-------
S
1
H
Infrastructure Needs
d
.2
Is
.«
a
9
B "*
S t3
« d
>a 2
a> 43
PQ U
'** M
»> d
"1 «
"3
• conventional agriculture's attitude a
O
j^
• f—4
• 1—4
r^
JH
*c3
*
• constrained
1
A
c
the benefits of IPM and organic farmi
incomplete grower support for IPM
S
Ct C
<+-3 o
C* CA
O W
*»« •*-<
O ,^"
T3
a j
^ CJ)
as
2 js
.-^s.
•T3 E
r£> O
03 O
60
1
S
T3
S5
1
O
_g
i1
o
i
'O
*
O
4— •
ij
*'^*'*
O
^
^
1
o
11
c
S
what happens in food supply chain
• reluctance of manufacturers to regis
o
0) „.
CO £2
9 03
« .2
° P
TO S3
S -o
consumers to offset
higher price paid
materials for pest control because of
growers
|l
significant research and development
• society subsidization of regulation a
co j|
^Q H"
l|
•H O
CO (U
clean-up of pesticides
• workload, resource needs, and
venture, including
learning business
£•
'&
4)
responsibilities in these efforts by uni
extension
management
• marketing against
-a
• distrust of government evaluation ai
l
\s
I
concern that program may become
regulatory
experienced
companies,
including paying
slotting fees to sell
on store shelves,
which may be
better absorbed by
larger companies
-------
barrier, such as finding sources of organic
feed, may also pose a resource barrier. A
number of these barriers are similar to the
barriers to use of IPM that were identified by
growers and pest control advisors during five
workshops held in 1993 in Illinois,
Pennsylvania, Texas, and two in California
(Sorensen, 1993b).
Some of these barriers reflect a
growing market segment and its growing
pains. For example, while the need to find
new sources of organic feed is a barrier to
increased production of organic foods (i.e., a
bottleneck in the production chain), it is also a
sign that the marketplace is responding to the
product and that consumers and stores are
sending a signal that they want to buy more.
Other barriers serve to impede expansion of
production or processing of crops grown with
more environmentally-protective practices,
such as the lack of proper incentives for
growers to adopt the environmental practices
or the need to educate consumers about the
benefits of these practices. Some companies
are using targeted incentives, marketing, and
infrastructure-building efforts to address these
barriers.
Some of the infrastructure barriers are
being addressed by food companies who share
research results (discussed in Section 2.2) or
help to build connections within the industry
to improve the flow of information and
identify and address research needs. This
improved support for environmental practices
can also lead to greater grower use.
According to a 1993 national survey of
organic growers, the most important marketing
problem or concern (i.e., barrier) was the lack
of consumer demand, awareness, and
education. The top-ranked method to address
their marketing problems/and concerns was
more consumer education.
This is consistent with their top research need -
- increasing consumer demand for organic
products through improved marketing and
education (OFRF, 1994). In the survey update
in 1995, this was the third highest ranking
research priority (OFRF, 1996), perhaps
reflecting two more years of increasing
consumer purchases of organic foods
(discussed in Section 2.5).
Many of these barriers relate to the
availability of, and access to, information. In
addition, access to sufficient resources to
support these changes in practices is also a
dominant theme. Depending on the specific
barrier, different stakeholders can have a range
of roles in helping to overcome them.
Stakeholders include the growers, companies,
suppliers, trade associations, university
extension, investors, retailers, consumers,
public officials, and non-governmental
organizations. In several cases discussed in
this report, some of these groups are working
together in various combinations to overcome
these barriers and achieve greater
environmental protection and economic
opportunities in the food sector.
2.4 Achievements of Stewardship Efforts
Table 7 lists the types of
environmental practices that are being
encouraged and supported by the food
companies contacted for this report. These
practices may be integral to the growers'
production practices and examples of pollution
prevention, e.g., the timing, targeting, and
quantity of nutrients or irrigation water
applied, or may be ancillary to their
production practices, e.g., managing the
mortalities (that result from growing livestock)
through composting or rendering.
Irrigation water does not only supply
water as an input but also delivers nutrients
and is a potential carrier of pollutants.
Optimizing the timing and quantity of water
applied can reduce potential pollutant loads to
ground and surface water, as well as reduce
costs for this input (compared to the cost of the
irrigation technology).
Depending on how livestock manure
and mortalities are managed, the nutrients and
pathogens they contain can affect ground or
2-33
-------
is
II1
s-s. ,
e
B .2
1 7*
•8
5O
S.S-S-S.
1
2
o
"I
I
S
-S
- o
1 ?•
s-s-s-
S.S-
S-S-SS. S.S-S- S-S.S-S.
58
o
s
s
o
i I
5C u
&Z
Company
a$
6|
1H g
|<3
w g
l<3g
c^t^
U PL, ^
S ts S
3 ca u
H.-B "S t
till
S.S-S-
SS-
11
raca
UU
01
1
'
O P
.
W
WOP
O WWW
-------
tS «
-i
, s»s>
• S- S-S.S
a .g!
.2 -g!
i. %
ct -2
a e
I
s.
, s.
o»
••a
, , s. , s.
S-S.S-
t
I
S-S-S. S.S.
IT)
fl
0> b B
>• O C3
3SS
, s.
•o
a
j
PH
"es
•tari
a
|
o
1
o
= !
II
'
a
ca
-------
8:8
s- , s-
D, O
S£
, s-s. ss
I
O
I
55
•n
u
"o
2?
••s
u
?
•a
o
a
w
I
t--
I
S
•5
II
s , s
s.
2 &
•s «
1 |
* I
o
u
u
s
"a
a
2
a
W
a> e
RE S>
W u
1 1
(2S
!""» QJ
§ eu
'2
•9 C3
|§
, s. , s. ,
s-s-
S-
I
•"*? £? c
v its o «
&c
'C .«
g
|
- Q
g
III9
2 & «
tsfi
t^ "
vo
cs
, s-s. s. ,
g
P
V
us
t O
dwe
n8^§ ^5
oo
C
60S
cig o
I S ^
.1 | «8
•<* " O
•sIS
o » o
r£ O O
HH (j m
O w w
£1^
-------
surface water quality (EPA, 1995b). Manure
is also a valuable source of crop nutrients, and
may be beneficially utilized on the growers'
fields or marketed off the farm. The
management of the manure may include
processing practices such as composting, dry
stacking, or liquid handling; the management
of the mortalities by the growers working with
the companies contacted typically involves
rendering or composting. If the soil lacks
sufficient nutrients to grow crops, such as
provided from on-farm raw or composted
manure or "green manure" crops, off-farm
nutrients, such as from fertilizers, may need to
be applied. In either case, knowing how much
nutrients are needed by the crop, where and
when to apply them, and what cover crops to
grow and take up nutrients in non-growing
seasons, prevent soil erosion, and/or fix
atmospheric nitrogen, etc., leads to overall
better management practices.
"Pasture/Range Management" refers
here to the practice of using rotational grazing
to not only provide feed for livestock, but also
to better manage the land to avoid over-
grazing and the associated environmental
impacts, e.g., lack of plant cover, increased
erosion, and loss of productive soil. These
grazing practices can also provide benefits to
ground water by maintaining the filtering
capability of plants and soil, avoiding erosion,
and dispersing manure from the livestock
rather than concentrating it in limited areas.
However, depending on how the rotational
grazing is managed, there may be significant
loss of nitrogen to ground water or the
atmosphere.
"Pesticide Risk Reduction" includes
organic farming and the use of IPM, defined
by EPA as "the coordinated use of pest and
environmental information with available pest
control methods to prevent unacceptable
levels of pest damage by the most economical
means, and with the least possible hazard to
people, property and the environment." IPM
is a holistic approach for dealing with
unwanted insects, plants, and diseases. IPM
includes biological, chemical, cultural, and
mechanical practices to suppress insects,
diseases, and weeds. These practices include
the use of field selection, scouting (to
determine populations of unwanted and
beneficial insects), mating disruption of
damaging pests, beneficial insects, animal
predators (e.g., barn owls to prey on rodents
and bats to prey on flying insects), cover crops
(to keep down dust and weeds and attract
beneficial insects), crop rotations (to break up
insect and weed cycles), composting (to kill
pathogens and weed seeds), weeding, and using
compost (to develop a healthier soil and
suppress plant pathogens). The use of
synthetic pesticides is kept to a minimum and
only used when economic damage to the crop
cannot be otherwise avoided (Freeman Long,
1996; McGill, 1996; Bolkan and Reinert, 1994;
Hollingsworth et al., 1994). As discussed in
Benbrook et al. (1996), there is a continuum
for use of IPM. Starting from "No IPM," and
then moving to "Low Level IPM," "Medium
Level IPM," to "Biointensive IPM," there is a
progression from use of synthetic pesticides to
greater use of IPM and preventive practices. In
addition, organic growers generally use a
combination of the IPM practices, e.g.,
planting cover crops, manual or mechanical
weeding, and attracting beneficial insects.
Integrated fruit production (IFP)
encompasses all aspects of growing,
harvesting/storing, and packing the fruit, and
is intended to take the best of organic and
conventional. An IFP program is a holistic
approach that includes IPM, herbicides,
pesticides, fertilizers, irrigation, post-harvest
treatments, packaging, recycling, and
marketing (Hollingsworth, 1995; Reed, 1995;
Coli, 1992). IFP programs were first
developed hi Europe in the 1970s. Today, 42
percent of the acres used to grow apples and
pears in Europe are grown under an IFP
program, with 31 formal programs spanning 10
countries (Reed, 1995). According to
Oberhofer (1993), the Italian market prefers
IFP fruit (and growers have to be motivated by
2-37
-------
economics) and growers in Tyrol, Italy highly
regard their participation in the program. In
addition, these growers participate in IFF for
the following reasons:
• compete in the future (and respond to
pressure from fruit packers)
• reduce the risk of pesticide resistance
• reflect environmental consciousness
• provide fairness towards consumers
• present positive image for growers
(Oberhofer, 1993)
In addition, many growers in Europe must
meet IFF standards in order to receive
government support. Thus, monetary
assistance is an additional reason for
participating in IFF. While IFF is not
explicitly included in Table 7, it is implicitly
represented for Hood River Grower/Shippers
and Stemilt Growers with the entries reported
for them under "Pesticide Risk Reduction,"
"Irrigation Management," and "Nutrient
Management."
Protection of riparian areas is
important to not only protect water quality
(e.g., stabilize streambanks, reduce erosion,
filter pollution, and lower in-stream water
temperatures), but also to protect aquatic and
wildlife habitats (e.g., improve habitats,
protect wetlands, and form protected and
contiguous areas) and reduced potential for
flooding (e.g., provide buffer through
wetlands).
Finally, when growers take steps to
protect wildlife habitat by how or where they
farm, e.g., by growing crops to protect and
support wildlife, using rotational grazing,
protecting riparian areas, and protecting rain-
forest areas, the practices are represented in
Table 7 under the category of "Wildlife
Habitat."
Some stewardship efforts are
voluntary, e.g., an environmental practice may
not be a requirement for a food company to
buy or obtain the crop from growers, or the
practice may not be used by all of the
growers. In several other cases, the growers
follow a certain practice either because they
must (e.g., it is included in their contract, or
they must follow certain practices to be
certified organic or to be included in the food
company's program). Whether the practices
are voluntary or mandatory, growers still need
to be convinced of the merits of certain
practices, and this communication/
demonstration need represents one of the main
barriers identified by the companies contacted.
Some of the food companies have
quantitative measures of the effects of their
efforts on input use. For example, based on
research at the University of Minnesota,
American Crystal Sugar Company lowered
their recommended nitrogen application levels
from 170 to 120 pounds per acre. This led to
annual reductions of 36 million pounds in
nitrogen fertilizer, or $5.8 million in lower
input costs. Four years later, it was able to
notice decreased levels of nitrogen in the soil.
Its growers also reduced their fungicide
applications by 1.5 per crop year due to
weather monitoring and a disease prediction
model. Through Campbell Soup Company's
efforts, growers reduced their use of synthetic
insecticides and fungicides for tomatoes by 30
percent, synthetic pesticides for celery by 40-
90 percent, and soil fumigation for carrots by
60 percent (Bolkan and Reinert, 1994). Pro-
Fac Cooperative, working with Wegmans, has
seen the average number of insecticide sprays
on sweet corn (processed into canned and
frozen corn) lowered from four per crop at the
start of the program to just over one as of mid-
1997 (Shelton and Petzoldt, 1997).
2.5 Marketing Environmental Attributes
of Food Products
If companies explicitly or implicitly
inform consumers about the environmental
impacts from their products, they are adding
another attribute for consumers to consider
when making purchase decisions. Several
companies in this report differentiate their
products with information about the
environmental attributes. This section
2-38
-------
discusses findings from this study regarding
product differentiation, as well as
corroborating studies that indicate that many
consumers may be interested in such
information.
Although company size should
theoretically not affect whether a food
company so differentiates its product(s), the
study indicates that the smaller companies are
more likely to do so at this point in time, and
probably do so to develop a competitive edge
(see also Welsh, 1996; Hamilton, 1994a, b;
Heffernan, 1994). For example, one of the
ways some of the small companies
differentiate their products is to inform
consumers that the raw food inputs are
produced by small, family farms. One
explanation for this observation is that the
larger companies may be motivated to
undertake their environmental stewardship
activities by reasons other than product
differentiation, though this may change over
time if they believe it will provide a
competitive advantage for them.
Benbrook (1997), Benbrook et al.
(1996), and Kinsey (1994) contend that
environmentally-directed food purchases are
becoming more prevalent and more important
to increased grower use of environmentally-
beneficial farming practices. For example, the
sale of organically grown food was $3.5
billion in 1996 and has increased at least 20
percent per year between 1990 and 1996
(Scott, 1997). However, certified organic
acreage represented .2 percent of U.S.
cropland (including cropland that is harvested,
pastured, idled, covered, or fallowed) and
4,050 farmers in 1994, but this may
significantly underestimate organic acreage
because non-certified organic acreage was not
included (Anton Dunn, 1995); Lipson (1997)
reported 10,000-15,000 certified and
uncertified organic farmers working over one
miltion acres of crop land and grazing land in
1996.
It is unclear whether the heightened
consumer interest in organic foods is due
more to concerns about health and food
quality, nutrition, and/or taste than protection
of the environment and worker safety. For
example, when Rodale Press (1994) asked the
public about why they buy organic fruits and
vegetables, questions about the perceived
environmental implications were apparently
not asked ~ survey respondents stated their
reasons included long-term health benefits,
nutritional value, taste, and appearance.
According to a survey of California consumers,
the effect of organic farming on the
environment was rated below food safety,
freshness, general health benefits, and
nutritional, when ranked according to
importance (Jolly et al., 1989). However,
according to Dye Gussow (1996), and due in
part to the lack of "careful studies" about the
nutritional qualities of organic foods, it maybe
more important and effective to promote
organic foods based on environmental impacts
and resource conservation, and this could
perhaps also improve their market penetration.
In fact, according to a recent national survey
and given the public's current understanding of
environmental issues and farming techniques,
"Initiatives that have the potential to directly
affect the consumer (e.g., water pollution-
related) are of greater importance than those
that are far removed from most consumers'
experience (e.g., soil productivity-related)."
(The Hartman Group, 1996)
If a company wants to differentiate its
products, it is more likely to provide relevant
information to consumers on the product, on
the shelf, or in stores. However, as learned in
this study and in Sorensen (1993b),
communicating IPM to consumers can be
difficult and a barrier to providing growers
with incentives to use these practices. In
another study, survey participants in California
generally showed significant changes in
attitudes regarding the environmental
implications of IPM after watching two two-
minute videos on IPM (Bruhn et al., 1992b).
Similarly, Paschall et al. (1992) surveyed New
England consumers and learned that most of
2-39
-------
the general public does not know what IPM is,
but the authors believe the public will support
IPM when they understand it. Anderson et al.
(1996) and Burgess et al. (1989) reported
similar findings in surveys in Massachusetts
(regarding the Partners with Nature program
discussed in Appendix B) and New York,
respectively.
In a 1990 survey in the Pacific
Northwest, "responses ... indicate a
moderately high level of public concern over
the safety of pesticides for the food supply, a
higher level of concern over their safety for
their environment, and a very high level of
concern over pesticide contamination of water
supplies — an issue involving both
environmental and human health
considerations" (Dunlap and Beus, 1992). In
a survey of the U.S. public, over 90 percent
were concerned about the presence of
pesticides and fertilizers in water supplies and
also with pesticides in the environment
(McGrath Morris et al., 1993). These levels
of environmental concern were comparable to
concerns about the health impacts of
pesticides. These levels of concern (90
percent) were higher than public concerns
over secondary cigarette smoke and air
pollution from cars and industries. There was
also strong support for more product options
offered in stores to encourage lower use of
pesticides.
There were similar findings in a
survey of shoppers in a food cooperative in
New York — protection of wildlife and water
supplies from pesticides was rated the most
important, followed by a tie between
protection of drinking water supplies from
fertilizers and protection of consumers from
pesticide residues in food (Goldman and
Clancy, 1991). In a survey of households in
Pennsylvania, there was a dramatic increase in
concern about the impact of pesticides on
wildlife, fanners, and individual health
between 1965 and 1984 (Sachs et al., 1987).
Bruhn et al. (1992a) surveyed California
consumers about pesticide-related information
and learned that they were most interested in
information about the human health effects of
pesticide use and the effects of pesticides on
the environment. Over one-half were also
interested in information about the effects of
pesticide use on agricultural workers. Ditrus
and Killers (1993) reported that survey
respondents that had lower trust in pesticide
regulations also had higher environmental
concerns regarding pesticides.
Paradoxically, many growers are
concerned that informing consumers about the
use of IPM will raise or support concerns of
food safety concerns with consumers
(Hollingsworth, 1994; Sorensen, 1993a; Grant
et al., 1990). These growers therefore would
not support including IPM-related information
on food labels, especially since they believe
that the U.S. food supply is the safest in the
world. According to Hollingsworth et al.
(1995), Hollingsworth (1994), Bruhn et al.
(1992b), and Paschall et al. (1992), and some
of the companies and programs contacted for
this report, this concern can be avoided by
stressing the environmental stewardship of
IPM. According to Bruhn et al. (1992b),
"Consumers commented that hearing about
IPM practices did make them more aware of
pesticide use, but also made them feel more
secure because 'someone was doing something
about it.' Others noted that they felt safer
because they were more knowledgeable."
If documentation supports or validates
a product claim, this can provide assurance to
consumers that claims can be trusted and
therefore influence the marketplace. If the
validation process is overly burdensome, then
it could perhaps be improved upon to reduce its
cost, paperwork needs, etc. As reported by The
Hartman Group (1997), at least 67 percent of
U.S. consumers prefer that environmental
claims be certified, and that more consumers
trusted grower certification (34 percent) than
food company (21 percent) or third-party (20
percent) certification.
More broadly speaking, many
companies market their products' or processes'
2-40
-------
environmental and non-environmental
attributes to attract consumers, but also
knowing that not all consumers will be
interested. In addition, if information about
these attributes is not conveyed to consumers,
grower efforts will be unrecognized and
unrewarded, a barrier to growers adopting
these practices (discussed in Section 2.3; see
also Bruhn et al., 1992b). And the public's
attitude toward farming (as related to the
environment) would not improve, a
motivation for some of the companies' efforts.
Indeed, if a food company does not intend to
differentiate its product, it is less likely that it
will have the opportunity to inform consumers
of its environmental stewardship activities.
van Ravenswaay (1996) advised caution in the
wording of eco-labels, and to take heed to the
lessons learned in the development of the
Federal Trade Commission's 1992 (and the
updated 1996) guidelines for environmental
claims, such as compostable, degradable,
environmentally friendly, recyclable, and
recycled.
With the growth in direct marketing
between growers and consumers, there will be
increased opportunities for not only personal
contact between the two groups, but also two-
way communication and education. For
example, growers can share information with
consumers about their growing practices and
the challenges encountered. Consumers can
provide feedback and input, and also learn
how their food travels from soil to shelf to
table.
2-41
-------
-------
3. CONCLUSIONS
3.1 Study Needs
During this study, a number of issues
emerged that can help guide future work on
the topic of business-led environmental
stewardship, especially in the food sector. As
evident from the examples presented, there are
several cases where a company's protection of
its own and the growers' economic interests
was consistent with protecting the
environment. The primary objective behind
some of the efforts that influenced grower
practices may not have been to improve
environmental protection, but rather to provide
economic benefits. However, regardless of the
primary motivation, this area of overlap is
important. If companies find that protecting
the environment can work in conjunction with
operating or expanding a business, this makes
for a greater likelihood of long-term
environmental protection. Furthermore, if an
environmental practice would lower growers'
profits, it is generally uncertain whether a
company would encourage this practice, or
help the growers offset the lower profits. On
the other hand, if consumers are informed
about using the practice and their role in
supporting its implementation and have an
assurance that it will be implemented,
consumers may be charged with greater
responsibility through their purchase
decisions. Consumers may also be willing to
pay a higher price if they understand the
relationships. Consequently, the role of
consumers as a shaping force for
environmental protection can be further
explored and utilized.
Another issue that emerged is the level
of environmental improvement resulting from
these practices. Since a baseline level of
environmental quality was typically not
estimated in the examples discussed, there
would also usually not be an ongoing measure
of environmental quality. However, in some
cases, information was available about the
level of inputs used before and after a practice
was implemented, but not necessarily the level
of pollutant loadings or environmental
impacts. Whether and why environmental
quality changes from the baseline become
important considerations, as does the degree to
which growers adopt environmental practices -
- e.g., how many growers adopt IPM and
where they are along the IPM continuum.
The issue of changes from a baseline
•level takes on greater importance when the
effectiveness and limits of such voluntary
approaches, or business-led initiatives, are
compared to regulatory approaches and hybrid
approaches. The extent to which one approach
may be preferred to another, and how these
comparisons are measured, are additional
considerations. Furthermore, barriers to the
effective use of voluntary approaches should
be determined in order to understand and
develop the full potential of this approach. It
may also be useful to collect information about
the types of barriers that keep food companies
from encouraging greater environmental
stewardship by growers. Focusing on this
group of food companies was outside the
scope of this study.
3.2 Results and Discussion
The food companies included in this
report accomplish their environmental
stewardship objectives with growers through a
variety of approaches, ranging from voluntary
to mandatory measures. The range of
voluntary measures include providing
encouragements, information, and price
incentives. The range of mandatory
approaches include criteria for being a
member of a cooperative and contract
stipulations.
Based on the information collected
about these companies, there is a range of
3-1
-------
stewardship activities now in place. The most
common is providing information to the
growers -- through newsletters, workshops,
farm demonstrations, meetings, field agents,
mentor farmers, company libraries, or
telephone hotlines — on the why, what, how,
when, and where of grower/environmental
practices. In addition, though protecting the
environment is an important motivation behind
these efforts, perhaps the main motivation or
incentive is economics. The economic reasons
include assisting growers and local
communities, and protecting the growers' and
food companies' business interests. They also
include reaching new or foreign markets,
improving processing efficiency, mitigating
liabilities and risks, improving grower
profitability, protecting worker safety,
differentiating products, or improving working
relationships with the growers. In several
examples, these activities achieve win-win
situations, protecting both the growers' and
companies' economic interests and also the
environment. In comparing the size of
companies that are differentiating their
products for environmentally-related
attributes, it is generally more likely to be the
smaller ones at this point in time, due in part to
their interest in developing a competitive edge.
That is, the larger companies are more likely
motivated to sponsor their stewardship
activities for other reasons, though this may
change over time if they believe product
differentiation will provide a competitive
advantage. In addition, the organic growers
are more typically to be smaller ones.
Given the number of companies
reporting economic motivations for
environmental stewardship, it is more than
likely that many of their reasons are common
to other companies that produce and market
foodstuffs. The broad implications of the
report's findings for those concerned with
increasing agricultural efficiency while also
ameliorating environmental impacts and
worker safety concerns from agriculture
include:
First, increasing efficiency,
profitability, competitiveness, market share,
customer loyalty (linked to product
differentiation and/or product quality), or
ability to reach new markets are goals of many
companies. Whether it means lowering costs
for inputs, health, or insurance, increasing
revenues, differentiating products, outdoing
competitors, or protecting the company's
reputation, the economic component is very
influential in supporting the environmental
practices chosen. In addition, it is typically
cheaper and more profitable to create and keep
loyal, long-term customers (e.g., through
maintaining product quality and protecting the
company's reputation) than gain new
customers (Garber, 1994; Light, 1994).
Second, improving and stabilizing the
quantity and/or quality of food inputs are seen
as providing several benefits to food
companies and growers. Growers become
more productive and profitable. Food
companies improve their productivity (e.g.,
less inputs rejected for processing), and
subsequently their profitability and
competitiveness. In addition, their need for
land and inputs to produce their desired level
of product output will be reduced.
Third, improving relationships with
growers is very important, whether to help
reduce costs, improve profitability, reduce
health and financial risks, avoid future
pollution-related problems, protect small,
family farms, or improve their reputation. In
addition, a few of the food companies help
growers find markets for organically grown
crops that they do not directly handle, because
they are interested in ensuring that the growers
continue to farm organically. One of the
company's benefits from improved
relationships with growers is the development
of a team attitude and an improved two-way
business commitment and communication.
Both food companies and growers benefit.
Fourth, forming partnerships with
beneficiaries of the environmental
improvements will improve the likelihood that
3-2
-------
the stewardship practices will be adopted and
the food production system will be
transformed. As evident from the information
presented in this report, environmental
stewardship efforts can be led by growers,
food companies, non-profit organizations,
local communities, the public sector,
consumers, or other groups. These
beneficiaries can all become involved
changing growing practices, and the products
will better reflect the performance of the food
production system. In addition, as identified
by a number of the companies and third-party
programs, farms play an important role in a
local, typically rural, community's economic,
environmental, social, cultural, institutional,
and visual landscape. As a result, protecting
local farms has broad dimensions that include
environmental and other considerations.
Fifth, getting ahead of environmental
regulations is also important, either to
potentially reduce the need for certain ones to
be enacted and/or implemented in the future or
to help shape them in case they are
implemented. In addition, protecting company
and grower reputations was also an important
consideration to protect or improve product
quality, consumer loyalty, the public's image,
and neighbor support.
From the information collected, some
food companies have taken a more active role
in working with growers while other
companies may rely more on extension
service, county agricultural agents, and others
to work with growers. This role is sometimes
influenced by the size of the company and its
mission. That is, the larger the company, the
greater the potential likelihood that it can
afford to build expertise with its staff on
environmental issues. Furthermore, the
mission of some food companies may solely
be in marketing food products, and not
affecting environmental performance. There
are also examples where food companies share
the cost of developing and implementing
environmental practices, and other examples
where the practices and their costs are imposed
on growers. Given the interest by several of
the companies contacted to build a better
partnership with growers, making demands on
growers without providing incentives may not
foster improved long-term relations with
growers.
In comparing what was learned in this
study to lessons learned in other environmental
stewardship efforts, such as in protecting
watersheds (EPA, 1997), there can be overlap.
For example, some of the lessons learned
about how to protect watersheds, including
"education and involvement drive action" and
"partnerships equal power," are consistent
with what was learned from the food
companies.
Information was also obtained
regarding the barriers these companies
encounter in working with growers. Barriers
to expanded environmental stewardship often
revolve around the flow of reliable and
consistent information and access to sufficient
resources to support changes in practices.
Knowing what barriers to expect and how they
were addressed can provide valuable lessons to
others expanding into this area of
environmental stewardship. Some of the
implementation barriers identified have been
overcome and others continue to beset the
companies. Some of these barriers are
indicative of a growing market segment and its
growing pains. Other barriers serve to impede
expansion of production, such as the lack of
proper incentives for growers to adopt the
environmental practices or the need to educate
consumers about the benefits of these
practices. But targeted incentives, marketing,
and infrastructure-building efforts can possibly
address these barriers, sometimes
simultaneously.
From the companies contacted and the
range of approaches they use, none of the
companies' stewardship efforts are identical.
They have adopted the approaches which
make sense for the growers and their working
relationships with them. As a result,
environmental stewardship is not a one-size-
3-3
-------
fits-all approach — it cannot be force-fit and
then expected to reach its full potential.
Instead, it needs to be tailored to the situation -
- i.e., adapted to fit the relationship between
the growers and food company, the intended
market and associated product definition
standards (e.g., organic foods), acreage and
processing needs, production and volume
needs, and the supplier base. With this in
mind, this report has been descriptive, rather
than prescriptive, providing something of a
road map to inform other companies why they
may want to follow this path, and what to
expect and do when they are on it.
3-4
-------
4. REFERENCES
Anderson, M.; C. Hollingsworth; V. Van Zee;
W. Coli; and M. Rhodes, "Consumer response
to integrated pest management and
certification," Agriculture. Ecosystems &
Environment. Vol. 60, 1996, pp. 97-106.
Anton Dunn, Julie, Organic Food and Fiber:
An Analysis of 1994 Certified Production in
the United States, U.S. Department of
Agricultural, Agricultural Marketing Service,
September 1995.
Barkema, Alan and Michael Cook, "The
Changing U.S. Pork Industry: A Dilemma for
Public Policy," Federal Reserve Bank of
Kansas City Economic Review, Second
Quarter 1993, pp. 49-65.
Benbrook, Charles, "Pest Management at the
Crossroads," Presented at USDA Integrated
Pest Management Seminar Series,
Washington, DC, February 28, 1997.
Benbrook, Charles; Edward Groth III; Jean
Halloran; Michael Hansen; and Sandra
Marquardt, Pest Management at the
Crossroads, Consumers Union, Yonkers, New
York, 1996.
Bolkan, Hasan and William Reinert,
"Developing and Implementing IPM Strategies
to Assist Farmers: An Industry Approach,"
Plant Disease. June 1994, pp. 545-550.
Browner, Carol, remarks before the
Biotechnology Industry Organization Fall
Conference, September 1993a.
Browner, Carol, remarks before the American
Farm Bureau Federation, July 1993b.
Bruhn, Christine; Katherine Diaz-Knauf;
Nancy Feldman; Jan Harwood; Genevieve Ho;
Ernestine Ivans; Laurel Kubin; Cathi Lamp;
Mary Marshall; Susan Osaki; Gwendolyn
Stanford; Yvonne Steinbring; Isela Valdez;
Eunice Williamson; and Evelyn Wunderlich,
"Consumer Food Safety Concerns and Interest
in Pesticide-Related Information," Journal of
Food Safety. Vol. 12, 1992a, pp. 253-262.
Bruhn, Christine; Shirley Peterson; Phil
Phillips; and Nick Sakovidh, "Consumer
Response to Information on Integrated Pest
Management," Journal of Food Safety, Vol.
12, 1992b, pp.315-326.
Burgess, R.; K. Kovac; C. Petzoldt; A.
Shelton; and J. Tette, "Results of IPM
marketing survey," Proceedings of the 51st
Annual New York Pest Management
Conference, Ithaca, New York, 1989.
Business for Social Responsibility (BSR),
Cutting Costs and Emissions In the Paper,
Printing, and Publishing Supply Chain. June
1995.
Business for Social Responsibility (BSR),
Greening the Supply Chain: Benchmarking
Leadership Company Efforts to Improve
Environmental Performance in the Supply
Chain — Executive Summary, May 1997.
California Fertilizer Association, "Nitrate-
Sensitive Areas," Our Priceless Water, pp.
CFA4-CFA5, undated.
Clinton, Bill and Al Gore, Reinventing
Environmental Regulation, March 16, 1995.
Coli, William, "European Community
Guidelines for Integrated Fruit Production
(IFP): A Market-Driven Approach," Fruit
Notes. Vol. 57, No. 4, Fall 1992, pp. 21-22.
4-1
-------
Dittus, Kim and Virginia Killers, "Consumer
Trust and Behavior Related to Pesticides,"
Food Technology. July 1993, pp. 87-89.
Dunlap, Riley and Curtis Beus,
"Understanding Public Concern About
Pesticides: An Empirical Examination," The
Journal of Consumer Affairs. Vol. 26, No. 2,
1992, pp. 418-438.
Dye Gussow, Joan, "Is Organic Food More
Nutritious," Organic Farming Research
Foundation Information Bulletin. Fall 1996,
Number 3, pp. 1, 10.
Erickson, Andrae and Carol Kramer-LeBlanc,
"Ecolabels: The Link Between Environmental
Preferences and Green Practices," In: Strategy
and Policy in the Food System: Emerging
Julie Caswell and Ronald Cotterill,
eds., Washington, DC, June 20-21, 1996,
1997, pp. 195-206.
Food Marketing Institute (FMI), The Greening
of Consumers: A Food Retailer's Guide.
prepared by The Hartman Group, 1997.
Frantz, William, "Cooperative Environmental
Stewardship — An Ocean Spray Cranberry
Experience," Ocean Spray Cranberries,
undated.
Freeman Long, Rachel, "Bats for Insect
Biocontrol in Agriculture," The IPM
Practitioner. Vol. 18, No. 9, September 1996,
pp. 1-6.
Garber, Tammy, "Consumer loyalty is
expected to loom larger," Advertising Age.
August 1, 1994, p. 38.
Goldman, Barbara and Katherine Clancy, "A
survey of organic produce purchases and
related attitudes of food cooperative
shoppers," American Journal of Alternative
Agriculture. Vol. 6, No. 2, 1991, pp. 89-96.
Granatstein, David; Emily Green; and Betsy
Lydon, "Rationale for Ecolabel Strategy
Meeting," Eco-labeling Strategy Meeting,
New York, New York, January 10, 1997.
Grant, Jennifer; James Tette; Curtis Petzoldt;
and Joseph Kovach, Feasibility of an IPM-
Grower Recognition Program in New York
State. New York State Integrated Pest
Management Program, Cornell University,
IPM Number 3, November 1990.
Grieshop, James; Frank Zalom; and Gene
Miyao, "Adoption and Diffusion of Integrated
Pest Management Innovations in Agriculture,"
Bulletin of the ESA. 1988, pp. 72-78.
Hamilton, Neil, "Agriculture Without
Farmers? Is Industrialization Restructuring
American Food Production and Threatening
the Future of Sustainable Agriculture?,"
Northern Illinois University Law Review. Vol.
14, 1994a, pp. 613-657.
Hamilton, Neil, "How industrialization is
restructuring food production: Part two,"
Leopold Letter. Vol. 6, No. 2, Summer 1994b,
pp. 4-5.
Heffernan, William, "Agricultural Profits:
Who Gets Them Now, and Who Will in the
Future?," Sustainable Agriculture: People,
Products, and Profits. Leopold Center for
Sustainable Agriculture 1994 Conference
Proceedings, 1994, pp. 13-18.
Hoban, Thomas; MaryBe McMillan; Joseph
Molnar; and J. Parrish, "Industrialization of
poultry and swine production: Implications for
natural resource management," Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation, vol. 52, no. 6,
November-December 1997, pp. 406-409.
Hollingsworth, Craig, "Integrated Pest
Management Certification: A Sign by the
Road," American Entomologist. Summer
1994, pp. 74-75.
4-2
-------
Hollingsworth, Craig, "Integrated Fruit
Production (IFF): A Status Report," Fruit
Notes. Fall 1995, pp. 14-15.
Hollingsworth, Craig; William Coli; and Ruth
Hazzard, editors, Integrated Pest Management:
Massachusetts Guidelines: Commodity
Specific Definitions. University of
Massachusetts Extension Service Integrated
Pest Management Program, SP-136, 1994.
Hollingsworth, Craig; William Coli; and Vicki
Van Zee, "Growing Green, Selling Green: A
Conference Exploring Green Marketing
Trends in the Food Industry," Fruit Notes.
Spring 1995, pp. 11-14.
Hurt, Chris, "Industrialization in the Pork
Industry," Choices. Fourth Quarter 1994, pp.
9-13.
Jolly, Desmond; Howard Schutz; Katherine
Diaz-Knauf; and Jagjeet Johal, "Organic
Foods: Consumer Attitudes and Use," Food
Technology. November 1989, pp. 60, 62, 64,
66.
Kinsey, Jean, "Changes in Food Consumption
from Mass Market to Niche Markets," in Food
and Agricultural Markets: The Quiet
Revolution. Lyle Schertz and Lynn Daft,
editors, pp. 19-43, National Planning
Association, Washington, DC, 1994.
Langert, Robert, "McDonald's Waste
Reduction Action Plan annual update,"
McDonald's Corp., May 1997.
Lanyon, Les, personal communication,
Pennsylvania State University, 1996.
Light, Larry, "Brand Loyalty Marketing key to
enduring growth," Advertising Age. October
3, 1994, p. 20.
Lipson, Mark, Searching For The "O-Word".
Organic Farming Research Foundation, 1997.
Makower, Joel, The E-Factor: The Bottom-
Line Approach to Environmentally
Responsible Business. Plume, New York, New
York, 1994.
Makower, Joel and Business for Social
Responsibility (BSR), Beyond the Bottom
Line: Putting Social Responsibility to Work
for Your Business and the World. Simon &
Schuster, New York, New York, 1994.
Manale, Andy and Clare Narrod,
"Environmental Implication of Industry
Structure in Dairy, Swine and Poultry
Industries," Presented at Great Plains
Agricultural Council Conference on Confined
Feeding Operation's and Water Quality,
Denver, Colorado, October 19-21, 1994.
Manale, Andy and Clare Narrod, "Livestock
Industry Structure and Environmental Quality
in the United States," Siting Livestock and
Poultry Operations for the 21st Century:
Symposium Proceedings. Ottawa, Ontario,
July 13-15, 1995, pp. 2-13.
Martinez, Steve and Al Reed, From Farmers to
Consumers: Vertical Coordination in the Food
Industry. USDA, Economic Research Service,
Number 720, 1996.
McGill, Steve, "Finding Bigger Profits with
IPM," The Furrow. Vol. 101, Issue 1, January
1996, pp.10-13.
McGrath Morris, Patricia; Allen Rosenfeld;
and Mark Bellinger, What Americans Think
About Agrichemicals: A Nationwide Survey
on Health, the Environment and Public Policy.
Public Voice for Food and Health Policy,
Washington, DC, April 1993.
4-3
-------
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives,
Cooperative Agriculture for the Environment,
undated.
O'Brien, Patrick, "Implications for Public
Policy," in Food and Agricultural Markets:
The Quiet Revolution. Lyle Schertz and Lynn
Daft, editors, pp. 296-318, National Planning
Association, Washington, DC, 1994.
Oberhofer, H., "Integrated Fruit Production —
The Experience of South Tyrol," Acta
Horticulturae. 1993, pp. 25-32.
Organic Farming Research Foundation
(OFRF), "Final Results of the 1995 National
Organic Farmers' Survey," Santa Cruz,
California, June 1996.
Organic Farming Research Foundation
(OFRF), "1993 National Organic Farmers'
Survey," Santa Cruz, California, 1994.
Ottman, Jacquelyn, Green Marketing:
Challenges & Opportunities for the New
Marketing Age. NTC Business Books,
Lincolnwood, Illinois, 1993.
Paschall, M.; Craig Hollingsworth; William
Coli; and Nancy Cohen," Attitudes and
Perceptions of New England Consumers and
the Food Industry Toward a Certification
Program for Integrated Pest Management,"
Fruit Notes. Vol. 57, No. 4, Fall 1992, pp. 3-6.
Reed, Nathan, "Responsible Choice: A
Systems Approach to Growing, Packing and
Marketing Fruit," One Hundred and Twenty-
Fifth Annual Report of the Secretary of the
State Horticultural Society of Michigan for the
Year 1995.1995.
R. J. Philips & Associates, Environmental
Stewardship Initiatives Between Food
Processors & Growers. Prepared for
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, August
1997.
Rodale Press, "Shopping for Organic: Food
Shoppers' Views on Organically Grown
Produce," conducted by Parkwood Research
Associates, March 1994.
Sachs, Carolyn; Dorothy Blair; and Carolyn
Richter, "Consumer Pesticide Concerns: A
1965 and 1984 Comparison," The Journal of
Consumer Affairs. Vol. 21, No. 1, 1987, pp.
96-107.
Scott, Mary, "Organic Sales Still Boom As
New Challenges Surface," Natural Foods
Merchandiser's 16 Annual Market Overview.
Vol. 18, No. 6, June 1997, pp. 38, 40.
Shelton, A. and C. Petzoldt, "Marketing IPM,"
The Grower. June 1997, pp. 26-27, 44.
Smart, Bruce, editor, Beyond Compliance: A
New Industry View of the Environment.
World Resources Institute, Washington, DC,
1992.
Sorensen, A., "Integrated Pest Management:
Finding a New Direction," Cereal Foods
World. Vol. 38, No. 4, April 1993a, pp. 187-
196.
Sorensen, A., Regional Producer Workshops:
Constraints to the Adoption of Integrated Pest
Management. National Foundation for
Integrated Pest Management Education,
1993b.
The Hartman Group, The Hartman Report:
Food and the Environment: A Consumer's
Perspective — Phase I. Summer 1996.
The Hartman Group, The Hartman Report:
Food and the Environment: A Consumer's
Perspective - Phase II. Winter 1997.
4-4
-------
The National Geographic Society and The
Conservation Fund, Water: Taking a New
Tack on Nonnoint Water Pollution. 1995.
Thrupp, Lori Ann, editor, New Partnerships
for Sustainable Agriculture. World Resources
Institute, Washington, DC, 1996.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Assessing the Environmental Consumer
Market, prepared by Abt Associates and J.
Ottman Consulting for Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, 21P-1003, April
1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Environmental Fact Sheet: EPA Issues
Comprehensive Procurement Guideline. Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA
530-F-95-010, April 1995a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
National Water Quality Inventory: 1994
Report to Congress. Office of Water, EPA
841-R-95-005, December 1995b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Top 10 Watershed Lessons Learned. Office of
Water, EPA 840-F-97-001, October 1997.
van Ravenswaay, Eileen, "Emerging Demands
on Our Food and Agricultural Systems:
Developments in Environmental Labeling,"
Department of Agricultural Economics,
Michigan State University, Staff Paper No. 96-
88, September 1996.
van Ravenswaay, Eileen and Jeffrey Blend,
"Using Ecolabels to Encourage Adoption of
Innovative Environmental Technologies in
Agriculture," Presented at Flexible Incentives
to Promote the Adoption of Environmental
Technologies in Agriculture, Gainesville,
Florida, June 8-10, 1997.
Warrick, Joby, "After Century of Pesticides,
Getting Bugs Out of Crops Naturally," The
Washington Post. January 13, 1997, p. A3.
Welsh, Rick, Reorganizing U.S. Agriculture:
The Rise of Industrial Agriculture and Direct
Marketing. Henry A. Wallace Institute for
Alternative Agriculture, Policy Studies Report
No. 7, August 1997.
Welsh, Rick, The Industrial Reorganization of
U.S. Agriculture, Henry A. Wallace Institute
for Alternative Agriculture, Policy Studies
Report No. 6, April 1996.
World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD), 20/20: A Vision for
the Environment: The Role of the Retailer in
Sustainable Production and Consumption — A
Scoping Paper prepared for the WBCSD
Working Group on Sustainable Production and
Consumption. August 1996.
4-5
-------
-------
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP ACTIVITIES BETWEEN
FOOD COMPANIES AND GROWERS
A brief summary of the stewardship
activities that the companies contacted have in
place with growers follows, as well as the
reasons for these activities and barriers
encountered during implementation. This
information is current as of mid-1997, and the
companies are grouped under the categories of
crop or livestock (including dairies and
poultry).
1. Crop
American Crystal Sugar Company; In
1980, American Crystal Sugar Company, a
grower cooperative today of 2,500 sugar beet
growers in Minnesota and North Dakota, and
the largest producer of beet sugar (8.3 million
tons of sugar beets processed into over 1
million tons of sugar), started a program to
improve the sugar content in its beets, and
therefore increase their value. That is, it
implemented a quality payment program —
whereby payments are based on recoverable
sugar per ton — as an incentive for growers to
increase sugar production through use of best
management practices (BMPs), including
nitrogen applications which are the greatest
determinant of sugar beet quality and
subsequent quality payments. Indeed, its
program was part of one of 25 projects
launched by the National Nonpoint Source
Forum. The price premium is approximately
10 percent. If growers over-apply nitrogen,
the sugar content in the beets decreases and
the .amount of impurities increases. Excess
nitrogen also leads to beets with a lot of green
tops. Based on research at the University of
Minnesota, recommended nitrogen application
levels were lowered from 170 to 120 pounds
per acre. Four years later, American Crystal
Sugar noticed decreased levels of nitrogen in
the soil. If no residual nitrogen is observed in
the soil, there is less chance for nitrogen to
leach into ground water. Between 1980 and
1994, American Crystal Sugar paid $750
million in higher payments to its growers.
Growers benefitted doubly from this program
through higher revenues and lower costs.
American Crystal Sugar has benefitted by
recovering more sugar, increasing sugar
production, increasing factory processing
efficiency, and remaining competitive in the
marketplace.
American Crystal Sugar also works with
growers to encourage integrated pest
management (IPM) practices. For example,
through the use of a University of Minnesota
disease prediction model, field scouting for
insects, and weather monitoring, it advises
growers to only spray pesticides when
necessary. Since it started this effort, fungicide
use has been reduced by 1.5 applications.
To make this program work, American Crystal
Sugar has held many meetings with its
growers. It also distributes a bimonthly
newsletter and contributes information about
BMPs, especially precision nitrogen
application, to local farm publications in order
to inform growers, fertilizer dealers, soil
testing labs, and crop consultants. It funds
research through its Research Center to
develop recoverable sugar quality
measurements and also with North Dakota
State University and the University of
Minnesota on nitrogen fertility. It has formed a
partnership with these two state universities/
extension services to provide educational
assistance to growers. Its own field staff has
A-l
-------
been trained to be Certified Crop Advisers.
American Crystal Sugar believes that the
incentive payments would not be effective if
they were not coupled with information and
education. In addition, use of higher sugar
varieties of beets are encouraged, as is timely
weed, insect, and disease control. Soil testing
is required, and crop rotations are encouraged
to build pest resistance.
The biggest barrier American Crystal Sugar
has faced was in convincing growers that their
beet payments would actually increase in the
quality payment program. So, for the first
three years of the program, the growers were
paid according to the old payment system, and
these payments were compared to what would
have been paid under the new payment system,
i.e., higher payments for higher levels of
recoverable sugar. After comparing the
payment systems over the three years, the
growers voted to accept the new payment
system. (Based on materials provided by, and
correspondence with, American Crystal Sugar
Company, the National Council of Farmer
Cooperatives, and the National Geographic
Society and The Conservation Fund.)
American Pop Corn Company: The
American Pop Corn Company sells two types
of pop corn products, one made from
conventionally grown pop com, and, since
1990/1991, another made from pop corn
grown without the use of pesticides. The
company promotes the product as being "Good
for the Environment" and "Grown Without
Chemical Pesticides" — no health claims are
made. Growers must follow 15 steps to meet
its guidelines, including use of alternatives to
pesticides, cultivation and farming techniques,
crop rotations, field inspection, multi-residue
scan, cleaning out equipment before
harvesting, and cleaning out storage areas --
for the no-pesticide version. Fertilizers are
allowed to be used but not pesticides — the
program was created to respond to the growing
market for organic foods and to provide
growers with more alternatives. Growers
certify that no pesticides were used; then the
delivered pop corn is tested for residue to
confirm the certification. American Pop
Corn's program can provide an outlet for pop
corn grown in transition to being organic. The
program is also educational, providing lots of
information to the growers. American Pop
Corn meets one-on-one with growers to
explain the program to the 15-20 growers
needed each year ~ these growers are chosen
from a pool of 300 growers.
American Pop Corn pays the growers a price
premium of approximately 15 percent to grow
a specific variety of pop corn and follow the
above guidelines. This price premium
compensates the grower for potential impacts
from not using pesticides: the pop corn variety
used produces a lower yield than a
conventional pop corn variety due to the
potentially greater prevalence of weeds and
their competition with the crop; the grower
accepts more risk; it costs more for labor to
weed; and it costs more to keep the pop corn
separate from conventionally grown pop com -
- i.e., growers must clean harvest equipment
prior to harvesting and clean the storage areas
prior to unloading the harvested pop corn there.
However, its product is not priced higher
because this is a new category for American
Pop Cora. However, despite the lack of much
brand loyalty for pop com products, it believes
the no-pesticide product line is building
consumer loyalty, at least based on letters
received from some of its customers.
One barrier faced by American Pop Corn on
the consumer side is to prove its product
claims. When it describes the program and the
process to consumers, they are satisfied. It has
also prepared a brochure for retailers to explain
the program. American Pop Corn has also
faced barriers on the grower side. Initially,
they had to be sold on the merits of the
program. It was successful in doing this by
convincing them of its economic benefits. This
A-2
-------
is especially important to American Pop Corn
so it can meet its production needs. Major
events, such as weather and insects,
particularly early in the season, can make it
difficult to convince growers to remain in the
program. However, later in the year, when the
growers are closer to receiving the bonus
payments, they are more willing to remain in
the program. (Based on materials provided by,
and correspondence with, American Pop Corn
Company.)
Arrowhead Mills; Arrowhead Mills, started
in 1960, buys organic grains, beans, and seeds
(e.g., amaranth, flax, quinoa, and sesame) from
over 100 growers and suppliers in the United
States, Canada, Mexico, and South America.
The size of these operations ranges from under
100 acres to several thousand acres. Most of
its grains are grown in Colorado, Kansas,
Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas. Its beans
are mostly grown in Colorado. All of
Arrowhead's quinoa and sesame seeds, as well
as some of its amaranth, are grown in South
America. Many of the growers that it works
with have been growing organic crops for a
number of years. It sells bulk and packaged
grains, beans, seeds, cereals, flours, and
baking mixes, as well as packaged soup mixes,
oils, and peanut butter.
Arrowhead is interested in supporting the
organic foods industry and philosophy as a
primary form of environmental stewardship —
e.g., eliminating synthetic inputs, minimizing
energy consumption, improving soil quality,
and planting varieties of crops. It helps the
growers by providing them with the
information they need. Its primary focus with
growers is to assist new growers, helping them
find sources of organic seeds and beneficial
insects. Arrowhead works with new growers
to identify what crops and crop rotations to
use, as well as methods of weed control. In
addition, it refers new growers to experienced
organic growers who know the business well.
Arrowhead is also interested in persuading
other growers to switch to organic farming. It
pays a price premium for the crops purchased
and helps the growers pay their organic
certification fees. If Arrowhead does not buy
all of the growers' crops, it helps them market
them by finding other potential buyers.
Arrowhead believes in the organic system, and
that the more organic growers it keeps in the
system, the more the organic foods industry
will grow. Its main barrier is its difficulty
finding enough crops to meet the growing
consumer demand for organic foods. (Based
on materials provided by, and correspondence
with, Arrowhead Mills.)
Campbell Soup Company; Campbell's main
environmental practice that it encourages its
carrot (California, New Jersey, Ohio, and
Texas), celery (California and Michigan),
cucumbers (Alabama), mushrooms (California,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Texas), potatoes (Ohio), and
tomato (California, Ohio, and Mexico) growers
to adopt is IPM. Its IPM program, started in
1989, is educational and voluntary, and
includes three components: cultural practices
(crop rotation, field selection, field sanitation,
tillage), monitoring for pest populations, and
treatment for those pests that would result in
economic damage to the crop. Campbell's has
IPM field specialists to provide technical
assistance to growers and hold field meetings.
It conducts research, and funds research with
the University of California, sharing the results
with its field people and growers to support the
IPM methods. It has not yet encouraged
nutrient management with the growers, but that
may be coming in the future. Its reasons for
encouraging IPM include several that support
growers: address worker safety and
environmental and regulatory concerns of
growers; lower pesticide risks for growers;
reduce likelihood of pesticide resistance;
reduce financial risk to growers; lower spray
costs; enhance crop quality and yields; and
raise revenues. Campbell has several
additional reasons for its IPM efforts that
A-3
-------
support its business interests: address
consumer, environmental, and regulatory
concerns; meet consumer requirements of food
safety and environmental protection; comply
with the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA);
anticipate rather than react to FQPA; enhance
raw ingredient quality; reduce the cost of raw
ingredients; provide stable ingredient supply;
meet foreign market product quality demands;
foster good relations with growers; improve
the company's operation efficiency; and
protect the company's reputation.
Through Campbell's efforts, growers have
reduced their use of synthetic insecticides and
fungicides for tomatoes by 30 percent,
synthetic pesticides for celery by 40-90
percent, and soil fumigation for carrots by 60
percent. It also shares its IPM information
with the rest of the industry, demonstrating an
interest to help all growers and other food
processors.
Campbell has faced a number of barriers in its
efforts. For example, growers are often risk
averse, leading them to have a slower rate of
use for new practices or use along the IPM
continuum. To help overcome this barrier,
Campbell encourages growers that are new to
using an IPM practice to run split tests on their
acreage, one-half of the acreage grown with
their conventional practices and one-half of
the acreage grown with IPM. If the yield
quality and/or quantity from the IPM-half is
less than from the conventional-half,
Campbell's will reimburse the grower.
Providing the appropriate evidence and
incentives are critical to its efforts. Campbell
also understands that when it visits growers, it
is a guest, helping to improve its relationships
with growers and easing grower acceptance of
these practices. Another barrier faced is that
growers may not always receive consistent
information on the use of pesticides and IPM.
Campbell works with pest control advisors,
industry organizations, and the University of
California to develop consistent
recommendations for growers. (Based on
materials provided by, and correspondence
with, Campbell Soup Company, Bolkan and
Reinert [1994], and California Environmental
Protection Agency.)
Cascadian Farm; Cascadian Farm was
founded 25 years ago in Washington State,
based on the belief that organic farming is a
better long-term, more sustainable farming
system. And Cascadian wants to be a part of,
and support, it. It contracts with fruit and
vegetable growers in California, Oregon, and
Washington, paying them price premiums
ranging from 35 to 100 percent, depending on
crop type, to help compensate growers for their
higher production costs (e.g., more labor) and
greater risks (e.g., do not rely on chemicals to
deal with diseases, insect pests, and weeds)
from farming organically. While it may recoup
this higher cost by the prices received from the
stores it sells products to, the higher price in
stores also establish a barrier to its growth ~
i.e., a constraint because not all consumers are
willing to pay higher food prices. Cascadian
has been selling primarily to the natural foods
industry, but has also started to penetrate large
conventional grocery chains. Indeed, it has
been growing 50 percent per year, and markets
over 150 organic food products in seven major
food categories ~ frozen desserts, frozen fruit,
frozen juices, frozen vegetables, fruit spreads,
pickles, sauerkraut, and vegetarian meals.
Cascadian's field representatives meet with
growers to help them farm and stay organic,
manage their nutrient applications and use of
irrigation water, and find approved alternatives
to synthetic pesticides. New organic growers
typically need more assistance. Cascadian
supports growers that want to be a partner with
it, and is interested in protecting family farms.
In addition, it sends newsletters to the growers,
distributors, and retailers, as well as some of its
consumers. It believes that not only the
environment benefits from its practices and
policies, but also its customers.
A-4
-------
Cascadian identified a number of barriers that
it contends with. The biggest barrier is the
price it pays to growers, and, as pointed out
above, this constrains its ability to grow and
compete against other companies. In addition,
other barriers affect how it competes with
other companies (i.e., other than organic). For
example, while Cascadian funds research
itself, and tries to network with state
universities, it believes that USDA does not
fund enough research on organic growing
practices, as compared to other practices.
Cascadian also believes that society
subsidizes, at least in part, the costs of
regulating and using synthetic pesticides and
cleaning up pollution problems that may result
from their use. (Based on materials provided
by, and correspondence with, Cascadian
Farm.)
Coors Brewing Company; Coors has had an
ongoing program regarding environmental
protection, natural resource stewardship, and
nonpoint source pollution with its 1,225 barley
growers (producing 12.5 million bushels for
Coors on 136,300 acres) in Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, and Wyoming. Its program has
received top management support. Indeed, its
project was one of 25 projects launched by the
National Nonpoint Source Forum, leading
Coors to survey the growers it works with
regarding their use of environmental practices,
understanding of nonpoint source pollution,
and interest in being involved in its
stewardship program.
In its Western Barley Growers Project, Coors
provides the growers with technical assistance
through its malting barley research program,
field agronomists, one-on-one meetings, and a
newsletter explaining BMPs (e.g., for
nutrients, pesticides, and irrigation), developed
in conjunction with state universities. It
provides grower field-day meetings to feature
in-house research programs. Coors shares
with the growers and other barley growers the
results of research on BMPs it funds with
universities. It also produces disease-free
seeds to eliminate the need for seed fungicides.
Coors only allows certain pesticides to be used
and prohibits the use of others. If these
prohibited pesticides are detected, the barley
from that grower will not be purchased. It
needs to know how much and what type of
pesticides are used and the history of how the
crop has been fertilized. It also develops
disease-resistant barley varieties and provides
them to growers.
The best growers in five regions in the four
states are recognized by presenting
"Environmental Conservation Awards"
(including cash awards) on the growers' fields
and identifying them in the company
newsletter. In assessing award nominees, the
totality of growers' accomplishments in
environmental management and the impact of
their farming, including effects on range
management, riparian areas, and wildlife
habitat are considered.
Coors is very concerned about protecting and
improving the quality of the barley and water
that it uses to produce beer. It provides
incentives for high-quality barley. But, in
addition, it also wants the growers to meet the
environmental goals of the states and the
public, and is interested in protecting workers
and consumers from pesticide exposure.
Indeed, there is a lot of outside pressure on the
growers to improve their environmental
performance. In addition, since it wants to
optimize the level of starch over protein in the
barley, e.g., the level of starch or sugar is
dependent on the type of tillage practices and
quantity of nutrients and water applied, Coors
encourages growers to not over-apply nitrogen.
It awards growers with high quality barley with
higher prices. There are two ways quality is
measured: kernel size and protein level (lower
protein levels are preferred). And both of these
quality measurements are related to how
growers fertilize, irrigate, and till.
A-5
-------
Coors is also interested in lowering or
maintaining the costs of the growers and
improving their profitability. Its relationship
with the growers has strengthened through this
program -- Coors demonstrates its interest in
them. The company believes that this program
gives them a competitive advantage. In
addition, it believes that acting proactively
improves relationships with regulators
(especially when it faces a future
environmental problem). Its interest in
protecting the environment and sponsorship of
a state nonpoint source pollution conference
help protect its corporate reputation -- it
believes that environmental protection
probably has the greatest impact on a
company's reputation. One of the biggest
barriers that Coors encountered in these efforts
has been to change grower behavior -- as a
result, three years of independent data are
needed to support new practices and the
research needs to be conducted in the
university system, as an outside party.
Another big barrier was the additional labor
and expense needed because the conservation
practices require more labor. (Based on
materials provided by, and correspondence
with, Coors Brewing Company, the National
Council of Farmer Cooperatives, and the
National Geographic Society and The
Conservation Fund.)
Del Monte Foods; Del Monte Foods works
with 3,000 growers of fruits (apricots, cherries,
grapes, peaches, pears, pineapples, and
tomatoes) and vegetables (asparagus, green
beans, lima beans, beets, cabbage, carrots,
corn, peas, peppers, potatoes, spinach, and
zucchinis), farming on 200,000 acres in eight
different states (California, Idaho, Illinois,
Minnesota, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and
Wisconsin). It encourages them to use IPM.
Its initial steps in IPM began in the mid- to
late-1970s to reduce pesticide use in vegetable
operations, and it has gained greater
importance in the last five years.
Del Monte works with the fruit and vegetable
growers in different ways: it contracts with the
fruit growers, but it takes over growing the
vegetable crops after the growers plant the
crops. Del Monte has a number of reasons for
its interest in IPM. It is committed to
guaranteeing the safety of its products, and is
responding to the "loss" of pesticides due to
resistance by insects, the high costs to re-
register pesticides, the need to have long-term
pest management stability, and the real and
perceived external costs of using pesticides
(e.g., food safety, environmental impacts, and
worker safety). In addition, it wants to position
itself as a leader in the use of IPM and shape
the industry's use of IPM.
Del Monte works with or for the growers in a
number of ways: establishes strict standards
for pesticide use by the growers; requires and
monitors the growers to record their pesticide
use; funds IPM research (e.g., developing
biological controls for diseases, and new
monitoring techniques) and shares the results
with the growers; breeds new vegetable
varieties with disease and insect resistance and
shares them with growers; provides education
about the best available information on safe
and effective pest control; sponsors IPM
training of the growers and pest control
advisors; provides an IPM field staff to assist
the growers; holds annual meetings and
workshops to update and educate the growers;
and developed processing equipment to remove
insects. It specifies what pesticides can be
used and tests for pesticide residues as a
backup check, with a goal of no observable
residue in its final products.
Del Monte has also undertaken a number of
activities to develop an infrastructure to foster
the use and acceptance of IPM by the growers
and the food industry, believing that every
pesticide problem affects the entire industry.
Its infrastructure-related activities include
leveraging the commodity groups to help
spread the word to the growers about IPM (it
A-6
-------
has so many growers to work with that
leveraging helps to reduce the enormity of its
efforts), supporting the funding of research on
IPM systems, and co-founding the Pear Pest -
Management Research Fund and Processed
Tomato Foundation. Overall, Del Monte is a
big supporter of IPM because it provides long-
term pest management stability. That is, while
it may or may not cost less, it provides a much
better way to manage the pesticide resistance
issue, avoids having to deal with a regulatory
system, and bypasses the need for growers to
look for new pesticides every two years or so.
Del Monte has also been involved in nutrient
management efforts, though not to the extent
of its work in IPM. For example, it
encourages the minimum amount of nitrogen
applied to green beans to produce a beneficial
crop and protect ground water. It is also
breeding for more nitrogen fixation in
legumes.
Del Monte has faced a number of barriers in
its efforts. First, it believes that pesticides are
viewed by many growers a cheap crop
insurance and used as a tool to manage
business risks. Second, there is limited
availability of, and information on, reliable
and effective pest monitoring systems and
alternatives. Third, it believes that there are
not enough qualified, independent pest
management advisors in the private sector.
(Based on materials provided by, and
correspondence with, Del Monte Foods and
^California Environmental Protection Agency.)
Fetzer Vineyards; Fetzer Vineyards, in
California, plans to only grow and buy
organically grown grapes by the year 2000.
Currently, of the 250 growers it works with,
32-35 of them are organic, with 2,460 certified
organic acres and 100,000 cases of wine made
from organically grown grapes (compared to 3
million cases of wine made from
conventionally grown grapes). Another 10
growers are in transition to entering the
organic certification program, and about a
quarter of the growers do not want to get
certified due to the time and paperwork
requirements, associated fees, and
bureaucracy. Fetzer was the first major
American winery to offer a wine made from
organically grown winegrapes, a line it started
in 1993. It is interested in organic grapes due
to its desire to protect the environment,
including protecting water resources and
improving soil health. It is also interested in
helping out the growers by protecting farm
workers, keeping them healthy and productive,
reducing medical and insurance costs, lowering
long-term costs, and improving
communications and relationships with them.
Fetzer is also interested in reducing the
susceptibility of vineyards to root rot disease,
responding to consumer demand for more
healthful products, improving the taste of its
wine, reducing liability, and protecting the
health of the company's children and families.
To achieve these objectives and the transition
to organic grapes, Fetzer holds workshops with
the growers to provide technical assistance and
share information on organic growing, cover
crops (in between rows, to extract atmospheric
nitrogen and attract beneficial insects), IPM,
irrigation techniques, and composting. It also
encourages owl boxes to control the population
of gophers, field mice, and rabbits, and their
damage to vineyards. Fetzer's biggest barrier
is to interest growers to move into organic
certification -- many of the growers want all
options to be available. Also, many growers
want to enter its program but want to continue
to apply herbicides to keep down weeds.
Indeed, it is difficult to change old behaviors.
Fetzer continues to provide education and offer
weeding equipment to help overcome these
barriers. In addition, it pays approximately
three percent extra as a price premium, but
does not charge a higher retail price. It has
also formed an organization of organic growers
and works closely with the University of
California and funds research to share findings
A-7
-------
with growers. Fetzer also shares findings from
its experimental vineyards with the growers
and other wineries. To convert to organically
grown grapes, Fetzer pays special attention to
those vineyards in transition to organic
growing. (Based on materials provided by,
and correspondence with, Fetzer Vineyards.)
E. & J. Gallo Winery; Gallo Winery
encourages its grape growers to adopt more
sustainable agricultural practices, such as use
of IPM, irrigation management, and nutrient
management It encourages these practices
through informal approaches, such as sharing
information about cover crops, beneficial
insects, and monitoring, through holding one-
on-one meetings with growers, walking with
growers to different vineyards practicing these
approaches, and showing them practices used
in Gallo's own vineyards. A number of the
meetings are co-sponsored with University of
California representatives and Gallo's field
representatives. Its program is an ongoing
educational effort. When new vineyards are
planted, Gallo is very conscious of protecting
the environment and the surrounding habitat.
For example, growers use native plants to
cover the soil and protect wildlife habitat,
install bird nesting boxes, and protect riparian
areas to safeguard fish habitat. Growers are
interested in these approaches because they
want to be better stewards of the land, and
Gallo supports this view. Growers rely on
Gallo to help address what they can and cannot
do. (Based on correspondence with E. & J.
Gallo Winery.)
Gerber Products; Gerber, based in
Michigan, works with 500-600 fruit and
vegetable growers of 16 fruits and vegetables
in 30 different states. It is the nation's top
producer of baby food. Its environmental
stewardship activities, started in the early
1970s and gaining intensity during the past 10
years, can be grouped into four categories:
communication, research, stimulate diffusion,
and subsidize new practices. Gerber provides
a quarterly newsletter to growers, including a
substantial focus on IPM. It also provides an
annual grower newsletter to tell growers the
company's expectations regarding what
practices to use and not use, with most of the
focus on IPM, but there is also information on
cover crops, irrigation, nutrient management,
and pruning. Gerber also funds agricultural
research at about 16 different state universities,
with a primary focus on lowering pesticide
residues, and lesser focus on other practices,
such as ground covers for orchards. The
results of this research is shared with the
growers. Gerber also has sponsored, and
sometimes has subsidized, new agricultural
techniques if they are more expensive, e.g.,
pheromone traps as an alternative to
insecticides, and then diffused the practices to
the growers it works with. It has organized
crop management organizations to educate
crop consultants that work with the growers.
Gerber also coordinates groups of growers to
sequence their crop rotations to match its
processing needs.
In undertaking these activities, Gerber is
interested in responding to its consumers
concerned about pesticide residues and
maintaining a supply of quality produce. It
wants to encourage more intelligent use of
pesticides. It is also interested in nitrogen
application levels because of the link to nitrate
content in baby foods ~ it is working with
growers to apply only enough nitrogen to get a
good crop, following growers' nutrient analysis
of the soil. Gerber wants the crops to meet its
production needs. It is also interested in
providing benefits to the environment and is
beginning to understand the full potential of
environmental stewardship. It cares about the
field and the crop.
With these efforts, Gerber has faced a number
of barriers. Growers have often been skeptical
that IPM works and the economics of it. They
have also been concerned with the risk of
losing their crops. To address these concerns,
A-8
-------
Gerber has provided education and worked
with lead growers to adopt IPM practices and
serve as a demonstration site. Through these
demonstrations, it documents the efficacy and
economics of the practices. There has also
been a need to convince the company to share
the risk borne by growers. For example, it
covers the difference in cost between a new
practice and a conventional practice. Gerber
also covers the loss of a crop that is part of a
demonstration. However, it has never had any
significant loss in yield or change in quality.
(Based on materials provided by, and
correspondence with, Gerber Products.)
Health Vallev Foods; Health Valley Foods
was founded over 25 years ago in California,
selling "All-Natural" foods. Approximately
one-fourth of its product sold is certified
organic food — baked goods, cereals, cookies,
crackers, and soups, and then many of its other
ingredients are also organic but the products
that they are included in are not labeled
organic because these ingredients do not
represent at least 95 percent of the products'
weight. Its line of products use more organic
ingredients that any other food company.
Health Valley primarily works with 15 organic
growers of beans, carrots, celery, onions,
peppers, and tomatoes, and buys most of its
grain from a certified organic grain mill. It
buys 50 different certified organic ingredients.
It connects new growers with organic certifiers
or the Organic Trade Association to learn
about the requirements associated with
organic. In addition, Health Valley connects
its new growers with organic growers that the
company buys from and who will not appear
to be competitors. It also requires each crop to
be certified organic — the organic standards
include crop rotation, IPM, and nutrient
management. In promoting organic growing
and the use of organic crops, Health Valley
promotes the protection of the environment,
water supplies, and fertile topsoil, promotes
conservation of resources, promotes the
purchase of healthy foods, and responds to
growing consumer demand for organic foods.
Health Valley has faced a number of barriers in
its efforts, including making organic foods
more affordable. As a result, and given its
interest in expanding its business opportunities,
it is starting to work more with its existing
larger and more experienced growers to
increase their acreage and/or yields, and lower
their costs. Health Valley also looks for
partnerships with growers that are of like-mind.
It currently pays a 25-50 percent price
premium for these crops because of their
higher costs to produce. It wants to lower the
price premium to 15-25 percent, making its
products more affordable to consumers. An
additional barrier includes education — of
consumers to give them a full appreciation of
the impact of organic growing on the
environment and increase the willingness to
pay a higher price, and of large grocery chains
to learn how to sell organic. However, it
believes that the public is beginning to
understand the impact of organic growing on
the environment and retailers are becoming
more sophisticated in marketing organic foods.
Health Valley also believes that the public is
becoming more concerned about what is in
food. (Based on materials provided by, and
correspondence with, Health Valley Foods.)
Hood River Grower/Shippers; Since 1994,
Hood River Grower/Shippers of Oregon-
Washington has been working with its 350
apple and pear growers, covering 15,000 acres,
as well as packers, state universities, and
agricultural chemical dealers, to encourage
them to adopt integrated fruit production. Its
integrated fruit production (IFP) program is
basically an educational program that
continues to evolve and improve. It provides
growers with information through education
programs and newsletters about the economic
and environmental benefits from IFP. Hood
River believes that IFP is based on sound
agriculture, and will lower grower costs in the
A-9
-------
short- and/or long-term. Indeed, it believes
that if the program does not make economic
sense for growers, it would be hard to get them
interested. Its IPM practices include softer
programs, such as the use of beneficial insects.
In fact, the broad spectrum, harsh chemicals
are not as available as they were. Pesticide
resistance management is very important to
the pest industry. In addition, since over-
application of nitrogen can affect fruit
storability and quality, runoff quality, and
water quality, Hood River also advises
growers to reduce fertilizer applications.
These practices will also protect the soil and
environment. Additional reasons for its IFF
program include satisfying consumer concerns
and Hood River's expectation that IFF will be
a requirement to sell fruit in Europe in the
future — it currently exports 40 percent of its
fruit. It also does not know what will happen
with IFF, so it has chosen to get out in front.
Hood River has faced a number of barriers in
its program. One of the biggest barriers is how
to measure progress in adopting IFF and its
components, and how the district growers have
changed their practices. Another barrier is the
availability of incentives for growers. An
incentive is expected because the growers are
considered to be doing the right thing, but no
one has said that they can sell at a higher price,
so they, at a minimum, hope to be able to sell
more by reaching new markets. (Based on
materials provided by, and correspondence
with, Hood River Grower/Shippers.)
Hunt-Wesson; Hunt-Wesson, a division of
ConAgra, Inc., works closely with its 80
tomato growers in California to encourage
their use of IPM, which it started doing in the
early 1970s. Its field representatives work
closely with growers on a one-on-one basis to
assist them with their growing practices to
encourage use of seed varieties and growing
techniques (e.g., IPM) that reduce grower
costs and improve productivity. It also shares
information with growers about production
practices and environmental protection. In
addition, it also provides growers with a list of
registered pesticides acceptable to its
standards, and requires a record of each
grower's pesticide use and checks for
compliance prior to harvest.
Hunt-Wesson also works closely with the
University of California and shares the
research findings with growers regarding, for
example, the use of higher-yield hybrids, IPM,
and improved irrigation methods. Hunt-
Wesson funds and actively participates with
the Processing Tomato Foundation to develop
and disseminate information on IPM
techniques for growing tomatoes. It funds
research to develop improved varieties that
have pest resistance, disease resistance, greater
tolerance to environmental conditions,
improved on-farm productivity, and greater
processing yield. It also screens all new seed
company variety releases, and consults with
and provides quality data information to seed
companies to assist in developing new
varieties. Hunt-Wesson also works with
growers to synchronize their crop rotations so
that its production needs are met.
Hunt-Wesson's reasons for these efforts
include economic factors that affect the
growers (e.g., lower production costs
[including land, capital, labor, fertilizers, and
pesticides] to achieve processing demand,
improve productivity, improve profitability,
protect the crop, achieve higher yields,
maintain the efficacy of pesticides and have as
many to draw from when needed) and the
company (e.g., produce more usable fruits for
its products, protect the quality of its products,
process and provide consumers with safe,
wholesome food products that meet all USDA,
EPA, FDA, and company requirements,
improve processing productivity and recovery
per ton, lower total cropland area and inputs
used to meet processing needs, and reduce cost
of consumer products). Its reasons also include
environmental factors (e.g., environmental
A-10
-------
responsibility). (Based on materials provided
by, and correspondence with, Hunt-Wesson.)
Lodi-Woodbridge Wine Grape
Commission; Lodi-Woodbridge Wine Grape
Commission is a wine grape grower
cooperative that represents 650 growers,
covering 50,000 acres. Lodi-Woodbridge
encourages the use of IPM, nutrient
management, drip irrigation, compost, cover
crops, and owl boxes in order to improve the
growers' ability to be sustainable and lower
their costs for pesticides, synthetic fertilizers,
and water. It considers IPM to be the best way
to manage pests economically and
environmentally, and views its stewardship
efforts to be integral to enhance the quality
and marketability of its wine. Its IPM
program continues to evolve and improve. In
addition, to avoid over-application of nitrogen
which can negatively affect grape quality,
Lodi-Woodbridge recommends the use of
compost instead of synthetic fertilizer to
slowly release sufficient nutrients and a
mulch-like cover.
Lodi-Woodbridge provides information about
the practices to use and their timing to the
growers through bulletins, neighborhood
meetings, breakfast meetings, workshops, and
research seminars. Lodi-Woodbridge shares
its research results and findings from its
demonstration vineyard with growers. It is
also funding research by the University of
California aimed at solving local IPM and
viticultural problems. Its outreach to growers
is improved through its association with the
University to provide information on various
aspects of IPM. It conducts a pest monitoring
program on over 50 commercial vineyards as a
demonstration project. It also maintains a
library on viticulture and IPM literature for use
by the growers, and provides workshops on
IPM topics for Spanish-speaking workers.
Lodi-Woodbridge has faced a number of
barriers in developing this program, e.g.,
convincing conventional agriculture about the
benefits of IPM and demonstrating the impact
of IPM on crop quality and yield, changing
grower behavior, and having growers receive
consistent information on the use of pesticides
and IPM. Each of the growers uses some form
of IPM. Its program is five-years old, and the
Commission provides 20 percent of the
California grapes used in wine production,
much of it blended with other grapes/wine in
the state. It is currently considering
development and use of an IPM or sustainable
agriculture label on its product. (Based on
materials provided by, and correspondence
with, Lodi-Woodbridge Wine Grape
Commission.)
Ocean Spray; Ocean Spray is a grower
cooperative, representing 750 cranberry
growers in Massachusetts, New Jersey,
Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, British
Columbia, Chile, and Quebec. It is the top
producer of cranberries, grown on
approximately 30,000 acres. Ocean Spray
started its environmental program in 1985, and
launched its IPM program two to four years
later. It encourages the growers it works with
to adopt IPM for a variety of reasons -- to
protect the environment, food safety, the
company's and growers' reputations; to
respond to growers request for IPM practices,
and growers' desire to protect the land and
water; to reduce growers' environmental risks;
to anticipate and stay ahead of changes in
future regulations; to comply with stricter
market requirements in other countries; and to
develop the capability to respond positively to
inquiries from grocers about the pesticides they
use. In addition, since over-application of
nitrogen can lead to excessive plant growth and
insufficient fruit growth, Ocean Spray also
encourages the use of BMPs. It is also
investigating cost-effective improvements to
irrigation methods to improve crop production
and produce beneficial water quality impacts.
A- 11
-------
To accomplish these objectives, Ocean Spray
established a Board of Directors' level
Environmental Committee, comprised of
growers, to help management develop and
implement new policies and potentially
controversial programs, and to also help
overcome grower concerns regarding new
environmental initiatives (a barrier to their
acceptance and use). Ocean Spray also
provides an educational guidebook for growers
regarding their environmental obligations, and
provides a field staff and trains consultants
who work with growers and provide assistance
to them. In fact, Ocean Spray stresses
education (not only what to do, but why to do
it) and low-cost implementation to increase
grower use of these practices. Confidential,
voluntary audits of pesticide use, storage,
disposal, and cleanup are provided. Each
grower is required to submit annual pesticide
records; together with information about
relative risks, Ocean Spray quantifies the
overall risk reduction and targets certain
watersheds to recommend changes in
pesticides. It also tests pesticide residue
levels.
Ocean Spray undertakes demonstration
projects and shares the results with the
growers as well as the rest of the industry.
Workshops are held to share the results of its
in-house or company-funded University of
Massachusetts research on application
technologies and better compounds. Ocean
Spray also works with the Cranberry Institute
to improve dissemination of environmental-
related information to growers. A newsletter
is distributed to growers in conjunction with
state universities affiliated with Ocean Spray.
It recently started a new program to establish a
wildlife habitat enhancement program for
growers. If a grower causes a major
environmental problem, the grower's contract
may be revoked or the grower may be
sanctioned or fined. Growers using improper
practices are reviewed by the Environmental
Committee. In total, its program has enhanced
the trust between growers and company
management. Its program was recognized as
an example of cooperative stewardship by the
National Nonpoint Source Forum. (Based on
materials provided by, and correspondence
with, Ocean Spray, the National Council of
Farmer Cooperatives, and the National
Geographic Society and The Conservation
Fund.)
Pavich Family Farms; For over 25 years,
Pavich Family Farms has been marketing
organic fruits and vegetables. It currently sells
56 different certified organically grown fruits
and vegetables, including apples, beans,
broccoli, carrots, cauliflower, celery, corn,
cucumbers, grapes, lettuces, kiwis, melons,
onions, oranges, peppers, prunes, raisins,
spinach, tomatoes, turnips, and zucchini.
Pavich expects to add another 24 fruits and
vegetables in 1997. As an organic seller, it
requires various conditions by growers —
growers are required to contact an organic
certifier and comply with its standards, register
with the state of California as an organic
grower, and meet the company's product
quality standards (e.g., size, eating quality).
Pavich meets with the growers to advise them
on their problems. It also has product
coordinators who are facilitators between
growers and marketers, and growers and its
contract overseers. It funds research and
development to support growers about how to
grow organic crops. Pavich also helps growers
find markets for crops they grow in their
rotations but it does not market. It meets with
its 20 growers to help them with their
problems; if it cannot answer a grower's
question, it asks around in the organic foods
industry until an answer is found. The growers
grow up to three or four crops each year;
collectively, they grow on about 5,000-6,000
acres.
Pavich is interested in protecting the
environment and maintaining the company's
reputation as an organic producer. Pavich is
A-12
-------
also interested in clean water, soil, plant, and
products, sustainability of the land, and
preventing soil erosion. It is concerned about
protecting worker safety. It believes that
organic growing increases its foods'
nutritional content by improving the health of
the soil and plants. It uses beneficial insects,
compost, and cover crops to improve the soil
and crops. Pavich also believes that organic
foods taste better. Pavich recognizes the
natural foods industry as a growth industry,
and it is responding to growing consumer
interest in purchasing products for
environmental reasons and the interest of
stores to respond to consumer demands.
Pavich also believes that organic foods appeal
to different market segments (e.g., "green"
consumers, "baby boomers", senior citizens)
for different reasons (e.g., protect
environment, healthier, more nutritious, better
tasting). One barrier that it has faced is the
volatility in retail prices for organic foods,
which is influenced by their supply and
demand. (Based on materials provided by, and
correspondence with, Pavich Family Farms.)
Robert Mondavi Winery; Robert Mondavi
Winery buys winegrapes from many dozens of
growers spread through California.
Collectively, these growers farm thousands of
acres in winegrape production, though some of
their grapes are sold to other wineries. From
market surveys and its own sales staff,
Mondavi has learned that its customers are
requesting that the environmental impacts
from growing winegrapes be reduced and the
price of its wine should not be increased -- a
level price is also important to withstand
foreign competition. Consumers are also
concerned about worker safety. To address
these and other consumer concerns, since 1990
Mondavi has formed teams with growers,
university extension service, government
agencies, and environmental groups to respond
in a consensus-building process. Through
such a team-building process, it spent two
years developing a positive point system ~ an
integrated program building on the Partners
with Nature point system (see Appendix B) —
to measure changes and improvements by
growers in pest management, soil management,
water management, viticultural management,
wine quality, and continuing education. To
spread information about this program to the
growers, Mondavi meets one-on-one with them
and also holds workshops. It also shares
information about its program with other
growers to gain broader industry support.
One of the environmental issues Mondavi will
be increasingly confronted with is airborne
particulates, a growing air quality concern in
California. However, its IPM efforts to
encourage cover crops to prevent the spread of
dust mites and attract beneficial insects can
also help to reduce the transmission of airborne
dust. Mondavi's environmental efforts are
motivated by its interest to identify and
promote growing methods that are the most
environmentally protective, effective for
winegrape growing, and sustainable. In
addition, it is interested in maintaining or
improving the quality and flavor of
winegrapes, protecting its reputation, and
improving customer loyalty. By working with
growers, it hopes to develop a model program
for winegrape growers and increase public trust
of winegrape growing.
The winery undertakes other activities with its
internal vineyards, where it is protecting
riparian habitat and restoring wildlife habitat.
For example, a creek that runs alongside one of
its vineyards had an endangered species of
fairy shrimp. Mondavi restored the creek from
having a seasonal flow to being a year-round
stream. This was achieved through a
combination of practices — using cover crops
to reduce erosion from the vineyard, planting
trees to stabilize streambanks, and recreating
the stream channel. Now, the shrimp thrive in
the creek.
A-13
-------
The only significant barrier it has faced is the
availability of money to develop the positive
point system. Fortunately, through a grant
from the state of California's Department of
Pesticide Regulation, Mondavi was able to
initiate its IPM efforts. In addition, use of
new practices has faced minimal resistance
because growers understand the requests of
consumers and want to improve the public's
image of grape growers. In addition, Mondavi
is interested in identifying cost-effective
practices that will improve the likelihood of
their sustained use by growers. (Based on
materials provided by, and correspondence
with, Robert Mondavi Winery.)
Seymour Canning Company; The Seymour
Canning Company, based in Wisconsin, added
an organic line of canned vegetables (beans,
sweet corn, and peas purchased from one
grower) to its product line of conventionally
grown vegetables in 1989. In 1991, it made a
large commitment to organic and expanded its
production. In 1996, it worked with 11
growers, farming on 900-1,200 acres, and
producing 400,000-600,000 pounds of beans,
200,000-400,000 pounds of sweet corn, and
200,000-400,000 pounds of peas. Its organic
products are sold under store-brand private
labels. To encourage and support organic
growers to grow these organic crops, Seymour
pays a 30-percent price premium ~ it also
receives about a 30-percent price premium for
its products. It hopes to increase the price
premium by increasing its market penetration.
In addition, it pays a 10-percent price
premium for growers in transition to become
organic. Growers on average have yields
about one-third less than conventionally-
grown crops, and the costs to grow the organic
crops are about the same as the costs to grow
conventional crops, with the costs of inputs
slightly less and the cost of labor slightly
more. Seymour helps the growers find
markets for other crops used in their crop
rotations that it does not market, e.g.,
organically grown soybeans, in order to help
them remain organic.
To respond to growers' questions about organic
growing, Seymour provides technical
assistance and information to the growers on
weed control, cover crops, crop rotations,
equipment, fertilizers (e.g., "green manures"),
etc. It also rents specialized equipment to
growers — if it is a new piece of equipment,
Seymour allows growers to use it free for up to
one year. Seymour is interested in protecting
the environment, improving soil quality, and
meeting the increasing consumer demand for
organically grown food. It believes that the
organic market is growing and expects that for
the foreseeable future it can increase acreage
by 10 percent per year, but it also recognizes
that a key part of organic farming is marketing.
One of the barriers it has faced is the
availability of research and information from
universities on what they are doing to reduce
use of synthetic inputs. Another barrier is the
lack of access to information on organic
farming -- it is hard for growers to get this
information at the grass-roots level. Seymour
believes the situation is improving, but it takes
awhile for the flow of information to match the
availability of new technologies. (Based on
materials provided by, and correspondence
with, Seymour Canning Company.)
Stahlbush Island Farms; While Stahlbush
Island Farms grows most of the fruits and
vegetables that it sells (broccoli, green beans,
sugar beets, sweet corn, green peas, pumpkins,
spinach, squash, strawberries, and wheat), it
also works with growers in Oregon to source
additional corn and squash. Stahlbush
encourages annual crop rotations and cover
crops, and requires new growers that it
contracts with to conduct soil tests ~ then it
lays out a growing strategy for them. It has
also eliminated herbicides, fungicides, and
insecticides for growing pumpkins and squash
(as well as its own beans and com), and has
reduced by 85 percent the chemicals applied
A-14
-------
to its broccoli, spinach, and strawberry crops.
When pesticides are used, Stahlbush strives to
use those that are on the organically approved
chemical list. It encourages the growers to use
compost — e.g., it composts its food processing
by-products and uses the compost, as well the
"green manure" from cover crops and
livestock manure, to fertilize its crops and
build up the soil's organic matter. Stahlbush is
interested in being a better steward of the land
to provide a better soil and protect ground
water. It wants a productive soil. It also
encourages the use of irrigation water to occur
at the optimal time to maximize water uptake
by crops and to minimize evaporation. It has
worked with Oregon State University on
research to study the nitrogen movement in
soil, and adapted the findings to its
recommended growing methods shared with
the growers.
Stahlbush believes that it can often be much
cheaper to adopt more environmentally
protective methods rather than fight them, e.g.,
they can often lower costs. It has moved from
use of chemicals to reliance on more
technology- (e.g., mechanization and computer
technology) and labor-intensive methods.
These methods fit in with how it wants to farm
and to be better stewards. By staying ahead of
regulations, it expects that it can better help to
shape them if they are implemented in the
future. Stahlbush believes that these practices
will provide a healthier and better product. It
also has its food products tested for pesticide
residues. These attributes are expected to help
in the sales of its products, especially since
some of Stahlbush's customers request them.
As a result, it expects that its company's
reputation is improved. Stahlbush also
markets products to other countries, and its
growing practices help it to meet these foreign
market product quality requirements.
Stahlbush has been working with the Pacific
Rivers Council, and had its own farm certified
as Salmon Safe (see Appendix B). However,
before it considers working with growers to
include them in this program, it needs to
develop a more direct relationship with
consumers and be convinced that the Salmon
Safe program will create an incentive for
growers to adopt additional practices. (Based
on materials provided by, and correspondence
with, Stahlbush Island Farms.)
Stemilt Growers; Stemilt Growers, based in
Washington, contracts with 330 growers to
store, pack, and market apples, cherries, and
pears grown on 15,000 acres. It has a line of
organic produce and another line as part of its
"Responsible Choice" program, which it
formally started in 1991. The "Responsible
Choice" program is based on IFF, the
backbone of which is the use of IPM.
However, the IPM program does not stop in
the field, since it is part of Stemilt's IFF
program that deals with growing, harvesting,
storing, and packing their fruit. Stemilt's
reasons for the IFF program include
environmental protection, product
differentiation, and avoidance of insect
resistance. It is also interested in helping
growers through protecting worker safety and
ensuring growers' ability to achieve a
sustained livelihood. Stemilt provides
information to growers about the components
of its programs through regularly consulting
with growers, providing a monthly newsletter,
and providing growers with a handbook to
describe the Responsible Choice program, the
availability of new, "softer" (i.e., less toxic)
pesticides, grower sprayer records, and
irrigation scheduling. It has conducted a
substantial amount of research to reduce water
use from irrigation and also encouraged
monitoring of soil moisture as a BMP in the
orchard. In addition, it has conducted
research to encourage the use of bio-controls
during post-harvest storage.
Stemilt would like to see creative incentives
used to recognize what the growers do, or
provide them with a monetary return, and
A-15
-------
reinforce the concept of IFF. It would also
like to see guidelines for how to farm better,
and formal state or federal guidelines for how
growers are doing with respect to EPM.
Another barrier is that some growers are only
able to focus on the next growing season due
to their tight budgets. It is difficult for these
growers to spend money today to benefit the
future.
Stemilt established a point system to facilitate
grower education and motivation, that is, a
seorecard is used to rate growers' progress, as
compared to recommended point totals for the
three fruit crops. It hopes that growers will
become interested in not only knowing about
yields, expressed in tons per acre, but also
environmental costs, perhaps expressed by
points per yield ton. Indeed, Stemilt considers
communication to be the key to successful
implementation of IFF programs. Stemilt has
condensed its information to the consumer
about its program with the use of fruit stickers
and box labels that feature a ladybug symbol
and the words "Responsible Choice".
Conveying thorough information to consumers
about its program remains a challenge. (Based
on materials provided by, and correspondence
with, Stemilt.)
Sunkist Growers; Sunkist Growers is a
grower cooperative based in California that
markets 1.6 million tons of oranges,
grapefruits, and lemons on behalf of 6,500
growers, growing on 370,000 acres. Through
its environmental practices, it is interested in
not only helping its growers by improving
their profitability, but also protecting the
quality of its products and its company's
reputation, and meeting foreign market
product quality demands. Sunkist is currently
funding research demonstrations to show the
correlation between the application of nitrogen
inputs and the growers' profits -- for example,
over-application of nitrogen may negatively
affect the quality of the fruit and lower the
price received, and also result in higher than
necessary costs. Growers are already showing
a willingness to reduce nitrogen use. Indeed,
its program was part of one of 25 projects
launched by the National Nonpoint Source
Forum. It has established the Sunkist
Research Foundation to aid the citrus industry
in finding alternatives to the use of pesticides.
Sunkist distributes a monthly newsletter to its
growers to recommend nutrient application,
irrigation, pest management, pruning, root
protection, and other practices, as well as the
relationship of these practices to fruit quality
and grower returns. Sunkist also shares
research results through the newsletter.
(Based on materials provided by, and
correspondence with, Sunkist Growers, the
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, and
the National Geographic Society and The
Conservation Fund.)
Sun-?
Growers; Sun-Maid Growers is
the largest grower cooperative in the raisin
industry, representing 30 percent of the
industry, and also the largest in raisin sales in
the world, with exports to 35 countries. It has
about 1,500 growers as members based in
California, who grow grapes on
approximately 50,000 acres and produce
100,000 to 125,000 tons of raisins. In 1989,
Sun-Maid developed a "do not use" list for
pesticides that was later adopted by the rest of
the raisin industry.
Sun-Maid provides technical assistance
through its own field representatives to
encourage IPM, nutrient management,
irrigation efficiency, cover crops (to attract
beneficial insects and their food supplies), owl
boxes (to control the vertebrate pest
population), and also provides pruning
demonstration workshops. Sun-Maid also
supplements the role of the University of
California Cooperative Extension by
sponsoring educational field days for raisin
growers. In addition, it interacts with pest
control advisors to utilize their assistance to
encourage growers to reduce pesticide use.
A-16
-------
Sun-Maid funds research to identify and
implement alternative BMPs. Over 1,600
newsletters are distributed to growers and
monthly meetings are held to educate growers
in BMPs. A phone line has been established to
provide timely pest control information.
Through these efforts, Sun-Maid is attempting
to lower grower costs, improve the quantity
and quality of yields, improve pesticide
effectiveness and selectivity, and protect
worker safety. Additional objectives are
prevention of ground water pollution and
increased development of biological materials
for pest control.
One barrier Sun-Maid has faced is the
resistance of growers to changes in established
farming practices. In addition, manufacturers
have been reluctant to register new materials
for pest control in the past because of
significant research and development costs.
Recent changes in the FQPA have seen the
registration of several new biological materials
for disease and insect control within the last
year. The cost of research and development
can now be recovered more rapidly due to the
fast-track registration process for
environmentally-protective products. The
increased cooperation between industry and
the regulatory agencies indicates that barriers
to use of IPM are being reduced. (Based on
materials provided by, and correspondence
with, Sun-Maid Growers, and the National
Council of Farmer Cooperatives.)
Sunsweet Growers; Sunsweet Growers is a
grower cooperative in California whose main
market is prunes. It works with 650 prune
growers, covering 40,000-45,000 acres and
producing 100,000-112,500 dry tons of prunes.
It has smaller markets for apples, apricots,
dates, peaches, pears, and prune juice. It has a
policy to not advise its growers on their
growing practices. The growers have their
own advisers to provide this expertise, which
Sunsweet does not have the expertise to
contribute. However, Sunsweet does hold
meetings with its growers to provide
information on environmental matters and its
field managers provide advice to growers. It
also assisted the state to develop a BMP
manual to reduce the off-site movement (i.e.,
in runoff to surface water and spray drift) of
pesticides sprayed on orchards during the
dormant season. Sunsweet then distributed
copies of the manual to its growers. It also
encourages the use of barn owl boxes made
from scrap lumber — the owls prey on gophers
and field mice that find cover in the cover
crops and can destroy large numbers of trees.
Sunsweet does encourage minimum use of
inputs — fertilizers, fungicides, pesticides ~
on prunes. It also requires its growers to
maintain logs of pesticide applications.
Through these efforts, Sunsweet wants to
ensure that its growers do everything that is
proper and to adhere to the pesticide
application labels. (Based on materials
provided by, and correspondence with,
Sunsweet Growers.)
Wegmans Food Markets & Curtice Burns
Foods/Pro-Fac Cooperative; Wegmans is a
food store chain in upper New York and
northern Pennsylvania. In 1996, it started an
eco-labeling program with fresh sweet corn to
encourage the use of IPM. Based on positive
consumer responses, it later entered into a
three-way partnership with Curtice Burns
Foods (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pro-Fac
Cooperative) and Cornell University to
expand the program to Wegmans-brand
canned snap beans, beets, carrots, sweet corn,
peas, and sauerkraut, and frozen snap beans,
carrots, sweet corn, and peas — these products
will receive an IPM label.
The canned IPM corn and peas were
introduced in November 1996, the canned
IPM corn and peas are in stores as of March
1997, and the frozen vegetables are expected
to be labeled in summer 1997. All of these
crops are grown in New York. Pro-Fac is a
grower cooperative and works with the 10-12
A-17
-------
growers in the program with a total of 1,500
acres -- it developed guidelines for site
preparation and selection, planting, pest
monitoring and forecasting, pest management
(including whether growers use lower risk
pesticides), and post-harvest. Curtice Burns
Foods does the processing, currently 6,100
tons per year. Cornell developed the IPM
guidelines for each individual crop type, with
a series of practices based on the crop and
associated points — it is continually trying to
improve the guidelines. Growers need to score
at least 80 percent of the available points to be
certified as IPM growers. Cornell also
developed an IPM logo (a blue ribbon with the
letters "IPM" and an outline of the state of
New York) that Wegmans pays a license fee to
use, though Wegmans has developed its own
logo that would not be restricted to New York-
grown crops (as is the use of Cornell's logo).
The evaluation of practices is done by a
private consultant, which is highly preferred
by the growers to government evaluation —
they do not want the practices to become
required. And Wegmans has responsibility for
the marketing — it uses brochures, circulars,
in-store video tapes, radio, television, and
newspaper ads — to educate its customers
about the environmental benefits of IPM.
These foods are marketed as environmentally
sound, not as safer food -- they bear an IPM
logo and are part of Wegmans' "Food You
Feel Good About" labeled line of foods.
Wegmans provides a newsletter to its fresh
vegetable producers in the program.
Pro-Fac Cooperative provides a newsletter to
its members. Each issue includes at least one
article about a member-producer who follows
sound environmental practices. Curtice Burns
Foods meets one-on-one with each grower
producing processing vegetables for the IPM
program to discuss and review the program
requirements. It also provides guidelines to
the processing vegetable producers concerning
accurate record keeping for verification of the
use of IPM practices. Wegmans' interests in
this area include decreasing impacts on the
environment and protecting its reputation. It
is also interested in educating the public about
decreased chemical use by growers to change
public perceptions about farming. In addition,
growers have been supportive of this program
to lower their costs and environmental costs.
For example, the average number of
insecticide sprays on sweet corn (processed
into canned and frozen corn) has been lowered
from four per crop at the start of the program
to just over one as of mid-1997. This three-
way partnership has proved to be quite
effective and has helped to overcome past
antagonisms that may have existed. The
growers appreciate that they have co-
ownership in the program, and elements of the
program have not been imposed on them.
Wegmans is currently expanding the program
to include asparagus, popcorn, and tomatoes
grown in states other than New York. It is
looking into also expanding into fresh
cucumbers and peppers. It may eventually
expand the program to include fruit, possibly
berries. However, it also informs its
customers that "as consumer demand
increases, IPM methods will be developed for
more and more crops," defining a role for
consumers in supporting greater grower use of
IPM. Presently, it is too early to quantify
consumer response, but other companies are
watching this program. If the program is
successful, other companies may follow suit.
In addition, Curtice Burns Foods has asked
some of its other customers to consider
developing a similar program with their
private labels. And various grower groups are
becoming interested in developing similar
programs. In the past, Wegmans has
marketed organic produce but learned that its
customers did not want to pay higher prices,
given their understanding of organic farming
(its IPM vegetables are priced lower than their
organic versions).
A-18
-------
A number of barriers have been encountered
during the development of Wegmans'
program. First, some members of the
agricultural community do not support its
program because they are concerned that it
will lead the public to raise food safety issues
with non-labeled food. As a result, Wegmans
has focused on the environmental benefits of
its program. Second, consumer awareness of
IPM is low ~ only 20 percent of its customers
knew what IPM is. As discussed above,
Wegmans has used a variety of approaches to
educate its customers. Third, growers
inherently do not like to document their
practices, especially during harvest time -- the
partnership has tried to make the
documentation easy and has notified growers
up-front what they are responsible for in the
program. Fourth, all member groups of the
program were leery of government evaluation,
because of their concern that the program
would become regulatory. The evaluation
verification is done by an independent, third
party consultant. Fifth, some members of the
university extension service consider this
program to be more work for them, but with
no increase in resources. Extension was also
concerned that it would have, or be perceived
to have, an enforcement role. However, this
responsibility belongs with Cornell and
Wegmans, and the verification is done by a
consultant. Sixth, due to Wegmans' high
quality standards, twice the tonnage needed for
processing purposes is grown. In addition, the
coordination of timing crop maturity with
processing plant capacity has also been
important. (Based on materials provided by,
and correspondence with, Wegmans Food
Markets, Curtice Bums Foods, Pro-Fac
Cooperative, Cornell University, the National
Council of Farmer Cooperatives, and Shelton
and Petzoldt, 1997.)
2. Livestock
Butterball: Butterball has five turkey
growing/processing complexes in the U.S.
Three of them buy their turkeys from
individual companies that themselves have
contracts with growers. At another facility,
Butterball owns all of the turkey grower
operations. At the remaining facility, in
Missouri, it contracts out all of its turkey
growing. New growers are required to
compost their turkey mortalities. To help
defray the costs of building new facilities (as
well as the cost of the composting unit),
Butterball pays a 25 percent rebate for the
construction costs. It encourages existing
facilities to also add composting units.
Butterball holds meetings with the growers to
educate them about how to compost the
mortalities. With respect to handling nutrients
from the manure, growers are encouraged to
follow USD A nutrient guidelines. The
company's service people provide technical
assistance to the growers on composting and
nutrient management, and is currently
developing a BMP manual for the growers for
handling manure that is based on a similar
manual developed by the National Turkey
Federation. Butterball works closely with
growers to better ensure that they properly
maintain and operate the practices.
Butterball is interested in avoiding future
environmental problems and staying ahead of
potential future regulations. If it gets ahead of
the industry, it can better influence the
potential future development of environmental
regulations. For example, the use of burial
pits to handle turkey mortalities was expected
to be prohibited in the state of Missouri. As a
result, Butterball began to encourage the
existing growers, and require its new growers,
to compost them. (Based on correspondence
with Butterball.)
Clover Stornetta; Clover Stornetta, based in
northern California, developed its "North
Coast Excellence" program in 1996 to
undertake a number of activities with the 18
dairies it buys milk from (with 14,000 cows
producing 19 million gallons per year), who
A-19
-------
are also members of a dairy cooperative. The
program was designed to achieve a number of
objectives: encourage stewardship of the land;
protect family farms from increased
competition from larger dairies; protect animal
health; respond to growing consumer demand
for natural foods; link consumers to growers
with a positive image and experiences;
differentiate its milk products based on how
the milk is produced and its quality (rather
than be "faceless"); improve the company's
growth; and improve its relationship with its
dairies. A scorecard has been developed to
rate the appearance of the dairies -- this serves
as an educational tool for how dairies can look
and work. Dairies must score at least 90
points, and are judged based on a variety of
factors, including corrals and manure piles.
Clover is currently identifying sustainable
agricultural practices to protect land, water,
and business for the long term. For example,
it is taking steps to reduce erosion and hopes
to encourage its dairies to fence off streams
from access by cows. It is also encouraging
rotational grazing to protect the landscape.
These sustainable practices will be defined for
each individual dairy, because each one is
different at least in part due to different local
environmental conditions. Clover expects that
the sustainable agriculture component will
continue to evolve, with each farm plan looked
at each year to see where improvements are
possible.
Clover pays approximately a two-percent price
premium for milk produced in compliance
with its product and farm standards. It does
not receive a price premium for its product,
and believes this has improved consumer
acceptance and sales growth. Dairies can post
signs on their property showing that they are
members of the program. The county
agricultural commissioner is the third-party
certifier of the program, reviewing all
paperwork (e.g., rating sheets submitted by
each dairy), and the cooperative and Clover
audit each dairy to provide feedback. Since it
started this program, Clover has experienced
the fastest growth in its history and has
expanded its market area. It is currently
considering developing an organic line of
dairy products, and perhaps transitioning all of
its milk into organic production. (Based on
materials provided by, and correspondence
with, Clover Stornetta.)
Coleman Natural Products: Colemanwas
started in 1979 and its stewardship principles
have been a part of the company since then.
Coleman encourages the over 450 ranchers
who provide it cattle to use rotational grazing
to improve the grass cover, watershed,
wildlife, and the quality of natural
ecosystems. These ranchers are in the 17
western states, with the majority in Colorado,
Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
The ranchers are typically paid a premium for
their cattle for following Coleman's cattle
raising and ranching protocols. In this
fashion, Coleman helps support the continued
existence of family farms. It is also interested
in raising animals in a more respectful way.
Coleman also works with nine feedyards
(seven in Colorado and two in Nebraska).
Responding to Coleman's customers'
concerns for pesticide residues, the feeds used
by the feedyards are tested for pesticides.
However, where the feedyards purchase their
feed is considered their prerogative, and is
typically locally grown. Overall, Coleman is
concerned about the total cost to society from
producing low-cost food.
One key barrier that Coleman has faced is
building a bigger supply pool of ranchers who
support its philosophy in total. It has
overcome this barrier by remaining a constant
purchaser in the market and developing good,
long-term relationships with ranchers. It also
rewards their performance by paying higher
cattle prices than the commodity market
would pay. So through use of an economic
incentive, Coleman has been able to attract
and retain ranchers that remain closest to what
A-20
-------
it believes in — being "true to the trail."
(Based on materials provided by, and
correspondence with, Coleman Natural
Products.)
Draper Valley Farms; Draper Valley Farms
in Washington allows composting or rendering
of poultry mortalities through the contracts
with its 35 growers, who annually produce 20
million birds. It has allowed composting for at
least five or six years. Most of the growers
have accepted composting because it is easier
to deal with than incinerators are. Grower
skepticism was alleviated when growers
visited other growers with composting units
and saw how effective it is in handling
mortalities. Draper's contracts prohibit the use
of pits or incinerators for disposal of the
mortalities. It has worked with individual
growers on how to compost. Since none of the
growers have enough land to apply the poultry
litter, litter is not allowed to be stored on-site
or stockpiled uncovered. The growers are
composting the manure and marketing the
compost off the farm, with sufficient interest
in the product so that all of it is successfully
marketed. Draper prefers to stay ahead of
future environmental regulations through
requiring these types of practices. (Based on
correspondence with Draper Valley Farms.)
Eberly Poultry Farms; Eberly buys free-
range chickens from 30-32 Amish and
Mennonite growers in Pennsylvania. Their
flock size is 4,000 chickens, with 15,000-
18,000 chickens produced per week. Eberly's
program with the growers started first with
production without the use of stimulants, then
the use of free-range growing, and then
organic production in 1985 with the addition
of organically grown feed purchased from a
grain broker. Poultry mortalities are typically
composted on-site and the manure is applied to
their crops. Technically, Eberly has produced
organically-grown chickens for 10 years but
has been unable to put this information on a
label since chickens are inspected by USDA
and there is no national standard for
organically- grown red meats or chickens.
Eberly expects that the next step in the
evolving program is organically produced
chickens, once USDA releases its national
organic labeling standards. In fact, its biggest
barrier has been the lack of national organic
standards for poultry (and red meat).
Furthermore, another barrier is where to get
the organic poultry processed. If the organic
livestock operation is too small, it may find
processing plants too far away to justify the
transportation costs or its production not large
enough for the processing plant to receive the
meat.
Eberly meets with the growers by visiting
their farms twice each year to provide updates
on its program. A price premium of
approximately 33 percent is paid to the
growers to compensate the higher labor costs
needed; in turn, this price premium is offset
by higher prices paid by retailers. However,
without being able to use an organic label, it is
not able to receive a higher price premium
from retailers. Eberly's efforts reflect its
interest to support sustainable agriculture,
benefit growers (who usually have older
operations), protect small family farms, and
respond to the growing marketplace for
organically produced foods. (Based on
materials provided by, and correspondence
with, Eberly Poultry Farms.)
Horizon Organic Dairy; Horizon Organic
Dairy buys about 30 percent of its organic
milk (400,000 pounds per week) from 125
dairies, primarily in Iowa, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin, and mostly small family farms.
These dairies have at least 5,000 cows. These
dairies usually have enough land to apply
their manure, and many of them grow their
own organic feed. However, Horizon does
not purchase all of the milk produced by these
dairies. The rest of Horizon's milk is
produced by its own dairy in Idaho, with
another one scheduled to open in Maryland.
A-21
-------
Horizon also has six processing plants to
produce organic fluid milk and another seven
processing plants to produce its other organic
dairy products, e.g., butter, cheese, sour cream,
and yogurt. Its growth has led to a substantial
increase in organic crop production.
Horizon estimates that it is responsible for
over 150,000 acres being certified organic, i.e.,
the dairies, and cropland and orchards for the
feed for the cows and fruits for the yogurt.
Indeed, its own dairy buys organic feed from
30-40 growers in Idaho and Utah, farming on
50,000 acres. It also buys organic fruits from
20-25 growers in California, Colorado,
Michigan, Oregon, and Washington. Horizon
believes its greatest contribution to
environmental protection is the organic
practices it influences to be used on these
acres, due to its purchase of their products.
For the individual dairies, it provides field
services and counsel, as well as access to
certifying organizations for technical help. It
also reimburses a portion of their first year's
certification cost. For the individual feed
growers, Horizon provides access to certifying
organizations for technical help, as well as a
contractual market. In addition, it provides
whatever help it can to the growers, including
having the organic certifying agent talk with
them and provide supporting materials.
Horizon's program is based on its
environmental interest in reducing agricultural
nonpoint source pollution and building up and
protecting the soil, and its economic interest in
developing a business opportunity to respond
to growing consumer demand for
environmentally-oriented and residue-free
products. It is also helping to keep small
family dairies in operation ~ Horizon pays
them a higher price (about $3 to $4 per
hundredweight) for their milk to help offset
their higher costs to produce organic milk. It
also believes that it raises the animals in a
more respectful way, and that its product tastes
better than conventional milk products. The
biggest barrier it has encountered has been the
cost to convert the land from chemical to
organic ~ during the time when the cropland
is in transition for three years, it also has a
decline in yield. So while the land is being
farmed organically, the crops are sold at
conventional crop prices and yields are lower
during this transition period. Additional big
barriers have been finding sources of organic
feed and good land to grow the feed on, and
producing enough organic milk to meet the
growing consumer demand ~ Horizon
continues to increase the number of dairies it
works with and its production levels to
respond to the growing demand. Its sales
have doubled each year since it was founded
in 1991. (Based on materials provided by,
and correspondence with, Horizon Organic
Dairy.)
Hudson Foods; In the Delmarva region
(includes Delaware, nine Eastern Shore
counties in Maryland, and two Eastern Shore
counties in Virginia), Hudson Foods contracts
with 235 growers of broiler chickens,
producing approximately 1 million birds per
week. With its concern for the water quality
of Chesapeake Bay and the protection of farm
property and the soil, it encourages the
growers to use manure sheds to cover and
contain manure until it is appropriate to be
applied to the land. Over the past 2-3 years, it
has also been providing its own cost-share
funds to supplement federal and state money
in order to encourage the growers to compost
their bird mortalities, rather than use burial
pits or incinerators. Hudson uses its
newsletter to growers to provide information
on these preferred practices. Growers have
accepted the use of manure storage sheds and
composters, especially after being convinced
about their effectiveness through farm
demonstrations. (Based on materials provided
by, and correspondence with, Hudson Foods.)
Juniper Valley Farms; Juniper Valley
Farms buys organic milk from 12 dairies in
A-22
-------
New York and Vermont, with approximately
800 cows producing milk — currently, about
400,000 pounds per month. It helps the new
dairies locate suppliers of organic feed and
also refers them to its existing dairies in case
they have questions about being organic.
Juniper Valley pays a 30-40 percent price
premium for the organic milk, and is paid a
price that is 40-50 percent higher than the
price paid for conventional milk. It started
selling organic milk in April 1996. Its
refrigerated line of milk products is sold along
the East Coast, with the bulk of it sold in the
Northeast. Its non-refrigerated line of milk
products is sold nationally. Its program is
based on its interest in finding sensible
approaches to protect the environment (e.g.,
much of its watershed provides drinking water
to New York City and is part of a program to
reduce agricultural pollutant loads to improve
drinking water quality), respond to consumer
concern about foods that may contain
unnatural and unnecessary ingredients or
residues, respond to growing consumer
demand for organic foods, support local
sustainable agriculture, and protect local
family farms. The dairies have enough
cropland to apply their manure, and rotational
grazing is encouraged to provide a cost-
effective source of organic feed. Indeed,
Juniper Valley's biggest barrier is finding
sources of organic grain. In addition, Juniper
Valley needed funds to be available to finance
some of the dairies, who were not doing well
financially, to get started in its program.
(Based on material provided by, and
correspondence with, Juniper Valley Farms.)
McDonald's Corporation; In response to
consumer inquiries regarding the impact of
McDonald's purchase of beef and its impact
on the world's tropical rain forests, the
company established a corporate policy
statement in 1989 to "use only locally
produced and processed beef in every country
where [it has] restaurants." If beef needs to be
imported, it will only be purchased from those
suppliers approved in other countries. "In all
cases, however, McDonald's does not, has not
and will not permit destruction of tropical rain
forests for [its] beef supply. [It does] not,
[has] not and will not purchase beef from rain
forest or recently deforested rain forest land.
This policy is strictly enforced and closely
monitored." All suppliers of beef to
McDonald's must comply with these
requirements or lose their business to it. One
barrier that it has faced is the difficulty in
controlling and monitoring what happens
along the food supply chain. Integrating a
change in its policy through the supply chain
can oftentimes lead to diverse strategies for
working with different links in the chain.
Furthermore, since McDonald's is one of
several links in this chain, possibly including
international components, its influence can be
limited. (Based on material provided by, and
correspondence with, McDonald's
Corporation.)
Murphy Family Farms; Given its interest in
supporting sustainable agriculture, protecting
water quality, protecting and enhancing its
reputation through environmental proactivity,
helping growers become better environmental
stewards, and staying ahead of environmental
regulations, Murphy Family Farms has taken a
number of steps for about the past 10 years to
prevent pollution from its 700 swine
operations. Contracts with growers require
them to comply with their state's requirements
— it has operations in Illinois, Iowa, Missouri,
and North Carolina, and new operations in
Oklahoma and South Dakota — and it may
have additional requirements that are
independent of the state. It also helps growers
prepare their nutrient utilization plans, and
requires soil testing based on nitrogen needs
for all the growers. In the midwest, Murphy
requires growers to work with consultants to
conduct soil tests and determine application
rates. Growers in different climatic regions
may differ in the timing of when they apply
A-23
-------
the manure, leading to different approaches
encouraged by Murphy.
All of Murphy's contract growers are required
to attend a four-hour environmental training
course. Every three months thereafter, new
managers and new contract growers are
trained. Growers must also report on a weekly
basis the remaining capacity in the manure-
holding lagoons, which Murphy keeps a
computerized record of. Murphy's service
people undertake weekly environmental
assurance inspections of all the farms. Mock
inspections of farms are conducted and
feedback is provided to growers. It assisted
the state of North Carolina develop a course
for regulated "operator in charge" in irrigation
training for land application from the liquid
manure holding ponds and then co-taught
classes. It annually tests all company and
contract farm wells for nitrate pollution. In
addition, growers in North Carolina are
provided dumpsters to store swine mortalities
that are then picked up by Murphy for free and
taken to a rendering plant; the growers in Iowa
contract with a Tenderer to take the mortalities.
Murphy shares information with growers about
nutrient management, the relationship between
farm management and wildlife management,
riparian protection, general stewardship
activities, and relevant industry information in
a quarterly newsletter. Its efforts to protect
riparian and wildlife areas are mostly
educational. It encourages through education,
newsletters, and meeting with growers the
importance of protecting water quality and
wildlife habitat through leaving a filter or
buffer strip between the edge of an irrigation
spray field and a ditch, stream, pond, lake, etc.
Murphy also provides blue bird boxes to
growers for a nominal fee. In its efforts,
Murphy has faced typical barriers associated
with changing behaviors, including the
growers' willingness to adopt new practices or
methods (given their past experience),
understanding the need for the recommended
change, and their education level. (Based on
materials provided by, and correspondence
with, Murphy Family Farms.)
Stonvfield Farm; Since 1995, Stonyfield
Farm, based in New Hampshire, has been
transitioning its dairy products to be certified
organic. It currently sells organic lines of
yogurt, frozen ice cream, and frozen yogurt.
Currently, it pays approximately a 50-percent
price premium for organic milk, produced by
dairies in Maine, New York, Vermont, and the
Midwest. It also pays 50-100 percent for
other certified organic inputs (e.g., fruits and
sweeteners). Its organic products also receive
a higher price in stores ~ e.g., six ounces of
organic milk is sold at the same price as eight
ounces of conventional milk. Its packaging
includes information related to the organic
production. It funds educational workshops
and conferences for growers to learn and share
tools and skills to improve their practices.
Stonyfield also funds a sustainable agriculture
grant program for growers (approximately
$8,000-$ 10,000 per funding cycle) - any
dairy that sells milk to it can apply. Projects
are rated based on positive environmental
impacts (such as through using fewer
pesticides, decreased runoff and erosion,
improved nutrient cycling, stream fencing,
and expanding pasture management) and how
replicable the project is — grant recipients
typically receive $1,000-$2,000. Its products
are sold in all 50 states, and it has experienced
annual growth rates of between 20 and 60
percent. It recognizes that its interest in
protecting the environment is also good for
profits. Stonyfield is also interested in
protecting small farms and supports organic
agriculture because it agrees with the standard
of environmental performance.
Stonyfield has faced numerous barriers in its
efforts. First, the lack of national organic
standards has constrained its growth,
particularly in export markets. Second, it is
concerned about the amount of research on
A-24
-------
organic farming (e.g., animal health care and
herd management issues) funded or conducted
by USDA and the land grant universities.
Third, there is a lack of understanding by
retailers and consumers of what organic
means. Fourth, there have been
misconceptions and doubts in the farm
community about what organic is. Fifth, there
is a lack of an infrastructure for organic foods,
e.g., access to feed and availability of organic
growers and products. (Based on materials
provided by, and correspondence with,
Stonyfield Farm.)
Tallgrass Prairie Producers Co-Op; The
Tallgrass Prairie Producers Co-Op is a nine-
member cooperative of small, family ranchers
in Kansas seeking to differentiate their beef
product to enable them to remain farming.
Instead of feeding grain to cattle confined in
feedlots, TPPC keeps all its cattle on pasture,
never confined, and the animals are finished
on grass. These ranches hope to market 200
head by the end of 1997, 400 by the end of
1998, and can potentially go as high as 1,000.
They meet two to three times each month to
discuss production, environmental, marketing,
and business issues. The TPPC also
encourages them to use rotational grazing
when and where appropriate. Reliance on
natural grazing and native grasses uses less
overall energy to feed the cattle.
TPPC is interested in avoiding the negative
effects that may result from feedlots (e.g.,
water pollution) and the negative effects that
may result from large-scale feed grain
production (e.g., soil erosion, and use of
fertilizers, pesticides, and energy). It is also
interested in protecting small, family ranches
and communities. In addition, it is interested
in protecting native land ~ the hilly, rocky
Flint Hills Tallgrass Prairie is the largest area
of native tallgrass prairie left in North America
-- and keeping it in a native state. The pasture
grazing keeps the soil covered and protected
from water and wind erosion, benefits from the
filtering of the native grasses, and disperses
the manure, unlike confined feedlots. It
believes that the ranches can make more
money through receipt of a price premium and
become profitable and sustainable. TPPC
wants to give consumers a connection to the
land and know how their food is raised. It
believes that its system is consistent with
sustainable agriculture and better protects
animal health and produces a tastier and
healthier (leaner) product.
TPPC has faced a number of barriers, such as
re-educating consumers about the benefits of
lean beef, the marketplace and institutional
acceptance of lean beef, the legal
requirements in labeling and processing to
document the validity of any claim made
about the beef, marketing challenges when
competing against larger companies,
marketing volume needs for stores (larger
store chains have larger beef needs that a
small company may have a hard time
satisfying), complete business management
(over time, it is getting better with the
inventory control, accounting, and marketing),
marketing the entire animal, and start-up
costs. TPPC has lined up local buyers for its
products and hopes to expand its market area.
(Based on materials provided by, and
correspondence with, Tallgrass Prairie
Producers Co-Op.)
The Organic Cow of Vermont; The Organic
Cow of Vermont started to buy organic milk
from other dairies in November 1994, and
currently buys organic milk from 60 dairies in
Maine, New York, and Vermont. It also
produces some of its milk. It targets dairies
that are small and family-owned. The 34
dairies it currently works with have about
1,500 cows, with sizes ranging from 12 to
125. It is currently producing almost two
million pounds of milk per week. It ranks at
the small end of the large organic milk
producers/processors. The Organic Cow is
interested in protecting the regional, family
A-25
-------
farms, and their role in the local community,
landscape, and economy. It believes that if
these dairies can stay in operation, the region's
sustainability will be improved. It also
believes in organic growing methods and that
organic dairying is part of a better and more
respectful treatment for the cows. The
Organic Cow also strongly believes in what it
is doing.
To support organic dairying, The Organic Cow
pays a price premium -- as well as additional
premiums and bonuses. The base price does
not fluctuate, while the premiums can, but the
farmer has control over them. The Organic
Cow does not take any discretionary payment
deductions from the dairies -- e.g., most
regional dairies pay the hauling costs to
deliver their milk to market. It instead absorbs
that cost for their farms. Additionally, The
Organic Cow purchases 100 percent of the
dairies' production year-round and contracts
with the farms for two years. Since it is far
more costly to farm in the Northeast and to
farm organically, the price to the farms must
be sustainable. Some of the added cost is
absorbed by The Organic Cow, i.e., not all of
it is passed on to the stores because this may
price its product out of too many markets. It is
currently extending its product line to expand
its sales, production levels, and the number of
dairies it buys milk from. This is consistent
with another of its objectives, providing more
choices for consumers.
In addition, The Organic Cow encourages
rotational grazing and composting of manure.
Crop rotations are used. On the hay fields,
animals and crops are rotated. The dairies try
to manage the land (e.g., add back nutrients)
and the woodlands. Bird feeders/boxes are
used for pest control. To provide information
to the growers about these methods,
information is included in the newsletters sent
to them. The Organic Cow also provides
technical assistance and education, holds
monthly workshops and meetings around the
state to improve grower access to them, and
helps sponsor "pasture walks" for farmers to
walk around other farms and to learn about
what each is doing. A field person is
dispatched when a problem exists at a farm
and/or mentor farmers are on call for a site
visit or by phone. Every year as part of the
organic certification process, the certifying
organization inspects each farm. Yearly re-
application is necessary and soil tests on any
added land is automatic. Its biggest barrier is
access to sufficient supplies of organic feed.
It helps its dairies locate these suppliers and
also tries to find local, new sources of feed,
and helps them in the organic certification
process. (Based on materials provided by, and
correspondence with, The Organic Cow of
Vermont.)
Tyson Foods: Tyson Foods has 28 broiler
chicken complexes around the U.S. whereby
each facility takes care of its own breeding,
hatching, growing, and processing. These
complexes process approximately 34 million
birds per week. Tyson also owns two
rendering plants with another one scheduled
to open. One of the stewardship activities
encouraged by Tyson for the past four to five
years is for growers to store poultry
mortalities that die during their usual growing
process in freezers that it provides and
maintains. It schedules regular pick-ups of
the contents of these freezers, and takes them
to one of its rendering facilities, or another
one if it is closer. One barrier Tyson has
faced in this effort is for growers to properly
operate the freezers.
Tyson also provides education in its area of
expertise, e.g., through its service people who
are trained to answer grower questions not
only about production matters, but also
environmental matters, or they will refer the
growers to the appropriate county extension
agent. Tyson relies on these agents for their
expertise. It introduces the growers to their
county extension agent, who works with them
A-26
-------
to take soil samples, determine proper soil
application rates for poultry litter, and develop
site plans. Tyson is interested in protecting the
environment and to do as much as it can to
prevent pollution. In addition, it believes its
approach to handling mortalities is the best
possible way to deal with them, though it may
be more expensive. Tyson also wants to be
accepted in the local community, produce as
high a quality a product as possible, and be fair
to all the growers and treat them well. (Based
on materials provided by, and correspondence
with, Tyson Foods.)
Vermont Milk Producers; Vermont Milk
Producers (VMP) is a dairy cooperative that
represents 16 dairies in Vermont with about
1,000 cows to produce a line of "premium"
milk. It considers that the practices its dairies
adopt are more sustainable than organic dairies
in the region. The cows are fed on grass
(through rotational grazing) and corn — the
objective is to rely on more naturally occurring
species. Crop rotations are also used to
produce the feed, while also suppressing
weeds, preventing soil erosion, and enhancing
soil fertility. In addition, VMP requires that
manure be applied at appropriate rates to
protect ground and surface water. VMP also
has developed a set of land and farm
management guidelines, including economics,
soil health and fertility, water management,
pest control and weed management, manure
management, biodiversity, plant and animal
selection, use of renewable versus non-
renewable resources, and general appearance
of the operation.
Through these practices and other production
practices, VMP is able to reduce the dairies'
input costs, emphasize the quality of the milk
to the consumer, and protect these small,
family-owned dairies from encroaching larger
dairies by keeping them competitive. It is also
conserving water, and protecting farm
ecology, human and animal health,
biodiversity, the ecosystem, and wildlife. As a
result, it is also protecting the landscape and
local economy of the region. VMP believes
that its practices also provide a more humane
treatment of the cows. A 10-percent price
premium is paid for the milk produced
through the use of these practices, with a
reliance on the consumer to pay more for their
creatively marketed product. VMP has built
up a strong loyal following among its
customers. Since February 1995, its milk
sales have steadily risen, to an annualized
total of 25 million pounds. As its markets
grow (they currently include over 150 upscale
food stores in New England, New York, and
New Jersey), VMP expects to add more
"neighborhoods" of dairies to its program.
VMP has encountered a number of barriers
along the way, since it started its program in
1993. According to VMP, the "green"
community has criticized it for not being
organic — VMP believes that green
investment sources have not been as interested
in lending it money. Because of this, as well
as because these dairies are already
substantially tied up with loans for capital,
VMP has had to seek additional loans to
finance changes by the dairies. Another
barrier faced is that due to its size and need to
cut down on capital costs, VMP relies on the
existing dairy infrastructure, which bases its
production, processing, distribution, and
marketing on milk being a generic product,
and not encouraging a higher quality product.
VMP believes that the dairy industry has not
tried to differentiate its product, and is
therefore more interested in the selling price
than in milk quality and customer loyalty.
VMP has spent a lot of time working with a
processor to demonstrate how valuable milk is
to it and that it needs to emphasize milk
quality. In addition, VMP has been hurt by
stores that demand payment of slotting fees to
sell in their stores, a cost which is better
absorbed by larger companies. (Based on
materials provided by, and correspondence
with, Vermont Milk Producers.)
A-27
-------
-------
APPENDIX B: THIRD-PARTY ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP PARTNERSHIPS WITH GROWERS
Based on what he learned from
companies that he contacted, Smart (1992)
advised companies to increase "partnerships
with environmentalists and others, including
governments, to communicate and to solve
environmental problems." A number of
"third-party" stewardship programs between
growers and non-profit, academic, and/or
governmental organizations are summarized
below. The information is current as of mid-
1997.
BuvGreen Virginia Partnership; The
Virginia Association for Biological Farming
formed the BuyGreen Virginia partnership
with Mothers & Others for a Livable Planet in
1997 to save Virginia farmland and protect the
environment through the sale of locally grown
foods. The crops will be grown with the use of
practices that "conserve and protect the land
for current and future generations." The
partnership promotes healthy food choices that
are ecologically sustainable. The program
supports growers that use practices that are
more environmentally protective and provides
guidance to growers interested in adopting
these practices.
The BuyGreen Virginia program is developing
labels to designate three types of growers: C
for soil and water conservation methods, IPM,
and low-input sustainable practices; O for
organic growing methods; and E for
ecological/biological methods (including crop
rotations and compost applications).
Standards for the O and E labels have been
established, and standards for a more
comprehensive labeling program, including
the C label, are being developed. The labeling
program will inform consumers and empower
them to support growers that use these
practices.
To be accepted into the program, each grower
must pledge a commitment to use sustainable
growing methods. For example, the
Ecological Production Pledge (EPP) is a
commitment to adopt and follow soil
improvement practices (e.g., maintain high
levels of organic matter, conserve soil
moisture, and plant cover crops) and pest
control measures (e.g., maintain organic
matter and healthy soil, rotate crops, and use
natural pest management). Growers are
required to attend and participate in at least
one event each year dealing with the use of
sound, ecologically-based growing practices.
In return, growers receive information about
accepted production methods and permission
to use the BuyGreen logo for marketing their
products.
Thus far, the program includes 29 certified
organic growers and 27 "ecological" growers
who have made the EPP pledge. Another 60
growers have expressed interest in
participating in the program. The majority of
the crops included is in vegetables and
specialities (e.g., herbs, shiitake mushrooms).
Meats, milk, and cheese are also included.
Most of the products are sold directly to
consumers and restaurants.
The main barrier faced by the program is that
while most of the interested growers are
relatively small, it needs large quantities of
crops to attract buyers. By pooling growers
together, BuyGreen can better deal with
production and marketing risks by having
sufficient quantities of quality crops. Another
key barrier faced by the program is having
sufficient funds to better organize and
coordinate the program, recruit more growers,
and establish regional chapters. There also
needs to be improved confidence and trust
B-l
-------
between retailers (who are interested in
consistent quantity and quality) and the
growers (who are interested in consistent
sales). (Based on materials provided by, and
correspondence with, the Virginia Association
for Biological Farming.)
CORE Values Northeast; As a collaboration
of apple growers in the Northeast, Mothers &
Others for a Livable Planet (a consumer
education organization), Cooperative
Extension, state university agriculture
scientists, state departments of agriculture,
produce brokers, and food retailers, the
Northeast Stewardship Alliance was formed in
1996 to develop a three-year consumer
education and marketing program for apples
grown in the New England and New York in
accordance with "ecologically-based
production guidelines." Apples grown
according to these guidelines can receive the
label "CORE Values Northeast" - CORE
means Communities Organized in Respect for
the Environment. The primary goal is to
maintain a healthy agricultural base and
environment in the Northeast region of the
U.S. This collaboration recognizes the
important environmental (e.g., drinking water
protection), scenic, open space, air quality, and
community economic benefits from
agriculture, and provides education and
conducts on-farm research to achieve its goal.
Greater environmental benefits are sought
through this alliance — greater reduction in soil
erosion and water pollution ~ from using
integrated pest management (IPM), as well as
soil, nutrient, and crop management
techniques.
The CORE program is currently implementing
a certification/verification process (during its
second year) whereby an independent
consultant would be in charge of inspection
and certification/verification. It has chosen to
not use an IPM-specific and point-based
system, given its concern that IPM practices
can be farm-specific, and more narrower than
crop-specific IPM practices. CORE has also
developed integrated fruit production (IFF)
guidelines to deal with cover crops (between
tree rows), IPM, irrigation management,
nutrient management, soil erosion, and tree
management (e.g., pruning). Through
achieving a balanced, well-managed farm
system, it is expected that growers will resist
the potentially severe negative economic
effects from pest problems. Improving the
profitability of apple growers through market-
based incentives provides long-term economic
and environmental benefits to the region.
Currently, 28 apple growers are enrolled in the
program. (Based on materials provided by,
and correspondence with, Mothers & Others
for a Livable Planet.)
Massachusetts Dairy of Distinction; The
Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation started
the Massachusetts Dairy of Distinction
program in the late 1970s/early 1980s. The
program was later duplicated in other
northeastern states. The motivation for the
program was to encourage dairies to take pride
in their operations, improve their appearance,
and increase sales of milk. To receive the
Dairy of Distinction award, a dairy must
receive at least 90 points from a 100-point
rating system based on its appearance. The
criteria are buildings (25 points), grounds/
surroundings (25 points), and farm operations
(50 points), including manure handling. The
annual award received by recipients is a sign
that can be posted on the premises for one
year, and the dairy can announce receipt of the
award in subsequent marketing. The program
recognizes the benefits from dairy farms, not
only the products produced, but also their
contribution to the rural landscape, local
economies, local tourism, and protection of
open spaces. (Based on materials provided by,
and correspondence with, the Massachusetts
Farm Bureau Federation.)
Midwest Organic Alliance; The Midwest
Organic Alliance was established in 1995, and
B-2
-------
funded through a grant from The Pew
Charitable Trusts. The Alliance is a pilot
project which will be expanded to other
regions if it is successful. The Alliance's goal
is to increase the supply of certified organic
food products grown and processed in the five-
state Midwest region of Iowa, Minnesota,
North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin,
and increase the demand for organic foods in
the Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota area.
Approximately 80 percent of the Alliance's
focus is on the demand side, working with
supermarket chains, food cooperatives, and
food brokers, and includes advertising, media,
and promotions. The other 20 percent of its
focus is on the supply side, working with
growers to encourage or support them to farm
organically. Its environmental objective is to
keep agricultural chemicals off the soil and out
of the water supply. In February 1996, the
Alliance introduced its campaign in area stores
with over 120 certified organic food products
coming from its five-state land base (there are
about 270,000 certified organic acres in the
upper Midwest) and the licensed use of its
Midwest Organic ™ logo on products, shelf
labels, and store signs. It is currently working
with over 70 stores in grocery chains and food
cooperatives representing 80 percent of the
grocery market share in the Twin Cities
market. Tracking data show a 74 percent
increase in sales in Midwest Organic ™
licensed product between 1995 and 1996. As
part of this project, the Alliance works with 15
regional food companies and over 20 national
food companies.
One barrier encountered by the Alliance was
that retailers did not want to exclusively
promote organic products from the Midwest,
but they wanted to promote all organic
products. As a result, an umbrella campaign
was developed to promote all organic food
products, but an emphasis was placed on those
products from the Midwest Region. The
Alliance currently works with both regional
and national organic food manufacturers.
Another barrier is meeting the increasing
demand for organic products. The Alliance
has expanded the focus of its program to
encourage conventional growers to transition
to organic farming. To aid their transition to
organic farming, the Alliance is developing a
curriculum on organic farming, and is
coordinating an effort in the 12-state region to
establish a regional network to provide
educational assistance to current organic
growers and those growers transitioning to
organic farming. (Based on materials
provided by, and correspondence with, the
Midwest Organic Alliance.)
Partners with Nature; The University of
Massachusetts Extension, Massachusetts
Department of Food & Agriculture (MDFA),
and the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA)
collaborated in 1993 to establish "Partners
with Nature," an IPM certification program, to
encourage Massachusetts growers to adopt
IPM, educate the public about agriculture,
create a market for IPM-grown produce, and
improve farm-community relationships. All
three agencies participate in verifying grower
compliance with crop-specific guidelines and
promote the program to growers. Extension
develops and refines the guidelines and
educational materials. FSA assists in the
grower enrollment, and, through the federal
integrated crop management cost-share
program, has provided growers with funds to
offset the expenses of private IPM consultants
(in 1994, 103 growers qualified to receive up
to $20 per acre in the program). MDFA
licenses growers who fulfill the requirements
of the program by meeting specific IPM
guidelines, documenting their practices and
participating in a verification process. The
"Partners with Nature" logo is primarily used
at roadside stands and farmer markets.
Enrollees in the program pay a $20 fee, plus
$15 for each additional crop. Growers receive
a workbook for each crop they register in the
B-3
-------
program. The workbook includes information
on the certification process, a resource
directory, IPM fact sheets, and sample record
forms. Growers follow a numerical scoring
system for practices that are best suited to their
operation and total up their points in the
following categories: soil and nutrient
management and cultural practices; pesticide
application and records; insect management;
disease management; weed management; and
education. The practices are weighted based
on the importance of the practice in an IPM
program; bonus points are also available. The
crops included in the program are sweet com,
cole crops, peppers, potatoes, pumpkins,
winter squash, strawberries, and tomatoes,
with a total of 49 farms participating in 1996.
Growers receiving at least 70 percent of the
scoring points for a crop, with points recorded
in each management category, are licensed to
use the Partners with Nature logo. They also
receive official recognition from the state,
publicity via press releases and consumer
listings, and IPM information brochures and
promotional leaflets. A mid-season progress
review is undertaken pre-harvest to determine
the growers' performance and review their
records. The use of crop consultants is
encouraged to help growers identify and
implement appropriate practices.
Some of the barriers that have been faced in
the development of this program include
separating the use of IPM from "business as
usual," uncertainty by industry and public
support for IPM, impact on sales from using
IPM, hostility by some growers to IPM (e.g.,
concern about drawing public attention to
pesticides and possibility about creating a
negative perception of conventional
agriculture), grower distrust of government
intervention, increased paperwork and time
invested by growers for IPM documentation,
concern about the increased labor needs, and
the level of inherent bureaucracy. Despite
these concerns, participation has continued to
grow. Apple growers in the region in and
around Massachusetts are interested in
developing their own similar program (see
CORE Values Northeast). (Based on materials
provided by, and correspondence with,
University of Massachusetts Extension.)
Platte River Project; With funds provided by
the Nebraska Environmental Trust Fund and
The ConAgra Foundation, and assistance from
the University of Nebraska, The Nature
Conservancy, started a five-year
demonstration project in 1995 to purchase a
site that is an operating farm and a major roost
site for the Sandhill crane, as well as for a rare
prairie butterfly along the Platte River, near
Grand Island, Nebraska. Prior to the start-up
of this program, the land was cropped for field
corn, popcorn, and soybeans. In this program,
the environmentally sensitive soils have been
turned to meadow to provide livestock hay.
The objective of the project is to show what
lands can be compatibly farmed by putting
crops that need to be intensively managed
(e.g., grains) on better soils and find economic
crops (e.g., alternative native prairie grasses
and legumes) to provide forage crops and also
serve as a filter strip for the sensitive soils to
prevent erosion. Cattle will also graze on part
of the land. It is expected that the project will
lead to wiser use of fertilizers and pesticides,
which may result in reducing their use. These
groups hope to demonstrate the compatibility
between economics and the environment, and
protect the riparian zone and the roosting
habitat for the Sandhill crane. A wetland will
also be constructed to filter water and attract
invertebrates, amphibians, and migratory
shorebirds.
It is hoped that this approach can be replicated
elsewhere along the Platte River to protect
wildlife habitat. If the approach is applied
elsewhere, a key barrier may pop up ~ how to
provide enough education for growers about
the project so they can emulate the practices.
Since the project is being conducted locally, it
is more likely to gain nearby acceptance,
B-4
-------
especially through the scheduling of field tours
and plot field days. (Based on materials
provided by, and correspondence with, Con
Agra.)
River-Friendly Farmer Program; To
publicize and promote farming practices that
improve Minnesota's river water quality and
the profitability of farming, while also
informing the public about the farmers'
positive contributions to improving the rivers
of the state, the Minnesota Alliance for Crop
Residue Management (MACRM), the
program's lead organization, developed the
River-Friendly Farmer Program. A farmer can
be designated as a River-Friendly Farmer if 10
criteria are met, as determined by their
detailed responses to a questionnaire that is co-
signed by a USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) district
conservationist, a local county extension
educator, or a member of the Alliance. The
questionnaires are then judged by a panel of
Alliance members. These criteria deal with
crop residue, soil erosion from highly erodible
land, nutrient applications, manure handling
and application, pesticide application, and
water quality, while maintaining crop yields
and profitability. The public recognition takes
place by the presentation of a River-Friendly
Farmer sign for placement on the farm
property and the issuance of a certificate at a
public event. This state coalition includes the
University of Minnesota Extension Service
and 10 other government agencies, agricultural
organizations, private firms, and a supporting
Foundation.
The program has faced a number of barriers.
For example, symptoms common to starting a
new program have been encountered.
Skepticism surfaced as to whether the program
would work, especially since at least one other
program already existed to recognize one
conservation farmer each year at the county
level. However, the River-Friendly Farmer
Program wants to recognize any grower that
meets the criteria. Also, some growers
nominated by a third party may not be
interested in receiving publicity and not want
to participate in the program. Finally, due to
resource constraints by some of the program
cooperatives, it has been important that
government agencies have been involved to
provide staff time for administrative and
review support. If a grower does not meet the
criteria, the MACRM developed a series of
fact sheets to help him/her recognize problem
areas and to suggest remedial practices.
In 1996, approximately 70 farms from 14
counties were recognized as River-Friendly
Farmers. The program was initially focused
on the lower Minnesota River, which
encompasses approximately the bottom one-
third of the state and one-third of its counties
(it has a total of 87). The program is now
being expanded to cover the entire state. As of
June 1997, 25 counties have participated in the
program. In addition, a number of other states
have expressed interest in developing similar
programs. (Based on materials provided by,
and correspondence with, the University of
Minnesota Extension Service.)
Salmon Safe; The goal of the Salmon Safe
program, started in January 1995 by The
Pacific Rivers Council (PRC) as part of its
Stream Care program, is to identify market
incentives that reward growers who install
conservation practices that reduce pollution
from private farms and improve salmon habitat
in the Pacific Northwest. The program
currently focuses on farms in the Willamette
and Hood River valleys of Oregon and the
Sacramento valley of California. Another
objective of the program is to increase
consumer awareness about the need to
purchase products grown by farms that use
conservation practices that protect salmon
habitat. Two dozen growers — apples, wine
grapes, pears, and white and wild rice -- are
currently included in the program. The
products — fruits, wines, and wild rice ~ were
B-5
-------
introduced in April 1997 with the eco-label in
the Pacific Northwest and the Seattle area of
Washington. The initial consumer audience
will be in the Pacific Northwest, but some of
the growers market nationally. The initial
product launch includes products being
marketed without a price premium. Such a
premium would be desirable in the future to
help cover the cost of installing the needed
conservation practices.
The program includes four broad management
guidelines developed by PRC, working with
fisheries and agricultural scientists: riparian
and wetland area management (e.g., buffer
areas, stream crossings), water use
management (e.g., irrigation management),
erosion and sediment control (e.g., vegetative
cover, controlling water runoff), and chemical
use management (e.g., maintaining soil
productivity, fertilizer use management, and
minimizing pesticide use). Based on the use
of these practices, growers are rated on a point
system. Various issues have been identified:
what products will be sold to the consumer
through this program; what type of market
segment will the program appeal to; and how
to make ecological practices profitable or cost-
effective. The largest barrier faced thus far is
connecting the product on the grocery store
shelf with the farms that produced it. (Based
on materials provided by, and correspondence
with, The Pacific Rivers Council.)
The Food Alliance; The Food Alliance^was
formed in 1993 as a unique partnership of food
system stakeholders (growers, farm workers,
processors/packers, distributors,
environmentalists, consumers, and educators)
in the Pacific Northwest. The Alliance
supports greater use of sustainable agricultural
systems by identifying, developing, and using
market-based incentives and providing
education, technical support, and on-farm
research. Its objectives are to improve the
environment (e.g., dealing with water use,
' ground and surface water quality, soil erosion,
toxicity of agricultural chemicals, and habitat
management), improve the quality of life for
farmers and farm workers, and conserve
natural resources for future generations. The
Alliance has a key focus on the use of IPM to
reach a wider audience of growers than if it
were to focus solely on organically grown
food, which is already being encouraged
through other eco-labeling efforts. Its
stewardship activities include education,
support for on-farm experimentation and
innovation to address apple orchard issues in
central Washington and vegetable row crop
issues in Oregon's Willamette River valley,
and development of incentives, including an
eco-label on food products. Following its
sponsorship of two national surveys of
consumer attitudes about environmentally
improved food products, the Alliance will
develop an eco-label (The Good Earth Seal) to
help consumers identify its food products.
One of its challenges is to balance being
generic and uniform enough in the design of
the eco-label, while identifying the
individuality and specificity of a crop or
product. In addition, the eco-label would need
to be substantive and transparent enough so
that it would not be considered vague. (Based
on materials provided by, and correspondence
with, The Food Alliance.)
Wisconsin Potato & Vegetable Growers
Association/World Wildlife Fund; The
World Wildlife Fund started a program in
October 1996 working with the Wisconsin
Potato and Vegetable Growers Association,
with approximately 280 growers in the Central
Sands region, to eventually eliminate the use
of toxic pesticides (endocrine disrupters,
carcinogens, and those most acutely toxic to
humans and wildlife) within five years and
implement the use of IPM within 10 years.
The potato growers typically use three-year
rotations. Common crops include alfalfa,
beans, carrots, sweet corn, onions, peas, and
soybeans. In any given year, there are usually
75,000 acres in potatoes.
B-6
-------
The goals of their program are: (a) to promote
safe food for consumers and safe farming
systems for farm families; (b) to enhance the
habitat for the Sandhill crane, Karner blue
butterfly, and other wildlife that reside in these
agricultural fields; (c) to develop a third-party
certification system to test residue content in
potatoes and wildlife habitat; and (d) develop a
packaging label to inform consumers about the
project and provide incentives for growers for
enrolling in it and protecting the environment.
The project is currently determining its
baseline and starts the implementation phase
in 1997. The project has 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-
year milestones.
A number of barriers have been overcome,
including misunderstanding and differences of
emphasis of the goals of the program and an
inherent lack of trust between the two groups.
It took time for the WWF to convince the
growers that it wanted to help them achieve
the goals that were important to them, that it
would do its best to fulfill its promise to help
them without exposing them to other risks
(e.g., their voluntary practices becoming
mandatory). In addition, WWF had to
overcome the perception from the growers that
it (or environmentalists in general) lacked
knowledge about agriculture in general and the
production systems of potato growers in
particular. The growers also had to convince
WWF that they were committed to take more
ambitious steps to bio-intensive IPM practices
than they would have adopted without the
partnership program. They also had to
convince WWF that they had a strong
programmatic interest in IPM that goes beyond
eco-labeling marketing opportunities. Critical
to overcoming these barriers is a willingness
of the principals to take risks. (Based on
materials provided by the World Wildlife
Fund.)
B-7
-------
-------
APPENDIX C: EXAMPLES OF PUBLIC/PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS
As pointed out in Smart (1992), "A
voluntary program frees participating
organizations from the restraints normally
caused by government regulation and
bureaucracy and, most importantly, it is the
most cost-efficient way to stimulate change."
Several voluntary, public/private sector
partnership programs that influence grower
choice of practices and/or address market and
institutional barriers to choice of more
environmentally protective approaches are
summarized below.
AeSTAR Program; The AgSTAR Program
is a voluntary program sponsored by EPA,
USDA, and the Department of Energy. The
program is a business venture strategically
designed to overcome market and institutional
barriers to technology use. AgSTAR was
launched in 1993 as a component of President
Clinton's Climate Change Action Plan to
promote energy efficiency and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from anthropogenic
sources. The program is designed to
encourage the collection and utilization of
methane, a greenhouse gas, produced from
livestock manure storage structures such as
lagoons, tanks, basins, ponds, and other types
of containment structures for the liquids and
slurries. These structures are typically found
at confined or partially confined livestock
production facilities and generally add costs to
animal production. In some cases these
structures also become environmental
liabilities because of odor events and water
quality issues. The AgSTAR program is
designed to enhance gas production and
recovery from these types of containment
systems for energy applications to offset
purchased energy costs. In many cases energy
offsets greatly improve the cost effectiveness
of traditional manure handling. The biological
process also stabilizes waste streams from
confined animal facilities and controls odor.
The AgSTAR Program estimates that about
2,000 confined livestock farms can use biogas
technology cost-effectively. As of the end of
1997, there were over 400 farms participating
in the program. Under the program guidelines,
these farms pledge to evaluate their facilities
for opportunities to recover methane and
install systems where cost-effective and/or
environmentally beneficial. Since 1996, about
seven farms (dairies and swine operations)
have installed systems representing about a 40
percent increase in the number of systems
installed since 1980 and an additional 10 farms
are in the construction planning phase. The
operating systems currently reduce greenhouse
gases equivalent to about 40,000 metric tons of
carbon dioxide and provide about four million
kilowatt-hours of renewable energy annually.
(Based on materials provided by, and
correspondence with, the AgSTAR Program.)
Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
Innovators Program; California's
Environmental Protection Agency, Department
of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), established the
IPM Innovators Program in August 1994 as
part of its commitment and legal mandate to
encourage the development of programs that
increase the benefits and reduce the risks of
pest management. The program was also
established to recognize achievements by
individuals and groups in being leaders as
voluntary users of IPM. In 1994, 10 groups
were recognized as award recipients, including
the Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission;
four additional groups were award recipients
in 1995; and an additional five groups were
award recipients in 1996, including Campbell
Soup Company, Del Monte Foods, and Sun-
C-l
-------
Maid Growers. DPR also provides pest
management grant funds as incentives to help
groups interested in investigating IPM
practices that will lead to reduced-risk pest
management systems. In 1997, DPR funded
25 grant projects. (Based on materials
provided by, and correspondence with, the
IPM Innovators Program.)
NFS Partners in Prevention; The U.S. EPA
has formed partnerships with various
agricultural stakeholder groups to foster
watershed-based environmental stewardship
efforts. Thus far, partnerships have been
formed with the National Association of
Wheat Growers, National Pork Producers
Council, National Cattlemen's Association,
U.S. Poultry & Egg Association (through the
Poultry Water Quality Consortium), and the
Atlantic Dairy Cooperative so that they may
promote voluntary implementation of nonpoint
source management practices by their
members. In general, these groups have
prepared manuals and held numerous
workshops for their members. This program
was one of 25 projects launched by the
National Nonpoint Source Forum. (Based on
materials provided by, and correspondence
with, NFS Farmers in Prevention, and the
National Geographic Society and The
Conservation Fund.)
Pesticide Environmental Stewardship
Program; The Pesticide Environmental
Stewardship Program represents a joint effort
between EPA, USDA, and the Food and Drug
Administration to reduce agricultural and non-
agricultural pesticide use and risk. PESP,
started in 1994, contains two main goals:
develop specific use/risk reduction strategies
that rely on IPM, and have IPM used on 75
percent of U.S. cropland acreage. As of
January 31, 1997, 57 Partners (organizations
that use pesticides or represent pesticide
users), including Hood-River District and Sun-
Maid Growers, and 11 Supporters
(organizations that do not use pesticides),
including Campbell Soup Company, Del
Monte Foods, and Gerber Products, have
become members of PESP. It publicly
recognizes the program's Partners and
Supporters. In 1996, eight grants were funded
with PESP Partners, as well as 14 grants for
Regional Pollution Prevention Initiatives
primarily with state land grant universities.
(Based on materials provided by, and
correspondence with, the Pesticide
Environmental Stewardship Program.)
Poultry Water Quality Consortium; The
Poultry Water Quality Consortium is a
partnership between EPA, USD A/Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Tennessee
Valley Authority, and the U.S. Poultry & Egg
Association. This partnership between federal
agencies and the poultry industry (twenty
states ~ AL, AR, DE, FL, GA, KY, IN, LA,
MD, MS, MO, NE, NC, OH, PA, SC, TN, TX,
VA, and WV ~ have affiliations with the
Association) seeks to improve environmental
management at the grower level. The
Consortium was originally organized in 1991
and a new agreement was signed in 1996. The
Consortium was formed at the request of the
poultry industry through the U.S. Poultry &
Egg Association to keep the industry informed
of laws and regulations affecting the industry,
promote good environmental management,
identify research needs, and develop a
proactive position for the industry on
environmental issues. A liaison position for
the Consortium is supported in Chattanooga,
Tennessee with national responsibility for
forwarding its objectives. Since inception of
the Consortium, the liaison has had contact
with the majority of poultry integrators,
federal and state agencies, state universities,
and state poultry organizations dealing with
environmental issues. This contact occurs
through meetings, seminars, trade shows,
personal requests, and on-site assistance to
integrators and growers.
C-2
-------
The Consortium has promoted the composting
of dead birds. Based on a national survey by
the PWQC and their best professional
judgment, it estimates that approximately 20
percent of poultry mortalities are being
composting nationally. This progress has
occurred since 1991 with the Consortium
being a significant player. The use of nutrient
management plans, litter storage facilities,
testing of litter for nutrient content, site
selection of facilities, and other items are areas
it recommends to the poultry industry. The
Consortium prepared a handbook for growers
to promote proper use and management of
poultry by-products. (Based on materials
provided by, and correspondence with, the
Poultry Water Quality Consortium.)
C-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX D: RESEARCH LINKING
NITROGEN USE WITH CROP YIELD/QUALITY
Much research has demonstrated links
between nitrogen applications and the crop
yields and quality of almonds (Teviotdale,
1996; Bryant, 1995), tree fruits and nuts
(Doerge and Klaas, 1996; Daane et al., 1995),
citrus fruits (Bender, 1994; Witney, 1994;
Embleton et al., 1975), and walnuts (Kelly,
1995). Proper nutrient application, nutrient
application history, testing sampling
techniques (leaf testing instead of soil testing),
timing and levels of irrigation, and pruning are
often all important to produce the best quality
crop and protect fruit- and nut-bearing trees.
These practices can also affect the
environment. Below are brief summaries of
the findings from this research.
Bender (1994): Over-application of
nitrogen to grow oranges may cause
low sugar levels, aggravate small fruit
size for Valencia oranges, and also
cause them to "regreen"; in addition,
rinds for navel oranges may stain, and
the reduced peel thickness and
coarseness. In addition, over-
application of phosphorus may cause
smaller fruit size, reduced peel
thickness and coarseness, an increase
in the percent juice and regreening,
and lower the ability for the tree to
absorb two micronutrients, copper and
zinc. This needs to be balanced with
an effect from under-application of
nitrogen ~ decreasing the total number
of fruits on the trees. Also, lemon fruit
quality so far has not been shown to be
sensitive to nitrogen applications.
Bryant (1995): Over-application of
nitrogen to grow almonds may cause
poor shell seal, greater worm damage,
and hull rot, extra costs for the grower,
and higher levels of nitrates leaching
into ground water, especially with
sandy soils and high ground water
tables. This needs to be balanced with
an effect from under-application of
nitrogen ~ young almond trees may be
unable to get established.
Daane et al. (1995): Over-application
of nitrogen can lead to overly vigorous
growth, increased shade within the tree
canopy, delayed maturity of fruit, and
increased susceptibility of nectarines to
attack by brown rot disease and insect
pests. In addition, overapplication can
affect the fruit's nutrient composition,
as well as its color (less red), firmness,
susceptibility to bruising, storage life,
and cause greater water-loss rates.
Over-application can also lead to
greater potential for leaching to ground
water.
Doerge and Klaas (1996): Over-
application of nitrogen to grow tree
fruits and nuts may cause poor fruit
quality, excessive vegetative growth
and shading, and limb breakage,
reduced profits, and negative
environmental impacts.
Embleton et al. (1975): Over-
application of nitrogen to grow
Valencia oranges can cause regreening,
leading to lower uniformity in color. In
addition, lower fruit size can also
result, along with more quantity of fruit
harvested. Over-application of
nitrogen to grow navel oranges can
cause rind staining after the fruit is
packed. Over-application of nitrogen
to grow oranges can increase peel
thickness and the coarseness of peel
texture, and decrease juice percentage
and the vitamin C content in the juice.
Kelly (1995): Over-application of
nitrogen to grow walnuts may cause
D-l
-------
excessive vegetation growth, resulting
in extra shading and pruning costs, as
well as higher handling and application
costs and pollution of ground water
(particularly with sandy soils). The
extra shading can slow flower bud
development and nut set. This needs
to be balanced with an effect from
under-application of nitrogen -- poor
growth and lower yields.
• Teviotdale (1996): Over-application
of nitrogen to grow almonds may
cause more brown rot blossom blight.
• Witney (1994): Over-application of
nitrogen to grow citrus may cause
lower fruit quality, aggravate rind
stain, less fruit to pack, and make them
more vulnerable to rind stain during
handling (especially in combination
with mild winters).
In addition, Stivers et al. (1993) and
Weinbaum et al. (1992) conducted surveys of
the literature concerning nitrogen applications
to four vegetable crops (broccoli, cauliflower,
celery, and lettuce) and orchards, respectively.
As reported in Stivers et al., over-application
of nitrogen to grow:
• broccoli may negatively affect quality
and yield, delay maturity, and cause
greater numbers of immature heads,
hollow stems, and decreased strength
of stalks
• cauliflower generally did not lead to
adverse impacts, although one study
showed increased length and diameter
of hollow stems
• celery may cause more severe impacts
of blackheart (i.e., bum spots)
• lettuce may negatively affect growth,
reduce yields, and cause tip burn and a
root disease; there was also concern
expressed about human consumption
of vegetables high in nitrate-nitrogen
Weinbaum et al. (1992) reported
similar information from the literature for a
variety of fruit crops. Over-application of
nitrogen to grow the following fruits can cause
excessive vegetative growth (which may result
in greater yield, especially with young trees),
and affect their product quality as well as water
quality:
• apples ~ tend to be larger; generally
quality is lowered;" can develop cork
spot and bitter pit before harvest, and
may show greater occurrence of scald,
bitter pit, internal browning, and
internal breakdown after storage;
reduced firmness at harvest and during
storage; greater susceptibility to fire
blight
• golden delicious apples ~ tend to be
more green and less yellow
red apples ~ tend to be larger; less red
coloration
• apricots — delayed maturity and
increased variability of maturity,
causing uneven coloring; increased
susceptibility to pit-burn while on tree
• citrus ~ greater susceptibility to fruit
scarring
• grapes ~ greater susceptibility to
infection of vines
• nectarines ~ delayed maturity and
increased variability of maturity;
greater susceptibility to brown rot and
peach twig borers; smaller fruit size;
loss of color
• olives ~ delayed and uneven maturity,
causing uneven coloring
• oranges — tend to be smaller; greater
amount of regreening; generally lower
quality
• navel oranges — greater likelihood of
rind-staining during storage
• Valencia oranges -- greater amount of
regreening
• peaches -- tend to be smaller; delayed
maturity and increased variability of
maturity; less red coloration; greater
occurrence of split pits; reduced taste
quality
D-2
-------
pears — greater susceptibility to fire
blight; reduced taste quality
In addition, pistachios showed little response
and lemons showed no change in fruit color
from over-application of nitrogen.
References
Bender, Gary, "Citrus Fertilization,"
Subtropical FRUIT NEWS. Winter/Spring
1994, p. 6.
Bryant, Dan, "Nitrogen can help of hinder
almond trees," California-Arizona Farm Press.
April 1, 1995, pp. 29, 36.
Daane, Kent; Scott Johnson; Themis
Michailides; Carlos Crisosto; Jeff Dlott; Hugo
Ramirez; Glenn Yokota; and Dave Morgan,
"Excess nitrogen raises nectarine susceptibility
to disease and insects," California Agriculture.
July/August 1995, pp. 13-18.
Doerge, Thomas and Lawrence Klaas, "Best
Management Practices for Tree Fruits and
Nuts Production: A Video," Proceedings of the
Fourth Annual Fertilizer Research and
Education Program Conference. Modesto,
California, October 16, 1996, p. 86.
Embleton, Tom; Winston Jones; and Robert
Platt, "Plant Nutrition and Citrus Fruit Crop
Quality and Yield," HortScience. Vol. 10, No.
1, February 1975, pp. 48-50.
Kelly, Kathy, "Towards optimizing nitrogen in
walnuts," Arizona Farm Press. April 18, 1995,
p.16.
Stivers, L.; L. Jackson; and G. Pettygrove, Use
of Nitrogen by Lettuce. Celery, Broccoli, and
Cauliflower: A Literature Review. California
Department of Food and Agriculture's
Fertilizer Research and Education Program,
March 1993.
Teviotdale, Beth, "Effects of Four Levels of
Applied Nitrogen on Three Fungal Diseases of
Almond Trees," Proceedings of the Fourth
Annual Fertilizer Research and Education
Program Conference. Modesto, California,
October 16, 1996, pp. 66-69.
Weinbaum, Steven; R. Scott Johnson; and
Theodore DeJong, "Causes and Consequences
of Overfertilization in Orchards,"
HortTechnology. Vol. 2, No. 1, January/March
1992, pp. 112-121.
Witney, Guy, "Nitrogen Nightmares,"
Subtropical FRUIT NEWS. Summer 1994, p.
1.
D-3
-------
-------