Organic Farmers in Ontario: An Examination of the Conventionalization Argument

Published by Blackwell Publishers,108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK350 Main Street, Malden, MA02148, USA

Sociologia Ruralis, Vol 41, Number 4, October 2001©European Society for Rural Sociology

ISSN 0038−0199

Organic Farmers in Ontario:An Examination of the

Conventionalization Argument

Alan Hall and Veronika Mogyorody

With mounting questions about the sustainability of conventional chemical based farming, increasing attention is being directed towards organic farming

as a viable alternative. With its emphasis on small-scale family farm operations pro-ducing without synthetic chemicals for local consumption, organic farming is seen by many as offering the only sustainable solution to decades of soil, food and envi-ronmental degradation under the industrial model (Grey 2000; Michelsen 2001; Pugliese 2001). However, along with its increasing popularity, some analysts have warned that capitalist wage and commodity relations may be pushing organic farm-ing towards the conventional farming model as agribusiness capital penetrates the organic community and its markets (Buck, Getz and Guthman 1997; Macrae, Hen-ning and Hill 1993; Tovey 1997). According to this scenario, organic farming is becoming a slightly modified version of modern conventional agriculture, replicat-ing the same history, resulting in many of the same basic social, technical and economic characteristics – smaller farms become bigger, debt loads increase with increasing capital intensification, labour is replaced by mechanization and other industrial inputs, and marketing become export-oriented rather than local. A cen-tral environmental question is whether this would result in the significant relax-ation of organic production standards, including the use of liquid manure, reduced crop diversity, genetically modified plants and certain synthetic chemicals in pro-duction and processing (Clunies-Ross 1990; Kaltoft 1999).

Perhaps the most detailed example of this ‘conventionalization’ argument is pro-vided by Buck, Getz, and Guthman (1997) in their study of organic vegetable farm-ing in California. They argue that the smaller alternative organic producers have been increasingly marginalized by larger producers who think and act like conven-tional farmers in terms of production and marketing methods. A main mechanism behind this development is the move by conventionally based agribusiness capital to take over the processing and marketing of certain high value organic products such as greens. Through control in these areas, and through their introduction of industrial inputs, capital has made the smaller operations less economical as they are forced to compete directly with the larger more heavily capitalized producers within the same commodity and input markets. Although they suggest that this pro-

400 Hall and Mogyorody

cess is leading to a bifurcation of the movement into two groups, Buck et al. (1997) argue that the alternative-oriented farmers are being pressured to adopt a number of conventional cropping, labour, and marketing practices in order to survive. By implication, this process also makes these smaller farms vulnerable to takeover by larger operations seeking to expand their land base. While recognizing that there are certain countervailing tendencies arising from the particular characteristics of organic farming, food and consumers, Buck et al. (1997) are concerned about the over-all reshaping of organic agriculture within a conventional mold.

However, in looking at the New Zealand case, Coombes and Campbell (1998) come to somewhat different conclusions, arguing that this conventionalization pro-cess may not be as “universal and universalizing” as is often assumed (p. 130). In particular, they found that although there was some “delocalization” of the relation-ship between organic producers and consumers, that is, there was major growth in export-oriented organic production in New Zealand as in California, the smaller producers were not being marginalized by the growth of larger production units or agribusiness penetration into organic agriculture. Agribusiness was not attempt-ing to target the existing small-scale producers or their markets, but was focusing instead on converting some or all of their larger conventional growers for export-ori-ented markets. The domestic market was largely being ignored, leaving the small-scale producers to continue to focus their attention on local consumers, retaining their alternative orientations and practices without any major threat or competition from agribusiness. One of the key factors here was that export-oriented production was quite narrow in the range of crops, while the smaller-scale producers remained highly diversified. As such, even when exporters attempted to dump certain prod-ucts on the local market, there was no substantial effect on small-scale growers. From Coombes and Campbell’s more optimistic perspective, the movement was being split into two distinct groups, but within this process, the alternative orienta-tion was being maintained on the local and national scene.

For Coombes and Campbell (1998), the explanation lies in much the same approach that has been made more generally to address the agrarian question on the limitations of capitalist accumulation in the food chain. Large-scale capitalist agriculture has difficulty in eliminating small independent agriculture producers because of the politicization of agricultural and consumer movements, the biologi-cal particularities of farming which are accentuated in organic farming, and the rel-ative productivity of small commodity producers (Friedmann 1978a,b). In a subse-quent article, these same authors have argued that the expansion of organic export markets in New Zealand has been a particular response to the breakdown of Fordist regulatory measures, green protectionism and the extreme neoliberal shift in New Zealand agricultural policy (Campbell and Coombes 1999). While not denying the impact of commodification, they observe that there are significant constraints and contradictions in any move to conventionalize organic farming, which creates sig-nificant space for the development of an alternative locally oriented organic farm-ing movement (see also Campbell and Liepins 2001).

A number of studies are suggestive that the commodification and conventional-ization of organic farming are also evident in Europe (Clunies-Ross and Cox 1994; Kaltoft, 1999; Lynggard 2001; Michelsen 2001b; Tovey 1997). Although not neces-sarily the primary focus of many studies, the research seems to support the argu-

401Organic Farmers in Ontario

ment that a split is occurring within the movement as government intervention and commercialization increases and more conventional farmers, and in some cases conventional farm organizations, accept and move into organic farming as a market opportunity. However, differences of opinion remain as to how serious a threat this presents to the long-term development and survival of the organic move-ment as a ‘true’ alternative to conventional agriculture. For example, Tovey (1997) is quite convincing that in the case of Ireland, organic farming is being marginalized as just another option for environmental conservationism, its alternative broader objectives and principles hidden or repressed. Coming from a different theoretical perspective, Pugliese (2001) argues that there is an important convergence develop-ing between sustainable rural development and organic farming which indicates considerable promise for the growth of organic farming as a substantive alternative to conventional agriculture. Kaltoft (2001), looking at the issue from the level of the farmer, suggests that while the Danish organic movement is made up of various different world views, the conventional-like “rational modern farmer” is still more the exception than the rule. Also dealing with the Danish case, Michelsen (2001b) looks at the organizational level and notes that while organic organizations are losing control under state involvement and regulation, there are no apparent effects on standards, and the organic movement continues to place a significant weight on certain fundamental values as the foundation of organic practices and standards.

Taken as a whole, the research suggests that organic farming is developing in dis-tinct ways in different national contexts. As Coombes and Campbell (1998) have sug-gested, we cannot generalize from single cases to argue that conventionalization is marching along in a straightforward and inevitable fashion. More focused research is needed to begin identifying the different and common patterns and aspects of capitalist penetration and commodification within different contexts. We also need to identify and understand the different ways in which various factors are constrain-ing and enhancing those developments. With these issues in mind, this paper looks at the development of organic farming in the Canadian province of Ontario.

Methodology

The analysis is based principally on a phone survey of 259 organic farmers done in the winter of 1999, supplemented with data from eighteen case studies as well as observations and interviews within various organic organizations and wholesal-ers. A list of 411 farm operations was compiled using a variety of sources including the three major certification bodies in Ontario, lists from a number of organic farm support organizations, an organic farm guide, pamphlets, and previous surveys. We also attended various meetings and conferences across the province recruiting people for our list and seeking support for the upcoming survey. All major types of organic farmers were interviewed, both certified and noncertified: vegetable, fruit, field crop, and livestock farmers. For the purposes of the phone survey, the primary operator of the farm was interviewed for 60–80 minutes about production and marketing practices, motivations for farming organically, ideological orientations to agriculture, business plans, perceptions of farm success, and satisfaction with farm work, along with various other factors (e.g. gross incomes, farm size, type and diversity of crops and livestock, education level). Everyone on the list was contacted

by phone and farmers were included in the survey as long as they reported that they were producing and selling any amount or type of agricultural product with-out the use of synthetic chemicals, whether certified or not. While our refusal rate was quite small (15%), another 22% of the names were either no longer farming, no longer farming organically, no longer at the same address or phone number, or were only gardeners. The Canadian Organic Growers have claimed that there were just under 450 organic farmers in Ontario in 1998 (Macey 2000), but the results of our research suggests the number is much closer to 300–350. The eighteen case studies involved participant observation and taped face to face interviews. Case stud-ies were selected to reflect different farm sizes, types of farms (field crop, mixed live-stock, vegetable/fruit) and the amount of time farming organically. We attempted to ensure a cross-section of farmers representing different motivations and ideologi-cal orientations, broadly defined in terms of profit motivation and expansion inter-ests. We also conducted interviews with representatives of Ontario organic orga-nizations and Ontario wholesalers and processors. Finally, we observed monthly meetings of a local chapter of an organic organization over a period of 2 years.

Relying substantially on simple descriptive analyses of the survey data, we follow the line of argument offered by Buck et al. (1997) that conventionalization is demonstrated by certain farmer characteristics, practices, and orientations among larger organic farmers, in particular, the larger farmers who have recently moved to organic farming.1 While we do not have time series data, we rely on comparisons of different types of farms, different sizes and time farming organically, to explore a number of expected relationships consistent with the conventionalization argu-ment. Although much of the previous research has been focused on vegetable and fruit farmers, this analysis emphasizes the importance of looking at different types of farms. Before presenting the analysis of the survey and case study data, we pro-vide a short overview of the Ontario context.

Organic farming in Ontario

Canada is a major agricultural nation with a heavy emphasis on exports. The prov-ince of Ontario, normally known as the manufacturing center of Canada, has the largest agriculture and food industry in the country, worth several billion dollars in sales every year. While its main crops are soybeans, corn and wheat, it also has a sig-nificant horticultural industry worth close to a billion dollars of fruit and vegetable sales annually.

There has been an active organic sector in Canada since the early 1970s but organic farming has only recently begun to develop a much stronger presence in the economic, political and social scene. The overall size and share of the food market remain very small, representing about 1.5% of the total farm cash receipts, and just under 1% of the Canadian retail food market. Only about 0.25% of agricul-tural land is organic (Willer and Yussefi 2001). However, like many other countries, government sources suggest a growth rate of 15–25% in sales per year since 1997 (Agriculture and Agri-Canada 2001).

The market distribution has been mainly through direct farm gate sales, box schemes, small retail outlets and more recently, the expansion of products through conventional grocery chains. Unlike the us, Canada has not seen the development

of large specialized organic food chains. Most of the processed organic products are produced outside Canada, while the sources of fresh produce are more often Canadian, although the us, with particular reference to California, also exports a large amount of its organic produce to Canada. The demand for organic products has tended to outstrip Canadian supply, encouraging both processors and retailers to seek imported sources. The Canadian organic export market consists primarily of grains and oilseeds, but there is reportedly an increasing export-oriented fruit and vegetable production in British Columbia and Quebec (Sustainable Farming 1994). As will be shown, the latter development is not evident in Ontario.

State recognition and support for organic farming has been slow in coming. Relative to many other developed nations (Michelsen 2001a,b), organic farmers in Ontario have received little financial or technical support from the Ontario and Canadian governments (Hall 1998a,b). Until very recently, both levels of gov-ernment ignored organic farming by effectively excluding it from their definition and funding of sustainable agriculture (Canada-Ontario Agriculture Green Plan 1992–1997). Some other provincial governments, in particular, Quebec and Brit-ish Columbia, have been much more active in developing and supporting organic research, farm conversions, and certification programs. These provincial differ-ences may well reflect the power of the chemical lobby in industrial Ontario and the very conservative nature of the Ontario agricultural community, which contin-ues to reject organic farming as a meaningful alternative for food production (Hall, in press). There are two major organic farmer organizations operating in Ontario, the Canadian Organic Growers (cog) and the Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario (efao), and four certification bodies, the smallest of which is Demeter, the bio-dynamic organization. Since 1999, these certification bodies have been accred-ited by the Canadian government using recently developed National Standards for Organic Agriculture. Unlike British Columbia and Quebec, Ontario did not develop its own accreditation system.

The Ontario organic movement has been relatively inactive on the political front, preferring instead to focus its energies on public and farmer education, aimed at achieving social change through example rather than through direct political action (Clunies-Ross and Cox, 1994; Michelsen, 2001; Tovey, 1997). Its public criticism of conventional agriculture has been quite muted, focusing instead on the more positive message provided through examples that organic farming works. More recently, there have been indications that the organic leadership is becoming more conventional in its political thinking with the hiring of staff and the development of political lobbying campaigns, again a development which has been noted else-where (Clunies-Ross and Cox 1994, p. 65) Nevertheless, compared to the conven-tional farm lobby, the organic movement’s political influence is quite limited.

Nevertheless, the Canadian government finally took its first substantive step in recognizing organic farming through the creation of a national organic standards accreditation system in 1999. More recently, it established a National Centre for Education and Research in Organic Agriculture (Agriculture Canada July 12, 2001). An accreditation assistance funding program along with other funding programs were also announced in the summer of 2001 (Agriculture Canada June 8, 2001). Policy statements and news releases from Agriculture Canada suggest that the gov-ernment has now decided that the “growing international demand” for organic pro-

duce warrants this shift towards more state support (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada June 8, 2001). The impact of the European bans on gmo crops and the continuing conventional farm crisis are also likely factors in this shift. However, as Tovey (1997) observed in Ireland, the Canadian and Ontario governments have continued to repress the ‘ideological content’ of the movement, trying to fit organic farming into a standard export-oriented model. As defined in the government litera-ture, organic farming is nothing more than the production of food without chemi-cal fertilizers and pesticides (Archibald 1999; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2001). At the same time, the Canadian and Ontario governments are still defining sustainable agriculture as the ‘better management’ of conventional agricultural practices, and there has been no concerted government campaign to encourage a widespread shift from conventional commercial-input farming (Federal-Provin-cial-Territorial Communique June 29, 2001). The vast majority of the government funds for environmental projects in agriculture continue to be earmarked for con-ventional farmers and farmer organizations which advocate the continued necessity of commercial chemical-based farming (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada June 9, 2000). This is not entirely surprising since Canada continues to be one of the stron-gest government advocates of gmo crops.

Evidence of conventionalization: some mixed results

Farm size, cropping patterns and growth

One of the key questions in the conventionalization debate is whether organic farms are getting larger and more specialized as conventionally oriented farmers move into organic farming, altering the composition of the organic community. In our total sample (n=259), about half (48%) of the current organic farmers were originally conventional farmers (see Table 1). About 22% of these began farming organically somewhat recently (3 years or less), while close to half (45%) had been farming organically for 10 years or more. As might be expected, these also tended to be the larger farmers, although there were some notable exceptions.

Although there is evidence of some larger conventional farms moving recently into organic farming, especially in the field crop and dairy areas, most of the newer organic farmers did not fit this description. This was especially evident in the fruit and vegetable area (see Tables 2a; 2b). Among the 149 farmers growing and selling vegetables and fruit in our sample, only four had operations over 800 acres, and the largest amount of acreage devoted to vegetables and fruit on these farms was

Table 1: Farm origins and years farming organically

Began farming as Years farming organically (%)

0 – 3 4 – 6 7 – 9 ≥10.. Total N.

Organic farmer 40.4 48.3 42.1 41.8 43.0 111Conventional farmer 51.9 37.9 50.0 50.0 47.7 123Mixed organic/conventional 7.7 13.8 7.9 8.2 9.3 24Total 20.2 22.5 14.7 42.6 100.0N 52.0 58.0 38.0 110.0 258

125 acres. While all of these larger farms had moved into organic farming from conventional within the last 4 to 6 years, none of the four fit the description of specialized mass production export-oriented farms, and two had very mixed opera-tions with livestock and a broad range of field and vegetable crops. Among the ten newest (3 years or less) vegetable and fruit farms, only one was over 300 acres, while the rest were consistent with the much smaller norm. The mean farm size among vegetable and fruit growers for the province as a whole was 73 acres and the mean number of acres devoted to vegetable or fruit farming among all farmers was only 8 acres. As shown in Table 2b, the majority of the farmers had less than 5 acres of vegetable and/or fruit crops. We also found no evidence of any major efforts by agribusiness to draw the larger conventional vegetable and fruit farmers into organic farming (Coombes and Campbell 1998).

Along with farm size, there is the question of crop specialization and diversity. Both Coombes and Campbell (1998) and Buck et al. (1997) found a “bifurcation” among organic vegetable growers in that many large farm operations were specialized in mass production around a few high growth, high profit crops, while the smaller farms continued to diversify their strategies. Among the vegetable and fruit farm-ers in our study, we found very few indications of specialization around single high value crops. Overall diversity was quite high relative to the California average of six to ten crops (Buck et al. 1997, p. 7), with a mean around sixteen crops and a median of twelve crops. While 18% of the farmers reported growing only one type of vegetable, this was not happening on a large scale in terms of acreage or export markets. For the most part, these were mixed production farmers who were growing field crops and a

Table 2a: Farm sizes

Total farm sizes in acres (%) Total Total acreage

Type of farms .10 to 99 100–299 300–499 500+ Mean Median

All farms (N=257) 31.5 46.3 12.5 09.7 100 216.25 138 Farms growing vegetable/fruit (N=149)

45.0 42.3 06.7 06.0 100 154.47 100

Farms specializing in vegetable/fruit* (N=56)

69.6 26.8 03.6 – 100 173.39 150

Farms growing field crops (N=181)

17.7 52.5 16.0 13.8 100 273.42 180

Farms specializing in field crops* (N=54) 11.1 55.6 20.4 13.0 100 311.15 210

*Specialization here means that the farm produces only organic vegetables/fruits or field cropswith no organic livestock.

Table 2b

Revised size categories: acres (%)of vegetable/fruit crops Total acreage Type of farms .10–4.9 5–9.9 10–19.9 20–29.9 30+ Mean Median

Farms growing vegetable/fruit (N=142) 57.4 22.7 11.3 3.5 5.0 8.01 3.25

Farms specializing in vegetable/fruit (N=50)

54.0 18.0 18.0 4.0 6.0 9.84 3.25

single vegetable such as garlic or potatoes. A small number of specialized vegetable/fruit producers (n=6) were growing only one type of vegetable or fruit, again usu-ally potatoes or garlic, and in that sense, were highly specialized. But these were not the large-sized producers on the scale described in California or New Zealand.

Very few farmers were focusing on the specialized production of high value greens. Among those who were, the production was usually for local consumption in supermarkets or farmers’ markets, and the acreage was small, in the neighbour-hood of 8–10 acres. As some of these farmers reported, the major competition for them was California produce, which sometimes came in at lower prices, but gener-ally they contended that they were able to compete effectively within the local con-text despite their small scale given the low value of the Canadian dollar and lower transportation costs. While we came across one example of a mixed farmer who produced greens for export to Michigan, he was unable to maintain the quantities required by the retailers and he discontinued the effort after one year.

When asked about their future cropping plans, very few farmers (11%) reported any intention to specialize in fewer crops in the future. In fact, most (65%) stated that they were intending to further diversify their crops. Farmers cited both eco-nomic and environmental reasons for their emphasis on diversity, viewing special-ization as a recipe for financial disaster and eventual crop failure. In this regard, it’s worth noting that a number of farmers reported that they got caught with a surplus of organic potatoes and/or garlic at the end of the 1999 growing season because too many farmers had grown these two products, and consequently, they had to sell them as conventional produce for substantially reduced prices. The few farms that had specialized in these products were severely hurt financially.

In terms of the size and specialization of vegetable and fruit farms, the results reveal few signs of conventionalization. However, what about the field crop farmers – is there stronger evidence of conventionalization? About 70% of the organic farmers interviewed were producing and selling organic field crops. As might be expected, field crop farms tended to be larger in size than the fruit and vegetable farms with an average size of 311 acres (see Table 2a), and, accordingly, a greater proportion of the newer field crop farmers (3 years or less) had large operations – 26% reported total acreages of 300 or more. However, there was no indication that the farms moving into organic farming more recently were larger than the older organic field crop farms. On the other hand, the movement of conventional farmers into organic farming is much more evident among field crop farmers; that is, farmers who shifted from conven-tional to organic were more likely to be field crop farmers (70%), while the majority of the fruit and vegetable farmers had begun their farming careers either as organic farmers (58%) or as mixed organic/conventional farmers (12%). Organic livestock farmers were also more likely to have begun farming as conventional farmers (64%).

As might be expected, most field crop farms reported a very narrow range of crops relative to vegetable farms, with a median of only three crops in 1998 and four crops in their rotation. This was similar to the average rotations reported by southwestern Ontario conservation tillage farmers in a previous study (Hall 1998a), although conservation farmers were more likely to report only two types of crops in a given production year, often diversifying in the type of soybeans. Only about 15% of the field crop farms were producing and selling five or more different field crops in 1998, and only 20% reported a rotation of five or more crops. There was no sig-

nificant difference between larger and smaller field crop farms in terms of diversity.Among most field crop farmers, there was a strong emphasis on a few primary

field crops, usually soybeans and corn, often rotated with pasture, barley, clover, peas, wheat, rye, and other grains. A central problem expressed by field crop farm-ers was the difficulty in selling the full range of products in their rotations and getting a reasonable price for those products. Here the physical or environmental demands of diversity tended to conflict with economic demands, since the demand and price differences were quite substantial between a product such as soybeans and most other products. As observed in farm case studies and organic farmers’ meetings, these concerns were very reminiscent of the concern observed among conservation tillage farmers in a previous study (Hall 1998a). In both cases, the challenges of maintaining a good rotation given the wide range of commodity prices and the challenges of finding markets for the full rotation were seen as major struggles in achieving a sustainable operation.

While about half of the farmers growing field crops for sale were also producing organic livestock, about 30% (n=54) had no organic livestock or vegetable crops. Close to half of these farmers (43%, n=23) had just begun to farm organically in the last 3 years, representing by far the single largest group of new organic farm-ers. Among longer term organic farmers, the proportion of field crop farmers with-out organic livestock was much smaller (i.e. 12% among farmers with 10 years or more). The majority (67%) of the longer term farms were mixed farms with organic livestock and field crops.

However, it is important to note that a good proportion of these field crop farm-ers (59%) were producing conventional livestock, although often on a small scale. Case studies and other field observations suggest that while some of these farmers were intending to move toward organic livestock production, others expressed skep-ticism about their ability to raise large-scale organic livestock, often based on the argument that they did not believe that they could control diseases without using antibiotics. Moreover, some farmers (n=22) were clearly specializing in organic field crops without any livestock at all, and again, close to half of those farmers (n=10) had begun farming in the last 3 years.2 Moreover, these farmers had moved from conventional field crop farming with the clear intention that they would con-tinue to farm without livestock. Some had begun farming originally as mixed live-stock and grain farmers and had no desire to move back to livestock, “just because they were now farming organically” as one put it (case study 2, field notes).

The increasing emergence of farms specializing in field crops without organic livestock, and in some cases no livestock at all, can be seen as partial evidence of conventionalization. While these numbers represent a small proportion of the total organic farming community, they suggest the potential for increasing specializa-tion around field crops rather than the more expected norm of mixed organic farms. The lack of substantial diversity in field crops and rotations is also suggestive. This also has clear implications for other organic production principles since it raises questions about where the farmers will obtain their fertility inputs (i.e. off farm) and whether they will become more dependent on commercial inputs and off-farm sources of manure (Beus and Dunlap 1994a,b). Not surprisingly, field crop farmers without organic livestock were more likely than livestock farmers to report a regu-lar use of off-farm inputs including off-farm manure purchases and various min-

eral supplements. This dependency also carries with it the need for higher levels of capitalization and debt, which then begin to shape decisions about crop rotations and market strategies. Within this kind of context, organic production principles may be compromised. Substantial differences in the prices offered for different field crops may also continue to influence the decision-making process. As one of our case studies mused when we were talking about his cropping plans for the next year: “The price for soybeans is pretty tempting so I’m trying to figure if I can stretch things a little in my rotation” (case study 18, field notes).

Another key indicator of conventionalization is whether there is significant growth occurring in the size of organic farms. Respondents were asked whether their farms had grown over the last 5 years (major growth, some growth, or no growth) in their acreage and sales. The majority of the farmers (61%) reported no growth in their acreage, while relatively few (18%) reported major growth. The larger farmers were somewhat more likely than the smaller farmers to report growth, and there was an overall relationship between size and reported growth (r =.180, p<.01). There was no significant relationship between growth and years of farming organically (r = .020).3 There was also no indication that the field crop farmers were growing at a faster rate than other types of farmers.

Farmers were also asked whether they were planning to expand the size of their operation by obtaining more land. The logic of the conventionalization argument leads us to expect that a greater growth orientation will be found among the larger farmers. Similarly if there are direct competitive pressures, the smaller farmers should also express some interest in growth. As expected, the largest farmers were more inclined (56%) to report plans to expand their land base than the smallest farmers (24.7%; chi-square=10.373, p<.01).4 Although there was no significant rela-tionship between land expansion plans and the type of farm, the newer farmers were somewhat more likely to express a plan to purchase more land than the more veteran farmers (r = –.140, p<.05). This may suggest that newcomers into organic farming are more ‘growth oriented’ than the longer standing members of the organic com-munity, but this effect did not hold when we controlled for the farmers’ age and farm size. However, when farmers were asked directly whether they believed in growth as the key to the successful farm operation, there was again a significant relation-ship suggesting that the newer farmers were more likely to accept the conventional notions of increasing farm size (see section on ideology below for more on this point).

Within the context of the survey, case studies, and other observations, we found very few signs of larger farms buying out smaller organic farms. If farmers were expanding, they were either expanding production within their own land base by converting conventional or unused land to organic farming, or they were purchas-ing or renting (often unused or underused) conventional land which could readily be certified. Most of this expansion was on a fairly small scale, especially within the fruit and vegetable area. We found no evidence of any major effort by agribusi-ness wholesalers or processers to recruit larger conventional farmers into organic farming. As noted, neither the federal (Canadian) nor provincial (Ontario) govern-ments have offered incentives or support for a widespread conversion effort (Hall 1998a;b). Thus, taken a whole, the evidence in terms of farm size, specialization, and growth provide only limited support for the conventionalization thesis, and this support largely applies to the area of field crop farming.

Local vs. export markets

An essential aspect of the conventionalization debate revolves around the question of where the organic produce is being marketed and sold. Buck et al. (1997) make a number of points here, but one key argument which can be addressed through our survey data is the contention that local and direct marketing arrangements are being marginalized as the default strategy of those smaller farmers who have limited resources, while the larger more capitalized farms are moving towards conventional wholesaler and processor arrangements, often involving international buyers. While finding a similar kind of bifurcation in marketing strategies, Coombes and Campbell (1998) argue that these represent two different groups of farmers operating in very dis-tinct domestic and export oriented markets with relatively little impact on each other.

Again, the level of support for these arguments depends on whether we are con-sidering the vegetable/fruit or field crop farmers in our study. Most of the vegetable/fruit farmers (68%) were selling most or all of their produce directly through farm markets, roadside farm stalls, local stores, csa, or home food deliveries. Of the 32% (n=48) who were selling at least some of their produce to wholesalers or processors, only four were selling to international buyers from outside Canada, and none were specialized in the export-oriented market. As mentioned earlier, we came across one operation which had previously attempted to grow organic greens for the us market, but this effort did not persist into the year when the survey was conducted.

The larger farms were more likely to report that they were selling their vegeta-bles or fruit through wholesalers and processors than smaller farms, who were in turn much more likely to directly sell to consumers, restaurants, and local retailers. For example, while close to half of the smallest farmers were selling at farmer mar-kets, none of the largest farmers were involved in farmers’ markets. While this sug-gests some degree of bifurcation, the level of export oriented fruit and vegetable farming is still very underdeveloped relative to California or New Zealand. More-over, there was no indication that the newer vegetable and fruit farmers were more inclined to be producing for wholesale and export, again suggesting that there was no movement of more conventional market-oriented farmers in this area. It is also interesting to find that close to one quarter of the vegetable/fruit farmers were selling at least some of their produce through Community Supported Agriculture approaches (csa), a model which many would argue represents the strongest exam-ple of alternative marketing arrangements with a clear emphasis on the local over the global (Abbott Cone and Myhre 2000).5 On the whole then, the vast majority of the vegetable and fruit farmers were relying principally on direct to consumer or small retailer marketing arrangements.

Not surprisingly, most field crop farmers sold their produce to wholesalers or producer coops – and much of this, reportedly about 3/4s of the volume according to our interviews with Ontario wholesalers, was destined for export, particularly in the case of soybeans. As was the case for vegetable farms, the smaller farms were less likely to report selling to wholesalers as compared to the larger farms (42% vs. 70%). More often than not, this meant selling their production as feed directly to farmers or using all or much of the production for their own livestock needs. Like the vegetable and fruit farmers, there were no indications that the newer organic field crop farmers were more inclined to conventional export-oriented marketing arrange-

ments. Both in terms of current practices and future marketing plans, there were no meaningful differences between newer and older farmers. On the other hand, virtu-ally all the field crop farmers were selling most of their field crop production in conven-tional wholesale marketing arrangements, and in that sense, their market relations were not that different than those found among most conventional field crop farmers.

Our field work and case studies also indicate that a movement to more export-oriented production can occur quite readily as market demands and prices change. For example, when organic soybean prices went up in 1998–99, a number of farm-ers converted at least some of their farmland to soybean production, knowing full well that most or all of that production was destined for export markets. Many of these farmers had expressed strong views in the survey on the need to develop more sustainable farm systems through local marketing of produce, but neverthe-less, were actively involved in producing crops which they knew were destined for export. When asked to explain the discrepancy, most acknowledged that the “price was just too good to ignore” (case study 12, field notes). In some cases, the farms in question were in financial difficulty so the export prices represented what farmers saw as a necessary step they had to take.

Another illustration of potential for increasing conventional marketing develop-ments comes from our observations of a small group of ten to fourteen organic field crop farmers who met regularly during the winter months from 1999–2001 to discuss production and marketing issues. The central goal of their meetings was to work out international wholesale marketing connections. They initially con-tracted a broker in the us to work for them on us, European and Japanese contracts, and more recently, have formed a marketing coop with a number of other Ontario organic farmers to market organic produce to Europe and Japan – principally soy-beans. While many of these farmers told us that they would prefer to market their produce in Canada, they did not believe that the national markets for soybeans and other organic field crops were sufficient given the lack of Canadian processors. As they saw it, they had no choice but to seek export markets. Yet, like the farmers dis-cussed above who decided to convert some of their land to soybean production, it was clear that many also saw this venture as an effort to get the best possible price. Whether the principle of local marketing carried any meaningful weight in their marketing strategy was debatable.6 Arguably, these farmers may have been excep-tional in their export-approach to marketing, but as put by one of the wholesalers we interviewed, “the idea of local consumption is fine for organic conferences, but in reality, none of my producers seem to care – price rules.” Indeed, the province’s largest, most established Organic Farmers’ Coop, OntarBio, has also developed a very export-oriented marketing strategy for its products over the last 5 years, espe-cially in soybeans and grains.

Contract growing

One other area of marketing which Buck et al. (1997) identify as an indicator of con-ventionalization is the increased use of contract growing among organic farmers in California. As they point out, contract growing is a means through which capitalist firms can appropriate the products of rural production without assuming any of the risks of production. Twenty-one per cent of the farmers in our survey responded

that they had forward contracts in 1998 and an additional 11% reported that they had been involved in contract growing sometime in the last 5 years. Although this does not suggest a widespread use of contracts, the larger farmers were signifi-cantly more likely to report contract growing (Chi-square=14.917 p<.05). Most of the contracts were for field crops, again suggesting the conventional market rela-tions are more developed in this type of farming. Among those who have never used contracts, 35% reported that they were planning to do so, suggesting that con-tract growing may become more prominent in the future.

Case study discussions with farmers were instructive in that they tended to reveal very little criticism of forward contracts, even among farmers who were fairly critical of conventional agricultural economic relations. Contracts were largely seen as a mechanism which sometimes allowed farmers to predict or stabilize their income more effectively in a given year, and most expressed a clear willingness to use contracts “if the price is right”(case study 9, field notes). For most, contracting depended on a variety of factors in a given year and few saw it as a major aspect of their operation. As such, while contracting does seem to be developing as a familiar feature of organic farming, and most farmers were receptive to the idea, especially among field crop farmers, the form that these contracts were taking was still quite limited, characterized by small acreage.

Profitability of the smaller producers vs. larger producers

Another question which needs to be addressed in the marginalization argument is whether the smaller producers were experiencing direct competition from larger producers and subsequent problems in profitability. While we did not ask this directly in the survey, we did ask whether they were experiencing problems with prices and competition more generally. Relatively few farmers reported major problems with prices, competition or profitability. The vast majority of the farmers (71%) reported at least some growth in their markets and an even greater propor-tion (88%) were satisfied with the prices they were getting. We also pursued the question of competition in our case studies and what we found was relatively little concern about competitors, particularly among the smaller producers. The typical response was that “the market is big enough for everybody” (case study 8, field notes), and indeed, farmers were more concerned about keeping up with market demand rather than competition. Some farmers expressed a concern that markets may become glutted in the future, driving prices down, but none were experienc-ing any of these problems at this point. As noted, if anything, local demand has tended to outstrip local supply, and demand has been increasing substantially (Archibald 1999).

The differences between small and larger farms, types of farms, and newer and older farmers on indicators of competition or financial problems were also less substantial than what might be expected, when compared to the conventional farm industry (Beshiri 1999). Although the smallest farms were less likely to describe their farm operations as “financially successful” than the biggest farms (52% vs.79%), there were no significant differences in their assessments of profit or financial problems, nor in their present and past concerns about bankruptcy. Some of the smaller farmers were largely operating hobby farms, but the majority of them

were serious farmers whose primary identity was as farmers. Certainly the incomes of smaller farmers and the associated family incomes were much less than the larger farms, but there were few indications from the survey, the case studies, or field work observations that the smaller farmers perceived themselves as being marginal-ized or under attack by the larger farmers. There were also no significant differences between different farm types, nor between different farm types at different sizes.

While field crop farmers were looking at demand within very different market contexts from that typical of vegetable crop farmers (i.e. export vs. local), neither group perceived many problems with demand, competition, or prices. More signifi-cantly, they were not reporting major competition from larger growers, nor were they experiencing substantial competitive demands from agribusiness capital. Cer-tainly, in terms of the vegetable and fruit market, these findings resemble the New Zealand case (Coombes and Campbell 1998); that is, local market demand was continuing to support locally-oriented organic farmers. The very recent expansion of the mainstream retail grocers sector involvement in organic products and sales may change the direct marketing and distribution links over time. However, even in the case of field crop farming where the focus was on export, there were few signs that smaller farmers were being squeezed out by larger operators.

Labour process and employment practices

Labour and employment practices is another area that Buck et al. (1997) touch upon in their discussion of conventionalization. They argue that labour conditions are beginning to resemble those in industrialized conventional agriculture, one of the key observations being the increased use of cheap migrant labour. While migrant labour is used quite extensively in the Ontario conventional vegetable and fruit industry, only 5.3% of the organic vegetable/fruit farmers reported that they hired migrant labour, and very few of these farmers were primarily dependent on this labour. Moreover, there was no apparent relationship between the size of the farm and the use of migrant labour, although as expected the larger farms were more likely to report that they were hiring short-term seasonal workers for specific jobs. Although we did not ask about wages in the survey, our field work and case studies suggest that wages varied quite significantly, with some paying relatively good wages by normal agricultural standards in Ontario and others paying the minimum required by law ($6–$12 per hour). Piece work systems were also employed in some contexts but were by no means the norm. Organic farmers tended to rely heavily on family labour and other non-wage labourers, although some paid their children a wage for certain jobs such as hand-weeding.7 A few farmers appeared to rely on quite young workers under 12 years of age but this was relatively rare. In our survey, the average number of hours put in by teenage sons during the growing season was just over 36 hours, while for daughters it was closer to 20 hours.

Among heterosexual couples, female spouses were quite active in farm produc-tion with an average of 33 hours per week. About half of these females were work-ing off-farm, but one quarter of those women were reportedly still working 30 hours or more on the farm. There was no difference between larger and smaller farms in terms of whether the females worked on the farm or not, but they were much more likely to be working off-farm if they were in a smaller operation – 68%

of the spouses in the smallest farms were working off farm, while only 21% of the spouses in the largest farms were working off farm (Chi-square = 20.344 p<.001). Just over half of the organic farms (52%) resembled the conventional model of the male spouse doing all or most of the farm production work and making most of the farm decisions. Nevertheless, a good proportion (35%) of the farm couples reported that they shared production work and decisions equally.8

Regarding one other feature of labour processes, the level of mechanization, our data again provide only mixed support for the conventionalization argument. Farm-ers were asked directly if their use of machinery had increased over the last 5 years, and whether they were intending to expand their use of machinery in the future. Relatively few farmers (13.5%) reported a major increase in their use of machinery, but close to three quarters of the farmers stated that they were planning to purchase additional machinery for their operation. These expansion plans were not related to farm size. On the other hand, as might be expected, the larger farmers reported a greater degree of mechanization than the smaller farmers, defined in terms of the number of major pieces of machinery used in production activities (r=.441, p<.01). The amount of machinery used in production was also related to the type of farm. Vegetable farms reported very low levels of machinery use, with a high reli-ance on labour intensive forms of production, including hand-weeding and hand-harvesting. Again not surprisingly, the level of mechanization of field crop farmers was much higher, including equipment characteristic of the standard conventional line-up, such as tractors, mechanical planters, tillage equipment and combines. The main difference from the conventional labour process was the absence of mechani-cal sprayers and the fairly widespread use of hand weeders.

Our case studies and other field work also support the survey findings that the vegetable and fruit farms operated at low levels of mechanization, while many field crop farms were mechanized along the same lines as conventional farms. Mixed operations with livestock were fairly mechanized in the fields, while the levels of mechanization in the barn tended to vary substantially. Out of four dairy case stud-ies with similar size herds, two were operating with advanced milking technolo-gies, while the others were still milking into cans which had to be carried manu-ally to the holding tank. In many operations, the low level of mechanization and capitalization was a conscious choice, the more extreme of this evident by a growing movement in Ontario to use work horses instead of tractors. A number of the farm-ers listed concerns about the impact of heavy equipment on the land, energy con-sumption, pollution, and dependency on external sources of energy as the bases of their efforts to limit their level of mechanization. It was also clear that some organic farmers did not like operating machinery, and, indeed, their commitment to organic farming was partly motivated by an interest in limiting their reliance on machin-ery operation and “working more with their hands” (case study 14, field notes).

For other farmers, the level of mechanization was as much a financial decision as an ideological one. Many of these farms had very low incomes, forcing the opera-tors to make do with very little in terms of mechanization. This low level of capital-ization was often reflected in a reliance on very old machinery, which tended to be hard on the operator, the environment and the land. For most of the vegetable and fruit farmers, the diversity and scale of their operations precluded any significant levels of mechanization. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that when vegetable and

fruit farmers were planning to purchase or rent more land, they were also more likely to be planning an expansion of their use of machinery (r=.290, p<.05), sug-gesting that increased mechanization may develop as farmers expand their land base. On the other hand, most vegetable and fruit farmers have a long way to go both in terms of size and in terms of specialization before they would be able to signifi-cantly increase their mechanization. In the current sample, 28% of the vegetable/fruit farmers stated that they were planning to expand their land base, and only two of those farmers reported a related intention of becoming more specialized.

In terms of mechanization, once again it is the field crop farmers who most clearly resemble the conventional farmer. None of the organic vegetable and fruit farmers in our study were operating at the levels of mechanization typical of the larger conventional farms in Canada. While the lack of mechanization increases the dependency on physical labour, but in most cases the farm sizes were such that much of that labour was absorbed by the family, and relatively few farms were dependent on migrant labour.

Ideological orientations?

While the discussion thus far has been focused on farming practices, the conven-tionalization and bifurcation arguments also imply changes or splits in ideological orientation. With this in mind, we constructed a number of items aimed at gaug-ing certain beliefs or principles common to the organic movement. First of all, farmers were asked about their motivations for making the decision to farm organi-cally – that is, did they begin organic farming for financial, environmental, life-style, social justice, or health reasons. The great majority of the farmers reported that environmental or conservation concerns were very important to their decision to farm organically (see Table 3). While relatively few expressed concerns about lifestyle or the family farm, a majority (61%) also cited their dissatisfaction with the quality of the worklife in conventional farming as a very important reason for their decision. In terms of the more conventional financial motivations, just over one quarter of our respondents reported expectations for higher profits or financial problems as being very important to their decision.

When we looked at the item on profit motivation, the overall relationship with

Table 3: Motivations for farming organically Motivations Profit Financial problems* Soil quality Family health Environmental concerns Dissatisfaction with farm work Decline of family farm Lifestyle

Very Important

26.7% 15.9% 67.8% 39.1% 88.8% 61.0% 33.5% 36.7%

Somewhat Important

32.2% 15.2% 22.5% 21.4% 10.0% 26.4% 35.0% 22.3%

Not Important

41.2% 69.0% 09.7% 39.5% 01.2% 12.6% 31.5% 31.5%

N=255 N=145 N=258 N=248 N=259 N=254 N=257 N=188

* Refers to financial problems as conventional farmers

farm size was not significant, but there was some difference between the group of largest and smallest farmers. Specifically, the largest farmers (500 or more acres) were more likely to cite profit as very important to their decision (42%) than the smallest farmers (19%; <100 acres). The profit motivation was also related signifi-cantly to the type of farming (chi-square=25.370, p<01), although the key difference here was between the field crop farms and the mixed livestock/crop farms.

The newer organic farmers were also more likely to report a profit motivation as important to their decision (r=.269, p<.01). In fact, the difference between the newer and older term organic farmers was quite substantial (chi-square=23.931, p<.01). More than half of the farmers (55%) with more than 10 years stated that profit was not a factor in their decision, while only 16% of the newest group of farm-ers dismissed profit as unimportant. There was a similar although weaker trend between years in organic farming and the farmers’ current motivation for farming; that is, whether they agreed with the statement, “first and foremost, I am farming organically to make a profit” (r=.166, p<.01). On the other hand, relatively few farm-ers (8%) strongly agreed that profit was their primary motivation for farming organ-ically. The relationship of this variable to farm size was also not significant.

At least in terms of motivation, these results suggest that the newer farmers were more likely to be motivated by profit considerations than the longer term farm-ers. Significantly, this finding was not confined to field crop farmers. The newer vegetable farmers were also much more inclined to report a profit motivation than the longer term farmers. This is consistent with the conventionalization argument in that it appears that the more recent people coming into organic farming are more likely to be motivated by business considerations than the ‘early pioneers’ of the organic movement (Kaltoft 1999, 2001). It is also interesting that when we controlled for farm origins, we found that the basic relationship held – the newer farmers were more likely to see profit as important regardless of whether or not they began as conventional farmers. However, the newer farmers who came from a conventional farming background were much more likely to cite profit as very important to their decision (56%) as compared to the newer farmers without a con-ventional background (15%). Again, this suggests further support for the idea that the movement of conventional farmers into organic farming represents a potential shift in the ideological orientation of organic farming, assuming, of course, that these farmers sustain their more conventional orientation over time.9

In an effort to provide further support for this argument, we also looked at a range of farm belief items. These items addressed various beliefs and values – the need to protect the family farm and the rural community, the importance of techno-logical and scientific advances, the need to limit off-farm inputs, support for local production, the need to avoid the marketing approaches of conventional agriculture, the question of whether larger farms are needed to meet market demands, the pro-tection of soil and the environment over profit, the need for farmers to actively sup-port wildlife development, the value of tougher environmental legislation in agri-culture, and the definition of the successful farmer in terms of profit and growth.10 Although the same patterns were evident on some of these variables, that is, the largest farmers and the more recent farmers tended to be more conventional in some of their thinking, the relationships were not statistically significant, with the exception of one item. The more recent organic farmers were more likely to define

the successful organic farmer in terms of profit and expansion (r= .130, p<.05). Although this was clearly not a strong correlation, in combination with the other findings on profit motivation, it suggests at least some tendency among more of the newer organic farmers to have a conventional business orientation to organic farming which emphasizes profitability, productivity and growth.

On the other hand, the overall results using these survey items do not lead to any definitive conclusions. The other variables aimed at assessing orientation to growth and profit issues, including one which asked specifically if they believed that organic farmers would need to get larger as demand increased, were not found to be related to ‘years farming organically’ or any of the other key farm characteris-tics. It is also important to note that beliefs in local production, environmental pro-tection and the limitation of off-farm inputs were not significantly related to profit-oriented motivations, nor to any of the farm characteristics.11

Perhaps these findings reflect errors in measurement. Certainly, our case stud-ies revealed that these belief items often failed to differentiate some important dif-ferences between farmers in their ideas and views. However, the findings also sug-gest, again supported within the case studies, that the structure of beliefs within the organic community is much more complex than a simple conventional vs. alter-native orientation (Beus and Dunlap 1991; Kaltoft 1999). For example, a number of our case studies had a business orientation to their operation, but despite some of the apparent contradictions, some of those farmers were also very committed to environmental and stewardship values. Conversely, there were many farmers who viewed organic farming in very holistic terms as a distinct way of living and producing, but this did not mean that they adopted all the ‘alternative’ ideas commonly associated with the organic or environmental movements (Michelsen 2001a). There were often substantial differences among these farmers in terms of their views on mechanization, off-farm dependencies, farm size, global vs. local production, the role of science and technology, corporate control, food commercial-ization and processing, and other questions of social justice, and those differences were often complex, reflecting variations of degree and commitment, as well as variations in their larger world views and values (Kaltoft 1999). Certainly, a portion of the community can be identified as representing and living the model of the small-scale non-mechanized mixed farm with local-oriented production, direct pro-ducer-consumer relations, and self-sufficiency. But even within this group, there were important differences in world views and values (e.g. eco-socialism vs. spiri-tualism).

One thing is clear, very few of the organic farmers, including those who had recently made the shift from conventional farming, could be described as entirely

‘conventional’ in their thinking – that is, wholeheartedly believing in large-scale spe-cialized, mechanized, export-oriented, commercially dependent farming (Kaltoft 2001). Indeed, it is questionable whether most conventional farmers accept these ideas without criticism, considering the almost constant state of crisis in agricul-ture over the last two to three decades (Hall 1998a). Regardless, the key point is that while there were a number of organic farmers who were more motivated by profit considerations and who saw profitability and growth as important elements of success, and some of these farmers were less concerned about the environment, mechanization, labour practices, and relations to consumers, there were no consis-

tent indications that all these latter orientations were more prevalent among newer farmers, field crop farmers, larger farmers, or farmers who originated as conven-tional farmers, and in that sense, the findings provide only weak support for the idea that the ideological content of the movement is being eroded.

Yet these findings can also be interpreted as revealing conditions conducive to the increased commodification and conventionalization of organic farming (Kal-toft 1999; 2001). To begin with, one quarter of our respondents did not believe in locally oriented marketing systems. Moreover, as we discovered through many of our case studies, even some of the most ardent supporters of the local marketing concept were actually selling to wholesalers and exporters, in some cases convert-ing land previously used for locally oriented vegetable production to export oriented soybean production because the prices were too good to pass up and they needed the money. The early development of an export-oriented organic field crop special-ization is itself an important indication of what may be coming in the future.

When we asked farmers if they saw organic farming primarily as a business or as an alternative way of living and producing, only four people said business. The vast majority (83%) opted for a middle position, arguing that it was both a busi-ness and a way of life. While this answer may clearly separate the organic commu-nity from the straight business orientation of the conventional community, most organic farmers were still acknowledging that for them, there is a business aspect to farming that cannot be escaped, which brought to its logical conclusion means that they have to make a profit. It may be that it is the widespread acceptance of this

‘fact of life’ that makes organic farming ripe for the picking. Perhaps csas can offer a way out of this contradiction, but in the final analysis, if export oriented pressures and wholesale opportunities continue to develop, it seems likely that financial con-siderations will lure more organic farmers in that direction, and if they are ‘success-ful’, many more conventional farmers will likely join them.

Discussion and Conclusion

In terms of the current situation, one which admittedly may be changing quite quickly, we found very little support for the conventionalization thesis among fruit and vegetable farmers (Buck, Getz and Guthman 1997), nor did the results really support the idea of a polarization between large export-oriented producers and small locally oriented producers. Small, relatively independent producers selling largely in local market contexts remain the almost exclusive form of organic veg-etable and fruit farming in Ontario, and there were few signs of a major export segment developing in the fruit and vegetable area. There have been virtually no large-scale efforts to draw conventional growers into organic production, minimal capital investment by major agribusiness, and little evidence of the marginalization of small by large producers. There was also very little indication of specialization, capitalization, or mechanization among vegetable and fruit farms.

However, the conventionalization argument carried much more weight when we looked at field crop farming. With relatively little investment in processing facilities within Canada, most of the field crop production is for export purposes. Along with the export orientation, field crop farmers are larger, more mechanized, more capi-talized and specialized in cropping patterns. This includes an increasing number

of farmers who are specializing in field crops without livestock, a very conventional model of farming given the implied dependency on outside sources for fertilizers.

Still, unlike the New Zealand case, (Coombes and Campbell 1998), there was no emerging split between the newer larger export producers and smaller local-oriented producers. In Ontario, many of the long-time middle-level producers were also being drawn into the export oriented field crops, and indeed, most of the export market was being serviced through relatively small farms, many of whom were organized through marketing coops. As farmers explained to us, the smaller and middle sized producers were supplementing their incomes by using any available land to take advantage of high grain and soybean prices. Of course, the number of large conventional growers moving to organic farming may not have yet reached the level where their competition was a problem. Over time, if more and more larger farmers make the transition, this will likely become an increasing issue.

However, we found no evidence of a concerted effort by export oriented agri-business to recruit conventional grain or soybean farmers into farming organically for export. As reported in our wholesaler interviews, there has been an increase in wholesaler and broker competition which has reportedly increased promotional and recruitment efforts to solicit from the current organic growers, but this has not translated as yet into a major recruitment effort by capital or government among conventional growers. According to very recent interviews with some of these grain wholesalers, the increased movement of Ontario conventional grain farmers into organic farming that they saw during the mid to late 1990s was very shortlived and has actually tapered off in the last 2 years. Interestingly, our survey data sug-gests that the highpoint was 1996 when nineteen conventional grain farmers made the shift from conventional grain farming. Only nine farmers reported making the move in 1998. At minimum, this suggests that there is no major stampede of con-ventional farmers moving into organic farming in Ontario.

When all is said and done, what do these results suggest about the long-term survival of an alternative organic agriculture in Ontario? Certainly, as long as agri-business capital remains relatively inactive in Canada, the pressures toward com-modification and the shift of conventional farmers will remain quite limited in the vegetable and fruit area. There are definite signs that this is changing, in particular the increased activity by the major grocers, but investment in processing and distri-bution systems remain relatively under-developed, discouraging the kind of farm sizes, specialization, and mechanization which have developed in California and New Zealand. Developments in field crop farming are clearly moving more quickly towards the conventional model, and increased government attention to the export grains and oilseed markets will likely accentuate this process. However, it appears that both the government and conventional agribusiness capital remain reluctant to fully embrace and promote organic field crop farming, which is less than sur-prising considering the implications for the industry as a whole and the chemical industry in particular (MacRae, Henning and Hill 1993). In Ontario, this is also reflected by conventional farm organizations (Ontario Federation of Agriculture) and commodity organizations (Ontario Corn Producers and Soybean Producers) which, with government and agribusiness support, continue to exclude organic farming from consideration as a sustainable alternative (Hall 1998a,b). Paradoxi-

cally, as long as these interests persist in their efforts to dismiss organic farming, the pressures towards conventionalization will remain relatively limited.

While these conflicting interests will likely place continuing constraints on cap-ital investment, recent developments indicate that the Canadian government is beginning to shift from a policy of exclusion to one of appropriation ( Tovey 1997). This is being driven largely by outside forces – that is, the increasing export demand from Europe and the us. Enhanced concerns about food safety and the increasing institutionalization of organic farming within various European communities will likely intensify this demand, and with that intensification, we can anticipate more investment and increasing interest by conventional farmers.

But does this mean that Ontario will lose its alternative orientation? We would agree with Coombes and Campbell (1998) that an alternative orientation and approach will likely continue to develop within the local market context. There are critical masses of producers and consumers within the movement who are commit-ted ideologically to challenging the commodification of food (Kaltoft 1999). Along with the entry of others who are motivated by less noble considerations, many new-comers are also providing an ongoing renewal of this commitment. It was also apparent in a couple of our case studies that the more conventionally oriented new-comers are sometimes transformed through their participation in the movement; that is, they come to understand the broader principles of the movement and their thinking and practices begin to change accordingly.

There are other factors operating at the farm level which may also encourage the continuation of smaller scale organic farming and discourage conventionalization certainly among the existing community. Many farmers reported that the quality of the life and work that it offered though organic farming was very important to them. Whether they saw themselves as challenging the conventional food system or not, they were committed to small-scale non-mechanized farming because they liked the independence, the skill requirements, the diversity of tasks, and the physical work, and disliked “sitting in a machine all day” (case study 8, field notes). Organic farmers were also very skeptical about the practicalities of operating larger and more specialized organic farms. Quite aside from the environmental implications, and those concerns will certainly operate as a constraining factor in itself, many organic farmers don’t believe that specialization can work without major impacts on pests, soil fertility and crop yields. They have spent years achieving a productive farm environment and rotation system based on certain production principles and those principles will not be given up lightly. Of course, the argument is often made in the literature that this constraint is not just ideological – that there are very real biophysical demands in organic farming which limit the expansion and specializa-tion capacity of organic farming (Coombes and Campbell, 1998).

Indeed, those demands may constrain the impact that conventionalization has on organic practices, and ultimately, the moves by capital into the organic produc-tion sphere. However, it should be recognized that much depends on the ongoing effort to construct different versions of organic definitions, principles and standards (Campbell and Liepins 2001; DeLind 2000; Guthman 1998; Michelsen 2001b; Schmelzer 1998). In Canada, the continuing efforts to repress the ideological con-tent of organic farming and to expand the range of acceptable ‘natural’ inputs and practices are serious threats to the long-term survival of the movement as a

viable alternative. For the moment at least, as in the case of the development of Federal Canadian organic standards, many of the efforts to relax the standards have been resisted. But a significant question here is whether the organic movement in Canada has the capacity to act as a collective political actor to defend whatever it sees as its core alternative values from being diluted. On this point, we are very skeptical.

As a final statement, we would argue that this study supports the point made by Coombes and Campbell (1998) and others (Guthman 1998; Michelsen 2001) that we must be cautious about drawing general conclusions regarding the development of organic farming until we have more empirical data comparing different national and historical contexts. Even within Canada, it is apparent that there are substan-tial differences between the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, and Saskatchewan. These inter- and intra-national differences point to a need for more comparative research (Michelsen 2001) through which we can begin to theorize more meaningfully and more broadly about the commodification of organic and other forms of alternative food production.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Canadian Social Science and Humanites and Research Council. We’d like to thank the reviewers for their helpful and incisive comments.

1. Four farm size categories were created for the analysis: <100 acres, 100–299, 300–499, 500+; and four categories for time farming organically: 3 years or less, 4–6, 7–9, and 10 or more years.

2. An additional 26 farmers reported growing both vegetable and field crops without any livestock.

3. All reported coefficients are Spearman correlations.4. The overall correlation between farm size and growth plans was r=.15, p<.05)5. Csas or Community Supported (or Community Share) Agriculture refers to a system in

which consumers buy shares of a farmers’ production in advance of planting. The produc-tion is then either delivered to or picked up by the consumers at appointed times during the season.

6. It is also worth noting that these same farmers attempted to develop a labour pool using migrant labour as a key component of that pool.

7. These refer mainly to woofers and other organic apprenticeship programs. Seventeen farmers reported using this form of labour, sixteen of which were vegetable/fruit farms.

8. Four percent were female headed operations and 9% were more complex combinations of older parents, siblings or other business partners. Single respondents were excluded..

9. Evidence from a number of our case studies suggests that the ideas held by many of these newer farmers are often transformed once they become organic farmers and are exposed to alternative thinking through reading, conferences, and personal contacts.

10. Some of these items were adapted from the acap scale (Beus and Dunlap, 1991) although the scale as a whole was not used both because of time restrictions and because preliminary research suggested there was very little differentiation in responses to many of the items.

11. In a separate set of questions, we asked if farmers identified themselves as environmental-ists (76%), and if so, how active were they on environmental issues or in groups (16% very active; 40% somewhat active). Again, there were no significant relationships with farm size, type, origin, or years farming organically.

References

AGCare (2001) Our farm environmental agenda. Canada-Ontario Agriculture Green PlanAbbott Cone, C. and A. Myhre (2000) Community supported agriculture: A sustainable alter-

native to industrial agriculture? Human Organization 59 (2) pp. 187–197Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (2000) Contribut-

ing to Canada’s sustainable development strategy, 1992–1997. Canada-Ontario Green Plan. OttawaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada (2001) All about Canada’s organic industry. Government

Web Page: www.agr.ca/cb/factsheets/2industry_e.html. Ottawa: September 27Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, News Release (2000) Vanclief announces $10 million to

Farm Environmental Program. Leamington, Ontario: June 9Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, News Release (2001) Centre set to bolster Canada’s

organic expertise. Baddeck, Nova Scotia: July 12Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, News Release (2001) Vanclief announces funding to help

organic growers seize new market opportunities. Vancouver, B.C.: June 8Archibald. H. (1999) Organic Farming is Growing. In Canadian agriculture at a glance (Ottawa:

Agricultural Division, Statistics Canada)Beshiri, R. (1999) Small farms: big on diversity, small on profit. In Canadian agriculture at a

glance (Ottawa: Agricultural Division, Statistics Canada)Beus, C.E. and R. E. Dunlap (1994a) Agricultural paradigms and the practice of agriculture.

Rural Sociology 59 (4) pp. 620–635Beus ,C.E. and R.E. Dunlap (1994b) Endorsement of agrarian ideology and adherence to agri-

cultural paradigms. Rural Sociology 59 (3) pp. 462–485Beus C.E. and R.E. Dunlap (1991) Measuring adherence to alternative vs. conventional para-

digms. Rural Sociology 56 (3) pp. 432–460Buck, D.C., C. Getz, and J. Guthman (1997) From farm to table: The organic vegetable com-

modity chain at Northern California. Sociologia Ruralis 37 (1) pp. 3–20Campbell, H. and R. Liepins (2001) Naming organics: Understanding organic standards in

New Zealand as a discursive field. Sociologia Ruralis 41 (1) pp. 21–39Campbell, H. and B. Coombes (1999) Green protectionism and organic food exporting from

New Zealand: Crisis experiments in the breakdown of Fordist trade and agricultural poli-cies. Rural Sociology 64 (2) pp. 302–319

Canada-Ontario Agriculture Green Plan (2001) Contributing to Canada’s Sustainable Development Strategy: 1992–1997. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Archived Web Page: //res2.agr.ca/london/gp/gphompag.html. September 27

Clunies-Ross, T. (1990) Organic food: Swimming against the tide. Pp. 200–214 in T. Mars-den and J. Little eds, Political, social and economic perspectives on the international food system (Aldershot: Avebury)

Clunies Ross, T. and G. Cox (1994) Challenging the productivist paradigm: Organic farming and the politics of agricultural change. Pp.53–74 in P. Lowe, T. Marsden, and S. Whatmore eds, Regulating agriculture (London: David Fulton Publishers)

Coombes, B and H. Campbell (1998) Dependent production of alternative modes of agricul-ture: organic farming in New Zealand. Sociologia Ruralis 38 (2) pp.127–145

DeLind, L. (2000) Transforming organic agriculture into industrial organic products: Recon-sidering national organic standards. Human Organization 59 (2) pp. 198–208

Federal-Provincial-Territorial Communique (2001) Ministers set out a vision for agriculture. Whitehorse, June 29, pp. 1–7

Friedman, H. (1978a) World market, state, and family farm: Social bases of household produc-tion in the era of wage labour. Comparative Studies in Society and History 20, pp. 545–586

Friedman, H. (1978b) Simple commodity production and wage labour in the American plains. Journal of Peasant Studies 6, pp. 71–101

Goodman, D, and M. Redclift (1991)Refashioning nature: food, ecology, and culture (Routledge: New York)

Grey, M. (2000) The industrial food stream and its alternatives in the United States: An intro-duction. Human Organization 59 (2) pp. 143–150

Guthman, J. (1998) Regulating meaning, appropriating nature: The codification of California organic agriculture. Antipode 30 (2) pp.135–154

Hall, Alan (2002, in press) . Canadian agricultural policy: Liberal, global and sustainable. In J. Jacobs ed., Power and politics in the transition of rural America (University of Pennsylvania Press)

Hall, Alan (1998a) Sustainable agriculture and conservation tillage: Managing the contradic-tions. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 35 (2) pp. 221–252

Hall, Alan (1998b) Pesticide reforms and globalization: Making the farmers responsible. Canadian Journal of Law and Society 13 (1) p. 187–213

Kaltoft, P. (1999) Values about nature in organic farming practice and knowledge. Sociologia Ruralis 39 (1) pp. 39–53

Kaltoft, P. (2001) Organic farming in late modernity: At the frontier of modernity or oppos-ing modernity. Sociologia Ruralis 41 (1) pp. 146–158

Kautsky, K. (1899/1989) The Agrarian Question (London: Swan)Lyons, K. (1999) Corporate environmentalism and organic agriculture in Australia: the case

of Uncle Tobys. Rural Sociology 64 (2) pp. 251–265Lynggaard, K. The farmer within the institutional environment: comparing Danish and Bel-

gian organic farming. Sociologia Ruralis 41 (1) pp. 85–111Macey, A. (2000) Canadian organic statistics update. Eco-Farm and Garden (Winter) p. 26MacRae, R., J. Henning, and S. Hill (1993) Strategies to overcome barriers to the develop-

ment of sustainable agriculture in Canada. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6 (1), pp. 21–51

McClintic, C. (1999) Organic farming breaking into the big leagues: These days more and larger farming operations are being run without ag. chemicals. The Furrow (January–Feb-ruary) pp. 10–13

Michelsen, J. (2001a) Recent development and political acceptance of organic farming in Europe. Sociologia Ruralis 41 (1) pp.3–20

Michelsen, J. (2001b) Organic farming in a regulatory perspective. The Danish case. Sociolo-gia Ruralis 41 (1), pp. 62–83

Pugliese, P. (2001) Organic farming and sustainable rural development: A multi-faceted and promising convergence. Sociologia Ruralis 41 (1) pp. 112–130

Rickson, R.E., P. Saffigna, and R. Sanders (1999) Farm work satisfaction and acceptance of sustainability goals by Australian organic and conventional farmers. Rural Sociology 64 (2) pp. 266–283

Schmelzer, P. (1998) Label loophole: when organic isn’t. The Progressive (May) pp. 28–32Sustainable Farming (1994) Quebec moves to develop organic farming. Fall, 1994Tovey, H. (1997) Food environmentalism and rural sociology: On the organic movement in

Ireland. Sociologia Ruralis 37 (1) pp.21–37Willer, H. und M. Yussefi (2001) organic agriculture worldwide 2001: Statistics and future pros-

pects. BioFach and ifoam

Alan HallVeronika Mogyorody

Department of Sociology and AnthropoloyUniversity of Windsor

Ontario, Canada

Organic Farmers in Ontario: An Examination of the Conventionalization Argument

Documents

Transcript of Organic Farmers in Ontario: An Examination of the Conventionalization Argument

Advancing an Idea for Material Argument

Making Argument Systems for Outsourced Computation ...

Argument Structure Constructions - UC Berkeley

Argument mapping with MindMup - Olivier Lemeire

6 •'•M. - Geology Ontario

Arch Notes - Ontario Archaeological Society

PARKS CANADA AGENCY ONTARIO WATERWAYS ...

11mirae - Our Ontario

Our History - Our Ontario

On an Argument for Humility

2 . 3771'6 - Geology Ontario

The core argument for veganism

agreement - Ontario Energy Board

52N02SW0001.pdf - Geology Ontario

SHOT IN ONTARIO 2016

The logic behind negotiation: from pre-argument reasoning to argument-based negotiation

TeacHer's guiDe - Royal Ontario Museum

Teaching Argument Writing, Grades 6-12

KONSISTENSI STRUKTUR ARGUMENT BY COMMITMENT

championships - Ontario Basketball Association