Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:56:44.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farmers‘ time investment in human capital: A comparison between conventional and reduced-chemical growers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

Maria A. Boerngen  and
David S. Bullock
Maria A. Boerngen*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1301 W. Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
David S. Bullock
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1301 W. Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: boerngen@uiuc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many investigators have surmised that reduced-chemical and organic crop production require the input of a higher level of human capital than does conventional production. But no previous study has measured and compared whether the amounts of human capital growers use in managing their production systems differ across those systems. To provide the first measure of the time investment made in human capital by conventional and reduced-chemical farmers, we conducted a survey of 1000 Illinois households to obtain estimates of the amount of time spent by these different types of farmers to accumulate the human capital needed in their management practices. Conventional farmers reported spending just over 3 h week–1 ’keeping up‘ with information about their production practices, while reduced-chemical and organic farmers reported a time investment of nearly 4 h week–1. This difference was found to be statistically significant, suggesting that chemical inputs and human capital may be economic substitutes. Farmers who adopted reduced-chemical practices reported a transition period of 1–2 years; during this period, they spent around 3 h week–1 learning about reduced-chemical technology. Adopters of organic practices also reported a transition period of 1–2 years; during this period, they invested 5 h week–1 learning about organic technology. The quantitative results of this study will be useful for future empirical work that investigates the potential costs and benefits of using subsidies to induce conventional farmers to switch to alternative production practices.

Keywords

human capital costsorganic technologyprofitability comparisonsreduced-chemical technologytransition costs
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 100 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Lohr, L. and Salomonsson, L. 2000. Conversion subsidies for organic production: Results from Sweden and lessons for the United States. Agricultural Economics 22:133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Andrew, J.C. III. 1987. Making the transition to low input agriculture: A farmer’s perspective. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2:17–18.Google Scholar
3Crosson, P. and Ostrov, J.E. 1990. Sorting out the environmental benefits of alternative agriculture. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45:34–41.Google Scholar
4Chase, C. and Duffy, M. 1991. An economic comparison of conventional and reduced-chemical farming systems in Iowa. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 6:168–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Stinner, B.R. and House, G.J. 1987. Role of ecology in lower-input, sustainable agriculture: An introduction. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2:146–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6National Research Council 1989. Alternative Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. p. 9.Google Scholar
7Batie, S.S. and Taylor, D.B. 1989. Widespread adoption of non-conventional agriculture: Profitability and impacts. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 4:128–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Edwards, C.A. 1987. The concept of integrated systems in lower input/sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 2:148–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Egri, C. 1999. Attitudes, backgrounds and information preferences of Canadian organic and conventional farmers: Implications for organic farming advocacy and extension. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 13:45–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Hanson, J.C., Lichtenberg, E., and Peters, S.E. 1997. Organic versus conventional grain production in the mid-Atlantic: An economic and farming system overview. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 12:2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Lasley, P., Duffy, M., Kettner, K., and Chase, C. 1990. Factors affecting farmers’ use of practices to reduce commercial fertilizers and pesticides. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45:132–136.Google Scholar
12Dabbert, S. and Madden, P. 1986. The transition to organic agriculture: A multi-year simulation model of a Pennsylvania farm. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 1:99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Liebhardt, W.C., Andrews, R.W., Culik, M.N., Harwood, R.R., Janke, R.R., Radke, J.K., and Rieger-Schwartz, S.L. 1989. Crop production during conversion from conventional to low-input methods. Agronomy Journal 81:150–159.Google Scholar
14Mallory, E.B., Posner, J.L., and Baldock, L.O. 1998. Performance, economics, and adoption of cover crops in Wisconsin cash grain rotations: On-farm trials. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 13:2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Scow, K.M., Somasco, O., Gunapala, N., Lau, S., Venette, R., Ferris, H., Miller, R., and Shennan, C. 1994. Transition from conventional to low-input agriculture changes soil fertility and biology. California Agriculture 48:20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Smolik, J.D. and Dobbs, T.L. 1991. Crop yields and economic returns accompanying the transition to alternative farming systems. Journal of Production Agriculture 4:153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Dabbert, S. 1994. Economics of conversion to organic farming: Cross-sectional analysis of survey data in Germany. In Lampkin, N.H., Padel, S. (eds). The Economics of Organic Farming. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
18Francis, C.A. 1990. Practical applications of low-input agriculture in the Midwest. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45:65–67.Google Scholar
19Padel, S. and Lampkin, N.H. 1994. Conversion to organic farming: An overview. In Lampkin, N.H., Padel, S. (eds). The Economics of Organic Farming. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
20Francis, C.A. and King, J.W. 1988. Cropping systems based on farm-derived, renewable resources. Agricultural Systems 27:67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Diebel, P.L., Williams, J.R., and Llewelyn, R.V. 1995. An economic comparison of conventional and alternative cropping systems for a representative northeast Kansas farm. Review of Agricultural Economics 17:323–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Dobbs, T.L. and Smolik, J.D. 1996. Productivity and profitability of conventional and alternative farming systems: A long-term on-farm paired comparison. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 9:63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Hanson, J.C., Johnson, D.M., Peters, S.E., and Janke, R.R. 1990. The profitability of sustainable agriculture on a representative grain farm in the Mid-Atlantic region, 1981–89. Northeast Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 19:90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Karlen, D.L., Duffy, M.D., and Colvin, T.S. 1995. Nutrient, labor, energy, and economic evaluations of two farming systems in Iowa. Journal of Production Agriculture 8:540–546.Google Scholar
25Klepper, R., Lockeretz, W., Commoner, B., Gertler, M., Fast, S., O’Leary, D., and Blobaum, R. 1977. Economic performance and energy intensiveness on organic and conventional farms in the Corn Belt: A preliminary comparison. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 59:1–12.Google Scholar
26Lockeretz, W., Shearer, G., Klepper, R., and Sweeney, S. 1978. Field crop production on organic farms in the Midwest. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 33:130–134.Google Scholar
27Lockeretz, W., Shearer, G., and Kohl, D.H. 1981. Organic farming in the Corn Belt. Science 211:540–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28Munn, D.A., Coffing, G., and Sautter, G. 1998. Response of corn, soybean and wheat crops to fertilizer and herbicides in Ohio compared with low-input production practices. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 13:181–189.Google Scholar
29Shearer, G., Kohl, D.H., Wanner, D., Kuepper, G., Sweeney, S., and Lockeretz, W. 1981. Crop production costs and returns on Midwestern organic farms: 1977 and 1978. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 63:264–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Smolik, J.D., Dobbs, T.L., and Rickerl, D.H. 1995. The relative sustainability of alternative, conventional, and reduced-till farming systems. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 10:25–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Lockeretz, W. 1989. Problems in evaluating the economics of ecological agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 27:67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Lee, L.K. 1992. A perspective on the economic impacts of reducing agricultural chemical use. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 7:82–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Lockeretz, W. 1991. Information requirements of reduced-chemical production methods. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 6:97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley & Sons, New York. p. 151.Google Scholar
35McCann, E., Sullivan, S., Erickson, D., and DeYoung, R. 1997. Environmental awareness, economic orientation, and farming practices: A comparison of organic and conventional farmers. Environmental Management 21:747–758.Google Scholar
36Hamilton, L.C. 2003. Statistics with Stata. Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning, Belmont, California, USA. p. 166–170.Google Scholar
37Chatterjee, S., Hadi, A.S., and Price, B. 2000. Regression Analysis by Example. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York. p. 240–241.Google Scholar