The fresh market fruit and vegetable industry in
Wisconsin is large, diverse, and increasing annually. Production and pest management practices range from conventional
to certified organic and the crop is marketed in a wide variety of ways.
Approximately 1500 fresh vegetable and 200 berry
growers sell fresh produce in Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin conducted
a survey of fresh market growers in 2001-02 to understand and report practices
used by this industry.
Fresh market growers can be defined as those growers
of vegetables or berries that market their crop directly to the consumer.
Common markets include road-side or farm stands, farmer’s markets, subscription
or community supported agriculture, U-pick, retail grocery stores, and
restaurants. Growers excluded from this survey include large commercial growers
in the state that grow a single commodity that is sold “fresh” such as potato
growers raising table stock or cabbage grown for slaw. However, large sweet
corn growers that market their crop directly for example, were included in this
survey.
Funding for the survey was provide by the Pesticide
Use Risk Reduction (PURR) project through pesticide overcharge money. The funds
were administered by the Wisconsin Department of Justice and distributed by the
Center for Integrated Agriculture Systems at the UW. The mission of PURR is to address both the potential short- and
long-term management impacts of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. This survey will help determine the impact
of FQPA on the fresh market produce industry in Wisconsin and prioritize
research and extension programs to help growers make th transition to reduced
availability of certain pesticides.
The Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service (WASS),
a division of the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer
Protection (WDATCP), has conducted a survey of the acreage, yield, and
production for large-scale fruit and vegetable commodities yearly. In addition,
the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) routinely conducted
pesticide use surveys, the most recent being completed in 1996. However, both
surveys concentrated on commercial producers that typically grow a single crop,
but not on diverse, smaller-scale, fresh market growers. In 1996, a production
and pest management survey was conducted by WASS via funding by the National
Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (NAPIAP). The 1996 survey
focused primarily on management practices and pesticide use. Comparisons will
be made between the current and 1996 surveys to help understand the evolution
of the fresh market industry in the state when appropriate data is available.
The survey measured the current production and pest
management practices to determine the value of Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
strategies to fresh market growers. The survey also attempted to determine what
barriers prevented IPM adoption. In addition to management data, the survey also gathered information on
demographics and marketing. All of this information will be used to help guide
University specialists as they develop programming and educational
opportunities for this group.
Apple growers were excluded from this survey because
their production practices vary considerably from vegetable and berry growers.
A database of fresh market growers was created from
lists derived from the following agencies:
· DATCP Agricultural Showcase and Berry Brochure
· Wisconsin Berry Growers’ Association
· Wisconsin Fresh Market Vegetable Growers’ Association
· Michael Fields Agricultural Institute
· UW-Extension Healthy Farmers Healthy Profits
· UW Cooperative Extension County Agents
· Farmer’s Market Coordinators
· Other growers
The fresh market grower database included 901 farms.
The survey was distributed to 270 random growers, representing 30% of the
database. An introductory letter was sent to potential survey recipients in
August 2001 (Appendix A). The first mailing of the survey was sent in September
and requested completion by November 1.
A reminder was sent in November that included a toll-free number for
growers to contact for assistance in completing the survey. Seventy-three of
the original survey recipients were replaced for various reasons including
undeliverable addresses, no longer in business, or not growing the crops
surveyed. By the end of 2001, 105 of the 270 surveys had been completed and
returned (39%). A second mailing was sent out in January and an additional 26
surveys were returned providing a total response rate of valid surveys at 56%.
In addition to the bad addresses and transient nature
of the industry, there is a concern about how accurately the survey sampled
fresh market growers in Wisconsin. Some growers are from diverse cultural
backgrounds and do not speak English, making it difficult to survey Hmong or others of this very important group
of growers.
This report is divided into the following sections:
respondent demographics, farm characteristics, labor, crops grown, marketing,
and pest management.
Of the 131 growers that completed the survey the
ratio of men to women as the primary farm operator was 4:1. Farming continues
to be a male-dominated industry. However the
20% of female who were primary farm operators illustrates more women are
managing fresh market farms. The age
range of the respondents was 33-80 years with an average age of 52.
The tenure of the primary farm managers indicates 50%
have been farming for less than 10 years which was similar to what was obtained
in 1996. The experience ranged 6 months to 42 years with the median being 10
years. Only one woman has been the primary farm manager for more than 25 years.
Twenty-two of the 26 women that responded as being the primary farm manager
have been that position for 10 years or less (85%). The majority of the male
farm managers have been managing their farms between 11 and 25 years. However,
there were 16 men who have been the primary managers for over 26 years as
compared with the one woman who’s managed her farm for more than 40 years.
English is the primary language spoken by fresh
vegetable and berry growers. However 3%
indicate that Hmong is also spoken in their home, 1.6% speak Spanish, and 2%
listed other languages: primarily German and Pennsylvania Dutch.
Sixty-five percent of the respondents have completed
post high school degrees including vocational or trade school, college, or
graduate school. Only 3 respondents indicated that they didn’t complete high
school. Five people didn’t answer this question. Wisconsin growers are an
educated group. Personal experience working with the fresh market growers suggests
the post-high school educations of some growers are unrelated to crop
production, farming, or agribusiness (e.g. law). The unique challenges to
University specialists in educating the industry on proper production and pest
management practices is designing basic and advanced programming for the
growers. Fresh market growers are often more willing to try new farming methods
in an attempt to become more productive and profitable farmers because of their
previous educational experiences.
The respondents were surveyed how much income was
generated from the sale of fresh fruits and vegetables. The data does not
represent off-farm income nor is it net income after expenses have been paid.
The breakdown of the data across the categories was relatively even and is
represented in Table 1. Ten growers did not answer this question.
Table 1: On-Farm Income
|
Income |
Frequency |
Valid Percent |
|
$0-999 |
12 |
9.9 |
|
$1,000-1,999 |
16 |
13.2 |
|
$2,000-4,999 |
9 |
7.4 |
|
$5,000-9,999 |
19 |
15.7 |
|
$10,000-14,999 |
13 |
10.7 |
|
$15,000-24,999 |
10 |
8.3 |
|
$25,000-39,000 |
15 |
12.4 |
|
$40,000-79,000 |
12 |
9.9 |
|
$80,000 or
more |
15 |
12.4 |
|
Total |
121 |
100.0 |
The farm characteristics obtained through the survey
were not surprising. The industry is
diverse and partially described in this section. Fresh market farms
ranged from 1-94 years in business with a median age of 12 years. The respondents
themselves have been the primary managers for 6 months to 42 years with a
median of 10 years. Nearly 25% of the farms have been in existence for 25 years
or more with an additional 25% being in operation less than 5 years. The 1996
survey indicated that 30% of the farms surveyed had been in operation for 5
years or less. The high number of undeliverable, returned surveys and the data
from this survey and the 1996 survey, suggests barriers to enter these
industries are low.
Organic production systems were used by 32% of
growers whereas 67% of the growers said they used conventional practices.
Generally, older operations tended to be conventional farms while the younger
operations were more likely to be certified organic or consider themselves
organic without having obtained certification.
Table 2: Age of
Operation and Years in Management
|
|
Valid Percent |
||||
|
Total Operations |
Conventional Operations |
Organic Operations |
Primary Manager |
||
|
Male |
Female |
||||
|
< 5
years |
20.6 |
14.3 |
34.2 |
19.6 |
46.2 |
|
6-10 years |
22.9 |
19.0 |
31.7 |
19.6 |
38.5 |
|
11-25 years |
32.8 |
38.1 |
26.8 |
45.1 |
11.5 |
|
26-40 years |
13.0 |
17.9 |
4.9 |
12.7 |
0.0 |
|
> 40
years |
10.7 |
10.7 |
2.4 |
3.0 |
3.8 |
|
Total |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Only three of the growers indicated their farms have
been in organic operation for more than 25 years compared to 24 conventional operations.
The majority of organic farms (65.9%) have been in operation ten years or less.
In the 1996 survey, 75% of the organic farms indicated they had been in
business 10 years or less.
There is an interesting correlation between the age
of the operation and whether the crops are grown organically. Generally, the
older operations tend to be conventional while organic farms came on the scene
more recently. This may be explained by
the recent demand for organic products in the marketplace. This may also
suggest that older conventional farms are not likely to convert to organic
growing practices.
Calculating farm size with respect to crops grown
presented a challenge since most growers are not growing a full acre of any one
crop except the large-scale crops such as sweet corn or pumpkins. To determine
acreage of crops grown on less than 1 acre, we asked growers the number of feet
of row grown by crop and typical row spacing. Then we calculated acreage by
crop from row-feet and row spacing. When ranges specified and for those
categories that represented a range, the mid-point of that range was used. We
also compared the years in operation, years respondent was the primary manager,
and organic vs. conventional status with farm size (Table 3).
Table 3: Farm Size
|
Years in Operation |
< 5 acres |
5-20 acres |
> 20 acres |
Total |
|
< 5
years |
14.6% |
4.9% |
1.6% |
21.1% |
|
6-10
years |
13.0% |
7.3% |
4.1% |
24.4% |
|
11-25
years |
9.8% |
17.1% |
5.7% |
32.6% |
|
> 25
years |
8.1% |
5.7% |
8.1% |
21.9% |
|
Total |
45.5% |
35.0% |
19.5% |
100.0% |
The data shows that almost half of the fresh market
operations in the state are under 5 acres in size regardless of the age of the operation
and _ of farms are 20 acres or less. Farms greater than 20 acres in size are 5
years or older with the exception of two.
Farms that were less than 5 acres in size were equally
popular between organic and conventional management. Farms larger than 5 acres
were conventional operations. This trend continued when we looked at farms over
20 acres in size where conventional farms outnumbered organic farms 5:1. This
can be explained by the management intensity necessary for organic farms.
Table 4: Farm Size vs.
Management Practices
|
Farm Size |
Number of Conventional Farms |
Number of Organic Farms |
|
< 5
acres |
26 |
25 |
|
5 - 20
acres |
30 |
12 |
|
> 20
acres |
20 |
4 |
|
Total |
76 |
41 |
The average farm size at the time of the 1996 survey
was 15 acres compared to17 acres in this survey indicating a negligible change
in the time between surveys.
The number of laborers per farm ranged between 1 and
42 workers with the median being 5. A
couple of the larger farms increased the average to 8.3 due to more than 20
workers on the largest farms. Family
members comprised 82% of the workforce with the remainder of laborers hired,
non-family workers.
None of the respondents used interns or volunteers, which is
known to occur on some of the organic operations in the state. The Michael Fields Agricultural Institute
helps advertise intern positions and serves as a network to place students on
various farms around the state who are interested in offering such an
opportunity to students. Internships benefit the student and the farm manager.
The intern gains valuable life experience on the host farm while the farm
manager receives labor in exchange for room, board, and often a small salary.
The majority of the survey respondents grew
cucurbits; tomatoes and other solanaceous crops; and sweet corn. Thirty-five
percent of the respondents grew raspberries while 38% grew strawberries. Of
berry growers responding to the survey, all also raised some vegetables.
Solanaceous crops including tomatoes, peppers, and
eggplants were one of the most commonly reported groups of crops grown organically. Cucurbits represented the other most common
organically-produced crop. Additionally, twice as many organic growers raised
onions, leafy greens, cole crops and potatoes than conventional fresh market
growers responding to the survey. Organic sweet corn production was limited to
less than 5 acres due to intense insect pressure late in the season. The ratio
of organic to conventional berry production was 1:1 for raspberries and 2:1 for
strawberries. The organic strawberry growers generally grew less than one
acre.
Table 5: Crop Acreage by Crop
|
Crop |
Area Grown |
Number of Conventional Growers1 |
Number of Organic Growers |
|
Asparagus |
< 30 sq.
ft. |
0 |
4 |
|
30 sq. ft.
- 300 sq. ft. |
1 |
7 |
|
|
300 sq. ft.
- 1/4 acre |
4 |
2 |
|
|
1/4 acre -
4 acres |
11 |
3 |
|
|
4 - 30
acres |
2 |
0 |
|
|
Cole Crops Broccoli,
cabbage, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts |
< 50 row
feet |
1 |
5 |
|
50 row feet
- 1/4 acre |
4 |
17 |
|
|
1/4 - 2
acres |
4 |
5 |
|
|
2 -10 acres |
44 |
0 |
|
|
Crop |
Area Grown |
Number of Conventional Growers1 |
Number of Organic Growers |
|
Cucurbits: Cucumbers,
Melons, Pumpkins, Squash |
< 1/4
acre |
1 |
14 |
|
1/4 - 1
acre |
5 |
11 |
|
|
1 - 5 acres |
16 |
5 |
|
|
5 - 10
acres |
14 |
2 |
|
|
10 - 100
acres |
6 |
1 |
|
|
Leafy
Greens |
< 30 row
feet |
2 |
2 |
|
30 - 150
row feet |
4 |
5 |
|
|
150 row
feet - 1/4 acre |
3 |
12 |
|
|
1/4 - 2
acres |
2 |
4 |
|
|
2 - 10
acres |
0 |
1 |
|
|
Legumes: Peas Beans -
snap and dried |
< 30 row
feet |
1 |
0 |
|
30 - 150
row feet |
3 |
8 |
|
|
150 row
feet - 1/4 acre |
5 |
13 |
|
|
1/4 - 2
acres |
9 |
7 |
|
|
2 - 10
acres |
3 |
0 |
|
|
> 10
acres |
2 |
0 |
|
|
Onions |
< 30 row
feet |
2 |
2 |
|
30 - 150
row feet |
4 |
8 |
|
|
150 row feet
- 1/4 acre |
5 |
10 |
|
|
1/4 - 2
acres |
6 |
6 |
|
|
2 - 10
acres |
2 |
1 |
|
|
> 10
acres |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Potatoes |
< 50 row
feet |
2 |
2 |
|
50 row feet
- 1/8 acre |
2 |
11 |
|
|
1/8 - 1
acre |
3 |
12 |
|
|
1 - 10
acres |
8 |
3 |
|
|
10 - 100
acres |
1 |
1 |
|
|
Crop |
Area Grown |
Number of Conventional Growers1 |
Number of Organic Growers |
|
Raspberries |
< 50 row
feet |
1 |
4 |
|
50 - 250
row feet |
1 |
6 |
|
|
250 row
feet - 1/4 acre |
4 |
7 |
|
|
1/4 - 1
acre |
5 |
3 |
|
|
1 - 5 acres |
9 |
0 |
|
|
> 5
acres |
3 |
0 |
|
|
Root Crops: Carrots,
Radishes, Beets, Turnips, Parsnips, Rutabagas |
< 30 row
feet |
1 |
3 |
|
30 - 150
row feet |
1 |
5 |
|
|
150 row
feet - 1/4 acre |
5 |
11 |
|
|
1/4 - 2
acres |
4 |
5 |
|
|
Solanaceous
Crops: Tomatoes,
peppers, eggplants, tomatillos |
< 50 row
feet |
2 |
6 |
|
50 row feet
- 1/4 acre |
4 |
17 |
|
|
1/4 - 2
acres |
9 |
15 |
|
|
2 - 10
acres |
13 |
7 |
|
|
10 - 100
acres |
2 |
0 |
|
|
Strawberries |
< 500
row feet |
2 |
4 |
|
500 row
feet - 1 acre |
4 |
10 |
|
|
1 - 2 acres |
9 |
0 |
|
|
2 - 5 acres |
3 |
1 |
|
|
5 - 10
acres |
10 |
0 |
|
|
> 10
acres |
6 |
0 |
|
|
Sweet
Corn |
< 1/4
acre |
2 |
7 |
|
1/4 - 1
acre |
2 |
11 |
|
|
1 - 5 acres
|
7 |
8 |
|
|
5 - 10
acres |
9 |
0 |
|
|
10 - 100
acres |
7 |
0 |
|
|
> 100
acres |
2 |
0 |
1 Three
growers didn’t respond to the question of whether they produced an organic crop
and therefore couldn’t be segregated in this table. Where this occurred, these growers were not included in the
totals.
We were interested in learning where the growers
currently marketed their produce, the potential of the various markets that
currently exist that they weren’t utilized, and what they felt the barriers to
the development of each market were. Farmers markets and roadside stands were
the most popular marketing strategies currently used by the respondents
followed by grocery stores and U-pick operations. The lack of wholesale
marketing may be under-represented because commercial potato, onion, sweet corn
and other large-scale producers market their crops wholesale but were not
included in this survey. When we asked growers the markets they’d like to
pursue, the response indicated that all markets were equally desirable. The growers were asked for those markets listed
they currently don’t sell to, to make a check on a line that best represents the
likelihood that they could develop or enter this market in their area. The
range in mean scores between 1.6 and 2.4 indicating that the respondents
felt the likelihood of market development was less than somewhat likely (Table
6). Percentages in the first column exceed 100%
because many growers market their crop in more than one way.
The responses of market potential for the various
markets was also analyzed based on characteristics of the respondent such as
age, gender, farm size, income, crop diversity, and organic vs. conventional
practices.
Table 6: Market
Potential
|
Market |
Percent of Growers Currently Utilizing this
Market |
Mean Scores of Likelihood of Developing the
Market |
|
Farmer’s
Markets |
53.4% |
2.1 |
|
Roadside
Stands |
51.1% |
2.4 |
|
Wholesale |
16.0% |
1.6 |
|
U-pick |
38.9% |
1.8 |
|
Schools |
3.8% |
1.6 |
|
Restaurants |
15.5% |
2.1 |
|
CSA |
9.2% |
1.9 |
|
Grocery
Stores |
36.6% |
2.1 |
We also asked what the key barriers to each market
were and why respondents currently weren’t utilizing these markets. Cost and
time were cited as the barriers most frequently in pursuing farmer’s markets,
roadside stands, U-picks and restaurants. In addition, the distance of the farm
and possible roadside stand to the potential customer was also cited as a
barrier to this market. High demands on the grower were cited as the most
common barrier to developing sales to grocery stores and wholesale markets. Growers
also indicated that lower returns (prices) in these markets were prohibitive
compared to more direct sales. It was interesting to note that the respondents
didn’t really know the potential to marketing to schools or through CSAs. The
results are listed in Table 7 below.
Table 7: Perceived Barriers to Market
|
Barrier |
Farmer’s Markets |
Roadside Stands |
Wholesale |
U-Pick |
Schools |
Restaur ants |
CSA |
Grocery Stores |
|
Cost/Time |
75.0% |
50.0% |
14.9% |
44.9% |
13.8% |
33.8% |
22.9% |
28.3% |
|
Distance to
Customers |
13.9% |
25.0% |
6.0% |
8.2% |
8.8% |
2.9% |
5.7% |
0.0% |
|
Vendor
Restricts Access |
0.0% |
0.0% |
11.9% |
2.0% |
11.3% |
11.8% |
1.4% |
15.2% |
|
Demands are
too great |
5.6% |
22.2% |
53.7% |
28.6% |
27.5% |
30.9% |
18.6% |
52.2% |
|
Don’t know |
5.6% |
2.8% |
13.4% |
16.3% |
38.8% |
20.6% |
51.4% |
4.3% |
Growers were asked to rate on a scale of 1 (not practical)
to 5 (very practical) suggestions for increasing local demand for fresh market
fruits and vegetables. Across the board for each marketing suggestion, organic
growers and female respondents had a higher mean value. With respect to the
development of coops, organic or female growers had a mean of close to one
point higher than the conventional or male growers. The longer the respondent
has been manager of the operation the lower the mean value for the practicality
of using tax incentives to encourage restaurants or grocery stores to buy
locally and for the development of a coop.
Table 8: Practicality for Increasing Local Demand
|
|
Mean Values of Practicality |
|
Tax
incentives for restaurants or food stores to buy locally |
2.6 |
|
Business loans/grants
for retail outlets |
2.8 |
|
Require
public institutions to purchase local produce |
2.7 |
|
Develop
co-ops for production and sale |
3.1 |
|
Develop
processing facilities for value-added products |
3.2 |
|
Develop community
storage facilities to “extend the season” |
2.7 |
Finally, the growers were asked to rank the following
ideas on a scale of 1 (I don’t like the idea) to 5 (I like the idea very much):
· Develop and provide more information and examples on how fresh market crops could be sold to restaurants and other food retailers.
· Develop and provide promotional materials that growers can use to increase demand for fresh market crops in their local areas.
· Develop and provide information on how to produce fresh market crops in a more profitable manner.
· Develop a standard grading system for fresh market fruits and vegetables that could be linked to a suggested pricing schedule.
Table 9: Market
Interest
|
Marketing Idea |
Interest in the Marketing Idea |
|
Marketing
Information |
3.3 |
|
Promotional
Material |
3.6 |
|
Increase
Profitable Production |
3.6 |
|
Standard
Grading System |
2.9 |
The results to this question indicate that the
growers liked the ideas of the development of promotional materials to increase
the demand for fresh market crops and learning how to produce these crops more
profitably the most.
One grower provided an extensive comment on marketing
in the Milwaukee area which can be found in the comment section near the end of
this report.
Because this survey was intended to determine the
impact of FQPA on the market growers of the state, we asked the respondents to
indicate their top insect, disease and weed problems and select from a list of
management options up to 5 practices commonly employed to manage each pest type
in each crop. Fresh market growers do not rely heavily on pesticides as their
primary pest management practice. A limited number of herbicides can be used in
mixed plantings and many plant diseases are better managed preventively than
with fungicides. Pesticide cost or
consumer demand may also contribute to the reason why IPM is being employed by
a high percentage of fresh market growers.
Growers were asked if the
crop was scouted, what scouting strategies are used, who does the scouting and
how often, and if the farm is not scouted, why not. Scouting occurs on 90% of the crops on a regular basis. The
majority of the crops are monitored by the respondent or a family member. Only
10% of the growers hired an independent crop consultant or an employee of the
local cooperative to scout for them. Almost 90% of the growers scout their crop
at least weekly with just over half of those reporting scouting every few days.
Organic growers indicated they were more likely to monitor their crop more
frequently than once a week. The remainder of the respondents indicated that
they scouted the crop when pest damage was visible to determine the extent
among the entire crop, as needed at critical stages of crop development, or
when pest outbreaks are likely.
Of the 12 growers who indicated they did not scout,
the reasons for not scouting were: four reported that pests simply were not a
problem and scouting wasn’t necessary and five indicated that they apply
pesticides based on experience and therefore scouting wasn’t necessary. Other reasons reported include time
constraints, expense, and that scouting wasn’t appropriate for the pests
encountered. Only one respondent indicated that they didn’t need to scout
because they practiced a regular spray program.
The 1996 survey also queried growers as to their
scouting practices. At that time 91% of
the respondents indicated they scouted with only one person contracting the
service from an independent crop consultant. Similar to this year’s survey, 80%
scouted their crops at least once a week.
Growers were also asked
whether they used monitoring traps such as pheromone or blacklight traps to
monitor the presence and activity of economically-important insects. Twenty-five percent indicated they use traps
to monitor insect pests. When we cross-tabbed the growers who produced sweet
corn with those who trap for insect pests Only 13 of 56 growers trap for
insects despite past UW-Extension programs encouraging otherwise.
In the 1996 survey, growers were also asked whether
they trap for insects and 8% indicated that they trapped for one or more of the
following pests: corn earworms, European corn borers, Colorado potato beetles,
onion thrips, aphids, diamondback moths, and potato leafhoppers. An additional 32% indicated that they would
be more likely to trap if training were made available.
The use of weather data to
predict insect and disease outbreaks was evenly split. Weather information used
includes degree days to predict insect pest development and fine-tune their
pest management timing while rainfall and humidity help determine disease
development.
Each grower was asked to
select the two main reasons why they felt more fresh market growers don’t use
IPM practices. Forty-five percent
indicated they thought that growers using pesticides felt they had no need for
IPM practices. Twenty-seven percent felt that there was a lack of good information
on IPM. Roughly 20% felt IPM was not practical because they never heard of it.
Table 10: Reasons for Not Adopting IPM
|
Reason |
Percent Responding |
|
Use
pesticides; don’t need IPM |
45.5% |
|
Lack of
information on IPM |
27.6% |
|
Can control
pests without IPM |
24.2% |
|
Don’t
believe it’s effective |
21.8% |
|
Never heard
of IPM |
19.4% |
|
IPM isn’t
practical |
17.7% |
|
IPM won’t
work on a small scale |
16.9% |
|
IPM is too
expensive |
6.5% |
We wanted to determine how
well IPM adoption was being met by this diverse group. In addition to the
preceding questions related to IPM practices, the respondents were also
surveyed as to what pest management practices were employed for the specific
crops grown in their operation.
The results have been broken down between vegetables
and berries as well as by weeds, insects, and diseases within each crop group.
Growers were asked which actions, up to five, they used to manage pests in a
particular crop.
The top three weed
management strategies employed by fresh market vegetable growers include hand
weeding as needed (60.3%), mechanical cultivation on a whole field basis
(56.5%), and crop rotation (45.8%). In
berries, hand weeding remained the number one weed management strategy (44.3%).
This was followed by the use of mulch (plastic, grass, or straw at 33.6%) and
mechanical field cultivation (22.1%). Regular herbicide applications were only
made by 22 of the vegetable growers and 16 of the berry growers. This represents approximately 17% and 12% of
the growers, respectively. Herbicide use as needed scored slightly higher but
the majority of the vegetable growers rely on cultural practices to reduce weed
infestations and prevent future weed problems. Berry growers responded
similarly although more vegetable growers indicated they were likely to
cultivate to manage weeds over using herbicides. Crop rotation is less feasible
in berry production due to the perennial nature of the crops. The diverse
nature of most vegetable plantings limits the number of suitable herbicides for
use with multiple crops is very limited.
Table 11: Weed Management Practices in Vegetables
|
Weed Management Method |
Number Responding |
Valid Percent |
Percent of Acreage |
|
Hand
weeding |
79 |
60.3 |
|
|
Cultivation
to manage existing weeds |
74 |
56.5 |
|
|
Crop
rotation to prevent weed outbreaks |
60 |
45.8 |
|
|
Cultivation
to prevent weed outbreaks |
50 |
38.2 |
|
|
Mulch with
plastic, grass, straw |
43 |
32.8 |
|
|
Herbicides
as needed |
30 |
22.9 |
|
|
Mowing to
prevent weed outbreaks |
28 |
21.4 |
|
|
Regular
herbicide applications |
22 |
16.8 |
|
|
Herbicide
spot applications |
18 |
13.7 |
|
|
Herbicides
in high risk areas |
16 |
12.2 |
|
|
No action
taken to manage weeds |
14 |
10.7 |
|
|
Cover crop |
9 |
6.9 |
|
Table 12: Weed Management Practices in Berries
|
Weed Management Method |
Number Responding |
Valid Percent |
Percent of Acreage |
|
Hand
weeding |
58 |
44.3 |
|
|
Mulch with
plastic, grass, straw |
44 |
33.6 |
|
|
Cultivation
to manage existing weeds |
29 |
22.1 |
|
|
Mowing to prevent
weed outbreaks |
21 |
16.0 |
|
|
Regular
herbicide applications |
16 |
12.2 |
|
|
Herbicides
as needed |
16 |
12.2 |
|
|
Cultivation
to prevent weed outbreaks |
16 |
12.2 |
|
|
Crop
rotation to prevent weed outbreaks |
14 |
10.7 |
|
|
Herbicide
spot applications |
13 |
9.9 |
|
|
Herbicides
in high risk areas |
10 |
7.6 |
|
|
|