Home
Calendar
Search
Contact Us
Webmaster
 

INCREASING CONNECTIONS BETWEEN FARMERS AND COMMUNITIES
IN STANISLAUS AND MERCED COUNTIES

Prepared by

Gail Feenstra and Robin Kozloff

 

 

UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program
June, 2000

Part of a Study on "Increasing Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture and Positive Community Impacts" in conjunction with researchers at UC Davis, the Community Alliance with Family Farmers and the
Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission

Funded by the Fund for Rural America, USDA

Introduction

In 1998, the USDA’s Fund for Rural America awarded a grant to the University of California-Davis, the Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF), and the Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission (LWWC) to investigate the factors that lead to the adoption of more sustainable farming practices in California’s upper San Joaquin Valley. This project, Increasing Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture and Positive Community Impacts, also examined how, in turn, these biologically based farming systems can positively impact surrounding rural communities. By addressing production and community concerns, the goal is to enhance both environmental stewardship and community vitality in partnership with local farmers and community stakeholders.

The first objective of this project is to increase the adoption of sustainable agriculture by providing targeted information to farmers based on an improved understanding of farmers’ goals and management styles and the relation of those goals and styles to economic and biological performance. The second objective, and the subject of this report, is to strengthen the social and economic links between adopters of sustainable farming systems and rural communities through the development of local leadership capacity and community-building strategies.

Purpose and Scope of the Study

The specific purpose of this portion of the study was to provide feedback and direction to local CAFF chapter activities in Merced and Stanislaus counties on opportunities for collaboration and connection with other community organizations. The focus was on two areas of interest to farmers in this CAFF chapter (summarized from earlier focus groups and interviews): farmland preservation and local marketing of sustainably grown produce.

The findings presented here are based on information collected in 31 in-depth interviews with community leaders drawn from five occupational/interest categories in both counties. These respondents discussed their understanding of, interest in, and activities related to farmland preservation and local marketing, their familiarity with sustainable agriculture and with CAFF, and their suggestions for how CAFF can collaborate with other groups and best target their efforts in these areas.

Project Leaders

The UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SAREP) took the lead in designing the study with input from researchers in the UC Davis Community Development Department. SAREP created the interview protocol, conducted the interviews, and prepared presentations and reports.

SAREP has worked with CAFF and other California groups for ten years to help develop more economically viable, environmentally sensitive, and socially responsible agricultural practices and policies. CAFF, a statewide organization, has been working with family farmers for 20 years. One of its programs, the Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems (BIOS), promotes environmentally sound farming practices in partnership with UC SAREP. BIOS has been particularly effective in the northern San Joaquin Valley. Several BIOS growers are participating in Objective 1 of the larger Fund for Rural America project and took part in interviews and focus groups early in this Objective 2 study.

The local Stanislaus/Merced CAFF chapter is both a participant in and audience of this study. It is composed of approximately 35 volunteer members, from both urban and rural communities, of which a core group of about 10 members meet monthly. The Fund for Rural America grant provided funds for a local coordinator to spearhead outreach efforts and to coordinate chapter activities for the duration of this project. Since 1998, this coordinator has made many contacts, represented CAFF at public meetings and events, and provided contact information for the interviewees in this study.

The Lodi-Woodbridge Winegrape Commission, while not involved directly in this portion of the study, coordinated preliminary interviews with SAREP and LWWC farmers on their community-related activities, interests, and concerns.

Methods

Participant Profile

None of the people we interviewed, 11 women and 20 men, were newcomers to the area; all had been residents in their counties for at least ten years and many had lived in the area all of their lives.

We found that 65 percent of the participants had at least heard of CAFF and/or CAFF’s BIOS (Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems) project, and that most, but not all, of the CAFF/farmer-recommended respondents had heard of CAFF. Of those who had heard of CAFF, only two might be considered "part of the choir" -- that is, they understood CAFF’s mission and fully supported it. Eleven participants (37 percent) had no knowledge of either CAFF or BIOS; seven of these were in Merced County where CAFF had suggested fewer participants.

Regional Context

The following information represents regional trends as described to us by the study respondents, augmented by the authors’ prior research and experience in the area.

    Regional Trends

    Merced and Stanislaus counties are among the top ten agricultural producing counties in the country and within the top six in California. These two counties together produce nearly $3 billion in annual sales of agricultural products. Their top commodities are dairy and almonds.

    Despite the statewide economic recovery in the past few years, the San Joaquin Valley region in which these counties are located has an unemployment rate of about 13 percent and an average household income that is only 66 percent of the state’s average household income. The San Joaquin Valley has a faster population growth rate than other Central Valley regions and a concomitant higher percentage of city annexations than other regions. Both counties are feeling the pressure of population growth and urban expansion -- Stanislaus County more than Merced -- and both are seeking to diversify their economic bases by attracting new agriculture-related and non-agricultural industries to the area while attempting to balance economic growth with resource protection.

    Stanislaus County

    Since it is relatively close to major Bay Area urban centers by present commuting standards, Stanislaus County is experiencing a period of population growth from newcomers seeking more affordable housing and a rural atmosphere. Some respondents see this as a positive trend, citing the attendant increase in local spending and tax base, and some are concerned about the consequences for existing infrastructure and for the prime agricultural lands that surround the county’s rapidly-growing towns. A number of cities in Stanislaus County would like to grow, hoping that if they can attract new people and improve the amenities available, they will eventually be able to attract new businesses as well. This is particularly important since the traditional industries—agricultural processing, in particular—have been in decline over the past several years.

    In an effort to direct the county’s expansion now and in the future, county and city governments initiated a countywide visioning process that is just now being completed. This effort featured active citizen participation and resulted in vision statements for agriculture, the economy, government, and land use.

Merced County

Merced County, located further south in the Central Valley than Stanislaus County and farther from major urban influences, has a more "rural" outlook. Towns are smaller and urban residents are somewhat closer to their agricultural base than are the city dwellers in Stanislaus County so that the differences between communities and surrounding agriculture is less distinct. There are fewer agricultural processing plants in Merced County than in Stanislaus and few factory jobs. There are a number of small, agriculturally based economically depressed communities in Merced County that have affordable housing but no basic services -- no grocery store, no doctor, etc. -- and these communities want to grow. The communities in the western part of the county in particular are beginning to experience population influx from Bay area commuters, similar to Stanislaus County.

Merced County has been chosen as the site of the tenth campus of the UC system, with construction scheduled to begin in 2001. Many leaders in Merced County are counting heavily on UC Merced to bring in an infusion of new people, industries and ideas that will help turn the economy around. As one respondent explained, "The housing industry is doing okay but those jobs are not the ones that will keep farmworkers’ kids here. With the UC, there will be high tech partnerships with which to diversify. If we don’t have that, there will be an increase in upscale ranchettes, increased poor people and even fewer middle class."

According to our respondents, the agricultural community views the advent of the university—and the new town that will be built to serve it—with ambivalence even though the campus is not sited on prime agricultural land. They fear that increased population and new transportation corridors to serve the university will result in conditions less favorable to farming. Whatever impact is anticipated, there is no question that UC Merced is the biggest planning issue in the county today. Over time, Merced County may become more like Stanislaus as UC Merced brings in a more urbanized population.

Findings: Community Stakeholder Perceptions

The findings we present here represent community stakeholder perceptions as obtained through our interviews. We review the feedback we received in four areas: farmland preservation, local marketing, agriculture and sustainable agriculture, and the local CAFF chapter. For each of these areas, we will discuss responses common to both counties first and then address, by county, those issues where the viewpoints of respondents in Stanislaus and Merced Counties differed.

Farmland Preservation

    Region

    In both counties, most communities are surrounded by prime farmland so that virtually any urban expansion will impinge upon good soils. Two-thirds of the people we interviewed expressed some concern about the present and future loss of good farmland, and just over one-third (8 respondents in Stanislaus County and 4 in Merced) considered it a critical problem as expressed by this Stanislaus County resident:

    "I think it’s extremely serious. I live right in the middle of it. The farmland that’s lost every year around Modesto, Turlock and Merced, all the way up the 99 corridor is absolutely frightening."

    Many respondents blamed shortsighted, fiscally based decision-making on the part of local governments for allowing communities to spread out across the landscape. Some blamed lack of public appreciation and understanding of the importance of agriculture and land resources:

    "It is perceived that because we don’t grow essential table foods here that it doesn't matter if we lose ag land. People don't realize that once you lose the land it is gone forever. Just because we don't grow those foods here now doesn't mean that we won't need to in the future. This used to be a rainfed wheat and barley area and look how it’s changed. This area is much more unique than people realize."

    Others noted that it is becoming increasingly difficult for farmers to make a living in the face of general economic downturns, rising costs, increasing debt and estate taxes, and growing conflict at the urban edge. Given this state of affairs, several people in both counties said that they could understand why farmers are often tempted to sell their land to developers.

    "We’re in an area here where there is a lot of prime land. But the farmer’s product stays the same or it goes down. Take your almonds for instance. Last year, they were a $1.40/ lb. This year, they’re something like 70 or 75 cents/lb. But all my costs have gone up. Make it attractive for the farmer to farm. Otherwise, when these conditions exist, when somebody comes around and waves a big old check in front of him and wants to put a service station on the corner, he’s going to go for it. And I don’t blame him. And that’s how we’re losing land to houses and whatever."

    Solutions that were offered to the problem of losing prime agricultural land included better planning and zoning decisions, such as privileging infill over expansion, increasing population density within city limits, and enforced urban limit lines. A preferred solution was to use conservation easement programs, but the general sense was that these were severely limited by the lack of available funding. At least three respondents in both counties suggested that multi-stakeholder, countywide visioning processes were the best way of devising long-term agreements on land use, although some expressed skepticism as to the willingness of all parties to "come to the table."

    We also heard that farmland preservation is regarded by both agricultural and economic development interests as a controversial issue. In both counties, respondents cautioned that strong farmland preservation advocates are seen by some factions as anti-growth, holding back the county economies from needed diversification.

    Stanislaus County

Residents of Stanislaus County added that the problem of poor planning at the local level was exacerbated by the pressure of Bay Area commuters in search of relatively inexpensive housing and a country experience. This has led to hasty, inefficient development and the practice of dividing up farms to sell 40-acre ranchettes. Although there have been ongoing proposals over the past several years to direct new development to the poorer soils on the west side of the county, a key determinant of the location of new development is the availability of water.

When asked what should be done to conserve farmland, a number of people brought up the following points:

  • Develop firm urban boundaries
  • Set up a farmland trust-type program
  • Provide public education, emphasizing positive aspects of the area and avoiding scare tactics
  • Use the visioning process more broadly
  • Work at organizing grassroots support and developing alliances

Other suggestions made by individuals included: fostering more compact development, keeping all urban land uses within city boundaries, promoting regional decision-making, creating more water storage capacity, making it attractive for the farmer to continue farming (e.g., continuing the Williamson Act, the Super Williamson Act, and right-to-farm ordinances), giving formal recognition to the fact that agriculture does drive the local economy, and modernizing agricultural practices by including high-tech operations. Several respondents cited farmers’ individualism and their strong feelings about property rights as barriers to long-term farmland preservation.

Action is being taken at the grassroots level to forestall the loss of productive farmland. The Farmland Working Group (FWG), a grassroots group organized three years ago by Representative Gary Condit, includes local officials, people from colleges and environmental organizations, and farmers, including members of CAFF. The FWG focuses on educating the general public on the importance of agriculture and promoting local quality of life, of which open space and farmland are a part.

In keeping with the county’s history of addressing farmland preservation issues through California’s voter initiative process, a proposition called Future Options on Development (FOOD) is being prepared for the November 2000 ballot. FOOD would require that new development proposed for areas outside the current general plan boundaries of the county’s nine cities be brought to a citizen vote. Respondents presented mixed views on the initiative. Some felt that it was a controversial measure that would be perceived as a "no-growth" initiative, thus incurring significant resistance in the county. In addition, its efficacy is uncertain and it could, in two peoples’ opinions, even result in the loss of more agricultural land. The main supporters are said to be urban dwellers, with possibly some support from farmers. As yet there is little public awareness of the initiative, we were told, so its reception is difficult to assess.

Merced County

The people we interviewed in Merced County were more divided on the question of the threat of farmland conversion than were those in Stanislaus County. Only about a third of the Merced respondents perceived it as a serious problem.

The role of UC Merced in this context is uncertain. Unquestionably, the inevitable population expansion will put pressure upon available land; however, new growth could, some noted, be diverted to non-prime areas. One person suggested that the coming of the university might actually benefit farmland preservation because the people associated with the new UC are likely to value open space as an amenity. If a resource can be shown to serve two purposes—open space and agricultural—it is more secure. The fact that the county’s planning process to attract UC Merced included agricultural interests at the table and incorporated their concerns into the overall proposal received positive mention.

In Merced County, the agricultural community is perceived as tightly knit and well organized in its understanding and support of the need to conserve prime land for farming, although some felt that it could be more outspoken and politically active. Overall, the Farm Bureau is perceived as a strong advocate of farmland preservation policies.

There are two ongoing collaborative efforts to create a countywide strategy for preserving farmland and directing urban growth. One is a formal task force funded by the Modesto-based Great Valley Center with representatives from all the local municipalities. The other is an ad-hoc group that includes representatives of UC Cooperative Extension, American Farmland Trust, The Nature Conservancy, the Merced Open Space and Farmland Trust, the local Building Industry Association, the Merced County Farm Bureau, and California Women for Agriculture. These organizations are working together to develop a proposal on where development can best be directed with the least impact on agriculture.

When it came to considering what should be done to help conserve prime agricultural land, nearly half of Merced County respondents suggested setting up farmland preserves, using conservation easements, and/or engaging in a regional visioning process in which all sides could talk to one another. Other thoughts included working with the ad-hoc group to determine where growth should be directed, concentrating on community education, and suggesting that farmers get politically involved at the community level to promote better planning and a greater emphasis on agricultural issues.

Opportunities for CAFF Collaboration

Respondents familiar with CAFF see the organization and its members as informed and already active in local farmland preservation issues. In Stanislaus County, two CAFF members participate in the Farmland Working Group. Also in Stanislaus County, CAFF is the fiscal entity for the FOOD voter initiative described earlier. The local CAFF staff coordinator has appeared at Stanislaus

land use hearings. In Merced County, CAFF members are on the board of the Farmland and Open Space Trust, have participated in roundtable discussions, and have made presentations at County Planning zoning hearings.

Merced respondents offered some specific suggestions for CAFF involvement:

  • CAFF farmers could get more involved with local land use decisions in their communities.
  • CAFF could support the Farm Bureau in policy positions regarding farmland preservation.
  • CAFF could give input into such zoning issues as permitting smaller minimum parcel sizes in agriculturally designated zones and setting up special zoning designations for sustainable farmers in urban buffer areas.

        Local Marketing

                    Region

Seventy-five percent of the people interviewed expressed support for increasing direct sales to local markets and developing a regional identity for products grown in the area. A number of people agreed that local marketing was the natural province of smaller agricultural operations, whether their produce was conventionally or sustainably grown and that organic farmers already have a growing niche market. One person suggested that CAFF farmers organize their own farmers’ market and two people suggested that sustainable growers form cooperatives. However, several respondents noted that many of the small family farmers who are engaged in direct marketing, especially in Merced County, are Southeast Asian in origin. These hard-working families may be more focused on attaining and maintaining a competitive edge in the market than in observing environmentally friendly agricultural practices.

Some saw direct marketing as a way to increase their own communities’ awareness and appreciation of area agriculture as expressed by these respondents:

"Direct marketing can foster better communication, whether it is farmer’s markets or local label produce that people recognize is coming from their community. That there’s some identity they can have as consumers --- feel some ownership to locally produced products they are buying in the store rather than just nameless or faceless vegetables. There is more appreciation for the industry that is doing that locally than just the farms and fields we pass by on our way to Yosemite."

"I think there is some growing regional pride for the Central Valley. I think that a lot of us realize we’re in one of the most fertile agricultural places on the planet and we could probably use some reminding of the fact that the fresh fruits and vegetables on the shelf at the Lucky’s here in Central Valley aren’t as readily available in Duluth."

About a quarter of the respondents who expressed skepticism about the economic efficacy of direct marketing felt that the local market wasn’t large enough to justify the effort, especially for the larger farmers who now export nearly all their product to processing plants or urban centers in the Bay Area and Southern California.

"You’re looking more at the smaller operators, the mom and pop operations. They’re certainly not your bigger commercial size operations that are going to take the time to come to the farmers’ market to sell $400 worth of their produce that night."

Some said that local products are not sufficiently unique to warrant a regional identity, and others doubted that consumers would care as much about where a commodity was grown as they would about its quality and price.

"It’ll never work. We’re already known overseas for some products that are grown here almost exclusively, like almonds. But there is nothing that distinguishes a peach grown here from anywhere else. The consumer can see for themselves whether it is good quality; they don't care where it is from."

Others were in favor of using farmstands, farm tours, and specialty products such as local cheese as a means of capturing Yosemite-bound tourists’ dollars, and view agricultural tourism as a promising but as yet undeveloped economic enhancement strategy. Both counties already have farmstands and farmers’ markets in place and, to a limited extent, promote such agricultural tourism strategies as farm tours and blossom trails. Respondents in both counties believed that BIOS-type farms would be a farm tour attraction.

Stanislaus County

Our impression from the interviews is that residents of Stanislaus County surpass Merced County in their interest in developing local marketing activities, particularly with respect to developing and organizing links to agricultural tourism. Respondents expressed more interest in increasing direct sales and were somewhat more optimistic about the popular reception of regional identification or a local label.

Due perhaps to the support of "urban transplants," farmers’ markets are particularly popular here, as are farmstands. Respondents suggested that consumer interest in fresh food, especially sustainably grown products, is likely to increase as higher income, urban-based people move into the area. "In urban and university areas, you get a real interest in the healthiness, quality and tastiness of food," one person pointed out. "At this point, these people are not a significant portion of the population in the Central Valley, but that will grow as more people from the Bay Area move here for cheap housing, people who have more disposable income."

Representatives from the county Farm Bureau and economic development agencies were enthusiastic about regional labels and direct marketing as a way to capture tourist dollars on the way to Yosemite National Park. They believe that if funding, marketing, and legal assistance were provided, entrepreneurial farmers would capitalize on tourism opportunities.

"I’ve been working with the County. They see tremendous economic opportunity in tourism in general and agriculture as a component of that. I am a primary pusher of that because people are already coming here for that. How can each community focus on its strengths related to agriculture? We need a strategic plan for how we’re going to accomplish that so that in 15 to 20 years we’re the ag tourism capitol of the world."

Merced County

Several Merced County residents doubted the benefit of promoting regional identification locally, pointing out that convenience and the price of food is the highest priority among consumers in many small communities.

"Unfortunately, the vast majority in the community don’t necessarily value fresh produce over having something easily accessible so they do a lot of their shopping at Raley’s. Even though there’s that sense that Merced County is primarily an ag county, the buyers don’t act like it is. Occasionally, I'm sure people would say, ‘Gee it would be great to have some fresh corn.’ And they’ll run out to the farmers’ market and pick it up, but by and large I don't think that’s how they shop. They shop on the way home from work and pick up a can of corn."

These Merced respondents also thought that sustainably grown produce, if it were more expensive than conventionally grown produce, would fail to find a market in economically disadvantaged areas. "We don't have a local market here [for sustainably grown produce]," said one respondent. "Not like Andronicos [an upscale store] in the Bay Area. It’s very blue-collar here and I don't know that we’re willing pay more."

Although the idea of increased direct marketing to local consumers received a lukewarm response, there was considerably more enthusiasm for directing local marketing to tourists. Respondents saw it as a missed opportunity currently limited by lack of organization and funding.

"I can't help but think that that’s got to be an untapped market. I know that the Merced County Chamber and the Merced Visitors Bureau have talked for a long time about trying to get an ongoing system of promoting and delivering farm tours. You get a lot of requests for things like that. But when they find out how much work there is to get it organized and keep it organized—and being able to line up and maintain a list of volunteers to do it—all of a sudden it takes the wind out of their sails."

Opportunities for CAFF Collaboration

All of the respondents favoring direct marketing strategies noted that it would take collaboration among farmers and between organizations to realize any of these ideas, especially for projects that would require support and funding.

"[A local food store] would probably do it if they felt like it was going to be marketed. I mean if they were shown a plan that says, ‘Here’s how we are going to get the word out about Central Valley Select, and we want you to be a partner in this program and we’re going to help you out because we’ve designed this logo and these nice point-of-purchase materials and little informational brochures and we have a Web site that people can go to and we’re going to be doing some media to support this...’ I would say that [they] would be on it in a heartbeat because they know that they would benefit from the other strategies that were being implemented."

Several mentioned the need to foster better connections and communication all around:

"We need to work on getting the CAFF organization together with some of the larger farmers who are not members of CAFF and talk about ideas like this. Now it’s like there’s a standoff; they don’t see each other as enemies but there’s little connection."

"In general, we tend to be experts at what we do, and not have the big picture. And that’s definitely true for farming…It's a matter of building collaborations and finding existing collaborations that are underway. And farmers typically have not done that. Now you see a little bit more of that from the younger generation of farmers, the sons of farmers. But to get them at the table, they're busy doing what they do and don’t have time for meetings, don’t have time for collaboration. There has to be a commitment to do that."

Specific opportunities mentioned for CAFF collaboration were:

  • Participate in economic development planning efforts organized by the Stanislaus County Economic Development Corporation. They are interested in supporting small farms with business planning services and they currently have a grant to fund a small business incubator project.
  • Stanislaus County Planning is interested in developing small cheese plants to tie into agri-tourism.
  • Ag-Venture Tours, an agricultural tourism company out of Monterey would probably be interested in sustainable farms. They are looking for more contacts.
  • Provide input to the Central Valley regional marketing group.
  • Hold a brainstorming session at California State University, Stanislaus to generate ideas on how sustainable farmers can connect more to the community, potentially with diverse ethnic and income populations.

Perceptions of Agriculture and Sustainable Agriculture

Region

There was general agreement from respondents in both counties on at least four points:

  • The public—starting with school children—should be taught where their food comes from and about the contribution agriculture makes to the local economy.
  • The general public tends to lump all agriculture together without distinguishing among farming practices.
  • Decreasing the use of chemicals and using environmentally-friendly growing methods are beneficial.
  • The term "sustainable agriculture" is not well understood—and in some cases is not well received—either within or outside the agricultural community.

Respondents familiar with sustainable agriculture thought that it was on the increase among small farmers, although for several respondents, sustainable farming practices were synonymous with organic. Farmers’ market managers noted an increase in consumer interest in organic produce. A representative of a major grocery chain said that they’re seeing a growing interest in organic products from consumers and they are planning to add more as demand grows.

Three representatives in the agriculture category stressed that there should not be a distinction between farmers who practice sustainable agriculture and those who practice conventional agriculture. These interviewees argued that all farmers are good environmental stewards, and felt that sustainably grown products are a matter of consumer choice, not one of product health or safety.

Stanislaus County

Over half of the interviewees from Stanislaus County felt that urban residents lack awareness of the importance of agriculture in general and its importance to the local economy in particular. One of the people we interviewed pointed out, however, that nearly 87 percent of the participants in the visioning process—many of whom were urban residents—favored a viable agricultural economy, suggesting a greater awareness on the part of urban dwellers. Several respondents in Stanislaus County voiced strong support for increasing educational activities that brought farming and farmers more into public awareness.

Only a few Stanislaus County respondents addressed the issue of sustainable agriculture at all; several were not familiar with the term or had only heard it in connection with "sustainable communities" which they caution is perceived by some as synonymous with "no growth" or increased environmental regulations. With the exception of the two respondents most familiar with CAFF and the BIOS program, understanding of "sustainable" in relation to agriculture was superficial, although reaction to it was generally positive.

Merced County

Merced County respondents reported a considerably closer connection between the agricultural community and the broader community than did those from Stanislaus County. In fact, we were told that, through marriage and other alliances, most urban people in Merced County have their roots in agriculture. Several spoke of a communitywide understanding that a healthy agricultural economy is directly related to the economic health of the county. Even so, at least five respondents strongly supported the need for increased education of the public on the importance of agriculture. The following are typical comments:

"One of the biggest things that needs to happen is to get a little better understanding on the part of the average person out there in Merced. I don’t think most of my fellow business people here in Merced have a real clear understanding of how much those guys out in the field who drive the old Ford pick-up trucks, contribute to what goes into our cash registers. Because it is not them who are pulling out their wallets...it is somebody else who is supported by someone else who is supported by the wages they pay, the supplies that they purchase. So, the average person is a little bit removed from the direct economic transactions."

"Any time you can bridge agriculture to the local community and educate the voting public, so that when ag related issues come up, whether it is the water situation or whatever issues or candidates come up on a ballot, the better off ag is going to be."

One person provided a decidedly different point of view, speaking of the adversarial relationship between agriculture and the rest of the business community. This respondent saw factions in the agriculture community as "naysayers against any interests but their own" and that "there is a definite wall between agriculture and industry, and rural/urban -- a wall that should be broken down." When asked how there can be more connection between farmers and other community members, this person responded,

"If they want to, I guess is the question. What we found in a lot of cases is that a lot of the farmers, they work in their own circles and outside that circle they’re not interested. There’s only a small percentage that will become involved in community events that are not related strictly to agriculture."

Only three respondents in Merced were conversant with sustainable agricultural practices and knew growers who currently use alternative methods on their farms, commenting on the innovativeness and receptivity among farmers in the area to new practices. Some farmers are reported to have turned away from conventional practices in reaction to chemically resistant pests, increased regulation of pesticides, and the high environmental and financial costs of using chemicals on the land.

"Growers as a whole are much more open to that now than they’ve ever been because they are starting to see how pesticides do. It’s just like us building up immunity to antibiotics, like pests can build up immunity to pesticides seems to be. So 10-20% of my clients are starting to use alternative methods. They may use them in conjunction with other things. Because of the regulations with pesticides, they have had to look elsewhere…I don’t see them as a different type of grower. They seem to be on the leading edge or willing to make a difference."

"...Because of the product liability and so forth, for some of these things, the cost is going to get so high that I don’t know if farmers are going to be able to afford to put herbicides and pesticides on their croplands like they have in the past. I’d really like to see alternatives through ladybugs and things like that, to provide a much more environmentally friendly farming practice. I absolutely do agree that it will be a continuing trend and I would very much support it."

Perceptions of CAFF

When we asked about our respondents’ familiarity and experience with CAFF, two-thirds of the people interviewed had heard of CAFF and only nine knew of BIOS. Of those who had heard of BIOS, several confused it with CAFF, the organization, since they first learned of CAFF in connection with farmers in the BIOS program. People most familiar with the local CAFF chapter felt that it was well respected within the agricultural community, particularly in relation to the BIOS program and its associated workshops. As respondents in both Stanislaus and Merced explained:

"The people in the orchard industry are aware of them because the founders and the most active people are almond growers. And what really put CAFF on the map was their heavy involvement in the BIOS program. If it hadn’t been for CAFF’s adoption of BIOS as something they wanted to support and promote, they wouldn’t be as well known as they are now. When they started demonstrating the feasibility of BIOS type systems approaches to farming, they really got the attention of a lot of commercial farmers. It demonstrated the commercial feasibility of alternative approaches. Then growers became very receptive and wanted to know more. And because of their involvement with that, CAFF got a lot of good publicity and public awareness out of that."

"They definitely made a name for themselves in the workshops they provide related to BIOS. And they get a lot of support and acknowledgement for that. It shows that agriculture is trying to meet the challenges and keep the quality of life here for folks."

Several people noted positive aspects of the local CAFF chapter: that it is a well-organized grassroots organization whose members are good farmers and solid citizens able to bring different ideas and awarenesses to the table in a rational manner. Respondents credited CAFF with weaving groups together and using its good media contacts to advantage.

Nearly half the comments we recorded reflected a perception within the agricultural community of CAFF as an environmental organization. Some participants cautioned that CAFF is perceived as "anti" status quo and the mainstream agricultural organizations or that their farmer members are likely to be susceptible to "fringe practices." "They are kind of viewed as tree-hugger farmers," was the assessment of one Stanislaus County respondent.

Lack of visibility and a consistent image and message were seen as the CAFF Chapter’s primary limitations. (Seven of the 11 people who had not heard of CAFF were outside the agricultural community. This lends credence to the assumption made by respondents in the agricultural community that the broader population is not well aware of CAFF.) CAFF was encouraged to be more flexible and inclusive in its collaboration with other groups. Respondents familiar with the organization offered these suggestions for increasing its local effectiveness and promoting its mission:

"They have a wonderful program and wonderful creative, imaginative entrepreneurial people. They have something people want to see and people are interested in. They have a message that they want people to hear. It’s a matter of how they package that message to attract people. They have to be prepared to deliver."

"Be there and participate in all the public things. Farmers always tend to be loners and be isolated. But that’s not how the market works. You have to promote yourself. The consumer likes a clean safe product."

"Become better known through public events that are held by Farm Bureau."

"They need to find a way to appeal to the broader agricultural community and be more receptive to those involved in general farming and participate in the general farming events that do go on. And perhaps be a little more flexible in how they work with the more general agricultural community. They do try and be involved with say, Farm Bureau, which is the mainstay of the agricultural community but they tend to focus on their own narrow group and they may need to open up a little more."

"I think that Farm Bureau here has tried to be open minded about CAFF and wants to foster a climate that is mutually supportive. If Farm Bureau can back up CAFF on certain issues then CAFF can back up Farm Bureau and look for win-win types of coalitions. The leadership in CAFF should really try for that. For example, Farm Bureau sponsors a lot of safety things. Then CAFF in their newsletter should say that Farm Bureau is having a great safety field day and we encourage all our members to support this worthy activity. Doesn’t cost them a dime and fosters a lot of good will."

Key Observations and Recommendations

In this section, we discuss points of interest that emerged from our interviews and make some recommendations based upon these findings. It is important to bear in mind, however, that the sample of respondents in this study was too small to enable us to draw generalizable conclusions. With this caveat, an analysis of these interviews did suggest some directions that should prove useful to CAFF in its effort to address issues of concern to farmers and other community members, and to promote activities that foster community links.

Key Observations

Our respondents identified the following areas as needing more focused attention.

Recommendations

Based on these observations, we have the following suggestions that the Merced/Stanislaus CAFF Chapter may wish to consider when planning future activities.

Appendix A

Fund for Rural America
Community Stakeholder Interview Guide

Introduction and purpose of study:

This research is part of a USDA grant to look at the linkages that exist between community organizations and farmers that use sustainable agricultural practices. In this part of the study we are exploring some ways in which these connections can be strengthened in Merced and Stanislaus counties.

1.  Background information on participants -- as needed

2. Farmland Preservation

We are focusing on two issues that farmers have identified as important in the region. One is the problem of farmland preservation.

3. Marketing

The other key issue that we’re looking at is the marketing of local farm products. One idea is to develop more direct marketing opportunities for local products as a way to increase connections between farmers and other community members.

           Do you think that this would be beneficial? Why or why not?
           Another strategy would be to develop a regional identity for products grown in this area.
           In your view, should this be a priority? Why or why not?
           Do you have other marketing ideas?
           Are you working in any of these areas now?
                [If yes] How could CAFF work with you on this?

4. Perceptions of Sustainable Agriculture/CAFF

Home | Search | Calendar | Contact Us | Webmaster | Copyright Notices