IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ccsesa/230388.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Keeping the Actors in the Organic System Learning: The Role of Organic Farmers’ Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Vogl, Christian R.
  • Kummer, Susanne
  • Leitgeb, Friedrich
  • Schunko, Christoph
  • Aigner, Magdalena

Abstract

The creative process that leads to farmers’ innovations is rarely studied or described precisely in agricultural sciences. For academic scientists, obvious limitations of farmers’ experiments are e.g. precision, reliability, robustness, accuracy, validity or the correct analysis of cause and effect. Nevertheless, we propose that ‘farmers’ experiments’ underpin innovations that keep organic farming locally tuned for sustainability and adaptable to changing economic, social and ecological conditions. We first researched the structure and role of farmers’ experiments by conducting semi-structured interviews of 47 organic farmers in Austria and 72 organic/agroecology farmers in Cuba in 2007 and 2008. Seventysix more structured interviews explored the topics and methods used by Austrian farmers that were ‘trying something’. Farmers engaged in activities that can be labelled as farmers experiments because these activities include considerable planning, manipulating variables, monitoring effects and communicating results. In Austria and Cuba 487 and 370 individual topics, respectively, were mentioned for experimenting by the respondents. These included topics like the introduction of new species or varieties, testing various ways of commercialization or the testing of alternative remedies. Two thirds (Austria) and one third (Cuba) of the farmers who experimented had an explicit mental or written plan before starting. In both countries, the majority of the farmers stated that they set up their experiments first on a small scale and expanded them if the outcome of the experiments was satisfactory. Repetitions were done by running experiments in subsequent years and the majority of the farmers monitored the experiments regularly. In both countries, many experiments were not discrete actions but nested in time and space. For further research on learning and innovation in organic farming we propose an explicit appreciation of farmers’ experiments, encouraging further in-depth research on the details of the farmers’ experimental process and encouraging the inclusion of farmers’ experiments in strategies for innovation in organic and non organic farming. Strategic research and innovation agendas for organic farming would benefit from including organic farmers as co-researchers in all steps of the research process in order to encourage co-learning between academic scientists and organic farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Vogl, Christian R. & Kummer, Susanne & Leitgeb, Friedrich & Schunko, Christoph & Aigner, Magdalena, 2015. "Keeping the Actors in the Organic System Learning: The Role of Organic Farmers’ Experiments," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 4(3 Special).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ccsesa:230388
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.230388
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/230388/files/p140_140-148_.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.230388?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Volker Hoffmann & Kirsten Probst & Anja Christinck, 2007. "Farmers and researchers: How can collaborative advantages be created in participatory research and technology development?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 24(3), pages 355-368, September.
    2. Andreas Neef & Dieter Neubert, 2011. "Stakeholder participation in agricultural research projects: a conceptual framework for reflection and decision-making," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(2), pages 179-194, June.
    3. Pretty, Jules N., 1995. "Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(8), pages 1247-1263, August.
    4. Sumberg, James & Okali, Christine & Reece, David, 2003. "Agricultural research in the face of diversity, local knowledge and the participation imperative: theoretical considerations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 739-753, May.
    5. Unknown, 2005. "Agriculture In Transition," Economics of Agriculture, Institute of Agricultural Economics, vol. 52(1).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexis Beyuo & Nana Akua Anyidoho, 2022. "An Impact Assessment of Farmer Participation on Food Security in Northwestern Ghana," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 34(4), pages 1831-1856, August.
    2. Kummer, Susanne & Leitgeb, Friedrich & Vogl, Christian R., 2017. "Farmers’ Own Research: Organic Farmers’ Experiments in Austria and Implications for Agricultural Innovation Systems," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 6(1), February.
    3. Merfield, Charles & Moller, Henrik & Manhire, Jon & Rosin, Chris & Norton, Solis & Carey, Peter & Hunt, Lesley & Reid, John & Fairweather, John & Benge, Jayson & Quellec, Isabelle Le & Campbell, Hugh , 2015. "Are Organic Standards Sufficient to Ensure Sustainable Agriculture? Lessons From New Zealand’s ARGOS and Sustainability Dashboard Projects," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 4(3 Special).
    4. Mallory, Ellen B. & Halberg, Niels & Andreasen, Lise & Delate, Kathleen & Ngouajio, Mathieu, 2015. "Innovations in Organic Food Systems for Sustainable Production and Ecosystem Services: An Introduction to the Special Issue of Sustainable Agriculture Research," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 4(3 Special).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elena Pagliarino & Secondo Rolfo, 2021. "Examining Researchers’ Attitudes, Barriers, and Opportunities for Participatory Research: The Case of the Riso-Biosystems Project on Organic Rice," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-24, April.
    2. Kraaijvanger, Richard & Veldkamp, Tom & Almekinders, Conny, 2016. "Considering change: Evaluating four years of participatory experimentation with farmers in Tigray (Ethiopia) highlighting both functional and human–social aspects," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 38-50.
    3. Andreas Neef & Dieter Neubert, 2011. "Stakeholder participation in agricultural research projects: a conceptual framework for reflection and decision-making," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(2), pages 179-194, June.
    4. Luján Soto, Raquel & Cuéllar Padilla, Mamen & de Vente, Joris, 2020. "Participatory selection of soil quality indicators for monitoring the impacts of regenerative agriculture on ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    5. Aurélie Cardona & Cristiana Carusi & Michael Mayerfeld Bell, 2021. "Engaged Intermediaries to Bridge the Gap between Scientists, Educational Practitioners and Farmers to Develop Sustainable Agri-Food Innovation Systems: A US Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-13, October.
    6. Kummer, Susanne & Leitgeb, Friedrich & Vogl, Christian R., 2017. "Farmers’ Own Research: Organic Farmers’ Experiments in Austria and Implications for Agricultural Innovation Systems," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 6(1), February.
    7. Salembier, Chloé & Segrestin, Blanche & Berthet, Elsa & Weil, Benoît & Meynard, Jean-Marc, 2018. "Genealogy of design reasoning in agronomy: Lessons for supporting the design of agricultural systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 277-290.
    8. Ingram, Julie & Dwyer, Janet & Gaskell, Peter & Mills, Jane & Wolf, Pieter de, 2018. "Reconceptualising translation in agricultural innovation: A co-translation approach to bring research knowledge and practice closer together," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 38-51.
    9. Schindler, Jana & Graef, Frieder & König, Hannes Jochen, 2016. "Participatory impact assessment: Bridging the gap between scientists' theory and farmers' practice," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 38-43.
    10. Klerkx, Laurens & Nettle, Ruth, 2013. "Achievements and challenges of innovation co-production support initiatives in the Australian and Dutch dairy sectors: A comparative study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 74-89.
    11. Colleen M. Eidt & Laxmi P. Pant & Gordon M. Hickey, 2020. "Platform, Participation, and Power: How Dominant and Minority Stakeholders Shape Agricultural Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, January.
    12. O.M. Joffre & S.A. Castine & M.J. Phillips & S. Senaratna Sellamuttu & D. Chandrabalan & P. Cohen, 2017. "Increasing productivity and improving livelihoods in aquatic agricultural systems: a review of interventions," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(1), pages 39-60, February.
    13. Livia Fritz & Claudia R. Binder, 2018. "Participation as Relational Space: A Critical Approach to Analysing Participation in Sustainability Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-29, August.
    14. Corrado Ciaccia & Marta Di Pierro & Elena Testani & Giancarlo Roccuzzo & Marcello Cutuli & Danilo Ceccarelli, 2019. "Participatory Research towards Food System Redesign: Italian Case Study and Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-12, December.
    15. Rosana Maria Kral & Rizki Maftukhah & Axel Mentler & Murtiningrum Murtiningrum & Ngadisih Ngadisih & Katharina Maria Keiblinger, 2020. "Citizen Science in the Field: Co-experimentation at Pilot Scale for Sustainable Use of Natural Resources," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-18, September.
    16. Jana Schindler & Frieder Graef & Hannes Jochen König & Devotha Mchau, 2017. "Developing community-based food security criteria in rural Tanzania," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(6), pages 1285-1298, December.
    17. Saeed Rasekhi & Saman Ghaderi, 2012. "Marginal intra-industry trade and adjustment costs: the case study of Iran’s manufacturing industries," International Journal of Economics and Business Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 4(1/2), pages 35-43.
    18. Olivier Blanchard & Michael Kremer, 1997. "Disorganization," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(4), pages 1091-1126.
    19. Klaus Deininger & Denys Nizalov & Sudhir K Singh, 2013. "Are mega-farms the future of global agriculture? Exploring the farm size-productivity relationship for large commercial farms in Ukraine," Discussion Papers 49, Kyiv School of Economics.
    20. Shuhua Zhang & Bingjun Li & Yingjie Yang, 2021. "Efficiency Analysis of Scientific and Technological Innovation in Grain Production Based on Improved Grey Incidence Analysis," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-21, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ccsesa:230388. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ccsenet.org/sar .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.