FYI

Megan Terebus (mterebus@csc.noaa.gov)
Mon, 28 Dec 1998 10:40:15 -0800

We, at the Agricultural Conservation Innovation Center, have been looking
to address the risk that farmers face when adopting conservation practices.
In fact, studies conducted by the USDA have identified risk as one of the
two major obstacles for adopting these types of practices. We have found
two organizations that have found ways to encourage farmers to address this
risk. Campbells Soup asked their farmers to practice IPM. The farmers
said that they thought that IPM was too risky so Campbells developed an
insurance policy for their farmers. The growers were asked split their
fields and practice the IPM on one portion and conventionally on another
portion. The yields were then compared and the farmer indemnified if there
was a yield difference with the innovative (IPM) field yielding less than
the conventional. Likewise, the Mississippi Conservation District had a
program that offered farmers an insurance policy to do no-till. The policy
required a split field operation and again, the farmers were indemnified
for any loss that the innovative plot suffered compared to the
conventional. As a result, Campbells witnessed a 59% reduction in their
pesticide use and MSSWCD a fivefold increase in conservation tillage for
the entire state.

Realizing that not all organizations have the ways and means in terms of
money, time and insurance expertise to pull this off, we decided to work
with IGF Insurance to develop and offer a similar policy. Only we are
offering it nationwide. Along the same lines, an grower splits his/her
fields and compares the yields between a conventionally managed plot and an
innovative/conservation managed plot. If there is a yield difference, the
farmer's policy kicks in after a small deductible.

The reason I think that this might be good information for your network is
that because we can't be everywhere at once, we need help from sponsoring
organizations. These organizations are like those of Campbells Soup and
Mississippi SWCD that have some influence over their growers. The sponsor
organization recruits the growers once there is a conservation practice in
mind. Then it serves as a technical supporter of the practice offering
advice and monitoring the process, like most normal farm organizations do
anyway. The sponsor, in a sense, stands in for ACIC and IGF. Because of
this, the sponsor has to verify that indeed a split field approach was used
and that the two portions/plots were of similar productive capacity. Also,
if the farmer believes that there may have been a yield loss on the
innovative plot, then the sponsoring organization is responsible for the
initial adjustment and filing a report to ACIC and IGF so that we may
verify that loss and indemnify if required.

I think we would benefit by having information like this posted on your
site because the cooperatve-farmer relationship is a perfect coupling for a
project like this. The co-op has an interest in cutting costs for its
farmers as well as meeting it's conservation goals. Especially in a
sustainable cooperative. These policies are great incentives for farmers
to gradually make the transition from conventional to sustainable
agriculture.

So, please post this if you are interested. If anyone needs more
information, please contact me at ACIC. Thanks so much.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Megan Terebus
Farm Program Developer
Agricultural Conservation Innovation Center
2234 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29418
Ph. (843) 740-1326
Fx. (843) 740-1331
email: megan.terebus@agconserv.com

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail