcomponents such as field trials, replicationof findings, and statistically significantresults that would help increase crop, flock,or herd production figures. Our researcherswere told, in many cases, that ‘productioncapacity’ research must have a broaderdefinition in order to include needsappropriate to different regions and sectors,and so the scope of our definition of‘research’ expanded. Production capacityissues include things such as marketing,transportation, information needs, business

planning, and organizational support. TheOSDP strategic plan has addressed some ofthese different issues in a particular way (seeOSDP 2002-2005), effectively placing themoutside the terms of reference for this study.The project management and our researcherswere faced with the task of accommodatingour terms of reference and reporting whatour research participants were telling us.

In fact, many of the research needsidentified were beyond the primaryagronomic production research level, andchallenged the current priorities in theOSDP strategic plan. Given this, wereviewed the funding guidelines andpreviously approved projects under theOSDP fund. The fund has approved projectsthat both adhere to a single OSDP strategicplan priority (any one of the three identified)and approved projects that cut across allthree goals (see Table 2). In our estimationthen, there is flexibility within the fund toconsider a wide range of research issues,even those that only loosely adhere to thecurrent OSDP strategy. Further, there is anopportunity to provide the OSDP strategywith more concrete direction for spendingpriorities, based on our results.

kTable 2 will not be current at the date ofpublication of this report. Projects are beingproposed and approved on an ongoing basis.


11

Table 2: OSDP projects approved as of June 01/2003.Initiated4 Title5 OSDP goal addressed6 AFFF contribution7 Percentage each

goal,respectively8

C IFOAM conference Market development $19,914 (actual) 100

C Marketing plan (phase 1) Market development $4,147 (actual) 100

C Rural capacity throughOrganic Agriculture Project(RCBTOA) CyberHelp

Production capacity(budgeted)

$14,478 (budgeted) 100

C Canada Organic Initiative Production capacity /Market development

$20,000 (budgeted) 50 / 50

C COABC Spring Seminars Production capacity $10,000 (budgeted) 100

I - Thomasdu Payrat(SimonFraserUniversity)

Analysis of attitudes andbeliefs of BC organicfarmers

Production capacity /Market development /EnvironmentalStewardship

$2,100 (budgeted) 40 / 40 / 20

I – KootenayOrganicGrowers

Feeding our Communities Production capacity /Market development /Environmentalstewardship

$8,800 33 / 33 / 33

I – JuliaJamieson(Universityof BritishColumbia)

Soil Health Assessment Production capacity /Environmentalstewardship

$10,000 50 / 50

C Market development plan(phase 2)

Market development $100,000 100

C Improved farm planningtools

Production capacity $8,000 100

I –(unknown)

Organic practice influenceon various herbs


I –(unknown)

Recordkeeping tools Production capacity $3,000 100

I –(unknown)

Root Sellar project Production capacity /Market development

$4,000 25 / 75

I –(unknown)

Canadian farm writersconference

Market development $3,000 100

C Research needs study (thisstudy, contracted toR.Smith & Associates)


4 C = a COABC driven proposal as per the OSDP strategic plan (see section 1 for more information; I = an industrydriven proposal e.g. an individual producer, business, etc.)Although these projects may be initiated by either C or I, this is not an indication of who is conducting the research.5 More detail on each project can be found on the COABC website or by contacting the COABC office.6 Please see section 1 of this report for more information on the three OSDP strategic priorities. (Actual) = moneyallocated already; (budgeted) = money set aside for project; note, these references may not be current at publication ofthis study.7 The AFFF funding is a total of $1 million to be divided over the three priorities; see section 1 for more information.8 This percentage breakdown indicates the dollar value attributed to each OSDP priority for those projects addressingmore than one priority simultaneously. See section 1 for the overall percentage breakdown for the total fund.


12

Summary of Research Priorities for B.C.Organic Producers

The following summary table of researchpriorities is based on our research resultsand an expanded definition of researchneeds. Some of these priorities requireprimary agronomic research (field trials, test

plots, replication, etc.) and others requireprimary socio-economic research(information collection and analysis,participatory methods, socio-economic datagathering, organizational development,industry data collection, business planning,etc.). The table is elaborated upon in theregional discussions of the results.

Table 3: Summary of research priorities for all regions (ranked)Note Research need identified Relative

cost ofconductingresearch

Relativereturn oninvestment

Availability ofresearch orinformation

Expectedspread ofresearchbenefits

Priority(ranked)*

3.1 Soil fertility andmanagement

Medium tohigh

High Many & diversesources

Manyproducers

1

3.2 Information needs Low High Many & diversesources

Manyproducers

2

3.3 Pest control High High Scattered, littleregionally specificwork

Someproducers

3

3.4 Marketplacedevelopment

Medium High Many sources ofinformation

Manyproducers

4

3.5 Weed management,cover cropping, greenmanures

Medium Medium Many sources, manyresearch projects

Manyproducers

5**

3.6 Infrastructuredevelopment

High Medium Many sources,requires privateenterprise partners

Someproducers

6

3.7 Livestock managementand infrastructure

Medium Low Many sources Someproducers

7

3.8 Seed production Low Low Many sources Someproducers

8

* Please see detailed notes for more information about ranking specific projects within each category

**Many potential projects in this category could overlap with projects in the first category (soil fertility andmanagement).

3.1 Soil fertility and management issueswere identified as the top priority, overall, inthis research needs study. Because of theinclusive nature of this category and theimportance of soil fertility and health to awide variety of other factors (weed and pestcontrol, crop production, etc.) site-specificresearch ranks as the first priority. Soilfertility and management contribute to theavoidance of many insect and plant diseaseproblems; for this reason it ranks abovethose issues.

3.2 The need for improved access to anddissemination of information related toorganic production of specific crops andlivestock is ranked as the number two

priority because of the frequency it wasmentioned throughout the research process.Many of the needs mentioned by researchparticipants did not require primaryagronomic research, rather they neededaccess to existing agronomic research andresults. This priority costs relatively littlewhen compared to some agronomic researchand would provide immediate benefits tomany producers.

3.3 Pest control issues are ranked as thethird priority because of the benefit thatcontrol of specific pests would provide tocertain sectors. While the benefits are not aswidespread as the first two priorities, thefinancial returns from the recovery of lost


13

production are considerable. The majorityof identified pests come from the tree fruitsector.

3.4 Marketplace development issues werementioned by many producers, althoughthey had a wide variety of needs within thiscategory. Issues of market protection (forthose producers who have established theirown markets) and market development (on alocal or regional basis) ranked high formany producers. Additionally, marketinformation (current prices, trends,opportunities) and wholesaler and distributorinformation were needed. This issue ranksfourth because of the potential benefits toproducers across the province that thisresearch would provide. There is someoverlap with priority two. The currentlyfunded market development plan phase 2(see above) may address some of theseneeds; others likely belong inside thebusiness planning function of individualfarms or enterprises, i.e. they would likelynot qualify for OSDP funding, while needsparticular to certain regions may need to beaddressed in that region by focused interestgroups (i.e. low spread of benefits).

3.5 Weed management, cover cropping, andgreen manures were actually identified anumber of times as high priority items, butthere is currently a good deal of on-goingand published research on the topics. Thecategory also overlaps with priority one, soilmanagement and fertility, and was thereforeranked fifth. Projects in this category shouldcover soil fertility and management criteriaas well as just weed control and should befilling knowledge gaps in existing research.It will be important for proponents ofprojects in this area to do specific literaturesearches to assure funders of the novelty ofthe proposed research.

3.6 Infrastructure development includesthings such as cold storage, trucking andshipping access, livestock slaughterfacilities, and retail development inparticular regions across the province. Acombination of research dollars andentrepreneurial investment will be requiredto improve infrastructure in certain areas.This issue ranks sixth because of the limitedefficacy of funding many projects for

infrastructure development, but the needexists to research specific areas (e.g. optionsfor livestock facility certification, low-costor cooperative cold storage options).

3.7 Livestock management needs weregenerally not a high priority, in terms ofresearch, because much information isreadily available. Management techniquesand strategies generally come from outsidethe realm of organic agriculture and muchresearch has been conducted.

Management seminars on a variety of topicsare conducted in many regions of B.C. andare well attended by producers. There weresome research needs identified around issuesof parasite control techniques. Much moreimportant to livestock producers is thewhole issue of the policy and regulatoryenvironment in which they must operate.Advocacy and representation, while notprecisely research needs, are critical to theability of these producers to ‘buildproduction capacity’.

3.8 Seed production and distribution are notcurrently high priority issues, but maybecome so in the near future with changingcertification standards. Research aroundissues of seed production and handlingtechniques, specific to organic production inthe various geographic regions, would beappropriate in those areas where availableresearch and information is lacking.

Results by Region

Region 1: South Okanagan / Similkameen/ Kootenay-Boundary

The South Okanagan / Similkameen /Kootenay-Boundary research region extendsfrom the Penticton region south through theSimilkameen Valley and then east throughGrand Forks into the Kootenay region.Oscar Somasco, based in Nelson, conductedthe interviews and workshops in this regionand was the key point of contact forproducers during the course of the study.

The South Okanagan and Similkameenregion contains most of the certified organictree fruit (apples, pears, cherries, peaches,nectarines) growers in the province, a largenumber of ground crop growers, and some


14

herb and grape producers. The Kootenay-Boundary region is comprised of a moredispersed number of greenhouse, groundcrop, and livestock producers. The tree fruitsector in the South Okanagan / Similkameenregion is relatively well established andthere are several producers who have spentconsiderable time in marketplacedevelopment. The professional capacity ofkey producers in this region has also beeninstrumental in the development of organictree fruit production in B.C. The groundcrop producers in this region are similarlyestablished, although with less marketpenetration and cash flow. Moreimportantly, the relative organization ofground crop producers here is significant.There are both transitional and wellestablished organic producers, generating agood diversity of skill sets and ideas. Thereare also producers with a mix ofconventional and organic production.

The Kootenay-Boundary area includes anumber of smaller producers (by their owncategorization), who have a diversity ofproduction focus. Many growers havebetween one and ten acres of ground cropproduction, each producing several hundredpounds of different crops seasonally.Greenhouse production is also on a small tomoderate scale with some producersproviding local markets year-round. Thereis one significant dairy operation and severalother smaller producers with certifiedlivestock sales.

The main challenges identified by theproducers in this research region centeraround access to affordable land, soil andweed management, marketplacedevelopment (especially in the Kootenayregion) and increasing production volume tofill established markets (mainly in theSimilkameen region). These broadchallenges are reflected in the followingresearch needs identified by producers.


15

Table 4: Research needs; South Okanagan / Similkameen / Kootenay-Boundary (unranked)Note Research need identified Relative



Availability of researchor information


Priority(unranked)

1a. Cherry fruit fly High High Some, with on-goingconventional research

Fewproducersinitially

Low (cost)

1b. Peach twig borer High High Available sprays, someIPM work

Someproducers

Medium

1c. Nectarine thrips,Leaf hoppers

High High Very little Someproducers

Medium

1d.

Pestandfunguscontrol

Powdery mildew Medium High Yes, differentinformation sourcesaround North America,some new treatmentsavailable

Manyproducers

Medium(some fieldtrials ofexistingcontrols)

1e. Biennial bearing in apples Medium High Very little, Manyproducers

High

1f. Soil fertility and management Medium Very high On-going OSDP fundedproject, little regionallyspecific information,many North Americanresearch sources

Manyproducers

Medium(on-goingproject)

Varietyidentification

Low Medium Yes, access issues (seenote)

Manyproducers

High

Black plasticalternatives

Low Medium Yes, access issues (seenote)

Manyproducers

High

1g. Informationneeds

Polyculturesystems

Low High Yes, access issues (seenote)

Manyproducers

High

1h. Weed management, cover cropmanagement

Medium High Yes, many NorthAmerican and Europeanresearch sources; verylittle regionally specificinformation; on-goingOSDP funded project

Manyproducers

Medium(on-goingproject)

1i. Marketplace development Low-medium

High Some informationavailable, very littledetailed sectoralinformation for BC; on-going OSDP fundedproject (see note)

Manyproducers

High

1j. Compost Low Medium Yes Manyproducers

Lowinformationavailable

1k. Alternatives to regulatedmaterials

Low Low Yes Someproducers

Lowinformationneedoverlap; seenote

1l. Infrastructure development Low High Yes, requires investmentand information sharing;see note

Potentiallymanyproducers(many inspecificsectors)

Medium

1m. Seed production Low Medium Some informationavailble; informationaccess issues

Someproducers(all seespecialists)

Medium

1n. Treated post alternatives Low Low Yes Few Low


15

1a. Several interview participants discussedcherry fruit fly control at each of the treefruit workshops. There has been a largeincrease in cherry acreage in theSimilkameen valley and currently there areonly conventional sprays available to controlthe cherry fruit fly. The chemicals in use arebeing banned in some countries.Conventional growers are supporting currenton-going research into less harmful spraysand other pest management techniques.Spinosad, a product derived from thefermentation of a naturally occurringbacterium holds some potential. Success™(the trademark name) has not yet beenapproved because of some inert ingredients.

Almost every treefruit grower participatingin this study considered this issue to be ahigh priority, but there was not much hopethat anything will be developed in the nearfuture. A researcher from the AgricultureCanada research centre in Summerland,B.C., has a proposal not yet funded to studythis issue. The OSDP fund cannot fundresearch on this issue alone, but couldconsider involvement in appropriate andcooperative initiatives.

1b. Peach twig borer control was considereda major pest and a high research priority.Some growers felt that Dipel works well andothers felt that it was too costly and manyapplications are needed. There is apossibility that parasitic wasps wouldprovide a management solution. Again, thisis an issue that requires a lot of researchfunding and whose main goal would be costreduction for crop management. Somegrowers mentioned that it was simply moreaffordable and made more sense to growsomething else instead. It would be astrategic move for the OSDP fund to supporta large scale and cooperative project as aminor funding partner, but cannot researchpeach twig borer control solely with OSDPfunding.

1c. Nectarine thrip control poses the biggestchallenge to some producers and preventsgood quality production of nectarines.Participant D stated that “…thrips posed thebiggest challenge to [their] farm” and thatthey would not continue growing nectarinesin favour of other tree fruits. Although

organic control methods would encouragenectarine production, participants were notaware of any on-going research and it wouldbe costly to initiate. OSDP funding couldsupport a cooperative research project, butcannot provide sole funding because of thehigh cost.

Leafhoppers were identified as a major pestfor grape growers. Some research isunderway by the B.C. wine industry. Thereis perhaps an opportunity for OSDP toparticipate in this ongoing research as aminor funding partner.

1d. Powdery mildew of apples is a commonproblem for growers in the area and thereare a few products available that mayeliminate the need for primary research.Kumulus was discussed in one workshopand determined to be largely ineffective.Horsetail extract provides some promise asan effective control although a reliableproduct is not yet available. Participant Hstated that they had done tests for differentallowed products and had that data.Compost tea was also discussed as a newand very promising alternative. Thedevelopment of compost tea mixtures andequipment is well advanced and there wasan expressed interest in purchasing acompost maker and doing regional trials.Concerns about product contamination wereexpressed and there was some confusionabout the difference between preparedmixtures and homemade live bacteriummixtures. More information is needed forproducers interested in this product, and it iswidely available. OSDP funding could fundfarm-level trials for testing of mixtureefficacy on a variety of crops (apples,grapes, etc.).

1e. Biennial bearing in apples is a largeproblem for high-density orchards. Therewas a good deal of discussion in theworkshops and personal interviews aboutthe need for research on sprays for blossomthinning. Currently, a mixture of limesulphur and fish oil has been tried but itcauses stress on trees. Calcium chloride isalso being used with mixed results. It islikely that alternatives to labour intensivehand thinning can be found with relativelylow cost field trials. This would provide a


16

high expected return on investment for appleproducers in the Okanagan and Similkameenvalleys. The OSDP fund could sponsor farmlevel field trials proposed by individuals orgroups of producers. In addition,cooperative ventures with researchinstitutions could work on spraydevelopment, or other managementtechniques.

1f. Soil fertility and management issueswere discussed often and are probably thehighest priority for this region, both in theshort and long term. Soil health assessmentis an important and neglected component ofcrop establishment and succession planting.It was felt that many pest and soil bornedisease problems could be avoided withproper soil nutrition and management.Importantly, research on this issue wouldlead to problem avoidance rather thanproblem management. Soil testing could bewidely utilized and more made more easilyaccessible, while organic soil additives andtheir impacts/effects should be well studied.Increased salinization of soil as a result ofirrigation over extended periods of time is along-term problem in this region and needsto be addressed.

While there are available research data ondifferent soil additives, much of it is notregionally specific and the synergisticeffects are not well known. Current OSDPfunded research includes a graduate student(University of British Columbia) examiningsoil quality indicators. OSDP fundingshould support both farm level, individualand group projects that examine soiladditives and their synergistic effects, andprojects by research institutions in theprovince that investigate soil healthassessment. (See also Recommendations,Section 6)

1g. Information needs were highlighted as asignificant research priority, especially byproducers in the Kootenay-Boundary region.There are a wide variety of informationneeds, all of which would help producersincrease production capacity. Researchwould mainly take the form of secondaryinformation gathering and dissemination,although an important component would beextension or outreach work. Research

participants stated that the availability ofinformation wasn’t enough for it to beuseful; it had to be in an accessible andunderstandable form and often ‘pushed’ toproducers. One workshop discussed theneed for an organic extensionist orprofessional researcher for the Kootenays.This area is comprised of many, smalldiversified farms with a broad range ofcrops: the extensionist could develop an‘information basket’ with locally-specificinformation and talk to ‘old timers’ to obtaininformation that will soon be lost. Specificneeds included variety identification (mostsuited) for particular regions, alternatives toblack plastic mulch, and polyculturemanagement information for particularmicroclimates and cash crops. Agronomic,technical, and marketplace research for B.C.and beyond can be packaged and madeavailable to those without the research timeor skills, high speed internet access, orpoints of contact in the research community.This research would be relatively low costand OSDP funding could support a regionalresearch and resource project, complementcurrent CyberHelp efforts, or look atprofessional development options provincewide.

1h. Cover crop management and weedmanagement techniques were highlighted inboth the interviews and workshopdiscussions. The OSDP fund is currentlysponsoring a project on cover cropmanagement in the Kootenays. There wasstill call for additional research, regionallyspecific, on their allelopathic properties,interplanting effects on the main crop, andthe potential for living mulches.

Weed control is a perpetual problem, forboth tree fruit and ground crop producers,and a continuing research need. Vegetationmanagement that reduces vole habitat andcompetition with trees was discussed bytreefruit growers. Quack grass control isalso a common problem in all sectors.Whole systems weed management is thebest problem avoidance solution and soresearch on cover crops, companionplanting, succession planting, crop rotations,and soil health would fall under thisapproach. The OSDP fund could co-sponsor(with conventional agriculture research


17

project funders) farm level projects that testnew cover crop varieties or crop rotationeffects on weed management. Additionally,current research on these issues, fromaround the world, should be made moreaccessible; this can be done as described innote 1g.

1i. Research into and the development ofappropriate market strategies were discussedby several participants. Marketplacedevelopment is often done by individualeffort at this point and those producers whohave developed their own market generallyfelt that this was the appropriate strategy.Others stated that an organic organization(e.g. COABC) should be a better advocatefor local market development strategies andfor protection of established market anddistribution channels from imported organicproducts. This effort would require someresearch funding and funding for salaries ofthose involved; volunteer burnout is highwith an on-going need such as this. TheOSDP fund is already contributing cashtoward a market research project (see Table2). This project should make an effort toinclude the participation of small producerswho supply only local markets and examinepractical strategies for market resilience inall sectors (i.e. local markets, localproducer loyalty, protecting those marketsestablished by B.C. organic producers).

1j. The correct use of compost material wasdiscussed in one of the workshops. Thetiming of application and volumes requiredare important information needs. Theavailability and types of additives toenhance the quality and response rate bycrops may be a research need on a regionallevel. It was noted that some of this workhas been done by the Soil Foodweborganization, biodynamic farmers aroundthe world, and others. This would be a lowerpriority research need.

1k. The availability of alternatives toregulated materials was discussed by someof the participants. This stems from thedesire to reduce or discontinue the use ofthese products. The list includes Boron,Calcium Chloride, Magnesium, ZincSulphate, Lime Sulphur, Sulphur, Copperproducts, and a few others. There are feed

and additive suppliers who are working onalternative products in the region and theywere able to participate in one workshop.Since the private sector is working on thisissue, this would be considered a lowerpriority research need.

1l. Participants in the Kootenay-Boundaryregion discussed the need for infrastructuredevelopment and sourcing information,especially considering small machinery andgreenhouse operations. Extending theshoulder season in this region requiresaffordable and sustainable heating solutions.Harvesting, planting, and processingmachinery for small farms (mainly groundcrops) would help reduce the labourrequirements. Both of these issues couldbenefit from both research into and theprovision of technical information andequipment sourcing. Some producersexpressed an interest in the development ofco-ops that could be involved in sharedequipment or facilities. This would be alower priority research need, but wouldcomplement the information needs issueidentified in note 1g.

1m. The availability and sourcing of seed fororganic production was discussed by severalresearch participants. There are someproducers in the province who are seedspecialists and there is some untreated seedavailable from existing conventional seedcatalogues, although price and theavailability of certain varieties andquantities varies. Depending on the sectorand region, this issue varied in importance.Certification standards may become morestringent and it would be beneficial for theOSDP fund to support existing seed growerswith farm level research and productioninformation.

1n. There was some discussion about theneed for alternatives to treated posts as thesemay potentially be a certification issue.Cedar posts are an expensive option at themoment. This seems to be more of asourcing problem than a research need andwould be considered a low research priority.


18

Region 2: Fraser Valley/ VancouverIsland / Gulf Islands

Backgound information

Regional profile:

The Fraser Valley / Vancouver Islandresearch area is comprised of a large numberof organic producers in many differentagricultural sectors. The area extends fromHope, B.C., on the eastern edge of the FraserValley through the increasingly urbanizedoutskirts of Chilliwack, Abbotsford,Vancouver to the Sechelt peninsula. TheVancouver Island region has producers fromalmost all parts of the island, mainlyconcentrated in the southern half. The GulfIslands include Saltspring Island, PenderIsland, Denman Island, Quadra Island andCortez Island, with most certified organicproducers and political activity occurring onSaltspring Island. Sarah Davidson was theresearcher in this region and the key point ofcontact for producers and other researchparticipants.

Most of the research participants consideredthemselves ‘medium’-sized farms for theentire region, although what would beconsidered ‘medium’ varies from the FraserValley to the islands. Most organic groundcrop farms in the Fraser Valley and onVancouver Island are between two and tenacres in size, although there are quite a fewlarger operations, the largest in the FraserValley is 1000 acres. Operations on theSechelt peninsula and the Gulf Islands aresmaller than this on average. The majorityof producers, especially those with thesmall- to average-sized operations hadgenerally been practicing organic productionmethods for many years (at least ten) andoften did so before they were certified asorganic. There are now more transitionaland recently certified farms that wereconventional operations that converted toorganic methods. These operations are oftenlarger and have quite a different marketfocus than the small- to medium-sized farmsthat have previously been the norm,although some of them have also expanded.The competition in some market channelshas increased considerably as a result of this.

Regulated marketing

The production of both livestock productsand most vegetable produce is regulatedunder the Natural Products Marketing (B.C.)Act.

It is the position of COABC in itssubmission to the Lower MainlandVegetable Distributors Inc. “…that organicproduction methods are distinct anddifferent from conventionally grownproduce, although there have been courtrulings otherwise.”

The majority of organic ground cropproducers are offered an exemption frommarketing through the British ColumbiaVegetable Marketing Commission.Recently, Fraserland Organics Inc., hasbecome the designated agency for certifiedorganic potato marketing (in District 1), asthey already have Certified OrganicHandling status (through Oregon Tilth) andmarket smaller producer’s products throughtheir label. COABC has conceded that itcannot, at this time, certify a producer likeFraserland Organics Inc. (because the B.C.accreditation program is not yet recognizedby the United States) and supported itsapplication for marketing agencydesignation.

Some organic poultry (egg and meat)production has had on-going conflict withtheir B.C. Marketing Boards overexemptions from the purchase of quota anduse of marketing channels. At dispute is thedistinction of organic production methodsfrom conventional production methods, andthe volume of unregulated productionentering a regulated market. Recently,organic poultry production has beeninfluenced by ‘new entrants’ with quota, andconventional producers with quotaconverting to organic methods.

B.C. produced certified organic milk andother dairy products are sold in the LowerMainland by distributors who also marketconventional dairy products. The majority ofthis production is from conventional farmsrecently converted to organic methods.Imported organic dairy products (Canadianand U.S.) make up the supply deficit in thismarket segment.


19

Trends

It was noted by several of the researchparticipants that there is consolidationhappening within the organic sectors of thisregion, both in production and marketing. Itappears that several large producers, whoare working either with or in opposition tothe provincial marketing boards, may be in aposition to direct the production andmarketing strategy for different organicsectors in the future. This consolidationmirrors what is happening elsewhere in theworld, (especially in California vegetableproduction, the primary source ofcompetition for B.C. growers). Depending

on perspective, this trend can be seen asquite proactive, or as creating divisionbetween ‘have’ and ‘have not’ producers. Ofimportance to this study, COABC is theofficial umbrella organization representingall certification bodies in the province, but isnot necessarily seen by some producers asbeing effective in representing the interestsof large producers or protecting the existingmarkets of small- to medium-sizedproducers from this consolidation. Thesechallenges are reflected in the followingresearch needs identified through theresearch process.


20

Table 5: Research needs; Fraser Valley / Vancouver Island / Gulf Islands region (unranked)Note Research need

identifiedRelativecost



Expectedspread ofbenefits

Priority(unranked)

2a Soil fertility andmanagement

Medium Very high Very little regionallyspecific and organicproduction specific,some on-going projects

Manyproducers

High

2b Pest and fungal control-flea beetles-late blight-club root-downy mildew-sclertoni-grey mold-root maggots-wireworms-symphylans-seed rot-scorch virus-rodents

High High On-going researchprojects in B.C. andNorth America.Some informationavailable

Manyproducers

High

2c Cover crop andcompanion planting

Low Medium Some available, need forregionally focusedresearch

Someproducers,others havetrial and errorexperience

Medium

2d Seed availability Low Medium Some sources, need forlocal seed production

Manyproducers inlong term;some shortterm as it isnot yet acertificationissue

Medium

2e Marketplacedevelopment

Medium,on-going

High On-going projects, needfor advocacy

Manyproducers

High

2f Information needs-sourcing of equipment/ seed-compost / soilmanagement techniques-organic sectorinformation(volumes/prices, etc.)-best managementpractices-potential regulatoryissues

Low –medium

Medium Most information isavailable; access is aproblem

Manyproducers

High

2g Organic animal healthpractices

Low Medium Need for moreresearch/information onnutritional effects oforganic management.

All livestockproducers

Low

2h Infrastructuredevelopment

High High Sourcing of appropriateplanting, harvesting,processing equipment;cooperativedevelopment needed.

Many smallground cropproducers

Low

2i Compost tea research Medium Medium Contradictory resultsMany ongoing projects

Manyproducers

Medium

2j Regulatory Low High Information available,needs to be presentedappropriately, andsupported.

Manyproducers

High


21

2a. Soil fertility and management was aubiquitous theme in all of the researchinterviews and the workshops heldthroughout the region. As in the previousresults from the South Okanagan/Kootenay-Boundary region, the discussion coveredmany issues surrounding soil managementas a problem avoidance strategy. Forexample, soil nutrition has an importantimpact upon variety selection, successionplanting, and weed control. At theworkshops in the Fraser Valley there was anexpressed interest in no-till methods fororganic production and participantsquestioned whether organic farmers over-tilled their soil. Participants were interestedin information or research in proper greenmanuring methods for their region and aboutthe benefits of green manuring versusanimal manuring. Growers of organictransplants expressed interest in nutritionalmanagement of seedlings. Soilimprovements by using natural productssuch as slow release fertilizers such aszeolite, or locally available rock dust werementioned and there were some questionsabout their efficacy. Additionally, theavailability of relatively quick soil testingfor organic producers in the region wasmentioned at workshops in the Fraser Valleyand the Gulf Islands. It was felt that theprovision of this service would benefit manyproducers.

The OSDP fund should fund on-farmprojects that examine different and justified9

aspects of soil fertility and soil management(this includes composting techniques,different and new green manuringtechniques, and the impact of soil fertilityand management on weed and pest control).Many small projects or a cooperative effortamong many producers would provide abenefit for many certified organic producersof the region.

2b. Pest and fungal problems were identifiedin most of the interviews and all of theworkshops. The degree of concern abouteach identified problem varied from

9 Justified by literature review to fill information gapsor prove regional adaptation of existing research orproduction techniques.

producer to producer and according to theirfamiliarity (or lack of) with control methods.In general, the pest control strategy used byproducers who had a very diversifiedcropping system was to discontinue growingthe problem crop. Flea beetles, wireworms,and downy mildew were the most frequentlymentioned issues. Root maggot, club rootand other fungal diseases including lateblight on potatoes are also commonproblems in the region. Since certificationstandards were changed to disallow the useof treated seeds, some growers have beeninterested in looking for a biological controlalternative.

Symphylans (a small nematode) are alimiting factor in establishing seedlingstands in grass and vegetable (ground crop)species. Symphylan infestations areconsidered to be a soil management issueand the only currently available organiccontrol is proper aeration and moisturecontrol in soil. Organic controls other thansoil tillage need to be identified.

Research is ongoing in many of these areasby ESCrop Consultants and FraserlandFarms.10 Wireworm control is being studiedby the Agassiz Research Station, which hasmade good progress on a biological control.Some organic producers are working onvarious projects under the auspices of theOrganic Farming Research Foundation inCalifornia.

Primary research on these problems isexpensive; perhaps a first step as suggestedby one participant might be to collectinformation from experienced producersacross the country.

Rodent control was mentioned by someproducers. Hazelnut producers have noticedEuropean squirrels in the Aldergrove areaand fear that they may move up the valleyinto large hazelnut plantings. Rabbitinfestations cause a problem with treegirdling and there are few natural deterrent

10 “...Fraserland conducts approximately $100,000worth of research annually.” Quote from Shelly Harrisin Agency Designation Application…Natural ProductsMarketing Act … BC Vegetable MarketingCommission, April 30, 2003.


22

products. Voles are a consistent problem inperennial and annual crops; rats can be aproblem stored potatoes and greenhouses. Ingeneral most participants favoured usingrepellents instead of lethal pesticides forcontrol and there was little informationabout natural deterrents. This is largely aninformation need, but on-farm researchprojects that examine the use of potentialorganic deterrent products could besponsored by the OSDP fund.

2c. There was an interest in cover cropmanagement and selection and companionplanting expressed by the researchparticipants. The timing and alleleopathiceffects of cover crop planting, and the mostbeneficial companion planting options, allspecific to the microclimate and soils of theregion, were determined to be the mostpressing needs for research and informationgathering. There is companion planting andcover cropping information available from avariety of sources, and it was suggested thata useful project could gather thisinformation, appropriate to the FraserValley or Island regions, and present it indifferent growers manuals. The OSDP iscurrently funding cover crop research in theKootenay region and the results of thisresearch may be pertinent to the needs ofproducers in this region. The OSDP fundcould fund the development of growermanuals, in conjunction with the soilmanagement research (note 2a) andinformation needs issue (note 2f).

2d. The availability of locally sourcedorganic seed is mentioned by manyparticipants as a pressing concern and onethat will likely increase if it is mandatedunder certification regulations. Sourcingquality seeds of favoured varieties from areliable source is currently an issue andsome large seed companies havediscontinued untreated seed lines. Muchinformation on breeding and saving seed isavailable, for example from John Navazio ofAbundant Life in Washington State. Itwould be a strategic move for the OSDPfund to invest in research and capacitybuilding of local producers interested inseed collection for distribution.

2e. Almost every participant expressedmarketplace development concerns. Theserelate to the issues discussed in theintroduction section for this region, andthose in note 1i. Generally, it was felt thatmore needed to be done to provide exposurefor the COABC ‘checkmark’ label and topush for product recognition. Locally orprovincially grown and raised organicproducts have to compete with importedproducts. The OSDP fund could sponsor on-farm or professional development projectsthat promote local producers. Again, thecontinuing market research project fundedby the OSDP should include componentsrelating to small producers and futuremarketplace conditions and strategies.

2f. The information needs of the researchparticipants were varied and cut across all ofthe research needs identified. The sourcingof small scale equipment, grower manualsfor different crops, soil management andfertility information, crops and varieties thatwork best for specific microclimates, bestmanagement practices, and potentialregulatory issues, were all mentioned onseveral occasions as information needs.These would not require agronomicresearch, but would require informationgathering, collection, and dissemination.Most producers knew that this informationwas ‘out there’ but did not have time orskills to do web or library research.Additionally, most felt that having theinformation in hand was not necessarilyenough. Being able to filter the appropriateinformation with some professional resourcewould be very beneficial.

2g. Several participants mentioned animalhealth practices as a potential researchproject. Topics such as parasite control,homeopathic remedies, winter production,poultry stocking rates, and poultry nutritionwere the most common. Nutritional qualityand its relationship to feeding regimes,processing practices, breeds and varyingmanagement practices is a potential area ofinterest. There is much informationavailable and substantial research has beendone on these topics, so it is a low priorityfor OSDP funding.


23

2h. The availability of capital is afundamental challenge for all producers;many producers lamented the lack ofaffordable small scale planting andharvesting equipment, lack of processingfacilities and the lack of affordable coldstorage options. While this is not a researchneed per se, it is a need for many producerswho participated in this research and signalsthat there are cooperative developmentneeds. The joint purchase of equipment orthe availability of low cost or blueprints forself-built equipment would benefit many(especially small) producers. The OSDPfund could support a cooperativedevelopment effort or the informationgathering of affordable equipment sources;additionally this could fall under a largerprofessional development rubric (see section6).

2i. Compost tea research is a hot topic for alot of producers. Apparently it has potentialas a nutritional supplement for both soil andplants, and as a fungal suppressant. Thereare, however, some safety concerns. Aresearch project originating in theSimilkameen is currently being proposed tothe OSDP fund. Substantial research hasbeen done with compost teas in the UnitedStates.

2j. Some growers identified two linked butseparate regulatory issues:

• organically allowed or regulatedpesticides that are already registeredfor use in Canada, but not for use ina particular crop where it is needed.This can be accomplished by a‘minor registration’ or labelextension. Evidently this is not anexpensive task, requiringadministration more than research.

OSDP funding could support the hiring of aconsultant to expedite a broad range of suchapplications on behalf of interested growers.

• organically allowed or regulatedpesticides that do not have aCanadian PCP number(registration). This is an expensiveprocess for companies seeking theregistration; as a result manyproducts are available to U.S.

growers that are not available toCanadian growers.

Canadian government acceptance of EPAapproved materials11 is obviously thesolution, but who will pay the costs and whowill promote products? This is an issue thatan industry professional developmentorganization could assist with incooperation with manufacturers andimporters.

Region 3: North Okanagan / Thompson /Cariboo

The North Okanagan / Thompson / Caribooresearch region is comprised of a diversegroup of certified organic producers. Mostof the producers have small farms, andconsider themselves small for this region.The exception is the presence of some appleand tree fruit growers in the NorthOkanagan region. Their needs are quitesimilar to those in the South Okanagan. Themore northern parts of the Okanagan valleyhave fewer heat units than those farthersouth and provide better growing conditionsfor ground crops. The Thompson andCariboo regions have many small groundcrop producers and some livestockproducers (beef, lamb, goat, poultry). ElaineSpearing was the researcher and key point ofcontact for research participants in thisregion and was based out of Quesnel.

At the workshops, many attendees spokeabout the value of bringing people together,as was done with this study. Informationand informal exchange was allowed tohappen without the onus of certificationmeetings, etcetera. Most participantsexpressed a desire for improved networkingand exchange of information amongproducers in their sector, both in their localarea and across the province. Some of theground crop producers, who produce mainlyfor local markets, stated that they feltrelatively isolated from other ground cropproducers in the province and that someorganization based on sectoral interestwould benefit them, and probably other

11 (http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/pr2000-6.pdf)


24

sectors. Research projects could provide afocus for groupings of farmers to meet anddiscuss production issues, host farm trialsand compare notes, and begin this sectoralnetworking.

An important point was brought up by someof the research participants: evaluation ofthe benefits of research. There was someconsternation about who was going to getOSDP funding and who would receive thebenefits from the research. The generalfeeling was that the research benefits shouldbe spread as widely as possible and involveas many producers in each sector aspossible. One proposed idea was to consultorganized groups of producers for commentand evaluation at the mid and end points ofeach project. This would benefit theresearch process, but also foster involvementand discussion around key issues. There

was little awareness of the current status ofthe OSDP fund, and producers did not knowwho was eligible to apply or receivefunding.

The following research priorities are similarto those from other regions and reflect thediverse nature of organic production in theregion. Since most producers consideredthemselves to be small to average sizedfarms and had a diversity of production oneach farm, their needs generally focused onother capacity building issues such asmarketing, information accessibility,education, and barriers to people enteringfarming. The specific agronomic researchissues that were discussed were soil fertilityand management, weed managementtechniques, and some pest control problems.Table 6 summarizes these issues and adiscussion of each follows.


25

Table 6: Research needs; North Okanagan / Thompson / Cariboo region (unranked)Note Research need identified Relative





Priority(unranked)

3a. Soil fertility andmanagement

Medium Very high Some informationavailable; a variety ofresearch sources; littleregionally specificinformation

Manyproducers inall sectors

High

3b. Information needs-a directory with smallmachinery sources-a survey to identifycommonly grownground crop varieties-sector profiles(financial, productionvolumes)-best managementpractices-barriers to new farmers

Low High Information isavailable from a widevariety of sources formachinery, technicalinformation; littleorganic sectorprofiling is availablefor BC; few bestmanagement practicesand case studiesavailable

Manyproducers

High

3c. Cover cropping, greenmanure

Medium Medium On-going researchprojects throughOSDP; on-goingprojects in NorthAmerica

Manyproducers

Medium

3d. Weed managementtechniques

Low Medium Research availablewidely on differenttechniques;informationdistribution andaccess is an issue;complements point3b.

Someproducers,mainlyground crops

Low

3e. Pest control-flea beetle-root maggot-carrot rust fly-potato beetle

High Medium On-going projects inBC and NorthAmerica (seediscussion in otherregions); littleregionally specificresearch available

Someproducers(mainlyground crops)

Low

3f. Seeds Medium High Little research beingdone; regional sourcesof seeds needsdevelopment

Manyproducers

High

3g. Livestock needs-parasite management-pig and chicken breedsfor extensive production-integrated systems

Medium Medium Technical informationis available fromacross NorthAmerica;management modelsavailable from acrossNorth America

Someproducers

Low

3h. Infrastructuredevelopment

High High Information fordevelopment of coldstorage, processingfacilities for livestockand ground crops isavailable from acrossNorth America; is acapitalization anddevelopment issue

Manyproducers

Medium


26

3i. Marketplacedevelopment

Medium High Marketplaceinformation for smallproducers is needed;regional informationneeds research; on-going OSDP marketresearch project; otherinformation fromacross North Americais available

Manyproducers

High

3a. Soil fertility and management issuesrecurred throughout the research in thisregion. Many of the discussions centered oninformation needs: how to manage croprotations, compost applications, greenmanuring, the timing of cultivation etc.Producers had a strong interest in how theseprocesses affect soil fertility, and how soilfertility is related to plant health, growthrates, pest control. Many producers werenot sure whether they were over-fertilizingtheir soils, or whether they were applyingthe most appropriate type of fertilizer. Shortterm interests and needs were mainlynitrogen management on shorter time scaleswith the use of green manures or animalmanures, and long term interests weremainly the (soil) sustainability of differenttypes of production systems, especiallystockless systems.

Interest was expressed in the current OSDPfunded soil indicators project through theUniversity of British Columbia. One groweridentified a need for information thatsummarizes and simplifies information onsoil fertility in order to better to makedecisions for the short and long term healthof his soil. While some of this informationis available from a number of sources it isnot accessible, or being accessed, by manyproducers; other producers were looking fora more in-depth and sophisticatedunderstanding of soil fertility. There is aneed to develop ‘easy-to-use’ references forsoil management; including soil structureprinciples and nutrient budgeting andcycling. Additionally, monitoring andevaluation tools and knowledge are animportant part of maintaining soil health.More information and more research onindicator species in the differentmicroclimates of the province would be auseful project. There are several soil

manager tools available (e.g. University ofMinnesota’s ‘Soil Manager’) and theseshould be professionally developed, througha research project, in combination with soiltesting at the farm level in the differentmicroclimates of the region.

In the discussion, specific soil buildingneeds were stated. It would be very usefulfor a soil manager reference or toolkit toinclude tables for various weights andmeasures of compliant inputs needed (e.g.pounds of nitrogen, phosphorus, orpotassium) and the correct balance betweenessential soil nutrients. It would also beuseful for estimates of nutrients in certaintypes of compost, manures and crop off-takes (e.g. nutrient off-take per crate ofbroccoli). It would be beneficial to includeinformation on various units ofweights/volumes/areas and soil buildingoptions for different scales of productionand infrastructure.

A common theme was the need for wholesystems research and information so thatproducers can make decisions aboutintegrated cropping systems and understandthe synergistic effects of soil fertility, inboth stock and stockless systems.

3b. This region’s producers discussed theirinformation needs under the followinggeneral headings:

• a directory of small machinery sources,blueprints, manufacturers.

• a survey to identify commonly grownground crop varieties in the research region.Many producers use trial and errortechniques and felt that they could learnmore and save time with improved sharingof information across the sector.

• the need to know more about theindividual organic sectors and the aggregate


27

of sectors across the provinces. Organicsector profiles would provide valuableinformation for new and transitionalproducers and those still undecided aboutorganic production, as well as currentgrowers. A clear idea of the number ofproducers, the volume of production, whereproduct is being sold, the range of prices atfarm gate, wholesale, distribution, and retaillevels, the varieties being grown, and thetransportation and distribution options beingutilized across the province would helpmany producers make decisions about farmmanagement. This information could bemade public and organized by sector, whilemore specific information would beproprietary and could be available for a fee.This could be handled by a professionaldevelopment organization (see Section 6) orresearch could be done by individualproducers in conjunction with interestedprofessional researchers. The OSDP shouldfund sector profiling projects which wouldbenefit all of the organic producers in theprovince and inform those interested infuture regulation and the trends within theindustry.

• a more general information concern wasthe barriers for new entrants to organicproduction. In order to ‘make the case’ fororganic production and facilitate the start upof new and young producers, the availabilityof information for business planning andproduction planning is critical. Participantsin the region were also particularlyinterested in best management practices(BMPs) for their type and size of operation.It is recognized that BMPs are becoming anational agricultural issue and the organicsectors should consider BMPs specific toorganic production at different scales ofoperations. Potential research projectscould develop a compendium of these, inconsultation with producers in all regions.

3c. There is a strong interest in regionalinformation on the performance and use ofgreen manures and cover cropping,including suitable green manures for the dryinterior. Several growers were veryinterested in more information about theintegration of green manures with cashcrops, and many are currently experimentingthemselves, albeit much of it informally.

This issue is linked to the soil managementand fertility issues and to weedmanagement; the OSDP fund shouldsponsor projects that have an integratedscope and combine different needs in morewhole systems oriented research.

3d. Weed management is a pervasivechallenge for organic producers in theregion, although specific research needswere not identified. Information requests forthe effect of cultivations on weedpopulations, the use of green manures, andnew or potential organic control methodswere noted. One suggestion was to conducta survey of the most efficient weedmanagement techniques and systems,document these, and make the informationpublicly available, at the regional level.This would take the form of case studies orbest management practices (BMPs) andcould be included with projects that focusedon BMPs. Weed management researchwould be considered a low priority for thisregion.

3e. Most participants discussed pest controlissues. Many of the smaller ground cropproducers indicated that they were lessconcerned with pest control issues; theyused trial and error methods and generallydidn’t grow one particular crop if pestinfestation was a significant problem. Themajor pests mentioned were flea beetle, rootmaggot, and carrot rust fly. There was alsosome interest in investigating the economicsof using different types of netting materialas an insect barrier.

3f. The availability of locally sourced anduntreated seed was considered to be anincreasingly pressing need. At present thereis a lack of organic seed for nitrogen-fixinggreen manures and bulk quantities oforganic vegetable seed are often difficult toget. The production of certified organicseed could be an opportunity for somegrowers to diversify and incorporate seedsinto their enterprise. A best practicesmanual including information on tools,harvesting, and cleaning is needed as aresource for non-specialist growers. Thiswould involve some investigation as there isvarying information available about


28

isolation distances and other managementpractices.

An identified need among seed producerswas improved information on maintainingquality, especially maintaining varietalpurity. It is critical to manage the quality ofseed to gain and keep the trust ofcommercial growers. Comparative researchexamining local organic seeds withconventional seeds for vigor, germinationrates, and disease resistance would be auseful marketing tool. In addition, there wasan expressed need for a survey among seedgrowers in the province to catalogue thevarieties being grown and the quantitiesproduced to demonstrate the potential for anorganic seed market. This would fall under asector profiling study, and can be includedwith an information needs project (note 3b.).

3g. The livestock growers of the regionstated that three emerging issues were themost important with respect to researchneeds:

• systems for parasite management andalternative medications for parasites,

• appropriate pig and chicken breeds forextensive production,

• management practices for the integrationof livestock and crops.

While the latter two issues have been wellstudied and documented in other parts ofNorth America, new approaches to parasitemanagement are only recently being studied.Possible projects could examine differentintegrated farming systems in different partsof the province. A compendium of bestpractices for small livestock producerswould be very beneficial to new and existingproducers (e.g. improved pasture poultrytechniques, rotational grazing strategies forbeef, etc.).

The need for improved access toslaughtering facilities exists for many beefproducers. There are inspected andcertifiable facilities in this region and otherparts of the province, and with increasedmarketing success, there is an opportunityfor expansion within the organic beef andpoultry sectors. There is a trade off betweendirect marketing in local areas and working

to gain access to retail distribution becauseof the variability in supply. There is also aneed for producers to reach out to othermarkets, beyond certified organic, andcooperative development projects could linkproducers and slaughter facilities withestablished but alternative markets in NorthAmerica and Europe; moving beyond thelocal direct marketing or large retail supplychain tradeoff.

3h. Infrastructure development is a majorlimiting factor for both livestock and groundcrop growers in the region. Certifiedslaughter facilities for livestock production,cold storage for ground crop production, anddistribution and transportation infrastructurewere the commonly mentioned issues.There was some discussion about whetherthe critical mass necessary to sustain anddevelop more infrastructure existed. On theother hand, existing infrastructure in theregion has been developed by individualentrepreneurs who source product fromoutside the region. The success of existingproducers, with respect to infrastructuredevelopment, has been largely a result ofindividual effort and capital expenditure. Itwas suggested that an organization thatrepresented producers, distributors,slaughter facilities, etc., directly wouldimprove communication, productrecognition, and marketplace development,as a start. The OSDP fund could fund aproject that initiated a profile of the organiclivestock sector, for example, includingproducers, processors, and distributors; thisproject would also fall under theinformation needs category (see note 3b).

3i. Marketplace development is a categoryof research needs comprising issues ofprocessing, distribution, current marketcompetitiveness and growth, and futuremarket potentials and challenges. There wasa lot of discussion about imported organicproducts, and concern that B.C. producerscannot supply their own market, and mustcompete in the local marketplace withCalifornia (generally) production.Participants questioned why this washappening, and stated a need to identifywhether it was prices, or infrastructure, ordistribution chains, or a combination ofthese. Different viewpoints were expressed


29

about the conversion of conventional farmsto organic production; it was generally seenas a good source of new production tosupply the Vancouver market, but anotherviewpoint saw this trend as a threat, withorganic farming becoming industrial.

The point was made in different discussionsthat the availability of organic produce insupermarkets has had and will continue tohave an effect on direct sales and smallorganic-only outlets. The promotion oflocal produce, in this context, is becomingincreasingly important. The economicbenefits of small-scale growers sellinglocally are numerous because of the spin-offeffects in the local community and theprovision of environmental and socialbenefits occurs where the product is grown.The OSDP fund could promote moreawareness and educational campaigns tosupport local growers. One producercommented that a good example was the oldBuy B.C. program; this type of programcould be applied to organic production inB.C., for B.C. Another information needrelated to marketing:

• seasonal information on market gaps,

• the results combined into a database ofcrops needed and market and supply gapsaccording to region.

Region 4: Prince George / Peace River /North West

The geography of this region of the provinceis the primary determinant of the ordering ofpriorities for the ‘research’ needs identifiedby producers. There are few organicproducers spread over great distances,involving significantly different climatezones. Commodity choices (low margin orhigh labour requirement), seasonal andclimatic limitations, and distance to largemarkets limit the ability of organicoperations in this region to participate fullyin the growth of the larger organicmarketplace. With few exceptions, incomefrom off-farm sources is a significantsupplement to income earned from farmproduction. The time required to earn theoff-farm income further restricts ‘capacitybuilding’.

In the northeast, grain and livestockoperations, most of a small- to medium-sized scale compared to conventional farms,have production and marketing informationneeds best answered outside the region oroutside the province. The area is moresimilar in climate, crops and marketinginfrastructure needs to Alberta than to anyother region of B.C. A few groundcropproducers contribute to local markets.

In the north-centre region surroundingPrince George, livestock, berries andgroundcrops operations predominate.Organic farms are on the smaller end of thescale compared to conventional farms.Similarily in the northwest, organic farms inthe Bulkley Valley/Smithers area producegroundcrops, livestock (primarily beef),herbs and berries. Markets and communitysupport in this area is significantly greaterthan in the other two sub-regions of thenorth.

Potatoes, beef and grains move ascommodities from the north of the provinceto markets in Vancouver, Alberta and theU.S. These ‘export’ markets have beendeveloped over time by individualproducers. A significant proportion oforganic commodities produced in the northare sold through conventional markets.Local markets are important to allproducers, and most of the current efforts ofindividuals and groups are directed there.

This region does not appear to have thesame growth rate of organic production orproducers that other B.C. regionsexperience. The regional certification-focused organizations that served this areahave either disbanded or diminished. Allproducers interviewed expressed concernover ‘isolation’ and ‘lack ofcommunication’.

Thus the first challenges facing producers inthis research region depend on the form inwhich their product leaves the farm, as acommodity or as a food product, althoughboth involve marketing infrastructure needs.For commodity producers, maintainingexisting markets and profitability in the faceof increased competition and resultantfalling margins is of primary importance.Direct marketers of food products to


30

regional consumers face the challenge ofidentification and attraction of, and venuecreation for, potential customers. Theconsistent supply of organic product(sourced out of area) by specialty and nowmajor chain stores in the region furtherchallenges local growers. Competition onprice with conventional products is asignificant marketing concern. ‘Local andfresh’ is as important in some markets asorganic growing practices.

All of these concerns are in realitycompetitive issues, and might be best dealtwith inside the business planning functionsof individual producers or groups ofproducers. When funding proposals in thisarea, OSDP decision makers will face thechallenge of supporting initiatives of generalbenefit to some producers, adhering to theirown guidelines, and not interfering withongoing entrepreneurial efforts in the samearea of interest. Certainly there is anadvantage for the few producers in each sub-region (northeast, north centre, northwest)to work together to develop particular

markets. The OSDP has funded such aproject (Root Sellar) in the northeast. Aspreviously explained in 2e. (p. 20) thecurrent OSDP funded market developmentproject (see Table 2) should includeelements that will benefit producers andconsumers who are outside the reach of theconcentrated focus of supply and market ofthe southwest region of the province.

When questioned as to where they currentlyget their research information, someproducers have stated that they reviewresearch arising from conventionalagricultural research projects in the regionand adapt the information to their ownsituation (esp. variety trials). Given thatorganic producers are few in number in thisregion, it would be in their interest to havetheir perspective included in ongoing workby other organizations. There is anopportunity here for OSDP to participate asa minor funding partner in some of theseresearch initiatives to encourage theinclusion of an organic component.


31

Table 7: Research needs: Prince George, Peace River, Bulkley Valley (unranked)

Note Research need identified Relativecost ofconductingresearch




Priority(unranked)

4a. Soil fertility andmanagement

Medium Very high Some informationavailable; a variety ofresearch sources; littleregionally specificinformation relatingin particular toorganics

Manyproducers inall sectors

High

4b. Information needs-accumulation ofexisting knowledge-marketing-sector profiles(financial, productionvolumes)-best managementpractices-food safety

Low High Information isavailable from a widevariety of sources formachinery, technicalinformation; littleorganic sectorprofiling is availablefor BC; few bestmanagement practicesand case studiesavailable

Manyproducers

High

4c. Weed managementtechniques

Low Medium Research availablewidely on differenttechniques;informationdistribution andaccess is an issue;complements point4b.

Someproducers,mainly cerealcrops

Low

4d. Pest control-flea beetle-grasshoppers-lygus bugs-wireworm

High Medium On-going projects inB.C. and NorthAmerica (seediscussion in otherregions); littleregionally specificresearch available

Someproducers(mainlyground crops,cereal cropsand berries

Low

4e. Livestock needs-regulatory and otherinfrastructure needs‘outside the farm gate’-parasite management

Medium Medium Technical informationis available fromacross NorthAmerica;management modelsavailable from acrossNorth America;Ongoingentrepreneurial effortsdeveloping genetics.Public representationon regulatory issues isweak.

Someproducers

Medium

4f. Infrastructuredevelopment

High High Information fordevelopment of coldstorage, processingfacilities for livestockand ground crops isavailable from acrossNorth America; is acapitalization andentrepreneurialdevelopment issue

Manyproducers

Medium


32

4g. Marketplacedevelopment-information forcustomers-point of saleinformation

Medium High Marketplaceinformation for smallproducers is needed;regional informationneeds research; on-going OSDP marketresearch project; otherinformation fromacross North Americais available

Manyproducers,or could beseen as apersonalbusinessplanning need

High

4h. Communications-isolation from samesectors in other areas-local groups absent

Low High Many sources,websites, periodicals,but little focused &relevant productioninformation

Manyproducers

High

4a. As in other regions, soil fertility andmanagement issues were common among allproducers, although not a particularly highpriority in this particular study region. All ofthe long time organic farmers (livestock,cereal crops) felt that they were comfortablewith their achievements regarding soilfertility, and had adjusted their productionexpectations to reflect their soils capacity.Tillage is used extensively by forage andcereal crop growers, and may become anissue in the future. No producers identifiedzero till organic production as a researchneed, although considerable research isunderway. It would benefit the organicindustry generally if this research werebrought forward, ‘ahead of the curve’, byOSDP sponsored projects.

4b. Information needs are also similar toother regions, with more emphasis placed onthe need for communications with producersin the same sector in different regions. Theformer organizational model for organicorganizations in the region (regionalcertification focus) did not foster these kindsof communications. Several producerssuggested that the accumulation of existingknowledge from experienced growers acrossthe country would be very useful. There isan opportunity here for institutions todevelop case studies in the various sectors,like Ann Clark’s work in Ontario, that couldbecome both a learning tool and a baselinefor the further development of bestmanagement practices in the industry.Funding sources other than OSDP, forexample the probable funding that will

result from the implementation of theAgricultural Policy Framework (APF), maybe more appropriate for this work.

4c.Weed management issues were not a highpriority in this region. Cultural controlpractices in cereal and forage crops are welldocumented, and are accepted and relativelyeffective coping strategies. Yield reductionin cereal crops due to weed competition iswell documented by conventionalagricultural research, and seems to be an‘accepted fact of life’ for most producers.Labour or time shortages for the necessarycultural control in ground crops and smallfruit orchards is an ongoing concern. Anyresearch on covercropping and zero tillwould also be useful for this issue.

4d. Pest control concerns were very specificto individual producers. Experiencedgrowers had their own solutions, oftenavoidance of the problem by not growingthe susceptible crop. Persistent large-scaleinfestations of pests such as grasshoppershave some solutions in system design, butremain a threat for organic producers.

A few producers mentioned wirewormproblems. This a low priority issue for ‘denovo’ research for this region, although onethat would become a component of actionstaken to address information needs (4b.above).

4e. Livestock producers did not identify anypressing needs for research that relatespecifically to organic production. Sincemany issues in livestock production havesolutions in management practices that


33

address problem prevention, this shouldcome as no surprise. Parasites presentongoing problem for all species – severeenough in some cases to prevent theinclusion of that species in an organicproduction program (sheep). Vaccines arebeing developed by the conventionalindustry (VIDO –Veterinary InfectiousDiseases Organization) that will addresssome issues for some species. Livestockproducers interviewed subsequent to theBSE incident have stated that any ‘research’needs that address production issues ‘behindthe farm gate’ are minor compared to theurgent need to properly represent theinterests of organic livestock producers‘outside the farm gate’. As one producerstated “…if we don’t take the lead in theimpending regulatory decision making, wewill lose (our ability to process and marketour products).”

There is a pressing need for the developmentof a strong ‘livestock caucus’ within a‘professional development organization’(see Sec. 6 Recommendations) that canaggressively represent the interests oforganic livestock producers at many levelswithin the larger agricultural industry. Thisrepresentation falls outside the realm ofcertification, where much of the currentactivity is centered, and is currently moreimportant to ‘capacity building’ in thissector than any agronomic research topic.

4f. Infrastructure needs have been muchresearched in the Peace region under variousheadings – community kitchen, value-addedprocessing, mobile slaughter facility, etc. Inall cases current and foreseeable volumeshave been judged insufficient to warrant thelarge expenditures necessary for ‘generaluse’ facility development. However, morefocused facilities have been established orare in the planning stages in northern andcentral B.C. and Alberta. These are withoutexception the result of entrepreneurial effortand will likely be able to benefit thisregion’s primary organic producers in thefuture. Since this is principally acapitalization and business planning issue,with limited benefit to the industry as awhole, it should have a low priority forOSDP funding. (See 3h.)

4g. It is important for this region’sproducers that their market information andsupport needs be included in the broaderon-going OSDP market research project. Toaccomplish this, project developers willneed to proactively engage this group.Commercial intelligence gathering, point ofsale information, general processcommunication tools are some of the needsthat have been mentioned. This issue is thehighest priority for producers in this region.

4h. A few producers have direct contact withCOABC because of certification ordirectorship roles and so have less concernwith communication issues than do otherswho expressed ‘isolation’ as a commontheme. See 4b. above. Organizationalchanges by sector or production interestacross regions, accompanied by activecommunication tools, could address theseconcerns. This is not a research need, butdefinitely a description of a tool that wouldhelp ‘build production capacity’.


34

5. Research Resources

This research needs study is unique in theBritish Columbia context: to date there havebeen no other research needs studies specificto organic agriculture in B.C. Similarresearch needs studies have been done inother parts of Canada, the United States andEurope. Four major research needs studies(Clark, 2003, Walz, 1999, DARCOF, 2002,Padel, Powel and Lampkin, 2001) provideddirection and corroboration for this study.

As well, we reviewed two other Canadianresearch needs studies and two unpublishedmeeting results (Canadian) addressing thesame topic:

• Organic Industry Needs Assessment,March 2001, Saskatchewan Agriculture andFood

• Research Priorities Meeting, July 10, 2002,Ontario, chaired by Hugh Martin(unpublished)

• Organic Farming Research in AtlanticCanada, March 2001, AgriNova Consultingfor Atlantic Canadian Organic RegionalNetwork

• Notes from Organic Conference, March11/12, 2002, Red Deer, Alberta(unpublished)

In addition to the three organizationsdiscussed in the AgriNova report, we alsomention, as further examples, seven otherorganizations that are involved in researchor information dissemination directedtowards sustainable and organic agriculture:

• Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada(OACC)

• Appropriate Technology Transfer for RuralAreas (ATTRA)

• Sustainable Agriculture Research andEducation (SARE)

• Organic Farming Research Foundation(OFRF)

• CyberHelp (B.C. based web informationservice)

• Canadian Organic Growers (COG)

• CABI Publishing – organic-research.com

5.l Other Research Needs Studies

The results of the B.C. research alignroughly with those of the previous studies.It appears that the general research anddevelopment needs of organic producers arequite similar in different regions of theworld, although the ordering of prioritiesvaries. This B.C. research complements andadds to the limited body of knowledge aboutorganic research needs, at the producerlevel, found in North America and Europe.

Clark (2003)

Ann Clark’s (2003) study of the researchneeds of Ontario’s organic farmers is quitebroad in scope. Its initial objectives were toimprove competitiveness and developintegrated crop management systems.

The study details the following priorities:

• problem avoidance issues

• policy constraints within the organicindustry

• the need to collect existing wisdom

• the importance of site specificity

• on-farm research.

• resource management

• food quality/safety

• livestock for organic farming

• plant breeding and seed production

• protection from genetic pollution

Problem avoidance issues are comprised ofmany different specific research needs: croprotation practices, soil fertility andmanagement issues, weed management,winter soil cover, and livestock confinementand feed substitution issues. Clark suggeststhat research on these topics is top priorityfor Ontario organic producers, affirmingsome of the results from this B.C. researchstudy. Clark further states that an immediateaction should be the development of acompendium of niche determinants for eachmajor pest species (weed, insect, anddisease), synthesized from the scientificliterature. Research on problem avoidance


35

issues addresses the cause of the problem,because the visible problem – whatever it is– is just a symptom of a larger systemdysfunction (Clark, 2003).

Policy constraint concerns exist in two broadareas: first, subsidies, and secondly,existing, proposed, or new policies whichimpact upon organic agriculture (Clark,2003). The growth of organic agriculture inEurope has benefited from governmentsubsidies, not necessarily specific to organicbut directed toward environmentalstewardship in general. Under the CommonAgriculture Policy, many European nationsheavily subsidized environmentalstewardship and conservation programs inan attempt to limit agriculture productionand stimulate rural regions. Whileconventional agriculture received the mostfunding support, organic agriculture hasbeen cheaper to subsidize and thus has beenencouraged.

This is seemingly at odds with the focus ofinternational trade organizations and theNorth American rhetoric about subsidies andtheir removal. While all countries continueto support agriculture with large subsidies(Canada is the least subsidized for cereal,oilseeds, pulse crops, and beef, with theexception of New Zealand) there is someeffort to have these removed. It is hopedthat the Canadian organic industry will notbe dependant on sustained governmentsupport in order to remain financially viable(Clark, 2003). Clark’s study suggests thatthere is a need for research on thecorrelation between subsidies andenvironmental quality, specific to organicagriculture. While these studies have beendone extensively for conventional industries(see Bradshaw and Smit, 1997, Bowler,1992, Smit and Smither,1993), and linkenvironmental degradation to increasedsubsidy levels, there has been little done inorganic agriculture sectors.

Clark discusses some specific policy tools:crop insurance schemes for which theorganic farmers in some regions areineligible, workers compensation programsthat overcharge organic growers, the OntarioLand Stewardship assistance program thatwas unavailable to organic growers, the

Seeds Act that precludes the selling of openpollinated corn varieties favoured by organicfarmers, and nutrient management planningin Ontario that requires composting to occuronly on concrete floors, posing a burden onorganic farms that may rely solely oncompost nutrition.

There are no doubt similar policies, specificto the British Columbia context, andnational policies, such as those contained inthe Agricultural Policy Framework, whichimpact organic growers. Funding should beallocated to study these policies and theirpotential impact on B.C.’s organic industry.As well, active lobbying efforts will benecessary to ensure that the interests oforganic agriculture are included asregulation is developed from these policies.

Clark’s (2003) research needs study alsoidentifies the need to compile anddisseminate existing knowledge and conductsite specific and on-farm research. Manyregions of Ontario have a long history ofagricultural production and there are manyindividuals and historic printed materialsthat are recently becoming more useful,especially to organic farmers who are usingmore holistic systems of farming. Her studyalso found a lack of research on organicagriculture that was specific to southernOntario and that was conducted on farms inthe region. There was a good deal ofresearch by higher education institutions oneducational farms and research from otherparts of the world. Clark recommends thatorganic research focus on regional contextsand microclimate conditions.

These needs echo what was found in thisB.C. research study: the need to compileand make available existing knowledge andinformation and to have research conductedby and for those in the province who areorganic growers.

Padel, Powel and Lampkin (2001)

This report details results of a survey offarmers and researchers done in the U.K. bythe Institiute of Rural Studies, University ofWales. Of particular note in this report is theamount of research done or underway in theU.K. (and amount of funding committed)focusing on organic agriculture, and the


36

interest in and emphasis on the livestocksector. This suggests both a more matureorganic industry and possibly as a result,significantly more ‘official’ support than inCanada.

The responses from producers are howeverstill very similar to the responses by B.C.producers to this B.C. study.

The report uses thirteen categories tosummarize the survey results, but gives noweighting as to priorities. The categoriesthemselves are informative as to the broadrange of issues facing decision makersregarding the allocation of resources forresearch and education. We have listed thecategories below and have added noteshighlighting some of the report content:

1. General points; priorities, fundingand research organization

a. need to ensure integration ofprogrammes and research atthe highest level

b. need to include otherplayers in the value chain,e.g. processors

c. need for system basedresearch, with regional andnational variationsconsidered

d. importance of theinterrelationship of organicand conventional agriculture

e. need for new research tobuild on previous work.

2. Dissemination and technologytransfer

a. need for more effort to beput into communication,especially workshops,seminars, conferences, tradejournals, manuals, farmerself-help groups, etc.

b. need for case study workaccumulated intobenchmarks for variousindustry sectors.

3. Research methodology

a. participatory andinterdisciplinary.

4. Whole farm systems

a. need for research intounderstanding of wholefarm systems, includingwhich farms are mostsuitable for conversion toorganic production, interfarm linkages, energy useanalysis, climate changeimpacts, multi-enterpriseeffects, agroforestry, longterm effects of croprotation, etc.

5. Soils and soil fertility

a. importance of developingmore reliable methods ofmonitoring soil fertilitylevels

b. need to understand moreabout the effect of fertilityon pest and disease control

c. need for further research onmanures and composteffects

d. need to develop simplenutrient balancingmethodology andunderstand how croppingsequences affect fertilitylevels.

6. Cropping systems and crops

a. need for a broad range ofwork to be done on organicseed production

b. need for continued researchon varietal choices

c. need to understand weedpopulation dynamics

d. need to understand pest anddisease populationdynamics.

7. Livestock and livestock systems

a. need to do more research onbreed, disease and pest


37

resistance and commercialtrait relationships

b. need to investigate species-specific welfare andhousing issues

c. need to further investigatehealth issues, especiallyalternative treatment andcontrol strategies andproducts

d. need to continue research onmany animal nutritionissues relating specificallyto organic production.

8. Food quality and safety

a. “definitive studies on thequality and safety of organicfood”.

9. Processing and storage

10. Marketing

11. Economics and rural development

12. Policy

13. Environment

There are references in this report toresearch projects affecting organicagriculture carried out under the auspices ofthe U.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheriesand Food (now the Department ofEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs),available at www.defra.gov.uk

Walz (1999)

Walz (1999) conducted a national organicfarmers survey in 1997 and 1998 that wasmailed to 4638 certified organic farmersthroughout the United States and askedinformation about a variety of topicscorresponding to their farms and their 1997production year. The significance of thisresearch needs study is that the informationobtained is quantitative and provides astandardized response to a detailed set ofquestions. Although the results are notclaimed as statistically significant of allorganic producers, they are able to providepercentages and proportions to assertions ofneed.

The respondents ranked weed managementas their number one research priority.Second and third priority were therelationship between soil fertility and crophealth, pest and disease resistance and therelationship of organic growing practices tonutritional value of product. Soil biology,crop rotations, and cover cropping rankedfourth, fifth and sixth, respectively. Amongthe lowest ranked items were livestockproduction issues; alternative animalproduction systems, breed selection andgenetics, and alternative animal sheltersystems.

A section of the Walz report asks specificquestions related to organic managementstrategies, asking farmers to list soil andcrop management concerns. Foxtail,pigweed and quackgrass were the mostfrequently listed weed problems andbermuda grass, Johnson grass and bindweedwere identified as the most difficult weedsto manage. Insect pests were discussed:cucumber beetles were listed as the mostdifficult pest to manage, followed by fleabeetles, aphids, Colorado potato beetle,codling moth, leafhoppers, symphylans, andgrasshoppers. A variety of animal pestswere listed. The most frequently listeddiseases were powdery mildew, blight (lateand early), bacterial wilt, and mosaicviruses. A number of different managementstrategies were correlated with these weed,pest, and disease issues. Frequently,respondents stated that crop rotations, propersoil fertility and management, andappropriate growing conditions were someof the best ways to avoid these issues.

Walz (1999) also identifies the usefulness ofa variety of information that organic farmersutilize. Among the most useful sources fororganic production information werepersonal contacts, field consultants, supplierand grower associations, farming andgardening books, conferences and seminars,and other periodicals. Among the leastuseful sources were university researchdepartments, government funded researchinstitutes, email groups and subscriptions,and radio and television programs (Walz1999). For organic marketing information,respondents indicated that buyers, otherfarmers, and individual consumers and their


38

customers where the best and most reliablesources of information. Non-governmentmarket information sources, state andfederal agencies, and websites were rankedas the least useful sources of marketinformation. Respondents stated that therewas a need for more market information:organic prices and pricing, buyer lists,consumer demand trends, and the location ofnew markets were the most pressingresearch needs.

The Walz report, funded by the OrganicFarming Research Foundation, affirms someof the findings from this study, although itsscope is much wider. Weed managementand soil fertility issues rank quite high, andmanagement strategies such as croprotations and proper soil building and soilfertility were identified as research needs tosolve specific pest problems (evidence of theneed for whole systems research).Additional information in the report,referring to marketing needs, informationneeds, certification needs, and existingmarkets are valuable reference material forany organic grower or researcher.

DARCOF (2002)

The Danish Research Centre for OrganicFarming (DARCOF) conducted a review oftheir organic research priorities in 2000.The program was started in 1996 and has anestimated budget of Cdn. $21.6 millionallocated between 1996 and 2001. Theevaluation found that many of the projectsfunded were primarily focused on ‘singlecrop, single field’ scenarios and ignoredrotation history or spatial effects. There wasa call for a more comprehensive systemsapproach to nutrient management,encompassing plant-animal-man-environment, not just individual segments,with a renewed focus not just on N(nitrogen) but also P,K,S (phosphorus,potassium, and sulphur), and micronutrients(DARCOF 2002).

The evaluation also recommended thatfuture research dollars be allocated througha shared conceptual framework that wouldunite the various specializations andinterests within the organic researchcommunity. They found that existing resultsdo not link well and are not in a form to

support practical agriculture (i.e. the resultsare not immediately useful to organicgrowers).

The evaluation also found that medium andlong-term research is needed to examine theeffects and responses of growers to differentresearch results. The benefits of researchwere determined to be an important issue;the spread of benefits and impact upon theorganic sector(s) should be a determiningfactor when establishing projects andawarding funding. The evaluation alsodetermined that future attention be paid tofood quality issues, for both plant andanimal products, from production toprocessing. Finally, the study foundtechnology development, from farmmachinery to information technology isneeded to support the organic industry.More emphasis should be placed ongraduate education, specifically to generateresearchers able to handle complex systemsand interdisciplinary research.

Specific recommendations found in theevaluation include identified research topicsfor future funding. These are of interest tothis research study (COABC) and affirm theresearch results presented in this report. Therecommendations are:

1. Emphasis on P, K, and S in supply,mobility, and soil depletion

2. Recycling of industrial and municipalresidues, to complete the loop

3. More integrated studies, focusingspecifically on on-farm studies andplant/animal interactions

4. Plant breeding to increase geneticvariation and reduce pest damage,increase plant health, and improve feedand food quality – with a particularemphasis on secondary metabolites

5. Mixed species grazing, as of cows andsows, to enhance nutrient cycling andachieve related benefits, such as wormcontrol in cattle

6. Screening of various breeds of cattle,pigs, and poultry for suitability toorganic systems, and possible additionalproduction systems, such as troutfarming


39

7. Stockless production systems need toreceive special attention

8. On-farm studies should be a moresignificant element in future research

9. Develop more operational parameters tostudy nature and environmental impacts,to develop both environmental impactstatements and farmer decision tools

10. Develop new technologies, for tillageand hoeing, animal welfare, and IT

11. More fully integrate economic studies

Organic Industry Needs Assessment,Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food,2001

“The top three priorities identified forproduction research and development were:

1. managing soil fertility and quality

2. studying crop rotations in relation tosoil, weeds, insects and diseases

3. managing weeds,” (p.3 of report)

The report suggests a systems approach fororganic production research, but does notelaborate. It also identifies other producerconcerns that correlate with the B.C. studyfindings:

• importance of on-farm research

• need to document practices of experiencedgrowers

• preference for producer-directed, expert-assisted research

• communication needs

• marketing information needs

Research Priorities Meeting – July 10,2002 – Ontario, chaired by Hugh Martin

Hugh Martin summarized the prioritiesidentified by meeting participants into ninecategories:

• whole farm planning systems

• plant breeding and genetics

• soil management systems

• livestock management

• dissemination of information

• application of existing research to Ontarioconditions

• independent evaluation of products

• pest management

• market research

No analysis is provided, but the primaryareas of interest are similar to other reports.

Organic Farming Research in AtlanticCanada – March 2001 – AgriNovaConsulting for Atlantic CanadianOrganic Regional Network

This discusses the possible roles for theAtlantic Canadian Organic RegionalNetwork (ACORN) in developing andimplementing organic research in AtlanticCanada. Shortly after this report was issued,the Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada(OACC) was established, and assumed mostof the functions suggested for ACORN (seediscussion of OACC below).

Of particular note in this report is the listingof research and casework that has been doneby individuals, organizations and institutionsin the region. That this research is notgenerally available underscores theimportance of one of the recommendationsin this report (and the others discussedabove), that is, the need for an information‘accumulation’ and dissemination service,tool or function. The report lists ‘researchneeds’ under the following generalheadings:

• Literature review, information collection,

• Crop production (weed and pest control)

• Livestock production

• Engineering

• Soil fertility

• Food quality

• Economics

It suggests that priority be given to workwith immediate and very visible benefit toproducers, and describes three existingorganizational models that provide thisfunction to their members:


40

1. The Practical Farmers of Iowa(http://www.pfi.iastate.edu/)

This non-profit organization (“farmershelping farmers make better decisions”) iscentered at Iowa State University andprovides its members with an informationnetwork, basic on farm research, marketinginformation, workshops and field days, andaccess to farmer and institutional expertisein many fields.

Well established and highly successful, thisis one of the best examples of the practicalapplication of the ‘producer-led, expert-assisted’ approach to professionaldevelopment for farmers.

2. Quebec Agronome model

These farmers’ clubs hire agronomists towork with groups of farmers with similarproduction and information needs.

This model may be useful to B.C. organicproducers as they prepare to organizearound sectoral production and businessinterests beyond certification.

3. REAP Canada (Resource EfficientAgricultural Production) (http://www.reap-canada.com)

This independent, non-profit, research,consulting and international developmentorganization based at McGill Universityconducts both on-farm and research facility-based programs. This organization has beenworking since 1986 with farmers and ruralcommunities, both in Canada andinternationally, “...to promoteenvironmentally sound development toaddress society’s need for food, fuel andfibre.” (REAP Canada home page). Theyemphasize participatory on-farm researchand plant breeding programs.

Many of the projects they have undertaken(see Reading List – Appendix 3) directlyaddress some of the issues identified by B.C.producers. This organization may be avaluable partner/source of expertise forsome of the work now called for in B.C.

5.2 Research and InformationOrganizations

In addition to the resources listed in theabove (AgriNova) report, there are manyothers whose express purpose is to provideresearch and information for the organicfarming community. We discuss sixorganizations below:

Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada(http://www.organicagcentre.ca)

This organization was formed in 2001 atNova Scotia Agricultural College under thedirection of Dr. Ralph Martin. Initiallyfunded by the Canadian Adaptation andRural Development (CARD) program andadditionally by National Sciences andEngineering Research Council (NSERC)strategic grant, OACC intends to “…providebroad support, in Canada, for organicfarmers and those in transition, through thedevelopment of new research programs,courses and deployment of effectivemethods of disseminating information.”(OACC home page)

They have recently added a PrairieCoordinator (situated at University ofSaskatchewan, Saskatoon) to their staff, whohas been very active in collecting widely-dispersed research information of interest toprairie organic producers.

OACC has an ongoing research needsassessment project, as well as major projectsin web course development, transitionstrategies, on-farm research, web basedinformation resources, and marketinformation. They have developed strategiclinks with many universities and AgricultureCanada Research Centres.

(See Appendix 3 for listing of informationfrom the OACC web site on Canadianresearch projects)

This organization will no doubt become animportant collaborator, source ofinformation and source of expertise for B.C.organic producers. The role that OACC willplay will be determined by the decisionsB.C. organic producers take to meet theirprofessional development needs in the nearfuture.


41

Appropriate Technology Transfer forRural Areas (ATTRA) http://attra.ncat.org

“The ATTRA Project is operated by the NationalCenter for Appropriate Technology under a grantfrom the Rural Business - Cooperative Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture.” (ATTRAhome page)

This government funded project hasavailable through its website, publicationsand extension services a massive amount ofinformation relating to sustainableagriculture and some of the expressedresearch interests of B.C. organic producers.

We include this organization both as animportant source of valuable informationand as an example of the results that arepossible if sufficient public (government)resources are focused on particular needs inagriculture ‘ahead of the curve’.

Sustainable Agriculture Research andEducation (SARE) http://www.sare.org

“SARE is a U.S. Department of Agriculturefunded initiative that sponsors competitivegrants for sustainable agriculture researchand education in a regional processnationwide.” (SARE website)

This organization has been operating since1988 and has funded about 1800 projects. Ithas a searchable database of projects theyhave sponsored, an extensive publicationslist and online resources applicable to topicsof interest to B.C. producers. SARE hasthree categories of grant programs:

• Research and education grants forscientists, producers and others in aninterdisciplinary approach.

• Professional development grantsfor extension educators and otherprofessionals to take advantage oflearning opportunities.

• Producer (farmer/rancher) grantsfor on-farm work.

They have indicated that they would bewilling to open a dialogue with potentialCanadian partners, and have offered toshare the benefit of their expertise. Thecontact person is Jill Auburn([email protected]).

Organic Farming Research Foundation(OFRF) http://www.ofrf.org/research

The Organic Farming Research Foundation,headquartered in California, has been activefor more than 10 years and in that time “hasawarded over $1,000,000 in support oforganic farming research and educationalprojects.” (OFRF website)

“The purpose of the Organic FarmingResearch Foundation is to foster theimprovement and widespread adoption oforganic farming practices. To achieve thisgoal, we've defined our mission as: tosponsor research related to organic farming,to disseminate research results to organicfarmers and to growers interested inadopting organic production systems, and toeducate the public and decision-makersabout organic farming issues.” (OFRFwebsite)

Several B.C. producers and affiliated groupshave received funding from the OFRF. Forexample, the wireworm control researchunderway at Pacific Agri-Food ResearchCentre in Agassiz, B.C. has been partiallyfunded by OFRF for the past three years.

This very successful organization will be animportant collaborating partner for the workthat the OSDP decides to undertake, notonly as a funding partner, but also as areference for previous work and as potentialassistance in assessing the efficacy ofproposed undertakings.

CABI Publishing http://www.organic-research.com

This online resource is a private databasesubscription service that, according to thewebsite homepage, “…provides unlimitedaccess to 120,000 abstracted researcharticles from 1973 onward…and is fullysearchable.”

Canadian information servicestargeted to organic producers:

In addition to OACC mentioned above, wewould like to mention two otherorganizations in Canada that offerinformation services for organic producers:


42

CyberHelphttp://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/rcbtoa

This B.C.-based web service is partiallyfunded by COABC and in spite of the factthat it is relatively new, provides anincreasingly diverse and thorough selectionof information links on topics of interest toorganic producers and consumers. Forexample the current soils ‘reference page’(http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/rcbtoa/training/soil.htm) contains a selection ofinformation resources on the topic of ‘soilquality’, the number one research interest ofB.C. producers.

Unfortunately, it is limited to internet-basedinformation. In the feedback received duringthis research, some producers commentedthat it was the passive nature of CyberHelp,along with technological barriers (lack ofhigh speed internet), that made it less usefulto many people.

Potentially, CyberHelp could be a valuablepart of a total communications strategy,perhaps as an independent organizationcontracted to provide focused services toB.C. organic producers. It could beespecially useful if it could participate insome aspect of the contextual researchrecommended for major research projects(see Recommendations, below)

Canadian Organic Growers (COG)http://www.cog.ca

The senior Canadian organization focusingon organic issues, COG maintains a lendinglibrary, publishes a magazine and newsletterand supports information and data collectionon the Canadian organic industry. B.C. COGmembers are active in the organiccommunity.

This organization should be a valuablepartner for B.C. organic producers andshould be included in their discussionsconcerning professional development.

As well, there are many university,university extension agents, U.S. land grantuniversities and colleges, governmentaffiliated institutions such as researchstations, non-profit and non-governmentalorganizations, and for-profit privatebusinesses around the world that conduct

research on organic agriculture. To date, themajority of the research results have been inthe public domain; anything conducted bygovernment funded or affiliatedorganizations and the university or collegesystem is generally available to anyone.While the results are published primarily inscientific journals and thus not always in anaccessible form, and the research process isnot always reciprocal, the results can befound or requested.

Research that has application to organicagriculture will not be found only insearches containing the word ‘organic’,since much important work is interwoventhroughout the immense body of researchand knowledge on the whole of agriculture.For example, in the organic livestock sector,pasture management and manuremanagement issues often arise. Excellentwork on these topics has been done recentlyat the Lethbridge Research Centre by Dr.Walter Willms and others(http://res2.agr.ca/lethbridge). This workdoes not refer to organic agriculture per se,but answers questions important to organiclivestock producers.

Increasingly, private business has beenconducting its own proprietary research.Many large farms, including some in BritishColumbia, conduct their own research inlivestock, field crop, greenhouse, andground crop sectors. This research isusually site specific and privately funded. Itis also not usually available for public use,although occasionally research results canbe accessed for a fee. Because of theflexibility provided by private funding, thisresearch is often leading edge and forwardthinking; gaining market advantage is adriver.

A significant amount of organic agricultureresearch has been conducted in westernEurope and much of this research is difficultalthough possible to access from availableresources here.

We have directed our review of publishedwork to other research needs studies andalso have included some specificinformation sources and researchorganizations. (See above)


43

Future projects supported by the OSDP fundneed to take into account existingknowledge and research results. OSDPdecision makers will want to avoid not onlythe ‘nice to know’ type of project, but alsothe ‘nice to know again’ projects. A criticalcomponent of this effort should be a reviewof pertinent literature for a specific proposedproject or hypothesis for investigation.Proposed projects should be trying to fill aknowledge gap and not duplicate previouswork. For example, a proposed project oncompost tea should include a review ofavailable research on compost tea (thisinformation is publicly available) and anidentification of a gap or need with thisresearch. Another example would be aproposed project for research on downymildew; a review of available literature ondowny mildew and different organicmethods of control or prevention is anessential part of the proposal. Producersproposing research on seed productionwould be interested to know that theNortheast Region SARE group has funded(US$62,925) research and the developmentof a handbook on just that topic – Project#LNE03-186. Those interested in reducedtillage systems for vegetable productionwould be informed by Project #LNE03-189funded by the same group in the amount ofUS$150,000. Dairy producers consideringthe investigation of alternative mastitisprevention strategies could review a studydone in Great Britain by U.K. Ministry ofAgriculture, Fisheries and Food, #OF0124T,between 1996 and 1999. Organic graingrowers interested in a research project oninfrastructure and marketplace developmentshould conduct a review of literature fromboth organic and conventional sources asthere is a good deal of overlap. (In fact, thistype of research may be better conductedwithin the framework of a private businessplan.) Similarly, research on different treefruit pests should be justified with a reviewof both conventional and organic researchsources. The important point, again, is thatfuture research needs to fill a knowledgegap; the search for available informationwill inform both the funding grantors andgrantees.

There are obviously many more sources ofinformation than those listed above, but thislist provides a starting point and can beexpanded by proponents of future researchprojects.

Appendix 3 contains a table of web siteresources.


44

6. Recommendations and Conclusions

A summary of the priorities for research forB.C. organic agriculture is presented inTable 3 and the accompanying text. Thistable ranks the research priorities, as per thisresearch June 2003, and this is based onanalyses from each region. The feedbackand discussion from the researchparticipants provided valuable informationabout the political and economic context(s)within each region. The rankings are basedupon this discussion and feedback, theinterviews and workshops, and upon theknowledge, experience, and judgment of theresearch team.

The following recommendations furtherthese results and provide more qualitativediscussion about research procedures andsectoral development. Theserecommendations do not fall under specificresearch priorities, rather they representissues larger in scope that support thepriorities in Table 3. The recommendationsfall under the following categories:

• project evaluation and monitoring,

• organizational and professionaldevelopment,

• the role of entrepreneurs,

• the role for institutions,

• research type,

• communications,

• procedural recommendations,

• first steps towards a research strategy.

6.1 Project Evaluation and Monitoring

Project evaluation and monitoring iscritically important to the OSDP and thecurrent OSDP funding. As with anyresearch program, the ultimate measure ofits success will be the benefits to the growercommunity, now and in the future. Theremust be some consistent and reliable methodto compare projects, to determine if theyachieved their initial goals, and todisseminate the results of the research.

Project evaluation should occur at twopoints in a funding cycle: first, theevaluation of project proposals, and

secondly, the evaluation of completedprojects. A common sentiment heardthroughout this research was that money(referring to agricultural research generally)is given out and seems to disappear, and thatthere is no follow-up or advertisement of thefinished projects. Appropriate projectevaluation and monitoring should mitigatethis for OSDP funded work.

Project evaluation at the proposal stagecurrently includes a list of qualifying factors(see COABC website). These factors arebased on the original grantors’ (AFFF)criteria. Additionally, this studyrecommends the following criteria:

• Spread of research benefits (Who willbenefit from this research i.e. the number ofpotential producers and in which sectors?)

• Identification of knowledge or informationgap (Research projects should identify thespecific knowledge or information gap thatthey intend to address.)

• Review of available literature (It isimperative that each project applicationidentify the context within which it is beingproposed i.e. a literature review to determinehow this issue has been addressedelsewhere.)

• Research process (Many participants inthis research called for increasedtransparency and participation, and thatemphasis be placed on on-farm researchprojects. Each application should identifyhow the research process will handle theseissues.)

• Dissemination of results (A clear plan fordisseminating the results to the intendedaudience and methods for reachingaudiences beyond this needs to be in place.There needs to be a practical and achievableplan for ‘pushing’ the information toproducers.)

Project monitoring and completionevaluation is also a necessary component inthe funding cycle. At completion of theproject, an evaluation based on the originalproposal can be done based on finalreporting and documentation. Additionally,it would be invaluable to developmonitoring processes post-completion.


45

Monitoring would specifically examine thespread of research benefits, i.e. thedissemination and implementationprocesses. This sort of monitoring does notnecessarily have to be project specific;COABC could conduct follow-upmonitoring on a regional or sectoral basisand examine the impacts and effects of anumber of projects at once. CurrentlyCOABC does not seem to have allocatedresources to this function.

6.2 Organizational Development andProfessional Development

An important point heard on severaloccasions in different regions of theprovince was the need for moreorganizational development andcommunication. Specifically, manyparticipants felt relatively isolated fromother certified producers within their ownsector, possibly because the currentcertification organizations are based onregions, not on sectors.

For example, many ground crop producersin the North Okanagan have very littleknowledge or communication with theircounterparts in the Fraser Valley. Similarlythe certified livestock producers in theprovince are scattered in different regionsand have little communication with eachother.

Our researchers were told that the researchprocess for this study was valuable to manyparticipants because of the opportunity tomeet for purposes other than generalmeetings or certification meetings; and thatthey were able to discuss with other growersparticular production and marketingconcerns. We believe that these sentimentsdescribe the rising need for a continuingforum for expression of professionaldevelopment interests. This forum may bemost appropriately organized aroundsectoral interests, for example sectorcaucuses within a larger professionaldevelopment organization.

A large number of the research needsidentified require a combination ofagronomic research, information gathering,packaging, dissemination, and serviceprovision. There is an opportunity for the

development of an organization that wouldprovide this service to organic growers. Forexample, soil fertility and managementissues, including soil testing and thedetermination of appropriate soilamendments require this combination ofresearch, information, and service provision.Additionally, grower manuals, pricinginformation and market information (gaps,niches, regional opportunities) could beprovided by such a professionalorganization.

The justification for recommending thedevelopment of a professional developmentorganization comes from observing the workof similar groups and the discussions heardthroughout this study. The research needs(and other professional development needs)of B.C. organic producers are likely toincrease and evolve substantially in thefuture. The OSDP fund has both a limitedlifespan and financial resources; and isdirected and managed for the most part byvolunteers. A professional developmentorganization could provide informationpackaging and delivery, a research resourcefor growers, and a project monitoring andevaluation service for exogenous projects.12

6.3 The role of entrepreneurs

There is a critical role to be played byentrepreneurs in the different organic sectorsthroughout the province. Entrepreneurialskills and development play an importantrole in community development, especiallyin rural regions (see Pierce and Dale, 2000,Roseland et al, 2000, Pierce, Prager, andSmith, 2001, Wallace Centre, 2003). In theorganic agriculture sectors in BritishColumbia there are some ground crop, treefruit, and livestock producers, as well asdevelopers of livestock slaughtering andother processing facilities that would beconsidered leading-edge entrepreneursbecause of the direction they are providingto the industry as a whole. The developmentof organic agriculture can be driven by both 12 This proposed organization could generate arevenue stream by developing from the research itdirects, promotes or funds a distinct suite ofknowledge that could be formed into a service for itsmembers.


46

organizational impetus and entrepreneurialinnovation.

A cursory overview of the B.C. organicscene for the last twenty years reveals thatthe industry has been driven byentrepreneurs of various types, from workerco-ops and individual business people in thedistribution business, to manufacturers, togrowers and retail outlets. Only veryrecently has government funding beendirected toward organics. This independenceis one of the great strengths of the organicfood production and distribution system.

Individuals who decide to invest their effortand resources into projects such as livestockslaughtering facilities, seed handling andpackaging facilities, feed processingfacilities, or research services and the likewill likely play a major role in the futuretrends of organic agriculture in B.C. It isimportant that public organizations such asCOABC not deflect this processinadvertently, but instead encourageentrepreneurs, influencing their investmentdecisions if need be (and if possible) forstrategic reasons, and facilitate access to abroad range of industry specific informationfor new entrepreneurs. Research fundingdollars should be directed at skill andknowledge building activities that willbenefit the individual efforts of all producersand encourage the entrepreneurial culturethat has served the industry well to date.Given the funding criteria established by theAFFF, the challenge for OSDP decisionmakers will be to support activities ofgeneral benefit, while avoiding interferencewith or providing undue benefit to businessefforts already in process.

6.4 Role for Institutions

At the onset of this study, it was assumed bythe project developers that institutions,represented primarily by university orcollege based researchers, would play asignificant role in delineating the ‘researchneeds’ of B.C. organic producers. Both theresponse from producers, and review of theliterature, suggest that a more appropriaterole for institutions is as ‘service providers’for the industry, i.e. that research projects beproducer-led and expert-supported, not theother way round.

However, there are significant supportfunctions that can be provided by theseinstitutions quite apart from their potentialrole as research service providers. Incollaboration with industry, there are severalspecific issues upon which institutionalexpertise could be focused:

• multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary casestudies of existing organic operations. Abody of work describing farming operationsin various sectors would be extremelyvaluable for students of organic agriculture,for entrepreneurs preparing business plans,for industry leaders developing largerstrategies, and for sector decision-making. Apossible approach might include acollaborative effort to develop a ‘wholesystems’ based model for assessing,analyzing and reporting on individualfarming businesses. Once this model wasdeveloped and tested, perhaps graduatestudents could be engaged to conduct thefield work.

This collection of case studies would also bevaluable in the development of industrybenchmarks and best management practices,a goal set out in Agriculture Canada’sAgricultural Policy Framework. Fundingflowing from the APF might be available formuch of this work.

• industry and sector data collection – duringthis study, it became apparent that littlereliable data was available to describeorganic agriculture in the province.Knowing only the number of certified farmsor acreage in the province is of little use forindustry leaders, and especially forindividual entrepreneurs preparing businessplans for participation in the organicmarketplace. While several attempts havebeen made by the B.C. organic communityto collect more data, results have not beencomplete or comprehensive.

Many institutions have the expertise to dothis kind of research, and could no doubt doit more objectively and thoroughly thancould the industry itself. A Request ForProposals (RFP) to selected institutions byOSDP decision makers might be anappropriate approach.


47

• Ann Clark, in her assessment of OntarioOrganic Industry research needs hassuggested that one important first step wouldbe the preparation of a “compendium ofniche determinants for each major pestspecies (weed, insect, disease)” (Clark,2003). This work may be best done by acollaborative effort of institutions sinceliterature review and data collection from awide range of sources would be animportant component. An organization likeOACC may be interested in coordination ofthis type of project that has far reachingbenefits. OSDP decision makers may wantto fund or partially fund a B.C. componentof a larger project.

• This report suggests organizationalchanges as part of the answer to the needsexpressed to us by B.C. organic producers.COABC, the organization sponsoring thisproject, is itself in the process of reviewingits structure and practices. The businessfaculties of B.C. universities have expertisethat could be brought to bear on these issues.The objectivity and range of experience ofindividuals within these institutions wouldbenefit the industry as it undergoes animportant growth phase.

• An idea brought forward by Art Bomke ofUBC included the development of focused(rapid) response flexible teams whosepurpose would be to respond quickly toissues raised by producers (Personalcommunication, Whiterock, B.C., February2003). While the original intent was to dealprimarily with agricultural productionissues, this model could work equally aswell for some of the other concerns (e.g.economic) brought forward by producersand discussed earlier in this report.

• Institutions could contribute significantlyto agriculture in general and the organicindustry in particular by promoting graduateeducation specifically to generateresearchers able to handle complex systemsand interdisciplinary research (DARCOF,2002).

6.5 Research Methods

The participants in this study have indicatedthat their preference is for on-farm andparticipatory research work. This preference

is echoed throughout the research needsstudies we have reviewed.

There is also a preference for a ‘producer-led, expert(university)- supported’ approachto the choice of topics for any research workthat is undertaken. This approach issupported by many research anddevelopment institutions, and bygovernments through their funding criteria.(Clancy, Grow, 2003, p. 19)

The authors of this report envision a broadrange of on-farm and participatory researchprojects.

Valuable information could be obtainedinexpensively from very simple on-farmtrials comparing practices or treatments [seePractical Farmers Of Iowa website for aconcise explanation of the “PairedComparison” trial methodology]. Thepossible costs involved would be fortechnical assistance to properly set up thetrials and perhaps review the results, and forwrite up and publication costs. This reportrecommends a ‘small projects discretionaryfund’ for projects such as these.

At the other end of the cost spectrum couldbe large projects doing whole systems workinvolving interdisciplinary research teamsand multiple farm units in various regions.Such large projects would likely requirecooperative funding from multiple sources,not solely OSDP funding.

For these larger projects, and for some of thesmaller ones as well, many professionalsinvolved with research are recommending amultidisciplinary and/or interdisciplinaryapproach. If it is important to organicagriculture that production research besystems oriented and “examine both thebiophysical and socioeconomic effects ofalternative farming systems” (Stevenson,Posner, Hall, Cunningham, and Harrison,p.1), and that it is participatory (includesfarmers and others affected by farmerdecisions, such as suppliers and processors),and that this work be communicated to amuch wider audience than just thoseimmediately involved, then it will benecessary to have an overarching frameworkin which to make critical decisions. A modeladdressing these issues is described in


48

Radially organized teams by Stevenson et aland is included in this report as Appendix 4.This approach will be especially importantto the development of a model for thepreparation of case studies as suggested in‘6.4 Role for Institutions’ above. And mostimportant to producers, this researchapproach will address, by design, issues ofviability in the dynamic situation that all ofagriculture finds itself today. Thismultidisciplinary/interdisciplinary approachmay not be practical for each and everyproject undertaken, but could form thecontext in which each project is considered,so that the effect of the whole body of workis cumulative and purposeful, and mostimportant, relevant to producers.

6.6 Communications

The common request from producers thatinformation be ‘pushed’ (actively delivered)to them, likely means that the listing ofinformation or research results on a websitewill not be sufficient to meet their needs.More active communication tools areavailable, including subscription-basedtailored information packaging, bothelectronic and print media. ‘Pushing’ has acost that will have to be borne by producers.CyberHelp and The Grower, the two currentmedia offering information services to B.C.organic producers, may be able to extendtheir services in the direction of acustomized ‘trade journal’ directed atsectors within their readership.

Certainly the results of research projectsfunded by the OSDP will need to becirculated within the B.C. organic industryas the first priority, and secondly, madeavailable to a wider audience.

Conferences, workshops, seminars, focuseddiscussion groups, sector caucuses, farmfield days, farm tours, and the like, are someof the more active means of informationcollection and dissemination. Partnershipfunding from many government agenciesand private sources are available for thiswork.

The Organic Advisory Service already inplace is considered valuable and should bestrengthened. Production manuals that have

been initiated but not completed need to bereactivated.

Resources spent on these activities tospread existing knowledge may prove morebeneficial than ‘de novo’ research projects.

6.7 Procedural Recommendations

6.7.1. Establish a small projectsdiscretionary fund, offering quickturnaround on projects under $2000, with a50% cash-matched funding criteria. Thiswould require a block of funds in the handsof the decision makers, to avoid the lengthyapproval, administration and cash flowprocess now in place.

6.7.2. Set up a pre-proposal research fund tobe accessed by producer groups proposingprojects. This would be used for hiringprofessional researchers to compile afocused literature review on the topic ofinterest. Results of the literature reviewshould go to a database for future reference(OACC, CyberHelp, university based or in-house). As in the small projectsdiscretionary fund, this should have a 50%cash-matched criteria, maximum $3000,from funds in the control of industrydecision makers.

6.7.3. Establish a ‘decision makers fund’that would allow the current OSDP decisionmakers and their successors to hire expertassistance to review the merits of largerproposals. This assistance would be able toassess the adequacy and analysis ofliterature reviews and the efficacy of theproposed work. This fund could also beaccessed to hire expertise to assess thespread of benefits of activities initiated bythe OSDP decision makers.

6.7.4. The OSDP committee, which is nowappointed, should be elected, as an interimmeasure, to approve research projects thatare in the strategic interests of B.C. organicproducers. (This group could become thesteering committee for the formation of theprofessional development organizationrecommended in 6.2 above.) The process ofreview should be transparent and decisionsshould be published. Information regardingall proposals submitted, approved and/orrejected should be public information,except in those very specific instances where


49

proprietary information needs to beprotected.

6.7.5. COABC should facilitate theformation of a professional developmentorganization (6.2 above), either insideCOABC as an independent subsidiary, orpreferably, outside the COABCorganizational structure. In either case, it isimportant that this organization berepresentative and operate at arms length inorder that producers have the opportunity todiscuss and express a perspective and takeactions independent of the quasi-governmental regulatory and enforcementfunction that is the core business ofCOABC.

6.7.6. The work initiated by this project isongoing and incremental. The professionaldevelopment agency suggested above needsan executive director who will take the workpresented in this report and add to it andfocus it under the direction of a newconstituency.

6.8 First steps towards developing aresearch strategy

6.8.1 The first need for the B.C. organicindustry is data collection on the industryitself and its place within the larger food andagriculture industry. This has to be reliableand comprehensive data, from whichstrategic decisions can be made. It must beinclusive, i.e. not restricted to COABC andits affiliated organizations on the productionside, and also include a critical analysis ofmarkets and trends. It is important thatsurveys and other methodologies used fordata collection, and the data collection,collation and analysis, be designed andimplemented with independent professionalassistance. One way to accomplish thiswould be for the OSDP decision makers tosend out a request for proposals toinstitutions and/or professionals. It should bepossible to find funding partners orcooperating institutions to assist with thisimportant (and expensive) work, forexample APF funding.

6.8.2 OSDP decision makers must search foropportunities to partner with otheragricultural research activities in theprovince and elsewhere in order to

participate in larger projects, encourage theinclusion of an ‘organic’ component inconventional research and have greaterbenefits flow from limited resources.

6.8.3 OSDP decision makers will want toinitiate a communications plan directed toall organic producers in the province inorder to implement any actions resultingfrom this study.

Conclusions

We have spoken with a cross section oforganic producers throughout the provinceand prepared a summary of their prioritiesfor research and information as of the springof 2003 (Table 3).

During the initial stages of this project, weattempted to understand the differences inresponses from the participating B.C.producers by describing ‘organics asindustry’ and ‘organics as movement’, andfurther as ‘product driven’ versus ‘processdriven’.

This dynamic surfaces again in thedevelopment of a strategic approach toresearch and education by characterizing thechoices facing decision makers as betweeninvesting in projects, or investing in humanresources.

In the conclusion of the Walz report, underthe heading ‘Towards An Organic FarmingResearch Agenda’, the author states, “Therelative ranking of research priorities…provides an initial guide for targetingresearch and extension resources. The broadgeneral quality of these priority areas begsmany immediate questions…The next stepis to assemble specific hypotheses andproblem statements within each priorityarea.”

Similarly for this B.C. study, much workremains to be done to focus resourcesaccurately towards issues of importance toB.C. producers.

We have suggested an organizationalresponse that would allow B.C. organicgrowers to further discuss these issues andgather additional pertinent information andexpert assistance, with a view to theformulation of a professional development


50

strategy that would further their interests.While this organizational process isunderway, it should be possible for OSDPdecision makers operating within the currentprogram to allocate resources to projects thataddress the priorities identified in Table 3,keeping in mind that producer input,producer oversight and producer impact arekey decision making criteria.

This is the ‘project’ approach.

Don Macke, Co-director of the Center forRural Entrepreneurship in Lincoln, NE,presented a paper to a workshop entitled‘Agriculture as a Tool for RuralDevelopment’ in April 2003. Speakingabout rural development and the policy andprogram support needed to assist developingagricultural businesses, he stated, “This is ahuman resources development gamerequiring us to invest in people who can thencreate more successful ventures.”

At the same workshop, Anthony Smith,Executive Director of the LightstoneFoundation and Community DevelopmentCorporation in Moyers, WV, stated, “...[weshould]…support entrepreneurialcommunities, not projects.”

One of our grower participants put it thisway, “…Support the farmer...include morethan organic farmers’ interests whenconsidering needs in the regions, forexample, conventional small farmers,customers and other regional sustainableagriculture interests.”

Since it is most likely that the ‘increase inproduction capacity’ goal identified by theCOABC’s strategic plan will be met byentrepreneurial effort, as it has in the past, itwill be necessary for COABC to invest itstime and resources to enhance the skills andabilities of existing and future organicgrowers in the province.

Investing in organic industry humanresources requires a different strategicapproach than investing in ‘projects’.

Finally, as one producer stated during theinterview process, “…if the B.C. organicindustry is to thrive, not just survive...it willbe important that its collective resources befocused…to anticipate and research, not theneeds of the past, but the needs of thefuture.”


51

ReferencesAgriNova Consulting (March 2001). Organic Farming Research in Atlantic Canada. AtlanticCanadian Organic Regional Network.

Bowler I.R. (1992). Geography of agriculture in developed market economics. London:Longman.

Bradshaw, B., Cocklin, C., & Smit, Barry (1998). Subsidy removal and farm level stewardship inNorthland. New Zealand Geographer, 54(2), 2

Bradshaw, B. & Smit, B. (1997). Subsidy removal and agroecosystem health. Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment. 64, 245-260.

Babbie, E. (2001). The practice of social research. Belmont, California: Wadsworth PublishingCompany.

Clancy, K., Grow, S., & Oberholtzer, L. (2003). Agriculture as a Tool for Rural Development:Workshop Proceedings. Arlington, VA: Henry A. Wallace Center for Agricultural &Environmental Policy.

Clark, A. (2003), Organic agriculture research priorities, Project #025627. Unpublished.

DARCOF (2002). Midterm Evaluation of Danish Research in Organic Farming. Retrieved fromthe World Wide Web, April 29, 2003: http://www.foejo.dk/GB/sider/pub/index_pub.html

Mason J. (1998). Qualitative Researching. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Organic Sector Development Program. Retrieved from the World Wide Web, June 15, 2003:http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/organic-sector-initiative/index.html

Pacific Strategies Group Inc. (1995). British Columbia Organic Industry Strategic Plan.Vancouver: Certified Organic Associations of British Columbia.

Padel, S., Powell, J., & Lampkin, N. (2001). Consultation of Organic Farming ResearchPriorities in the U.K. Aberystwyth: Organic Centre Wales, Institute of Rural Studies,University of Wales.

Pierce, J.T. (1993). Agriculture, Sustainability and the Imperatives of Policy Reform. Geoforum,24(4), 381-396.

Pierce, J.T. (1999). Making Communities the Strong Link. In Pierce, J.T. & A. Dale (Eds.),Communities, Development and Sustainability across Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Pierce, J.T., Prager, S.D., & Smith, R.A. (2001). Rural communities, Ecologies, and Economies.Burnaby, B.C.: Simon Fraser University Press.

Roseland M. (1998). Towards Sustainable Communities; Resources for Citizens and theirgovernments. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.

Serecon Management Consulting Inc. (June 2000). Yukon Agriculture Multi-Year DevelopmentPlan. Edmonton, Alberta: Yukon Territorial Government Department of Agriculture.

Smit P., & Smither, J. (1993). Sustainable agriculture: interpretation, analysis and prospects.Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 16(3), 499-524.

Stevenson, G.W., Posner, J., Hall, J., Cunningham, L., & Harrison, J. (1994). Addressing thechallenges of sustainable agriculture research and extension at land grant universities:Radially organized teams at Wisconsin. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 9, 1-2.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: combining qualitative andquantitative approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series, 46. London: SAGEPublications.

Walz, E. (1999). Final results of the third biennial National Farmers’ Survey. Santa Cruz, CA:OFRF.

Yin R.K. (1994). Case Study Research: design and methods. London: Sage Publications.


52

Appendix 1: Semi-structured interview questions

IntroductionWe’d like to talk to you about research for organic agriculture in B.C., and will use yoursuggestions and answers to some interview questions to complete our ‘research needs study’. Thisstudy is going to determine the direction of future research funded through COABC. The answersto these questions and results from subsequent workshops will result in a report that will helpguide decisions on production related research proposals that are received by the Organic SectorInitiative Advisory Committee. Any input you can give is important and the following list ofquestions will be the focus of an informal and confidential interview. If you would be willing toparticipate in this study, please take a minute to think about the following questions and indicate aconvenient time to contact you, preferably by phone, between the dates of March 12 and 31.

Part I1. What is the primary production focus from your farm? Secondary/other production focus?

2. How many acres do you have in organic production this year? Relative to other organicproducers in your region or sector, would you consider your operation small, medium or large?Are you satisfied with your production levels?

3. How long have you been growing organic crops or livestock? How long have you been sellingwhat you grow?

4. Where do you see your farm heading over the next 20 years/generation/for your kids? Whatwould you like to see happen with your farm to achieve this?

Part IIThis section asks some questions about your previous and current experiences with farm-relatedresearch and where you think it should be heading in the future. We want you to think beyondyour own operation and speculate on the sectors of organic agriculture with which you’re mostfamiliar. (i.e. What will be good for the entire sector/industry? Where should the sector/industrybe heading in the future?)

5. What have you found to be the major challenges to achieving the production level of the majorproducts on your farm? What have you found to be the major challenges in achieving the kind ofproduction system that you want? (if different than the first part of the question). For example, doyou have problems maintaining target production levels? Why? Are there crops that you’d like togrow or have tried previously but don’t grow now? What stands in your way? Is maintainingproduct quality a challenge in your operation?

6. What do you find consistently costs you the most or requires the most labour, or more thanexpected, to maintain production levels?

7. Looking at your operation – where do you see the most pressing need for research andimproved information in the following components: (Be specific where you can – particular crop,particular weeds, diseases, harvesting techniques, quality control techniques, etc.)– planting/growing?– harvesting?– post-harvest handling?– marketing? -quality control throughout?

8. What kinds of experimentation do you do on your farm? Do you keep formal records of the


53

results? Do you discuss or compare your experiments with other producers?

9. Is there previous collaborative research (on-farm/off-farm) that you’ve been involved in thathas or hasn’t worked out? Please list and describe these briefly. What research agencies orfunding sources were involved?

10. Would you be willing to be involved in on-farm research again? Under what conditions?What would you be willing to contribute – cash, land, equipment, technical skills, planning anddesign, etc.?

11. In your experience, what style or method of researching in agriculture is most useful toproducers like yourself? (Is it field trials, on-farm research, university/farmer partnerships,research done by community organizations, research done by informal farm groups, or someother arrangement?)

12. Do you think that the research needs of the B.C. organic farming community could best beserved by:

12.1 many small projects in all regions and sectors12.2 larger projects in each sector12.3 a single large initiative benefiting all producers

13. Do you feel that the research needs on your farm are representative of most of the otherproducers in your area? Are there other producers who would have different needs because ofsize, niche markets, etc?

14. If you had to choose a single important research interest, what would it be:14.1 for your farm?14.2 for your sector?14.3 for the province?

15. Do you feel that your sector (e.g. organic potato industry, organic vegetable sector, organicbeef sector, organic apple growers, organic broiler sector, etc.) in B.C. faces the most pressingchallenge with achieving increased production levels, or with marketing abilities, or qualitycontrol, or processing, or other issues beyond the farm gate, etc.?

16. We’re trying to come up with some research priorities your sector (e.g. organic potatoindustry, organic vegetable sector, organic beef sector, organic apple growers, organic broilersector, etc.) in B.C. – what would you recommend from your experience? Please be specific ifyou can. Rank your choices.Do you know if the research you are suggesting has been done elsewhere?If yes, where? What results? Why do you think it should be repeated?

17. What are your information-source preferences for learning about recent studies or innovationsin your industry:- Books?- Newspapers/magazines?- The internet?- Farm tours?- Field days to see results of research activities?- Demonstration projects?- Word of mouth?- E-mail discussion lists?- Meetings and conferences- Classes or workshops


54

Appendix 2: Workshop Guide

Handout 1- Specific research priorities

Objective:

To determine the most important and immediate priorities for future research in the organicagriculture sector.

Instructions:

Please use the following questions as a guide throughout the discussion. Space has been left foryou to add points for discussion or for inclusion in the meeting notes.

1. From your experience, where do you see the most pressing need for research and or improvedinformation? (Be specific where you can – particular crop, particular weeds, diseases,harvesting techniques, quality control techniques, etc.)

a. planting/growing?

b. harvesting?

c. post-harvest handling?

d. marketing?

e. quality control throughout?

2. Can you think of particular research and or extension projects (on-farm, with an organization,etc.) that you would like to see happen?

3. In your experience, what style or method of researching in agriculture is most useful toproducers like yourself? (e.g. field trials, on-farm research, university/farmer partnerships,research done by community organizations, research done by informal farm groups, or someother arrangement?)

Handout 2 - General research directions

Objective:

To examine the long-term goals of the organic sector in B.C. with respect to research anddevelopment.

Instructions:

Please use the following questions as a guide throughout the discussion. Space has been left foryou to add points for discussion or for inclusion in the meeting notes.

1. Where do you feel most emphasis should be placed for research and future development of theorganic sector – production, harvesting, marketing, quality control, etc.?

2. What are the benefits to research that is oriented toward increasing production within theorganic sector?

3. The drawbacks?

4. What do you think the role of membership organizations should be regarding research in theorganic sector?

5. What do you think are the biggest challenges to the organic sector in B.C. in the comingyears?


55

Appendix 3: Reference Web Sites (a place to start)

http://www.ipmalmanac.com/ Integrated Pest Management

http://www.oekoforum.de/english/index.html Environmental Research Network -Germany

http://www.oeko-institut.org/index.html Institute for Applied Ecology - Germany

http://www.oel.fal.de/ Institute for Environmental Agriculture

www.organicagcentre.ca Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada

http://www.organic-research.com/ International info - Searchable abstracts

http://www.organic-research.org/ International info

http://www.pmac.net/ge.htm Pest Management At The Crossroads

http://www.rachel.org/home_eng.htm Environmental Research Foundation

http://www.sare.org/ Sustainable Ag Research & EducationNetwork

http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/ Sustainable Ag Research & Education,UC Davis

http://www.attra.org/ Alternative Technology Transfer for RuralAreas

http://www.epa.gov US Environmental Protection Agency

http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/rcbtoa CyberHelp (B.C.)

http://www.cog.ca Canadian Organic Growers (COG)

http://www.reap-canada.com REAP Canada (Resource EfficientAgricultural Production)

http://www.pfi.iastate.edu/ The Practical Farmers of Iowa

http://www.ofrf.org/research Organic Farming Research Foundation(Calif.)

www.defra.gov.uk U.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheriesand Food (now the Department ofEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs),

http://www.nal.usda.gov/ag98/ Agricola (Agricultural OnLine AccessUSDA)

http://www.infobasket.gov.bc.ca BCMAFF InfoBasket

http://www.fptt.gc.ca/agri.html Federal Research Facilities (includingAgassiz Research Centre/SummerlandResearch Stn. Centre)

http://www.fptt-pftt.gc.ca/bc.html#agassiz Pacific AgriFood Research Centre inAgassiz, and in Summerland

http://www.carc-crac.ca/english/index.htm. Canadian Agricultural Food ResearchCouncil


56

Appendix 4: Radially organized teams

Addressing the challenges of sustainable agriculture research and extension at land-grantuniversities

by Steve Stevenson, Joshua Posner, John Hall, Lee Cunningham, and Jan HarrisonSteve Stevenson is a rural sociologist and Assistant Director, Center for Integrated AgriculturalSystems; Joshua Posner is Professor, Department of Agronomy; and Jan Harrison is a graduatestudent, Department of Agronomy and Institute for Environmental Studies, all at University ofWisconsin, Madison, WI 53706. John Hall is an agronomist with the Michael Fields AgriculturalInstitute, East Troy, WI 53120; Lee Cunningham is the agribusiness agent, University ofWisconsinExtension, Walworth County, Elkhorn, WI 53121. This article appeared in theAmerican Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 9:1&2 (1994), and is adapted for electronicpublication and reproduced here by permission of the publisher, the Henry A. Wallace Institutefor Alternative Agriculture.

AbstractResearchers at land-grant universities are under pressure to widen their research objectives, whichrequires them to expand their inquiry from a disciplinary base to a systems level, to includefarmers and nonuniversity organizations as research collaborators, and to communicate withbroader sectors of the public, such as consumers and policy makers. However, there are fewrewards for scientists who undertake long-term, systems-based research. An approach that bringstogether multidisciplinary, multiprofession teams using a radial model of organization hassuccessfully addressed these challenges in Wisconsin. A small "hub" manages the team, with theremaining participants linked to component task forces or "satellite" projects. This enablesresearch to be done on both multidisciplinary and related singlediscipline questions. Radiallyorganized teams can attract diverse people with different time commitments and rewardincentives. The research meets the criteria of public and academic audiences alike. For innovativeresearch and extension efforts like radial teams to reach their full potential, larger institutionalchanges are needed within the landgrant system and professional agricultural societies.

Key Words: multidisciplinary team research, land-grant universities, alternative agriculture,integrated cropping systems

IntroductionIn applied agricultural research, the landgrant universities face several major challenges throughthe 1990s and beyond:

Challenge I: To adopt systems oriented, agroecological approaches that examine both thebiophysical and socioeconomic effects of alternative farming systems.

Voices inside and outside the land-grant system increasingly are calling on agriculturalresearchers to expand their inquiry from a discipline base to a systems level (Schuh, 1986; Butteland Busch, 1988; National Research Council, 1989). Behind these calls is the need to identify,evaluate, and implement agricultural systems that are "economically sound, socially acceptable,and environmentally compatible" (Lacy, 1993, p. 41). Some writers have focused on systemsanalyses in the biophysical areas (Duvick, 1990; Francis et al., 1990), others on the connectionsbetween the biological and the social sciences (Heberlein, 1988; Lacy, 1992), and still others onmatters of social justice (Allen et al., 1991).

Challenge II: To expand the circle of research and extension collaborators to include farmers andrepresentatives of nonuniversity organizations.

Suggested additional participants include producers, and where applicable, suppliers, processors,


57

nonprofit environmental and consumer organizations, and representatives of government agencies(Busch and Lacy, 1983; Schaller, 1991). Such calls have several bases: the historicalcitizen/university dialogue envisioned under the Morrow, Hatch, and SmithLever Acts (Danbom,1986); a growing awareness among private U.S. corporations that listening to customers is crucial(Deming, 1982; Peters and Waterman, 1982); and the success of farmer involvement in appliedresearch in international agriculture (Chambers et al., 1989). Reasons for expanding the circle ofresearch and extension collaborators range from raising the quality and relevance of theknowledge generated (Suppe, 1987; Stevenson and Klemme, 1992), to restoring the image of theland-grant system (Buttel and Busch, 1988).

Challenge III: To communicate research results to broader audiences, including consumers andpolicy makers.

The range of citizen groups who are actual or potential constituencies for the land-grantuniversity system has changed significantly since the system began in the late nineteenth century(Buttel and Busch, 1988). Consequently, landgrant scientists and educators should establishcommunication with these new groups (Debertin, 1992). Particularly important are consumersand policy makers (National Research Council, 1989; Clancy, 1992), two groups with whomland-grant institutions historically have not communicated well (Buttel and Busch, 1988; Lacy,1993). Not giving attention to these communication channels will prove increasingly costly as thepublic becomes more concerned about agriculture's impact on the nation's natural resource baseand the food system (National Research Council, 1989; Gussow, 1991).

Multidisciplinary, multiprofessional, radially organized teams can attract diverse groups of peopleto undertake various types of systems research and extension. In the next section, we outline theradial model of team organization, an approach that offers particular advantages for addressingthe three challenges listed above. Next, we describe two team projects in Wisconsin that use thismodel. One is a case study; the other uses a traditional replicated research design to comparealternative production strategies. We then assess the radial model after three years of experience,and conclude by offering some thoughts on what else the land-grant universities must do to meetthe challenges of the next decades.

Radially organized teams: the modelLittle attention has been paid to the organizational dynamics of effective multidisciplinary,multiprofessional teams in university-based agricultural research. The radial approach tostructuring applied research and extension teams was inspired by the work of severalorganizational theorists who emphasize participatory leadership and goal-setting (Deming, 1982;Wright and Morley, 1989; Miller et al., 1990), adaptive divisions of labor (Perrow, 1979; Kanter,1983; MacRae et al., 1992), and multiple reward structures (Weisbord, 1976; Peters andWaterman, 1982). Many organizations, including research institutions, traditionally have dividedlabor either by specialty (discipline-based departments) or by multiskilled units (task forces)(Weisbord,1976). Radially organized teams allow both.

This model is so named because when viewed schematically it resembles a spoked wheel. Thecenter or "hub" consists of a few systems-oriented collaborators. They are connected to "satellite"researchers who focus on specific, discipline-oriented problems. Within the hub is the "axle," theadministrative center.

The responsibilities of the team's hub include focusing on overall project objectives, particularlythe interdisciplinary or systems-level investigations, and helping the axle with day-to-daymanagement. To accomplish these tasks, hub members must meet frequently to discussdeveloping situations. They also initiate new satellite activities, integrate the findings of thecompleted research, and direct the outreach components.


58

Other team members involved in satellite research have more narrowly defined objectives that fitcomfortably into existing disciplinary approaches, such as monitoring weed managementstrategies, arthropod dynamics or farm economics. These activities can be either long- orshortterm.

The "spokes" or means of communication that connect the hub with the satellites include fieldvisits, team meetings, progress reports, and telephone. The axle in this model consists of theprincipal investigators, who are responsible for helping the teams to function effectively and fordealing with external agencies, such as by soliciting funding and writing reports.

In summary, radially organized teams do the following:· They foster effective coordination of research and extension activities on multidisciplinary andrelated single discipline questions on a wide range of topics.· They enable research coordinators to attract a wide range of university and nonuniversityparticipants with differing motivations, time commitments, and reward requirements.· They allow satellite studies related to the core scientific explorations to be done according todifferent schedules.

Projects that illustrate the radial modelTwo Wisconsin projects currently employing the radial model of team organization are describedin Tables 1 and 2. One project, the Krusenbaum study, is a whole-farm case study. Its objective isto monitor and assist a young farm couple as they convert a newly leased dairy farm fromconventional to organic management. The other project, the Wisconsin Integrated CroppingSystems Trial, is a field-sized, replicated study that compares the productivity, profitability andenvironmental impact of six agricultural systems at two locations. Both projects began in 1989.

Forming teams and resolving conflicts over research designWith a general research hypothesis in mind (Tables 1 and 2), the principal investigators or axismembers of each project began forming teams through ad hoc meetings to which they invitedmany potential team members. The primary tasks of these early meetings were to gauge people'sinterests and to choose the general research methods for each project (Tables 1 and 2).

Issues associated with alternative agricultural systems had been heavily politicized in recent years(National Resource Council, 1989; Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, 1990;Potash and Phosphate Institute, 1990). Therefore, both projects gave high priority to insuring thatthe teams represented a range of philosophies so that future audiences would consider them"honest brokers." As Table 3 shows, the result was that the teams included a significant range ofuniversity scientists and other agricultural professionals. Because of the applied nature of theresearch, the scientific cores of both projects were recruited from university extension researchersdrawn from the biological, physical, and social sciences. Farmer members of the Krusenbaumcase study were selected because of their experience with systems that use reduced levels ofpurchased inputs. Farmer members of the Cropping Systems Trial, on the other hand, werechosen to represent a range of production strategies that paralleled the cropping systems beingevaluated in the field-sized experiment.

About half the scientists invited to the initial meetings joined one of the projects. The primaryreasons of those who did not were lack of time or objections to the research methods. Theseobjections involved three methodological issues. First, several scientists discounted theKrusenbaum project because confounding phenomena are inevitable when an entire farmingsystem is being studied, and because it is difficult to generalize from a case study. Second, aserious debate erupted in the early meetings of the Cropping Systems Trial between ecologistsand production scientists. Expressing boredom with the simplicity of most agricultural systems,the ecologists argued for including a wide diversity of crops in the trials. The productionscientists, on the other hand, wanted to limit the comparisons to economically reasonable


59

alternatives. The project's hub developed a compromise consisting of six rotations, all potentiallycompetitive economically, but ranging in complexity from continuous corn to controlled livestockgrazing.

The last conflict was over farmers' power within the teams. The university scientists all acceptedthe principle of farmer participation in decision making, but several objected strenuously to theprincipal investigator's commitment to submit all research protocols to farmer evaluation, withthe possibility of farmer veto. Scientists who felt most strongly about this withdrew.

A related disagreement was over how fast to release information from the research projects.Farmers and extension agents were concerned about the slow publication timetables of theuniversity scientists. This conflict was resolved by scientists agreeing to present preliminaryresults at field days and through university departmental papers.

Involving a wide range of university and nonuniversity participants in the design phase resulted ina team of self-selected people for each project who felt comfortable working together and whoagreed upon a common set of objectives (Tables 1 and 2). However, it quickly became clear thatfew participants in either project had the time to administer or coordinate the proposed researchand outreach. The radial model of organization helped to resolve this impasse by accommodatingteam members' varying time commitments and research preferences. Table 3 describes the axle,hub, and satellite structures that eventually emerged for the two projects.

Using the radial modelAlthough the two projects have very different designs, their objectives are similar (Tables 1 and2). Both emphasize understanding the biophysical and socioeconomic dynamics of the farmingsystems under study. Identifying and evaluating alternative production strategies figure stronglyin both projects, and each team has made substantial commitments to educational and outreachactivities.

As a result, there are many parallels between the two projects' hub activities (Tables 1 and 2).The first task of both hubs was to design the basic crop rotations. Other tasks includedestablishing data collection and measurement protocols for the performance of the crops andlivestock and for economic and management indicators. Both projects hold winter meetings atwhich all members review plans for the coming season. Hub members meet regularly in thespring and early summer to implement timely changes in cropping plans. Additional hubactivities include organizing field days, site visits and other educational programs, and annualteam meetings to review project and team performance. Less coordinated effort is required for thesatellite activities, which are component-specific and often shorter term. As described inTables 1 and 2, these parallel explorations include agronomic, animal, physical, and farmmanagement studies.

An assessment of the radial modelThree years' of experience with the two Wisconsin projects is enough to allow an initialassessment of the radial team model. The assessment focuses first on how well these radial teamshave addressed the three challenges to the land-grant system posed earlier, and second on howwell radially structured teams solve organizational problems generic to all team efforts.

The three land-grant challenges:

· To adopt systems level researchBoth Wisconsin projects meet this challenge, with qualifications. Each focuses on an importantsystem--an entire farm in one case, and a series of alternative cropping systems in the other.However, nearly all the analyses so far have been done in parallel rather than interactively.Agronomists compare nutrient cycling or weed ecology in the various cropping systems. Soil


60

scientists focus on the systems' impacts on soil erosion or groundwater quality. Social scientistsmonitor the farms' labor use, management decisions, and profit margins. Helped by hub membersand team meetings, such investigations result in important multidisciplinary as distinct frominterdisciplinary research.

Some systems-level problem solving of an interdisciplinary nature has been undertaken in eachproject. The Krusenbaum team has worked interactively to generate dairy forage systems thatcomply with environmental standards, meet the herd's nutrient needs, and are suited to the farmfamily's labor and financial resources. As the literature suggests, truly interdisciplinary analysis isboth required and facilitated by systems level problem solving (Birnbaum, 1982).Interdisciplinary efforts, however, require commitments of time and resources that only a fewparticipants could make.

· To expand the circle of research and extension collaboratorsBoth Wisconsin teams have done well in responding to this challenge. As Table 3 reveals, bothhave farmers, county extension agents, scientists from non-profit organizations, and professionalagricultural consultants as active members. Also, the Cropping Systems Trial includes a highschool teacher and the superintendents of the institutional farms hosting the investigations.A greater challenge than recruiting these nontraditional research participants has been to obtainmore than token involvement. As indicated above, the issue of farmers' power drove severalprospective university scientists away when the teams were being formed. Both proactive andreactive organizational mechanisms have been used to give the nonscientists on the teams a sensethat they are "owners" of the projects and exert real authority. First, the farmers, extension agentsand research station superintendents were involved from the outset in setting the objectives anddesigns of both projects. This resulted in placing high priority on farmers' concerns regarding thefinancial, labor, and management implications of the farming systems being studied and on theextension agents' concerns about the educational components. Second, nonscientists in both teamsare empowered to veto project ideas that they collectively judge to be off the target.

· To communicate results to broader audiences, including consumers and policy makersAs with the other two challenges, the Wisconsin teams have had qualified success in meeting thisoutreach challenge. A large number and good variety of people attended traditional field dayssponsored by the two projects. Also encouraging has been the response to several innovativeoutreach activities generated by team members. These include elementary and high schoolcurriculum units developed by the teams' county extension agents and public school teachers(Cunningham, 1992) and twilight meetings, cohosted with the Audubon Society, on theinteractions between agriculture and wildlife. Attempts to communicate with state policy makers,on the other hand, have been only partially successful.

As with the other two challenges, the Wisconsin teams have had qualified success in meeting thisoutreach challenge. A large number and good variety of people attended traditional field dayssponsored by the two projects. Also encouraging has been the response to several innovativeoutreach activities generated by team members. These include elementary and high schoolcurriculum units developed by the teams' county extension agents and public school teachers(Cunningham, 1992) and twilight meetings, cohosted with the Audubon Society, on theinteractions between agriculture and wildlife. Attempts to communicate with state policy makers,on the other hand, have been only partially successful.

Organizational evaluationBesides having to meet these three challenges facing land-grant universities, the radial teams atWisconsin had to address organizational challenges that are generic to all team efforts, but areparticularly important to these teams because of the mix of disciplines, professions, and politicaloutlooks. To function well, radial teams must develop effective leadership and goal settingprocedures, foster successful communication and conflict resolution, and insure that the necessary


61

resources are obtained to reward and motivate team members (Weisbord, 1976).

· LeadershipEffective leadership is critical in managing the varied activities of multiprofession radial teams.It requires the teams' axle and hub members to make a substantial commitment and to becompetent both in scientific judgment and human relations skills (Anbar, 1973; Rossini andPorter, 1979). Commitment is required because leadership and coordinating duties often arefrustrating and time consuming (Heberlein, 1988). As shown in Table 1, radial teams needsubstantial monitoring and adjusting. This attention is particularly necessary in agriculture, whereparticipating professionals like university scientists and family farmers are accustomed toworking independently.

Pivotal to the successes of both Wisconsin teams has been the leadership of an axle person whonot only has a background in farming systems research but also has a mandate from the college tofacilitate applied, multidisciplinary projects. Such job descriptions are rare in landgrantinstitutions. Also, both teams have profited from the inclusion of a social scientist interested insmall group dynamics, another nontraditional area for agricultural researchers.

· Internal communication and conflict resolutionThese areas clearly show the importance of leadership and a center of team accountability. Afterexperimenting unsuccessfully with more complex communication structures, both teams decidedto transmit all significant information through one axle faculty person. Agendas for planning andcommunication are prepared by this team leader and carried out in several ways. The hub of theCropping Systems Trial meets four times a year, while the Krusenbaum team hub has averagedover six meetings per year. The full teams meet twice a year, once before planting and once afterharvest. Annual reports summarizing the various satellite studies also are important incommunication.

Conflict resolution also is handled in various ways. Whenever possible, compromises are forgedat team meetings, such as the compromise mentioned earlier between the ecological andproduction groups in the Cropping Systems Trial. When such resolution is not possible, thesatellite studies and onfarm trials offer opportunities for conflicting sides to try out theirpreferences, such as testing the effectiveness of various soil additives.

As mentioned, veto power is important for both projects. An agreement was reached early in theKrusenbaum project that whenever the farm couple chose not to follow advice offered by theteam, they would tell the hub why in writing. The Krusenbaums kept a decision diary that showssuch veto power was exercised primarily when the couple believed that following the advicewould require too much labor or would significantly set back the farm's transition to organiccertification (Stevenson, 1993). The veto power exercised by the county committees of theCropping Systems Trial was less aggressive, and usually involved recommending modificationsof the satellite research experiments proposed by university scientists.

· Obtaining resourcesThe marginal status of long-term, systems research is revealed by the difficulties that both teamshave had in securing funding. One problem has to do with the research objectives. Since neitherstudy focuses primarily on agricultural inputs, it is difficult to go to some traditional sources thatfund applied research. On the other hand, neither study is sufficiently process-oriented to haveaccess to funding sources for basic biological research. Timing is another problem. Neitherlongterm rotations nor farms in transition are in equilibrium during the early years, so that fewconclusions can be drawn with short-term funding.

Finally, academic prejudices appear to play a role. The Research Committee of the GraduateSchool at the University of Wisconsin, for example, rejected funding for the Cropping Systems


62

Trial with the justification that the school "should not fund projects that do not potentially helpfaculty to develop research programs fundable by federal agencies like NIH, USDA, NSF, etc."The committee twisted the knife deeper by commenting to the principal investigator that its funds"should go to projects with clearly stated hypotheses and methodologies used in creative ways"(!) (memo to Joshua Posner, December 12, 1991).

On the positive side, support for the two projects has been secured from nontraditional fundingsources, including the University of Wisconsin's Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems(Stevenson and Klemme, 1992), the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and ConsumerProtection, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, USDA's Sustainable AgricultureResearch and Education program, and the Kellogg Foundation.

SummaryOur experience shows that radially organized teams of scientists, farmers, and other agriculturalprofessionals can make important contributions to sustainable agriculture research and extension.Areas identified for further work and development include:

· Doing truly interdisciplinary research to complement multidisciplinary and single disciplineinvestigations.

· Broadening the acceptance of the contributions that nonscientists make tomultiprofessional research teams.

· Developing creative outreach strategies to communicate with wider sectors of the agriculturalcommunity, particularly policy makers.

· Generating new sources of funding and support for long-term, systems-orientedagroecological studies.

To address these challenges successfully, significant institutional changes will be needed withinthe landgrant system and professional agricultural societies. These changes include:

· Broadening the public research agenda beyond the traditional orientation toward agriculturalproduction issues and the recent emphasis on the molecular and cellular levels (Bonnen, 1986;Buttel and Busch, 1988). This will mean seriously upgrading the attention given to such topics asecological systems, whole farm and community analyses, and matters of class, race, gender, andintergenerational equity in agricultural and food systems (Allen et al., 1991).

· Modifying institutional structures to give a clear mandate for integrating high quality sciencewith systems-oriented applied research and outreach programs. Encouraging efforts to do so areoccurring at centers of integrated or sustainable agricultural systems on several land-grantcampuses across the country (Lacy, 1992). Such efforts, however, need to be institutionallystructured at higher levels of organizational authority and integration (Weiss and Robb, 1989;Beattie, 1991).

· Altering the flow of resources and rewards to create incentives for interdisciplinary researchand outreach efforts. Examples include devising ways to credit multiple authorship fully(Friedhoff, 1988), securing space in prestigious journals for reporting high quality, systemsoriented research (Heberlein, 1988), and revising job descriptions and tenure evaluations for newfaculty hired to provide leadership to effective multidisciplinary and multiprofession teams.

Table 1. The Krusenbaum Farm: a case study and model in the establishment of an organicdairyHypothesis: A low-input, sustainable agriculture approach is suitable for entry-level dairy


63

farmers.Research methods: A multidisciplinary case study of a family farm and its transition to organicfarming.Research objectives:1. To describe the biological, physical, and financial effects of adopting low-input productionpractices.2. To chronicle the evolution of a set of coherent farm strategies to deal with issues of animalhusbandry, debt management, and labor use.3. To develop tools that will permit generalizing from a case study to help others evaluatealternative production strategies.Hub activities: Conceptualize and evaluate an overall transition plan1. Design crop rotations to meet economic and organic objectives2. Develop and annually review the dairy herd feeding strategy3. Annually review compliance with ASCS and SCS regulations4. Annually review nutrient management and weed control program5. Maintain farm records (e.g. agronomic, climatic, sales and purchases)6. Organize field daysSatellite activities: Redesign field boundaries to minimize erosion1. Weed monitoring and control strategies2. Evaluate milk production and herd health3. Analyze financial records4. Maintain decision diary5. Analyze building and machinery needs6. Monitor soil biological and physical characteristics6. Maintain labor diary

Table 2: The Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial Hypothesis: Increasing croprotation diversity can maintain system productivity and profitability while reducing theneed for chemical inputs.Research methods: A randomized complete block design comparing six rotations at twolocations. Individual plots are approximately 0.75 acresResearch objectives:1. To describe the biological, chemical, and physical impact of alternative crop rotations at thefield level. This work will help promote an agroecological focus on farming.2. To quantify the short- and long-term economic implications of adopting alternative croprotations.3. To expand the range of alternative technologies being presented to farmers.4. To build functioning "learning centers" that will involve diverse groups in community learningabout agriculture.Hub Activities: Design the initial set of treatments1. Supervise the agronomic activities on the plots2. Modify treatments as the growing season progresses3. Develop the Learning Centers educational programs and field days4. Conduct site visits5. Edit an annual technical reportSatellite activities: Monitor earthworm numbers1. Study the evolution of weed seed numbers2. Build phosphorous and potassium nutrient budgets3. Measure fall soil nitrate levels4. Describe changes in soil health5. Screen litter dwelling arthropods6. Take census of nematode populations7. Characterize corn root health7. Conduct economic analysis


64

Table 3. Team make-up of two Wisconsin projects employing the Radial Model ofOrganization.Krusenbaum Project· Axle: Host farmer, MFAI agronomist, UW agronomist· Hub: Host farmer, MFAI agronomist, crop consultant, UW-agronomist, UW-sociologist,UW-economist· Satellite activities: 2 farmers crop consultant, MFAI agronomist, 8 UW-Ext. Specialists,2 UW-researchersWICST Project· Axle: 2 extension agents, 2 farm superintendents, MFAI agronomist, 2 UW agronomists· Hub: 6 farmers, 2 vo ag instructors, 2 extension agents, 2 farm superintendents, MFAIagronomist, 2 UW-agronomists· Satellite activities: 2 farmers, 2 MFAI agronomists, master gardener, land conservationist, SCSsoil scientist, 9 UW-ext. specialists, 7 UW-researchersMFAI = Michael Fields Agricultural InstituteUW = University of Wisconsin-Madison StaffVoAg = High School Vocational Instructors in Agriculture

ReferencesAllen, P., D. Van Dusen, J. Lundy, and S. Gliessman. 1991. Integrating social, environmental,and economic issues in sustainable agriculture. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 6(1):38-39.

Anbar, M. 1973. The "bridge scientist" and his role. Research Development July:3337.Baldock, J., and J. Posner. 1992. Crop rotation options program: Computer aid to evaluatealternative cropping systems. Agronomy Abstracts. Amer. Soc. Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.p.78.

Beattie, B. 1991. Some almostideal remedies for healing land grant universities. Presidentialaddress presented at the annual meeting of the Amer. Agric. Economics Assoc., Manhattan,Kansas, August.

Birnbaum, P. 1982. Academic interdisciplinary research: Characteristics of successful projects. J.Soc. Research Administrators 13:516.

Bonnen, J.T. 1986. A century of science in agriculture: Lessons for science policy. Amer. J.Agric. Economics 68:10651080.

Busch, L., and W.B. Lacy. 1983. Science, Agriculture, and the Politics of Research. WestviewPress, Boulder, Colorado.

Buttel, F., and L. Busch. 1988. The public agricultural research system at the crossroads. Agric.History 62:303324.

Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L. Thrupp (eds). 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation andAgricultural Research. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, England.

Clancy, K. 1993. Sustainable agriculture and domestic hunger: Rethinking a link betweenproduction and consumption. In P. Allen (ed). Food For The Future: Conditions andContradictions of Sustainability. John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y. pp. 251-294.

Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1990. Alternative Agriculture: Scientists'Review. Spec. Pub. No. 16. Ames, Iowa.


65

Cunningham, L. 1992. Soils, crops, agriculture and me: An agricultural awareness module forfifth graders. Unpublished document available from the University of WisconsinExtension,Elkhorn.

Danbom, D.B. 1986. Publicly sponsored agricultural research in the United States from anhistorical perspective. In K.A. Dahlberg (ed). New Directions For Agriculture and AgriculturalResearch. Rowan and Allanheld. Totowa, New Jersey. pp. 107131.

Debertin, D. 1992. Commentary: There is a future for the land grants, if... Choices 3:47.

Deming, W. 1982. Out of the Crisis. Center for Advanced Engineering Study, MassachusettsInstitute of Technology. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Doll, J., R. Doersch, R. Proost, and P. Kivlin. 1992. Reduced Herbicide Rates: Aspects toConsider. Bulletin A3563. Univ. of Wisconsin-Extension, Madison.

Duvick, D. 1990. The new biology, a union of ecology and molecular biology. Choices 4:47.

Francis, C.A., C.B. Flora, and L.D. King (eds). 1990. Sustainable Agriculture in TemperateZones. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y.

Friedhoff, A.J. 1988. Letter to the editor. Science 242:1623

Gumz, R., W. Saupe, R. Klemme, and J. Posner. 1993. A preliminary economic comparison ofthree cash grain rotations. Managing The Farm 26(1):19.Dept. of Agric. Economics, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison.

Gussow, J. 1991. Chicken Little, Tomato Sauce and Agriculture. The Bootstrap Press, NewYork, N.Y.

Harrison, J. 1993. Land stewardship and nutrient cycling on the Krusenbaum farm: Thetransition to organic dairying. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis. Dept. of Agronomy, Univ. ofWisconsin, Madison.

Heberlein, T.A. 1988. Improving interdisciplinary research: Integrating the social and naturalsciences. Society and Natural Resources 1:516.

Kanter, R. 1983. The Change Masters. Simon and Schuster, New York, N.Y.

Lacy, W. 1992. Can agricultural colleges meet the needs of sustainable agriculture? Amer. J.Alternative Agric. 8:40-45.

MacRae, R., J. Welsh, B. Kneen, and H. Friedman. 1992. Municipal food policy councils:Diversifying institutional form and process to support the transition to just, healthy, andsustainable food and agricultural systems. Paper presented at the joint meeting of the Assoc. forthe Study of Food and Society, and the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Soc., E. Lansing,Michigan, June. Available from the Toronto Food Council, Toronto, Ontario.

Miller, L., B. Rossing, and S. Steele. 1990. Partnerships: Shared Leadership AmongStakeholders. Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

National Research Council. 1989. Alternative Agriculture. Board on Agriculture. NationalAcademy Press, Washington, D.C.


66

Perrow, C. 1979. Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. Scott, Foresman, Glenview, Illinois.Peters, T.J., and A.H. Waterman. 1982. In Search of Excellence. Warner Books, New York,N.Y.

Potash and Phosphate Institute. 1990. A Review of the National Research Council Report onAlternative Agriculture. Atlanta, Georgia.

Posner, J., and M. Casler. 1993. The Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial: CombiningAgroecology with production agronomy. Amer. Soc. Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin. p. 15.

Posner, J., and J. Hall. 1993. The Krusenbaum Project: Progress Report III. Unpublished projectreport available from the Agronomy Dept., Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison.

Rossini, F., and A. Porter. 1979. Framework for integrating interdisciplinary research. ResearchPolicy 8:7079.

Schaller, N. 1991. An agenda for research on the impacts of sustainable agriculture: Assessmentand recommendation of a panel of social scientists. Occasional Paper No. 2. Institute forAlternative Agriculture, Greenbelt, Maryland.

Schneider, S. 1977. Climate change and the world predicament: A case study forinterdisciplinary research. Climate Change 1:2143.

Schuh, G. 1986. Revitalizing land grant universities: It's time to regain relevance. Choices1:610.

Stevenson, G.W. 1993. Transitioning from a conventional to an organic dairy: Decisions on theKrusenbaum farm. In The Krusenbaum Project: Progress Report III. Unpublished project reportavailable from the Agronomy Department, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison.

Stevenson, G.W., and R.M. Klemme. 1992. Advisory/oversight councils: An alternativeapproach to farmer/citizen participation in agenda setting at landgrantuniversities. Amer. J.

Stute, J., and J. Posner. 1993. Legume cover crop options for grain rotations in Wisconsin.Agronomy J. 85:1128-1132.

Suppe, F. 1987. The limited applicability of agricultural research. Agriculture and Human Values4:414.

Vasquez, O., T. Smith, and J. Posner. 1991. A microcomputer model for evaluating rotationalgrazing in dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 74, Supplement 1. Abstract P409:278.

Weisbord, M. 1976. Diagnosing Your Organization. Organization Research and Development,Wynnewood, Pennsylvania.

Weiss, A., and J. Robb. 1989. Challenge for the future: Incorporating systems into theagricultural infrastructure. J. Production Agric. 2:287289.

Wright, S., and D. Morely (eds). 1989. Learning works: Searching for organizational futures.Faculty of Environmental Studies, York Univ., Toronto, Ontario.


67

COABC Research Needs Study - certifiedorganic.bc.ca · COABC Research Needs Study Prepared for...

Documents

Transcript of COABC Research Needs Study - certifiedorganic.bc.ca · COABC Research Needs Study Prepared for...