Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
However, the adoption and diffusion of practices is an ongoing process, and each sector of the
farm has its own specific processes of change and innovations. Therefore, we argue that the
transformation process is a non-linear cyclic innovation process (cf. Cheng & Van de Ven 1996).
The transformation process is not a predetermined process and it neither follows one pattern nor
ends up with the same result. On the contrary, there are differences concerning the extent of
“change”; e.g. between farm types (e.g. dairy farms, vegetable or hog farms), agro-ecological
zones (e.g. mountainous or arable regions), cultural impacts (e.g. farmer-consumer co-operations
or export oriented production; country and region specifications) and farmers following a
resource limited approach and those who are engaged in “substitution organics” (see Guthman
2004a; Guthman 2004b), These different types could be classified as transformation types,
defined by their starting point and their target intensity and the degree of change. However,
types presented in Table 1, are not more than a simplified picture of this diversity.
Transformation
type / farm level
Low change
Low change
Low-medium
change
a) high b) low
change
Starting intensity
non-organic
Low input*, part-
time farmer
Low input,
fulltime farmer
Integrated
farming, fulltime
farmer
High input, part-
time or fulltime
farmer
Organic target
intensity
(Agricultural
intensity)
Low input**, part
time or fulltime
farmer / often
modernized
Low input,
fulltime farmer /
often modernized
Low-medium
input, fulltime
farmer /
modernized
a) low input b) high
input / fulltime
farmer /
modernized
* Input: Herbicides, pesticides, mineral fertilizers, livestock unit per ha
** In the framework of the Basic Standards: mineral (Phosphorous, Potassium) and organic fertilizers
and “organic” certified pesticides; livestock unit per ha; share of fodder legumes in the crop rotation
Table 1. Diversity of transformation types
A wide variety of issues related to the transformation process have been studied over the
last two decades. The driving forces for transformation to organic farming involve a broad
set of motivations, which might be environmentally, economically, religiously or ethically
driven (Cranfield et al. 2010; Khaledi 2007; Locke 2006; Engel 2006; Darnhofer 2006;
Darnhofer et al. 2005). According to Cranfield et al. (2010), we differentiate between four
types of farmer motivations, which are approximations of what we find in reality:
To find an economic solution for the farm: economic survival, market strategies, farm
reorganization
To take care for the environment: nature protection, water protection, soil fertility
To avoid risks and to increase health: to exclude unhealthy methods, to recover health
To follow and fulfill idealistic motives: to live a self-realized, spiritual, religious, value
driven life
These different motivation types underlie the transformation process and go beyond a
change and reorganization of techniques. This observation also explains that there are more
than enough reasons that the perspectives of researchers on the transformation processes
highlight a broad spectrum of topics. Some of these are: the challenges in the transformation
period in a broader context (Lamine & Bellon 2008; Padel 2001; Tress 2001; Lockeretz 1995;
Freyer et al. 1994; Lampkin 1994; Freyer 1991; Rantzau et al. 1990); production and economic
(Schneeberger et al. 2002; Dabbert 1994); investment (Odening et al. 2004); market processes
(Tranter et al. 2009); transformation planning (Goswami & Ali 2011; Ács 2006; Freyer 1994;
Lampkin 1992; Dabbert 1991; MacRae et al. 1989); and the systemic characteristics of the
Search WWH ::
Custom Search