Introduction
All farmers in the US, including those using organic production methods, are entitled to technical support for most aspects of their farm operation. The support for farmers, referred to as technical assistance or extension, has long been part of the fabric supporting the rural farm sector. Starting from the Philadelphia Society in 1785, over the next century technical support for farms moved to experts working in the state agricultural colleges (True, Reference True1928). Federal funding for extension support, which was still provided by state agricultural colleges, was secured via The Smith-Lever Extension Act (1914) (Swanson et al., Reference Swanson, Nielson, Steele and Woteki2022). As an example of the importance of agricultural extension, during WW1, it played a key role in meeting domestic food needs by addressing on-farm labor shortages and sharing knowledge about food preservation (USDA NIFA, 2023). More recently this support has expanded to include supporting urban farmers and residents of rural communities (USDA NIFA, 2024). The perceived value of extension is reflected by the fact that, currently, its services are financed by a combination of state, local, and federal funds (Swanson et al., Reference Swanson, Nielson, Steele and Woteki2022).
At the time of this writing, agricultural technical assistance in the US is most often provided by cooperative extension through the land-grant university system (Gardner, Reference Gardner2002). The bulk of publicly supported agricultural research and outreach takes place in three types of institutions: the original land grants, historically black colleges and universities, and tribal colleges and universities (Croft, Reference Croft2019). Land grants are located in every state and have a mission of teaching, research, and extension (Croft, Reference Croft2019). A key role of extension is to interpret and transmit research findings regarding new technologies or agricultural practices to farmers (Anderson and Feder, Reference Anderson, Feder, Evenson and Pingali2007), where extension is considered the expert in the farmer-extension relationship.
Before the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) was passed in 1990, the few farmers using organic production methods lacked access to extension support. The exact number of organic farmers in 1990 is unknown, but USDA estimates suggest there were about 3,500 in 1992 (Greene, Reference Greene2001). Anticipating an increase in the adoption of organic farming systems, and understanding that organic farmers would need technical support for their operations, the 1990 Farm Act included a provision for technical reports on organic and training on organic systems for extension agents (Youngberg and DeMuth, Reference Youngberg and DeMuth2013). Despite the legislative mandate, extension services for farmers using organic farming practices appear to have largely been unsuccessful. A recent study of organic farms in California (Carlisle et al., Reference Carlisle, Esquivel, Baur, Ichikawa, Olimpi, Ory, Waterhouse, Iles, Karp, Kremen and Bowles2022) suggested that extension agents and faculty would better serve diversified organic producers by broadly sharing farmer-developed innovative methods. The suggestion echoes one made 20 years earlier, which recommended that extension offer new and established organic farmers two forms of outreach: (1) documentation of organic farmer experiences and (2) relevant research findings (Lohr and Park, Reference Lohr and Park2003). In other words, despite the 19-year gap, both Lohr and Park (Reference Lohr and Park2003) and Carlisle et al. (Reference Carlisle, Esquivel, Baur, Ichikawa, Olimpi, Ory, Waterhouse, Iles, Karp, Kremen and Bowles2022) suggested recognizing that organic farmers are innovative and prefer learning from other farmers, and extension would be improved by incorporating this perspective into their programming.
Understanding the technical needs of organic producers may be important for supporting the sector, as organic farmers face two relatively new economic challenges. The first is related to prices; for many years, growth in demand for organic food was sufficiently robust so that organic farmers received a robust price premium even as supply grew (Oberholtzer, Dimitri and Greene, Reference Oberholtzer, Dimitri and Greene2005). There is concern that market conditions have changed and that increased production may erode organic price premiums. The fear may be warranted, as industry studies have pointed to evidence of lower price premiums for some fresh organic produce commodities (Karst, Reference Karst2019; Raszap Skorbiansky, Reference Raszap Skorbiansky2025). The second is climate-related as agricultural regions in the US experience flooding, drought, hail, and storms which reduce yields or destroy crops. The increasing frequency of adverse climate events is introducing more risk into their farm production systems.
The terms outreach and extension are used interchangeably in this article. The types of support are classified as technical assistance, which refers to training and workshops, and information, which refers to written publications such as fact sheets. In this article, the entities providing outreach and extension are referred to as technical assistance (TA) providers. Finally, in addition to those providing extension outreach through their role in the land grant universities, outreach and technical assistance providers that serve organic farmers may also be individuals, or part of businesses or other organizations, such as private consultants, staff from organic certification businesses, or non-profit organizations. While this article focuses on technical assistance for US organic producers, it is important to note that nearly all countries offer extension support for their agricultural sectors.
This article presents the findings of a mixed-methods research study that investigates the outreach and services offered by technical assistance (TA) providers, both within and outside the land grant system. A primary aim is to identify the needs of organic farmers, as well as understand whether their needs are being met, by the current state of TA. In short, we examined whether the technical assistance support offered was sufficient for organic producers. If not, we sought to assess the gaps, barriers, and opportunities for matching producer needs with technical assistance. Our analysis is based on primary data collected from organic farmers through focus groups and a short survey, and from technical assistance providers through a survey. The findings of this study deepen our understanding of the current state of agricultural outreach and extension for organic farmers and ranchers and point to areas of improvement.
Background on agricultural extension and outreach
A key goal of extension is to transfer knowledge from researchers to farmers, to support farm viability. In practice, this includes assisting farmers with decision-making and goal-setting, to improve on-farm productivity and support on-farm technology adoption (Anderson and Feder, Reference Anderson, Feder, Evenson and Pingali2007; Wang, Reference Wang2014). Large-scale producers typically receive the most benefit from the extension. For example, in the United States, the delivery of extension and technical assistance prioritizes the needs of large-scale commercial farmers over other farmers (Norton and Alwang, Reference Norton and Alwang2020). Extension has a limited impact on small-scale producers (Cook, Satizabal and Curnow, Reference Cook, Satizabal and Curnow2021). In the EU, privatizing extension had a negative impact on small-scale producers (Labarthe and Laurent, Reference Labarthe and Laurent2013).
Extension’s lack of organic knowledge has long been identified as problematic. Nearly 30 years ago, in 1995, producers reportedly viewed agricultural extension as a barrier to organic production (Walz, Reference Walz2004). Similarly, organic farmers in Ohio were interested in receiving extension services, yet only one-third of the producers indicated that extension had sufficient knowledge to be useful (Agunga and Igodan, Reference Agunga and Igodan2007). When considering the entirety of agriculture, not just organic, it has been suggested that inadequate training has resulted in an extension force that lacks the necessary knowledge and skills (Suvedi, Reference Suvedi2019). The lack of effective extension support for organic farming was found to be a barrier to farmers transition to organic systems (Delbridge et al., Reference Delbridge, King, Short and James2017).
While some producers manage to find helpful support from extension agents (Crawford et al., Reference Crawford, Grossman, Warren and Cubbage2015), more often organic producers do not turn to extension for information or on-farm assistance (Alotaibi et al., Reference Alotaibi, Yoder, Brennan and Kassem2021). Research consistently finds that organic producers prefer obtaining knowledge from other organic producers (Crawford et al., Reference Crawford, Grossman, Warren and Cubbage2015; Alotaibi et al., Reference Alotaibi, Yoder, Brennan and Kassem2021; Han et al., Reference Han, Grudens-Schuck, Arbuckle and Martin2022). This may not be surprising, given the literature’s finding that a lack of organic knowledge and expertise serves as a barrier to the agent’s ability to form strong relationships with organic producers (Marabesi et al., Reference Marabesi, Kelsey, Anderson and Fuhrman2021).
Assessing the efficacy of agricultural extension is difficult, and consequently, most metrics used to assess extension are based on number of clients served rather than measuring impact (Anderson and Feder, Reference Anderson, Feder, Evenson and Pingali2007). When evaluating specific programs, cooperative extension typically relies on post-surveys, with few gathering impact data through focus groups, interviews, or analysis of secondary data (Franz and Townson, Reference Franz and Townson2008). Others have pointed out that, rather than evaluating the efficacy of services, the number and type of extension activities are used to measure impact (Norton and Alwang, Reference Norton and Alwang2020). Globally, evidence suggests that there is little accountability for extension provider support of farmers (Norton and Alwang, Reference Norton and Alwang2020; Anderson and Feder, Reference Anderson, Feder, Evenson and Pingali2007).
A study of Swiss farmers found that those working with publicly funded agents used more preventative farming practices while those working with privately funded providers used more synthetic pesticides (Wuepper, Roleff and Finger, Reference Wuepper, Roleff and Finger2021). Proximity to technical assistance support was positively related to farmer adoption of sustainable farming practices (Foguesatto, Borges and Machado, Reference Foguesatto, Borges and Machado2020). Programs for limited-resource farmers were effective, in terms of increased farm gross income, only when farmers had multiple contacts with extension agents (Akobundu et al., Reference Akobundu, Alwang, Essel, Norton and Tegene2004). Together, this research suggests that farmers benefit from both proximity to and repeated interactions with TA providers.
There is some evidence that farmers are weary of ‘expert’ advice, while they like experiential learning and trust researchers at agricultural colleges (Rust et al., Reference Rust, Stankovics, Jarvis, Morris-Trainor, de Vries, Ingram, Mills, Glikman, Parkinson, Toth and Hansda2022). Social networks strengthen farmer-to-farmer relationships, and digital communications allow farmers to build digital networks (Rust et al., Reference Rust, Stankovics, Jarvis, Morris-Trainor, de Vries, Ingram, Mills, Glikman, Parkinson, Toth and Hansda2022). A greater reliance on farmer social networks was suggested as a way for extension to promote soil conservation practices (Ogieriakhi and Woodward, Reference Ogieriakhi and Woodward2022). Others have suggested that the diffusion of new technology would be improved if the extension had a better understanding of farmer networks (Skaalsveen, Ingram and Urquhart, Reference Skaalsveen, Ingram and Urquhart2020).
A likely barrier faced by organic farmers regarding technical assistance is the paucity of extension agents versed in organic farming practices. A key recommendation of an organic farming research group was to increase the supply of extension and outreach providers with expertise in organic systems (Snyder, Schonbeck and Velez, Reference Snyder, Schonbeck and Velez2022). Our examination of extension offered by land grant universities shows that not every state has expertise in organic systems (see Fig. 1). For the states with extension support for organic producers, the number of experts ranges from 1 to 32. States in the Northeast have robust organic support, while others lag. California has the greatest number of certified organic farms but only lists 4 (the average across the 25 states that list organic extension specialists).
Figure 1. Organic crop farms (2021) and number of named extension contacts at land grant universities (2024). Note: The shaded map shows the distribution of the 16,194 organic crop farms. The number reports the number of contacts with organic expertise as listed on the websites of land grant universities in 2024. Source: For named organic experts, the author analysis of information on 139 websites for extension programs across the US Of these, 36 institutions (in 25 states) had research centers, organic farms, student farms, or provided technical assistance. Thirty-three institutions provided contact information for 96 individuals (see Appendix for list). While every effort was made to be accurate, the list may not represent the current state of the extension. The 2021 Organic Survey, conducted by USDA, is the source for the number of organic crop farms by state.
Methodology and description of study participants
To better understand whether the available technical assistance met the needs of organic producers, we analyzed the perspectives of both users (farmers) and suppliers of technical assistance (TA providers). To do so, primary data was collected from farmers and technical assistance providers. The comparison of farmers views on the usefulness of technical assistance with the views of TA providers regarding their services made it possible to identify gaps in technical assistance. We opted to use a mixed methods approach of surveys and focus groups, allowing for a nuanced understanding of technical assistance for organic producers.
Methodology for understanding organic farmer perspectives
Farmers are over-surveyed, and consequently, response rates are often low (Avemegah et al., Reference Avemegah, Gu, Abulbasher, Koci, Ogunyiola, Eduful, Li, Barington, Wang, Kolady and Perkins2021). To improve the quality of the data collected, the survey instrument was deliberately kept to just eight questions. Eight focus groups were held to gather insight into farmer motivations and perceptions about technical assistance. All producers who agreed to participate in a focus group were sent the short survey in advance. Participating organic farmers were recruited by the research team through the networks of the project advisory council.
The organic farmer survey was distributed to those who had agreed to participate in a focus group and was designed to provide insight into both the organic farm operation and the farmer. The eight questions covered topics such as farm size, crops grown, years of farming, and views on the profitability of the farm operation. The focus group discussions provided access to viewpoints of distinct organic farmers, delving into both their behavior and knowledge. Interaction among farmer participants also allowed for a fuller exploration of key issues (Cyr, Reference Cyr2016). The research team followed a standard protocol for focus groups (see Morgan, Reference Morgan1997; Krueger and Casey, Reference Krueger and Casey2015). During the focus groups, participants discussed the economic, market, and risk management challenges of their organic operations. The farmer participants seemed engaged and interested in sharing their experiences and in hearing the perspectives of the other farmers.
The focus groups took place between February 2021 and February 2022 and were held online due to coronavirus restrictions. A semi-structured interview instrument was used to guide the conversation while encouraging the free flow of ideas. Farmer participants received a $75 honorarium for taking part in a 60–90 min session. The moderator acknowledged that COVID-19 was on everyone’s mind and while it may come up in the discussion, he would bring back the conversation if the group was sidetracked. The moderator was careful to allow each participant to address each question.
The focus groups were recorded and Zoom’s closed captioning feature was used to create a text transcript, which was manually cleaned to preserve the integrity of the conversation, primarily replacing mistranslations, and using the focus group recordings to ensure that the transcripts matched the conversation. The focus group transcripts were then manually coded, employing an inductive approach to the thematic analysis. Each transcript was first coded individually, after which the codes were collated with the supporting transcript excerpts. These codes were then compiled and grouped by theme, so that the analysis reflects themes from across all focus group transcripts. Lastly, the themes were reviewed and revised with multiple readings of the transcripts to ensure the final thematic groupings accurately reflect the data. While some themes appeared in all focus groups, other themes appeared in only select groups.
The analysis regarding organic farmer views of their outreach needs and their experience with seeking support for their farm operations is based on the discussion that resulted from the following two focus group questions:
Question 1: Do you rely on technical assistance for production or marketing support, with your organic system plan, certification, or other aspects related to operation? What types of assistance, who provides it, and how helpful is it? What is the most helpful for your farm? Do you have any concerns about organic certifications and certifiers?
Question 2: Which federal, state and local programs are utilized on your organic operation? How useful are these programs? Are there other program supports that you feel could be helpful to your farm?
Description of farmers who participated in the focus groups
Sixty-four organic farmers participated in the eight focus groups. Four focus groups consisted of farmers producing the same product or crop—dairy, livestock, grains, or poultry—while two focus groups included organic farmers raising specialty crops (see Table 1). One focus group included only those who identify as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) producers. The final group included farmers who identified as experiencing significant stress in their operation, such as the loss of a certifier, land, or buyer.
Table 1. Focus group participants
Note: 64 farmers participated in the eight focus groups.
Table 2 presents the average and median basic characteristics of the organic farmers who participated in the focus groups, although the text discusses only the median. The focus group farmers were experienced: they had been farming for a median of 14.5 years and had been working on their current farms for a median of 10 years. Their farms were certified as organic for a median of 7 years. The amount of land farmed was a median of 14 acres with median sales of $75 thousand. Most farms were fully organic, with all land certified.
Table 2. Participating farmers and their farms: descriptive statistics
Source: Author analysis of organic farmer survey data. Questions were asked about the year 2020. n = 58–63.
The farmers participating in the focus groups mostly relied on direct-to-consumer, direct-to-retail, and wholesalers/distributors markets. An average of 44% of total sales was direct to consumers, typically at a farmers market, farm store, or through community-supported agriculture. About one-third of the survey respondents made no sales directly to consumers. Sales to intermediaries, which include wholesalers, distributors, and food hubs, made up an average of 32% of sales, and about half of the farmers made no sales to intermediaries. Sales directly to retailers accounted for 19% of gross organic sales, with roughly half of the farmers making no sales to retailers.
Farmers were asked to provide their perception of the economic position of their farm operations. Thus, rather than asking for specific data on farm income, survey respondents were asked a more general question: specifically, in their view, was the farm operation (1) not breaking even, (2) breaking even, (3) making a small profit, or (4) making a comfortable profit (see Table 3). Twenty-six percent of farmers reported their operations were not breaking even, while 74% of farmers reported they were breaking even or doing better.
Table 3. Views of profitability of organic farms
Note: n = 62.
Source: Author analysis of organic farmer survey data.
Overall, the farmers who participated in the focus groups were experienced and ably managing their operations, although as the discussions below indicate, they did face challenges. Given that the median number of years on their current farm (10) exceeded the median number of years the farm was certified organic (7), these farmers transitioned their operations to organic production. The median farm was small, was exclusively organic, and approximately three-fourths of the farmers were breaking even or doing better.
Methodology for understanding perspective organic TA providers
To understand the availability of technical support and information for organic producers, we collected primary data from technical assistance providers, using a 17-question survey that was administered online using SurveyMonkey. The list of service providers was assembled by a research assistant and included Cooperative Extension faculty and agents, and other local, regional, and national providers active in the regions. The survey was also distributed to the networks of project partners. Note that to prevent bots from responding, the survey was not broadly distributed through open listservs. Because of the convenience sampling methodology, the findings are not representative of the population of organic farmers or TA providers yet still provide useful insights into technical assistance for organic producers.
The survey included several open-ended qualitative questions, where TA providers were able to share their opinions and perceptions. The survey questions focused on four general areas (shown in Table 4): to understand who was providing technical assistance and information, who was seeking assistance and information, the need for assistance, provider perceptions about current capacity, and perceptions of capacity constraints. Questions covered description of the organization, including state and zip code, the number of ranchers and farmers served (organic and total), and the distribution of the size (acres and sales) of the organic farms served. Providers were also asked to describe their ability to provide services to organic producers, including the type of services provided, their knowledge, and funding and human capital support. Finally, respondents were asked forward-looking questions, in terms of whether they saw an increased need to support organic producers and what is needed to increase their capacity.
Table 4. Technical assistance survey instrument: a general description of questions asked
Description of TA providers who responded to the survey
The survey was open from April 2023 to June 2023. A total of 80 TA providers responded to the survey (see Table 5). The providers worked for a range of organizations, ranging from land grant universities to independent consultants. These findings indicate that guidance for organic producers is available from many types of organizations, including nontraditional providers of outreach, such as certifiers and nonprofit organizations.
Table 5. Description of TA providers who responded to the survey
Note: For profit organizations include marketing cooperatives. n/a refers to not applicable.
For organic clients served, the number of respondents differs from the chart, where n = 13 for nonprofits, 4 for certifiers, and 26 for universities. For sales classification, n = 7 for profit, 5 for consultant, 10 for nonprofit, 2 for certifier, 12 for USDA or State, and 24 for university. USDA/State providers are typically conservation agents.
About one-third (28) of the providers worked for a university and worked with an average of 358 organic clients, reflecting the importance of the land grant university system in terms of supporting farmers. Half of the organic producers they served had small-scale operations with sales below $100 thousand per year, and just 8% of their organic clients had sales of $1 million or more per year.
Fifteen state or USDA providers, which included NRCS agents, responded to the survey. These providers served the greatest number of organic clients, an average of slightly more than 5,000. Sixty-seven percent of their clients had annual sales below $100 thousand.
Some TA providers, such as those working with for profit organizations and independent consultants, were highly specialized and worked with a relatively small number of farmers. The average for profit had 244 organic clients, and 23% of their clients had sales of $1 million or more per year. The typical independent consultant worked with just 16 organic clients, and 76% of their clients were small-scale producers with sales below $100 thousand.
Five organic certifiers responded to the survey, and they served an average of 611 organic clients. While certifiers are not traditional providers of outreach, some certifiers do provide workshops, education, or other services. For instance, Marasteanu and Jaenicke (Reference Marasteanu and Jaenicke2016) found that for US-based certifiers with more than 100 clients, 31 publicly stated they provide outreach to organic producers.
Findings regarding organic farmer experience with technical assistance
There was wide agreement among the focus group participants that farming organically is not easy, and learning how to farm organically takes many years. Each year spent on the farm provides farmers with new knowledge. One farmer commented that he made every possible mistake on his farm, and that experience of making mistakes has been the most valuable teacher. The producers expressed that there was a lack of available practical information. Many mentioned that the inability to find a TA provider near their operation was a barrier to locating support and advice. A livestock producer indicated that knowledge of organic animal production is limited. A BIPOC farmer mentioned it was difficult to find knowledgeable people to talk with about their farming needs.
Still, despite these challenges, farmers expressed a desire for information and advice to help with their farms. Many turn to their peers, but organic farmers are often geographically isolated, with few or no peers nearby to interact with and learn from. One farmer mentioned being the only organic vegetable farmer in the county for 12 years. An experienced organic grain farmer indicated there was no network of organic producers when they started out. One of the livestock producers was the only organic farmer in the county. These sentiments were expressed succinctly by a vegetable and poultry producer who stated that ‘… so anyway, it’s lonely, can be lonely’.
Getting support from other farmers is preferred
Farmers preferred learning from other farmers and mentorship, in particular, was extremely helpful for new farmers. Peer support was used by 42% (27 out of 64) of the focus group participants. Helpful farmer interactions included conversation, explicit mentoring, and farm visits. Some organic producers sought advice from both conventional and organic producers. As one organic dairy farmer stated, ‘… sometimes cow problems are cow problems, whether she’s organic or not’. A poultry producer said, ‘… interactions with, with human beings, I think are the most, the most helpful for, for us.’ A grain producer indicated that his experience interacting with other organic producers was incredibly helpful, and that ‘… every one of them is more valuable than ten consultants or extension people, even if they did exist’.
Mentorship provided strong benefits, although finding an organic farmer to serve as a mentor was difficult. Growers mentioned using different methods for locating a mentor. One grain farmer signed up for the mentorship program at a winter conference, stating ‘… and I got a great mentor….’ This farmer hoped to become a mentor in the next 5–10 years. A vegetable producer found a mentor in the previous landowner. A grain farmer who has been a mentor for many years suggested ‘… it is key to the success of new growers.’ He argued that having a mentor is so helpful that, if necessary, growers should find one out of their local area.
Visiting other farms was helpful, either through a farm visit or a field day, and provided opportunities to meet other farmers, to discuss and learn. A dairy farmer stated ‘I think one of the most effective mechanisms that we experience is our pasture walks. When you can actually go to somebody else’s farm walk in their field see their livestock …. Then take what could be applicable to your situation back with you….’ When making a new purchase, or a big decision, hearing the experience of others can provide helpful advice and insight. A vegetable producer indicated a desire to talk with other farmers to ask ‘… are we buying the right thing?’ This producer stated that advice is most helpful when coming from farmers, saying ‘I think it’s best coming from other farmers … who have just gone through the same thing a few years before’.
Farmers have varying experiences with the land grant system
For the agricultural sector, the most common source of technical advice is the extension from the land grant university system. For the organic producers participating in the focus groups, extension and universities were the next most often used source of technical assistance, mentioned by 30% (19 of 64) of farmers. Extension and university services in California, the Northeast, Georgia, and the Midwest were mentioned as providing helpful information and advice. Some producers found valuable information from universities in other parts of the country. For example, a South Carolina-based livestock producer relied on information from Penn State University. Producers in the Northeast turned to extension and universities in neighboring states, as a fruit and vegetable producer based in New Hampshire mentioned ‘… we tend to use all of our other neighboring states’ resources too’.
However, not all farmers received helpful support from an extension. Some producers lacked access to extension or university support for organic production. A livestock producer stated, ‘…. Our local extension office has been actually … the opposite of helpful, has blocked us when trying to get certain things done’. A vegetable producer mentioned ‘… extension … oftentimes sends people to us because they don’t know so much about organic vegetable production’.
Conferences are a way to meet other organic farmers
Twenty percent, or 13 organic producers, gathered information by attending conferences, seminars, and webinars. Conferences named were MOSES (Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service), PASA Sustainable Agriculture, Future Harvest, MOFGA (Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association), OEFFA (Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association), and the winter session of NOFA (Northeast Organic Farming Association). Conference sessions are sources of information, but conferences also provide plenty of opportunities for farmer-to-farmer interaction. A fruit and vegetable producer said, ‘… most things we learned are in the hallways. So, as you walk by you can ask somebody that question’.
Conferences and seminars were especially helpful to some farmers when they were starting out. A poultry farmer mentioned, ‘… in the beginning of our farming we did a lot—very aggressive conference goers’. A fruit and vegetable producer mentioned that conferences were a source of inspiration.
Particularly in the early years of the pandemic, producers participated in online seminars and webinars. The virtual format expanded access to information and other farmers for those producers who resided in distant areas. A livestock producer mentioned ‘… since we’re so remote—webinars I find are a real helpful way to learn information….’ However, multiday or lengthy seminars require a large time investment. A dairy farmer stated ‘it was a six hour webinar. And it was wonderful, but the pieces that really pertain to the issues that I was dealing with, you know, could have been consolidated into about 20 minutes…’.
Other helpful sources of information
Public sources (USDA and State Departments of Agriculture) were helpful to the organic farmers, but so were private companies, such as milk processors, seed company representatives, and accountants and bookkeepers for the business aspect of their operations. One large organic milk company, for example, provides dairy farmers with many forms of assistance, including help with certification, veterinary support, and access to an agronomist.
A fruit and vegetable producer used a combination of sources when building a packing shed, which the farmer described as ‘… a big project.’ The operator borrowed funds, using a Farm Storage Facility loan, from USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA), and received grant funding from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture value-added program. A different fruit and vegetable producer secured a USDA Value-Added Producer Grant. Another fruit and vegetable farmer received two grants from their state, which ‘… really helped us with equipment’. A fruit and vegetable farmer was unable to secure a loan through a bank, but was able to receive financing for the land from the USDA Beginning Farmer/Rancher Land Loan Program. One producer stated that money is available for farmers, but in order to successfully get funding, producers need to take note of the funding cycle timing.
USDA’s National Resources Conversation Service (NRCS) programs were used by many of the organic farmers in the focus groups. Those using NRCS programs obtained funding for waterways work, high tunnels, and several were enrolled in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). One BIPOC farmer stated:
‘… NRCS has actually been—in terms of the place where we’ve received kind of the most functional funding for our farm, at least—NRCS has been that place because we’ve been able to do all of our water infrastructure upgrades, our pasture fencing upgrades, water, Catalina, things like that all through NRCS and so in terms of, like, high impact with their—the high impact one for us that’s really made a tangible difference on our farm in terms of how our operation functions’.
While most organic farmers seemed receptive to external technical assistance, some objected to the need for technical assistance. One grain producer stated that ‘I just hear a lot of talk about this technical assistance: Oh we got to get more extension, we got to get more, you know, more people to tell farmers how to farm, and I don’t think that’ll work at all’. This same farmer later said ‘And I am not a fan of experts. I think the farmer is the expert, and we don’t need anyone else to tell us how to do it, other than ourselves’.
Findings of technical assistance provider perceptions of outreach to organic producers
Most types of providers perceive moderate or high demand for technical assistance and information from their organic clients (Table 6). None of the certifiers perceive low demand, which is likely related to the fact that they work exclusively with organic farmers. The USDA/State providers, typically conservation agents, perceived low or moderate demand by organic farmers, likely because their client base mostly consists of nonorganic farmers. Overall, the findings suggest that TA providers believe there is moderate or high demand for technical assistance by organic producers.
Table 6. TA provider perceived demand for services by organic farmers and ranchers
Note: Tests of equality of perceived demand for Nonprofit, Federal or State, and University and cooperative extension for low, med, and high, and for all pairs of the three types, yield p-values in excess of 0.15, as reported by Fisher’s exact test.
Technical assistance providers as links to federal farm programs
Organic producers are eligible for conservation and risk management programs, which are intended to improve environmental or economic outcomes for farmers. The primary conservation programs used by organic farmers are EQIP and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and while crop insurance helps with economic risk management. The third major program available to organic producers is the organic certification cost share program which offsets the cost of certification. Other than the organic cost-share program, these major farm programs were designed for nonorganic producers and amended for use by organic growers (Whelan et al., Reference Whelan, Orlander, Balsam and Dimitri2024).
The rules for participating in federal farm programs are complicated, thus difficult to understand. Because crop insurance and conservation payments are important for farms, we hypothesized that organic producers would turn to TA providers for guidance on eligibility rules and the application process. The survey included a question on whether clients have asked about any of the three programs (see Table 7). About three-quarters (76%) reported receiving questions about conservation; this rate likely results from the fact that one group of TA providers (federal or state providers) specialized in farmland conservation programs. Almost three-quarters (69%) were asked about the cost share program, and less than half of providers (44%) were asked about crop insurance. In general, providers have the most knowledge about conservation programs, with 82% reporting having some or a lot of knowledge. The level of cost share knowledge is high as well, with 74% reporting some or a lot of knowledge. The results suggest that crop insurance is less well understood, with just 9% of providers reporting having a lot of knowledge and 27% reporting some knowledge.
Table 7. Received farmer requests for information and TA knowledge: select farm programs
Note: n = 71–75.
Types of technical assistance and information offered to organic producers
Support to farmers generally takes the form of information (e.g., reports, fact sheets, videos, podcasts, and other forms of information) or technical assistance (defined as directly working with producers, including through trainings, workshops, and field days). The TA providers were asked to report on their information and technical assistance offered for production (including farm production, transitioning to organic, and creating an organic systems plan) and market (including sourcing needed ingredients or inputs, pricing, and marketing). There is a striking difference between the supports of production factors, with 69% offering technical assistance and 79% offering information, and support of market factors, with 37% and 54% (see Table 8). For each of the six areas, TA providers were uniformly more likely to provide information than technical assistance, perhaps because providing information is a relatively low-cost way to serve many producers. The gap between information and technical assistance is smaller for production-related support than for market factors; a reason for this difference may be staff limitations or the culture of TA for supporting on-farm production.
Table 8. Farm support is offered in the form of technical assistance and information provision
Note: n = 80. The table reports aggregate data for all types of providers.
To test the hypothesis that the TA providers are equally likely to offer technical assistance and information, we used Fisher’s exact test. The choice of test was based on (1) the small sample size and (2) the discrete count data (Bower, Reference Bower2003). The sampling method precludes generalizability, and along with the recommendation in the statistical literature to ‘abandon statistical significance’ (McShane et al., Reference McShane, Gal, Gelman, Robert and Tackett2019), p-values are reported without drawing definitive conclusions about statistical significance (Table 8). The alternative hypothesis was that a greater share was providing information than technical assistance, and the p-values reported were for the one-sided test. The estimated p-values ranged from 0.01 to 0.07, with the p-value of 0.07 referring to on-farm production support. The estimated p-values support the hypothesis that, for this sample, for each type of support, information is provided more often than technical assistance.
Next, we considered differences in the availability of technical assistance and information offered by provider type (see Table 9). To do so, the data from consultants, for profit businesses, and certifiers was excluded, since each type had 10 or fewer respondents, leaving nonprofits, land grants, and State/USDA providers. Each of the three provider types has a different scope of work, which influences how support is supplied and what aspects of the organic operation are supported. For example, many USDA/State TA providers are conservation specialists, who provide technical support for on-farm production as they assist organic producers with incorporating conservation practices into their operations. On the other hand, land grants and extension providers meet the agricultural needs of their states. For nonprofit organizations, the scope of work and mission depends on the specific organization.
Table 9. Technical assistance and information available by type of provider
Note: Table includes results for provider types with more than 10 respondents.
* The hypothesis tested is that the availability of support offered (for each type of support) is equal across the three types of TA providers.
These differences are illuminated through how they support organic producers. In particular, the State/USDA agent is the only TA provider type that reported providing direct training more often than information, and this was for on-farm production, assistance with the Organic Systems Plan (OSP) or standards, and transition support. Otherwise, for nonprofit organizations and extensions at land grant universities, information is the primary form of support and outreach to organic farmers. To address the two hypotheses that (1) the provision of technical assistance across the three types of providers is equal and (2) the provision of information across all three types of providers is equal, we again relied on Fisher’s exact test. In other words, we tested if the provision of technical assistance—for each of the six kinds of support—by land grants/extension equals the state/USDA provider equals the nonprofits. A similar test was executed for the provision of information. The results suggest that the provision of technical assistance does not significantly vary, for each of the six areas of support, as the estimated Fisher’s exact test ranges from 0.07 to 0.60 (see Table 9). In contrast, the provision of information appears to vary across the organizations, with the Fisher’s exact test ranging from 0.01 to 0.03 for all types of support except for pricing.
Taken as a whole, the findings suggest that the three TA provider types offer different forms and types of support. Thus, they are not interchangeable in terms of meeting the outreach, technical assistance, and information needs of organic producers. That said, land-grant universities generally cover more types of support, although as reported by the study sample, their coverage is not comprehensive; nonproduction aspects such as marketing and prices are less well supported.
Barriers faced when providing services to organic producers
Because organic farming systems differ from non-organic systems, TA providers need to have specialized knowledge in order to support organic farmers. The extant body of literature tends not to consider the barriers that TA providers may face regarding supporting organic producers. The survey contained an open-ended question, asking TA providers to list their top three barriers to providing technical assistance or information to organic producers. The answers to the open-ended questions were coded and key concepts were identified through thematic analysis. Four broad categories were identified (see Table 10): farmer factors, funding, staffing, and broader reasons, although there are obvious overlaps within the categories.
Table 10. Barriers to providing technical assistance and information to organic producers reported by TA provider respondents
Note: The other category reflects the total number of comments mentioned by just 1 or 2 respondents.
The farmer-related reasons mentioned most often were lack of farmer interest, followed by no trust in USDA or farmer lack of confidence in the organic regulation. Funding and staff are closely related, and both were reported as key challenges to providing support to organic farmers. Funding challenges mentioned included a general lack of funding, lack of funding for staff, or lack of funding for organic specialists. Staffing reasons, which were described as a lack of staff and lack of time, were also commonly given as barriers. For example, one TA provider stated they lacked ‘… staff to reach out to nonorganic circles’.
In the category defined as broader reasons, key barriers offered include lack of knowledge, networks, or facilities to support hands-on training. The lack of an organic infrastructure was a barrier to both farming organically and supporting organic farmers; one example offered was that no local stores sold organic inputs. Many of the broader reasons offered relate to lack of funding, securing organic land and facilities for training, and increasing knowledge of organic systems required additional funding.
Organic farmers and technical assistance providers: are needs and services mismatched?
Weaving together the findings of the TA provider survey and farmer focus groups makes it possible to identify both where technical assistance meets farmer needs and where it falls short. The analysis suggested four key findings.
Finding 1: in many cases, technical assistance providers lack the necessary expertise needed to support organic producers
Farmers operating organic farms have specific needs regarding production, satisfying organic regulations, and accessing organic market channels. Thus, to be able to provide support to organic farmers, technical assistance providers need to understand the organic standards, organic production methods, and marketing of organic farm products. Technical assistance providers have many producers in their networks, and most of the producers they support are not farming organically. Exceptions are the few providers that specialize in organic production (such as ALBA in California), who serve only those engaged in or transitioning to organic production.
Most of the TA providers responding to the survey report gave assistance and information on matters related to farm production, and most indicates some expertise in supporting the transition to organic and helping with the farm’s organic system plan. The open-ended comments indicate that TA providers recognize they lack sufficient knowledge of organic systems and lack funding, staff, and resources such as organic land, to provide adequate support to organic producers. A TA provider indicated having a ‘…lack sufficient organic knowledge’; another was ‘… unsure where organic farmers are’; and another indicated that organic farms are too far away.
This lack of expertise was echoed in the farmer focus groups, and in one case extension sent producers to their farms to learn about organic production. However, even if extension for organic producers lacks effectiveness at a national scale, the focus groups indicated that some universities in the land grant system have robust programming for organic farmers. Most of this support targets farm production. Some farmers mentioned relying on information provided by extension based in a different state. Finally, moving from the farm to the market, providing organic farmers with information and assistance on pricing, sourcing, and marketing, is less well-developed.
The lack of markets, institutional support, and local infrastructure for distribution were all mentioned by TA providers as barriers to providing extension, outreach, or support to organic producers. In addition, given the relative scarcity of organic farmers around the US, compared to nonorganic farmers, it is likely to be prohibitively costly for each land-grant in every state to have organic production and marketing expertise.
Finding 2: farmers do not like the ‘extension as expert’ model
The extension agent as an expert model does not work well for organic farmers. The top-down model of providing technical assistance that currently exists assumes that the ‘expert’ has more information than the farmer. The farmers in the focus groups made one point very clear: they learn best from other farmers, and they have a strong preference for farmer-to-farmer information sharing.
And while many farmers are open to working with TA providers, some clearly object to the idea of receiving advice from nonfarmer experts. In the focus group discussions, the organic producers indicated they turned to other producers for guidance and rarely turned to technical assistance providers. This may be the result of experience, as some of the farmers in the focus groups mentioned not finding knowledgeable technical assistance providers in the land grant university system or finding extension staff hostile to organic. Their experience was echoed by TA providers, who reflected that TA repeatedly let organic farmers down in the past. Some TA providers were aware of this lack of trust in experts. A TA provider wrote, ‘Organic farmers gave up on TA after being let down’. Another mentioned that farmers ‘… don’t reach out to NRCS for organic TA,’ which the TA provider called a missed opportunity. The TA providers responding to the survey recognized that organic farmers do not regularly and consistently turn to them for guidance, with only 30% reporting high demand from organic producers.
The existing networks for technical assistance are poorly developed in terms of being able to provide organic farmers with interaction with other organic producers. Unfortunately, direct questions about supporting farmer peer mentoring were not included in the technical assistance provider survey. None of the open-ended comments mentioned incorporating these types of training, suggesting they are not on the minds of TA providers. Farmer conferences were important venues for farmers to meet and talk, especially for beginning farmers. Other ways to facilitate farmer-to-farmer learning are farmer boot camps, such as a week with other farmers and researchers at a research farm. Workshops that take place on a working organic farm, with a small group of producers, would similarly support farmer-to-farmer learning. A new grant program is being offered by the Organic Farming Research Foundation, which provides a small amount of financial support for farmer-led research trials (OFRF, n.d.).
Finding 3: non-land grant providers fill an important gap in technical assistance
Nonprofit organizations, according to the focus group farmers, have the potential to be an important source of support for organic producers. This was especially true for BIPOC farmers, who historically have been excluded from most types of farm programs, which likely translated to exclusion from other forms of support, such as training and information. The nonprofit TA providers responding to the survey were more likely to provide information than training.
The state and federal TA providers primarily focus on farm production, which is aligned with their likely role as conservation agents. Farmers in the focus group were mostly pleased with their interactions with NRCS staff, who often helped them make on-farm improvements. Nonprofit organizations can be important connectors by linking farmers to NRCS, particularly for those farmers who are unaware of how their operations can benefit from conservation programs. As one TA provider commented on the survey, organic producers do not automatically turn to NRCS for guidance. Improving those connections would increase organic farmers access to important conservation funds.
Finally, certifiers and inspectors are technically not TA providers. However, organic farmers regularly interact with their certifiers and inspectors and these interactions are especially helpful for beginning farmers. Most certifiers do provide information and training, both written and video, about organic farming practices, the organic systems plan, and other aspects of the farm operation. Certifiers were the only type of provider that reported that demand for TA was moderate or high, while some of the other types of providers indicated facing low demand from organic producers. In terms of meeting the organic regulations and developing an organic system plan, the certifier and inspector are both key to success.
Finding 4: little support is available for the nonproduction needs of an organic farm, including knowledge of farm programs for organic producers
Organic farmer marketing needs will vary, depending on whether they sell directly to consumers, to an intermediary, or directly to a retailer. The organic price premium, in particular, is necessary for organic farm profitability. For direct marketers, setting the right price is key, and being able to talk to buyers about why organic food costs more is essential. Those selling to intermediaries may not have price-setting ability, but still need to understand how to navigate negotiations and contracts. In some cases, organic farmers might need to justify the higher cost to intermediaries and retailers, who might be solely interested in paying a low price. Deciding where to market is an important decision, and finding buyers for organic products is often challenging.
Our findings show that the support that is offered by TA providers focuses on farm production. Nonproduction topics, such as sourcing, pricing, finding buyers, and marketing are not well covered by TA providers through either information or technical assistance. Even during the focus groups, when prompted by the moderator to discuss where organic farmers seek information for their operations—including marketing—the conversations centered on production aspects, including satisfying the requirements of the organic regulation. The focus group conversations suggest that farmers do not consider seeking information from TA providers on marketing aspects.
Marketing guidance is available for nonorganic producers, and in some cases, the information applies to organic producers as well. NCAT ATTRA, for example, provides marketing information for sustainable agricultural producers through videos, podcasts, and written material (NCAT ATTRA, n.d.). The main difference might be where to find a buyer for those producers not selling directly to consumers or retailers; since organic markets are small, connecting buyers and sellers may be difficult.
Farm programs offer important economic stability to farms, and organic producers are eligible to participate in crop insurance, and conservation programs, as well as receive a small cost share for their certification costs. The farmers in the focus groups talked at length about learning about the availability of funding for conservation, for example, from nonprofits and other organizations. TA providers reported receiving questions about cost share and conservation programming, which are the two programs providers understand best. Fewer received questions about crop insurance, of which they have a low knowledge, with more than half reporting no or little knowledge of crop insurance.
Limitations of the study
Selection bias likely influences these results, since organic interested TA providers were more likely to both receive and answer the survey, and the farmers participating in the focus group were interested in talking about their experiences on their farm operations.
Concluding thoughts and recommendations
The findings of this study add to the current state of understanding about how and whether TA meets the needs of organic producers in the US. Using primary data collected from both customers of TA (farmers) and the many types of providers that strive to support organic producers, we can assess the needs of farmers, the available support, gaps in service, and challenges faced by TA providers. The shortcomings, benefits, and obstacles identified provide new insight into the challenges faced by both organic producers and TA providers. Looking ahead, the potential reduction of price premiums for selling their organic products and new risks caused by climate events are highly likely to have an impact on the farm businesses. As the market continues growing and the climate continues to change, organic farmers will persistently face new challenges and the support of TA providers would help farmers maintain economically viable operations. That said, this study suggests that the technical support, in its current format, may be unable to serve as a ballast to organic producers. To meet the evolving needs of the organic sector, several factors need to be considered.
Structural problems make delivering TA to organic producers challenging. First is the relatively small number of organic farms, which are scattered around the country. Second, organic production patterns do not neatly echo nonorganic patterns, so modifying technical assistance is not as simple as adding an organic grain person to the extension support in a grain region. Third, the ‘extension as expert’ model is not always welcomed by organic producers.
One direction TA could take, particularly for land grant entities, would be to break organic out of the state-centered mold. This would mean creating production and marketing experts for different organic commodities who serve producers around the country, rather than focusing on experts in each state. Having 20–30 organic-specific TA providers, located around the nation, would allow the providers to build up organic expertise, since the providers would be able to invest in knowledge that supports organic farmers. This may give organic producers confidence in the advice shared by the organic specialist. The organic TA specialist would also need to develop expert knowledge of farm programs for organic producers, which may become more important over time as climate events continue to grow in intensity and frequency.
One benefit of the land grant and extension TA providers is the ability to bring current research findings into the practice of farming. Many land grant universities have organic farms, which conduct long-term research trials. More partnerships between researchers at land grant universities and organic farmers would enhance organic research, by allowing researchers to better target the needs of organic farmers. Similarly, researchers engaged in work examining organic markets would benefit from collaborations with organic producers, by improving applied questions. That said, connecting researchers and farmers has historically been challenging, leading some researchers to shift towards engaging in research using farmer participatory methods (see Delate et al., Reference Delate, Canali, Turnbull, Tan and Colombo2017; Snapp, DeDecker and Davis, Reference Snapp, DeDecker and Davis2019).
Similar to the shift in research to participatory methods, extension, and technical assistance may benefit from making a similar shift. The findings of this study suggest that changing the mode of support delivery is an important step. Rather than delivering fact sheets, facilitating farmer conversations and interactions is a preferred way to support organic farmers and their operations. Organic farmers may be isolated and distant from their peers. Making it possible for them to be together (especially funding their travel) is likely to have many benefits. Farmer workshops, on-farm site visits for groups of farmers, or farmer boot camps where farmers and researchers can work on a farm side by side, make it possible for farmers to share their experiences and their on-farm innovations with others. With specialized organic TA providers, shifting to more personal and organic-targeted events would be easier to accomplish and would have tremendous payoffs for the economic health of organic farms. Finally, nonprofit organizations and other businesses fill an important need in the organic sector and their contribution to the landscape of support for the organic sector is key. Expanding their roles as TA providers may provide another source of support for organic producers. Improving the support that organic farmers receive is critically important, given the complex and risky business environment organic farmers face, and would bring tremendous economic benefits to the organic farming sector as a whole.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful for the research assistance provided by former NYU graduate students Duncan Orlander and Sofia Bufaliza. We thank Ariel Looser for her assistance with the transcripts, and NCAT’s Felicia Bell and Lee Rhinehart for their willingness to lead two focus groups. We are especially thankful to the organic farmers and handlers who provided us with critical information. Finally, we are deeply appreciative of the guidance provided by our Project Advisory Council: Haley Baron, Deb Stinner, Meg Moynihan Stuedemann, Harn Soper, Marty Mesh, Abby Youngblood, Seth Wilner, Christine Pressman, and Rebecca Dunning.
Funding statement
The National Institute of Food and Agriculture’s OREI project 2020-51300-32182 partially funded this research. The findings and opinions are our own and do not reflect the views of USDA.
A. Appendix. Listed contacts for organic extension
Note: A spreadsheet with additional information is available from the corresponding author.
Open access
