Proceedings of the Workshop Curriculum Development for Organic Horticulture
Sponsored by ASHS Organic Horticulture Working Group (ORGH)
21 July 2005 Las Vegas, Nevada
● July–September 2006 16(3) 413
JJuly2006HT.indbuly2006HT.indb 413413 66/7/06/7/06 110:57:390:57:39 AMAM Curriculum Development for Organic Horticulture: Introduction
M. Ngouajio1, K. Delate2, E. Carey3, A.N. Azarenko4, J.J. Ferguson5, and W.J.Sciarappa6
ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS. certificate, major, minor, sustainable agriculture, teaching, training
SUMMARY. As organic agriculture continues to grow, pressure from students and the public to develop novel curricula to address specifi c needs of this sector of agriculture also will increase. More students from the cities and with limited background in production agricul- ture are enrolling in agricultural programs with special interest in organic production. This new student population is demanding new curricula based on a better understanding of agroecology principles and more experiential training. Several universities throughout the nation have engaged in a profound curriculum transformation to satisfy the emerging need of students in organic production. This workshop was organized to bring together experts that are working on different organic and sustainable agriculture curricula throughout the country to share their experiences and lessons learned. Most of these curricula include a tra- ditional classroom teaching component, a major experiential component, a student farm for hands-on experience and internships, and in some cases a marketing—typically a community supported agriculture (CSA)—component. Others programs are more extension oriented, providing applied training to growers outside of the university teaching curriculum.
raditional agriculture teaching programs at the graduate and undergraduate levels across the nation and the world Thave been undergoing signifi cant transformation in the last decades. General enrollment has declined steadily since the early 1990s (Bradley et al., 2003; Dyer et al., 1996, 1999; Newcomb, 1993) and more and more students from the cities (with limited farming background) are getting interested in agriculture (Borsari and Vidrine, 2005; Dyer et al., 1996, 1999). The impetus for cur- riculum change is driven by pressure from the general public, stu- dents, and academic community (Boyer Commission, 1988; Na- tional Research Council, 1996; St. Hilaire and Thompson, 2005). As we become increasingly aware of agriculture as a key component of our ecosystem, there is greater need to use sustainable produc- tion practices. In a recent survey conducted in the United States and foreign countries, Borsari and Vidrine (2005) and Borsari et al. (2002) found a general consensus toward the emergence of sustain- able agriculture as a cornerstone of agricultural programs despite the large diversity in the different curricula. This interest has led to the creation of many programs on sustainable agriculture across the country in the last decade. As a part of the new trend there has been a renewed interest in organic agriculture. The organic production
1Michigan State University, Department of Horticulture, East Lansing, MI 48824. 2Iowa State University, Departments of Horticulture and Agronomy, Ames, IA 50011. 3Kansas State University, K-State Research and Extension Center, Olathe, KS 66061. 4Oregon State University, Department of Horticulture, Corvallis, OR 97331. 5University of Florida, Horticultural Sciences Department, Gainesville, FL 32611. 6Rutgers University, Rutgers Research and Extension, Monmouth County, Freehold, NJ 07728.
414 ● July–September 2006 16(3)
JJuly2006HT.indbuly2006HT.indb 414414 66/7/06/7/06 110:57:390:57:39 AMAM segment has maintained the fastest growth rate in agricul- of California, Santa Cruz (Shennan and Miles, 2005), University of Florida ture over the last decade. Students from numerous Ameri- (Ferguson et al., 2006), University of can universities have joined the trend and are demanding Idaho (Beaver, 2005), and University or initiating the discussion on developing specifi c curricula of Minnesota (Markhart, 2006). Key components of the programs are in- for organic production. Yet there are currently few, if any, dicated in Tables 1 and 2. There were programs that have been developed specifi cally for organic multiple questions that were explored by the speakers at the workshop. Should agriculture. However, several universities are in the initial there be a specifi c curriculum for or- phase of curriculum development for organic production ganic agriculture? What are some of either as a separate program or as an integral component of the common factors in the programs currently being developed? This article a sustainable or agroecology program. Extension program- summarizes some of the key questions, ming is also increasingly responding to grower and consum- issues, and answers discussed. er demand for information on organic production (Beaver, The need for an organic 2005; Carey et al. 2006). agriculture curriculum Speakers at the workshop recog- In order to share these important issue of HortTechnology as full papers. nized several factors that justify the experiences, the American Society for Included are programs at Iowa State need for an organic curriculum. These Horticultural Science (ASHS) through University (Delate, 2006), Kansas included: its working group on Organic Horti- State University (Carey et al., 2006), • Growth of organic agriculture culture (ORGH) organized a workshop Michigan State University (Biernbaum • Linkage with sustainable ag- entitled “Curriculum Development for et al., 2006), North Carolina State riculture, natural resources and the Organic Horticulture.” Ten presen- University (Schroeder et al., 2006), environment tations were made by experts from Oregon State University (Stone et al., • New generation of students various universities across the country 2005), University of California, Davis • Student involvement in the and most of those are published in this (Parr and Van Horn, 2006), University training process
Table 1. Examples of organic (sustainable) agriculture curricula across the U.S.z Type University Program name/facility Major Minor Certifi cate Undergraduate Graduate Other University Interdisciplinary minor in Proposed Yes --- Yes ------of Florida organic and sustainable crop production/center for organic agriculture (COA) Michigan State Organic farming program ------Yes Yes Proposed --- University /Student Organic Farm (SOF) North Carolina Interdisciplinary agroecology/ Proposed Yes --- Yes Yes Yesy State University center for environmental farming systems University of Student Experimental Farm (SEF) Proposed ------Proposed Yesx --- California, Davis Iowa State Graduate program in sustainable Yes Yes No No Yes Yesw University agriculture Kansas State Growing Growers Training Program ------Yesw Yes --- Yesv University Oregon State Ecological and sustainable Proposed ------Yes --- Yesx University horticultural farming/food systems University Sustainable small acreage farming No No Yes ------of Idaho education program University Student Organic Farm ------of Minnesota zCompiled from multiple sources: Beaver, 2005; Biernbaum et al., 2006; Carey et al., 2006; Delate, 2006; Ferguson et al., 2006; Markhart, 2006; Parr and Van Horn, 2006; Schroeder et al., 2006; Stone et al., 2005. yProgram also includes a “sustainable agriculture summer internship program” and an “apprenticeship in sustainable agriculture program.” xUniversity of California, Davis, graduate programs include an agroecology area of emphasis in Ecology Graduate Group. wExtension organic program. vApprenticeship program provides nondegree experiential learning for those interested in market gardens/farms. Undergraduates may participate for university internship credit. Incorporation into continuing education program is planned.
● July–September 2006 16(3) 415
JJuly2006HT.indbuly2006HT.indb 415415 66/7/06/7/06 110:57:390:57:39 AMAM Table 2. Some characteristics of the organic/sustainable education curricula.z Student Farm Program involvement Certifi ed Size (acres)y CSAx Internship Teaching University of Florida Yes Yes 10 No No Michigan State University Yes Yes 10 Yes Proposed Program North Carolina State University Yes No 11w No Yes Facilityidentity Marketing University of California, (name) Davis Yes Yes 20 Yes Yes Iowa State University Yes Nov 6 No No Kansas State University Yesu No 0 No Yes Experiential Oregon State University Yes Yes 12t No Yes University of Idaho Yes Yes 3 Yes Yes University of Minnesota Yes No 1 No No zCompiled from multiple sources: Beaver, 2005; Biernbaum et al., 2006; Carey et al., 2006; Delate, 2006; Ferguson Fig. 1. Factors common to many et al., 2006; Markhart, 2006; Parr and Van Horn, 2006; Schroeder et al., 2006; Stone et al., 2005. organic programs currently being y1 acre = 0.4047 ha. xCommunity supported agriculture. developed. The facility is generally a wAn 11-acre “Student Farm” is located within a 2000-acre farm. farm (certifi ed or not) and a housing vA 46-acre certifi ed organic farm is available for student research and demonstration projects. complex for students. The teaching uIn this extension program, the client/trainee population of current and future growers was involved and continues component includes agroecology, sus- to be involved in shaping the program. tThis acreage is certifi ed research farmland that supports the undergraduate and graduate teaching mission. tainability, soil building and alterna- tive farm approaches, critical thinking, integrative approaches, and the bal- GROWTH OF ORGANIC AGRICUL- ment in favor of new curricula was ance among social, agricultural, and TURE. With a steady growth rate of not always welcomed by the faculty. environmental sciences. The experien- about 20% in retail sales between However, with time student advocacy tial component includes internships, 1990 and 2002, organic agriculture for organic and sustainable agriculture practical projects, or research projects. has emerged as a mainstream activ- led to the creation of certifi cate, minor, The marketing component is typically ity (Dimitri and Greene, 2002). The and major programs at several universi- the management of a Community number of organic growers continues ties (Table 1). Supported Agriculture unit. to increase, thereby creating the need to train organic farmers, extension Common factors among were either certifi ed (Biernbaum et agents, advisors, and consultants. A organic curricula al., 2006; Ferguson et al., 2006; Parr strict respect of the organic standards is Key factors (Fig. 1) common to and Van Horn, 2006) or not certifi ed critical for organic growers. The neces- most curricula included 1) program (Schroeder et al., 2006). The size of sity to follow these rules furthered the identity, 2) traditional classroom teach- the farm varied from 10 acres or less need to develop courses on “organic ing, 3) major experiential training, 4) to about 20 acres (1 acre = 0.4047 ha) principles and practices.” Organic ag- a facility, usually a student farm, for (Beaver, 2005; Biernbaum et al., 2006; riculture requires a new set of skills hands-on experience and internships, Ferguson et al., 2006; Parr and Van (soil quality building, weed, pest, and and 5) an applied marketing unit - fre- Horn, 2006; Schroeder et al., 2006). At disease management, and marketing) quently a CSA program. These factors North Carolina State, A 2000-acre ex- that are not taught at traditional agri- are most easily applied to integrated perimental farm is available for student cultural programs and therefore new curricula targeting university student research and demonstration projects, and more appropriate curricula need populations, but also apply to extension while 11 acres are specifi cally cropped to be created. programs training new organic growers by students during the year (Schro- NEW GENERATION OF STUDENTS. In (Carey et al., 2006). eder et al., 2006). In addition to the a study conducted at the University of PROGRAM IDENTITY. The central “organic” farm, some of the programs Illinois, Dyer et al. (1996) found that piece for most sustainable/organic had apartment housing where students the majority of new freshman in the col- programs has been a specifi c name for stay during their internship. lege of agriculture had no background its identity (Table 1). Most programs THE TEACHING COMPONENT. The in agriculture. This is in contrast with tended to embrace the whole sector of instructional topics of most programs the situation a few decades ago when sustainable agriculture rather than be- focused on agroecology, sustainabil- most students in agricultural programs ing limited to organic agriculture. The ity, soil building and alternative farm had a farm background. Today, the new program at the University of Florida approaches while the educational student body requires more experien- was one of the few that specifi cally framework involved critical thinking, tial training than in the past. mention “organic” in its title (Table integrative approaches, and the bal- STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN THE 1). Despite the large scope of most ance among social, agricultural, and TRAINING PROCESS. Student involve- programs, organic agriculture was a environmental sciences. ment was identifi ed by all speakers as center piece. THE EXPERIENTIAL COMPONENT. a major impetus to the current trend THE FACILITY. A farm was a key All programs emphasized experiential in organic curriculum development component common to most curricula training as a major component of (Table 2). In some universities, move- (Tables 1 and 2, Fig. 1). The farms their curriculum. This deeper level of
416 ● July–September 2006 16(3)
JJuly2006HT.indbuly2006HT.indb 416416 66/7/06/7/06 110:57:400:57:40 AMAM involvement satisfi es student requests Dyer, J.E., R. Lacey, and E.W. Os- for more active learning (St. Hilaire and Literature cited borne.1996. Attitude of University of Thompson, 2005). The experiential Illinois College of Agriculture freshmen to- training included internships at the Beaver, T. 2005. Developing a certifi cate ward agriculture. J. Agr. Educ. 37:33–42 in sustainable, small acreage farming and program farm, internships at growers’ ranching. HortScience 40:990. (Abstr.). Ferguson, J.J., E. Lamb, and M. Swisher. farm, small practical projects, disserta- 2006. Developing an interdisciplinary tions and theses. The duration of the Biernbaum, J.A., L. Thorp, and M. Ngoua- organic and sustainable agriculture cur- internship also varied signifi cantly jio. 2006. Development of the Michigan riculum at the University of Florida. Hort- among institutions and depended State University year-round student or- Technology 16:436–438. strongly on the nature and goals of ganic farm and organic farming curriculum. HortTechnology 16:432–436. Markhart, A.H. III. 2006. Organic edu- their particular program. cational opportunities at the University THE MARKETING COMPONENT Borsari, B. and M.F. Vidrine. 2005. of Minnesota: The role of a student-run (TYPICALLY AS A CSA). Although Undergraduate agriculture curricula in organic farm. HortTechnology 16:443– community-supported agriculture was sustainability: An evaluation across borders. 445. J. Sustainable Agr. 25:93–112. recognized as an important component Newcomb, L.H. 1993. Transforming of an organic agriculture curriculum, Borsari, B., M.F. Vidrine, and S. Doherty. University programs of agricultural educa- only a few universities have integrated 2002. Assessing students’ preparedness tion. J. Agr. Educ. 34:1–10. 1 Apr. 2006. a CSA farm into their organic curricu- towards sustainability in US and European
● July–September 2006 16(3) 417
JJuly2006HT.indbuly2006HT.indb 417417 66/7/06/7/06 110:57:410:57:41 AMAM