Diversified Farmers Research Articles

Comparison of Farm Structures, Success Factors, Obstacles, Clients’ Expectations and Policy Wishes of Urban Farming’s Main Business Models in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

Low-cost specialization, differentiation, and diversification are common business models of urban farms in developed countries. Similarities and differences between them as well as detailed insights into specific farm characteristics are widely absent in scientific discourses. This paper compares farm structures, success factors, obstacles, clients’ expectations, and policy wishes between specialized, differentiated, and diversified farms as well as diversifiers into agriculture. A standardized questionnaire was used for 21 personal in-depth farm interviews located in metropolitan areas of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Being located in a metropolitan area is the most often named Unique Selling Proposition (USP). This is also mentioned as most important success factor followed by sociability and personal contact to clients, which both underpin the importance of direct producer-consumer linkages in urban settings. Additionally, it is assumed that a single food criterion is not sufficient to be successful, but several have to be merged to meet clients’ expectations. In terms of marketing, differentiated and diversified farmers prefer a multi-channel approach, while specialized farmers and diversifiers into agriculture focus mainly on one specific channel. While both specialized farmers and diversifiers into agriculture cultivate smaller areas of farmland, the latter one offers the greatest number of jobs including those outside agricultural production. The findings obtained are expected to support farms and agricultural advisory services in individual decision making of future business development strategies and increase knowledge of urban farming’s main business models.

Ornamental, crop, or invasive? The history of the Empress tree (Paulownia) in the USA

The Paulownia tree first arrived in the USA in the early nineteenth century and quickly transitioned from an exotic oddity to a beloved ornamental by some and a reviled invasive species by others. Many gardeners and horticulturalists praised the tree for its rapid growth and beautiful lavender blossoms. Critics thought the non-native tree a threat to native flora and sought its eradication. One species, Paulowniatomentosa, is invasive and has been especially vilified by organizations ranging from the National Park Service and National Forests Service to the US Department of Agriculture. Another species, Paulowniaelongata, started to gain attention as a viable domestic tree crop in the 1980s. Demand derived primarily from Asian countries, especially Japan where the tree had been traditionally used for dowry chests, furniture, and musical instruments. Due to over harvesting, Japan had suffered a severe shortage to the extent that Paulownia made up a large chunk of the country's wood imports. P. elongata and various hybrids are currently grown by Americans ranging from diversified farmers to businessmen and even former president Jimmy Carter. Paulownia growers believe that the tree's value expands beyond furniture and other carvings to environmental possibilities such as biofuels, biomass, electricity, and even air purification. Deemed a pest by some and a profitable commodity by others, the Paulownia has become a permanent part of the American landscape but measures must be taken to contain P.tomentosa and keep P.elongata from becoming invasive.

Smallholder Farmers and Collective Action: What Determines the Intensity of Participation?

AbstractCollective action through farmer groups can be an important strategy for smallholders to remain competitive in rapidly changing markets. Previous research has analysed determinants of farmer participation in groups, equating participation with group membership. However, within groups the commitment of members can vary, as marginal benefits and costs are not the same for all individuals, and opportunities to free‐ride exist. Low participation in collective activities may reduce the ability of groups to provide useful services to its members. This article investigates determinants of member participation intensity, using the example of farmer groups in Kenya. The role of individual and group characteristics is analysed with survey data and regression models. Previous benefits that members received through the group positively influence their intensity of participation in group meetings and collective marketing, suggesting that reciprocity motives play a role. Low participation can mostly be attributed to structural and institutional conditions, such as group size and the timing of payments for collective product sales. More diversified farmers are less likely to sell collectively when group marketing activities only concentrate on one particular commodity. Since smallholders are often highly diversified, the focus of farmer groups should also be broadened. Further policy implications are discussed.

Factors Influencing Adoption of Postharvest Practices in Vegetables

The vegetable sector plays a vital role in farm income enhancement and alleviation of poverty in many developing countries. However, this sector suffers greatly from the problem of high postharvest losses, resulting in significant declines in food quality and safety, competitiveness in the market, and profits earned by producers. This study analyzed the adoption behavior of vegetable growers for postharvest practices of washing, sorting and grading, preserving and cooling, dehydrating/drying, packaging, and labeling and storage for value addition based on a survey of 556 vegetable growers in eight districts of Uttar Pradesh. The Poisson count regression model was used to identify the most likely factors affecting adoption of postharvest practices in the vegetable value chain. It was determined that diversified vegetable farmers, inclined to introduce new crops, use credit, have higher income, employ better irrigation facilities, adopt integrated pest management techniques, and sell produce in organized markets, are more likely to adopt postharvest techniques. The results have implications for stakeholders involved in the vegetable value chain to improve the quantity and quality of produce delivered to consumers.

Entrepreneurs and producers: Identities of Finnish farmers in 2001 and 2006

The farmers' role within the EU has recently been under reconstruction: in addition to primary agricultural production farmers should fulfil multiple functions such as maintaining the rural landscape, conserving nature and providing services. One essential feature of this new role is the demand for entrepreneurship. Farmers should be capable of competing in the worldwide, global agricultural market. They are also encouraged to diversify into business activities beyond agriculture. How do farmers see themselves in this situation? Is their self-perception compatible with this new reconstruction of the farming economy and the farmers' role? Research, thus far, seems to indicate that traditional or production oriented identities are still dominant among farmers. But there is also some evidence that new identities, such as the entrepreneurial identity, are emerging. In our study we are especially interested in how Finnish farmers have met the demand for adapting to the role of an entrepreneur. We approach the issue of the farmers' changing role from a social psychological perspective by utilizing the concept of identity. Our empirical evidence comes from two nation-wide postal questionnaire data sets, both containing samples from three subgroups: conventional farmers focusing solely on primary agricultural production, diversified farmers who also had other business besides agricultural production, and rural non-agricultural small-scale businesses. The results show that Finnish farmers do not experience “entrepreneur” as something distant from themselves and as not fitting in with their world of ideas, as the work of some researchers would depict. Instead, the majority of Finnish farmers, especially diversified farmers, conceive of themselves both as entrepreneurs and as producers.

Conservation in a changing world: in situ conservation of the giant maize of Jala

Using survey data from Jala, Mexico, this case-study evaluates in situ maize conservation of the variety ‘Jala’ (Zea mays L.). Though historically ‘Jala’ was the dominant variety grown in the valley of Jala, today less than 20% of farmers grow it on only 5% of the maize area. Younger growers of the ‘Jala’ variety specialize in it, growing relatively large amounts for niche markets. Older, diversified farmers grow small areas for household use and to compete in a local contest. Conservation of the ‘Jala’ variety has been heavily influenced by shifting ideal concepts of maize, as determined by market and consumption demands and by a contest designed to promote in situ conservation. The current move away from nationalized purchasing may favor ‘Jala’s’ continued conservation.

AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE USE OF AN INCOME EQUALISATION DEPOSIT SCHEME BY COMMERCIAL FARMERS IN SOUTH AFRICA

Recent research suggests that an Income Equalisation Deposit (IED) scheme could be a feasible new risk management tool for commercial farmers in South Africa. This prompted a study of practicing consultants' (tax experts) views on determining what types of farmers would be likely to use the scheme. During 2000, a postal survey of 24 consultants was conducted mainly in KwaZulu-Natal, and in the Maize Triangle and surrounding areas. Each consultant was to review nine scenarios (eight plus a control, giving 192 observations) and decide whether they would recommend an IED scheme for each scenario. A statistical experimental design was used to structure the scenarios, allowing for main and interaction effects between variables that could influence the potential use of an IED scheme. Discriminant analysis revealed that, ceteris paribus, farmers with higher annual net farm incomes (>R300,000), lower debt/asset ratios (<15%), more variable net farm incomes, and less off-farm income would most likely use an IED scheme. In terms of ranking, ceteris paribus, high risk maize farmers, intermediate risk maize farmers and high risk livestock farmers are more likely to use an IED scheme than are low risk maize farmers, low and intermediate risk livestock farmers and diversified farmers. These results support the use of an IED scheme as a risk management tool as higher risk farmers are more likely to make use of the scheme.

都市・農村の新しい連携 交流から共生へ 都市・農村連携の視点からみた農産物直売活動

This paper investigates the possibility of farmers' market (FM) as a step for activating mutual association between urban and rural societies. Many farmers and consumers are gathering at FM, and they are exchanging not only farm products but also information about products or communities. In addition, FM has a flexible system on organization and marketing. It enables diversified farmers to participate in FM activity easily. Those characteristics of FM could contribute to boost mutual and continuous exchanges among people and to promote their self-organizing processes. Therefore, FM activity has a potential for developing fruitful urban-rural association.

Agricultural Research in Developed Countries: Past, Present, and Future of Farming Systems Research and Extension

In the developed countries, the conventional experiment station-based agricultural research system generally has served farmers well. In developing countries, however, the same model has had less success in addressing needs of many farmers, particularly those operating diversified farming systems in resource-poor and risk-prone environments. Hence, in the 1970s, the farming systems research and extension (FSRE) approach—which has a high degree of complementarity with experiment station-based research—evolved to address their needs. Prior to this was the development of some analogous farm-based approaches in the USA (e.g., balanced farming). In the USA, increasing concerns about limited research resources and ecological sustainability have sparked interest in harnessing the power of the farm-based and systems-oriented FSRE approach in a way that is complementary to other approaches and in a manner that produces results acceptable to all stakeholders (e.g., farmers, station-based researchers, extension/development staff, and planners of policy/support systems). The Problem In the high income, or so-called developed, countries the conventional experiment station-based agricultural research system has generally served farmers well. However, the issue of increasingly limited research resources together with rising concern about ecological sustainability and recognition that the needs of certain farmers (e.g., smaller and more diversified farmers) are not being sufficiently addressed, has prompted questions to be asked about the potential of greater use of on-farm, and hence farmer-based, research. Literature Summary The relative lack of success of the conventional station-based agricultural research system in many low income (i.e., developing) countries led to the evolution of a farmer-based research approach popularly known as farming systems research and extension. The extensive literature on this subject, combined with our own experience in its development and application, provides the impetus for this paper, which also draws on the burgeoning literature on farm-based research in the developed countries. Study Description After briefly charting the rationale and recent evolution of farmers' involvement in agricultural research in low and high income countries, we justify why on-farm research should be encouraged in the high income countries such as the USA. We finish by considering four issues that need addressing if the full potential of the complementarity between station-based (i.e., on-station) and farm-based (i.e., on-farm) research is to be exploited. Applied Questions Should on-farm research in the USA be encouraged? We believe that conventional station-based research and on-farm research have different roles, strengths, and weaknesses. The experience of others, and ourselves, has convinced us of the complementarity between the two approaches to research. Consequently, we believe that the two should be integrated (i.e., be part of a continuum) to a greater extent than is currently the case. Both constitute criticially important components of a well-balanced research program. Station-based research provides a convenient milieu for the continued application of the reductionist approach that has been so important in identifying ways to improve the productivity of agriculture. On the other hand, the efficiency of, and the return from, such research probably will be improved if it is complemented by on-farm research that can provide an ideal environment for involving the farmer in the research process, for placing research in a systems context, and for addressing location specificity, particularly with respect to ecological sustainabilty. What are the critical issues that must be addressed in exploiting the interactive linkages between station-based and on-farm research? There are at least four critically important issues with references to on-farm research that need resolution if there is to be truly effective, and mutually beneficial, interaction between those engaged in station-based research and those involved in on-farm research. The first involves the greater acceptance and incorporation of farmers in the research and the use of an interdisciplinary approach in eliciting their opinions and improving the potential accuracy and return from a more holistic systems perspective. Techniques developed in low-income countries, such as rapid rural appraisal, provide a cost effective starting point for addressing this issue. The second issue needing resolution involves carefully defining the type of on-farm trial to undertake based on considerations such as the objectives of the trial and who the major clients of the trial results are likely to be. Answers to such questions will determine the trial design and who manages and implements it. Such considerations will also have an influence on determining the costs of implementing trials on-farm. Resolving the issue of costs with respect to on-station and on-farm research requires further examination as does the issue of using experimental designs and analytical techniques in on-farm research that are acceptable to researchers based primarily on experiment stations. Experience in low-income countries has convinced us that the “them” and “us” mentality of experiment station-based and on-farm based researchers needs to be blurred deliberately through increased dialogue and direct collaboration between the two groups. Nevertheless, we recognize that this is likely to be a long and slow process.

Household food security, nutrition and crop diversification among smallholder farmers in the highlands of Guatemala

The study examined economic, food security and nutrition outcomes associated with crop diversification among small farm households in the Western Highlands of Guatemala. The analysis pulled together data from a farm production and household expenditure survey, and a food intake and anthropometry survey, conducted in the same group of highland farmers but with an interval of eight months. The sample of farmers and their households were classified ex post according to different crop mixes. Compared to traditional maize farmers, small farmers and their households who diversified to potatoes were more likely to suffer adverse income, food security and nutritional status effects; wheat and vegetable growers and potato farmers with larger farms were likely to encounter increased household incomes. However, no significant improvements in household and individual food security were associated with income increases among diversified farmers and members of their households.

Participatory research: A farmer's perspective

AbstractU.S. land grant institutions currently follow? “top-down” model of research and extension in which farmers are the passive recipients of research results based on perceived needs which have been identified, prioritized, and investigated by scientists with little input from the end users. This exclusionary approach was designed to meet the needs of large scale, mono-cultural farming systems. However small scale, diversified, integrated systems are better served by a more participatory approach to research and extension in which farmers are actively involved as peers of researchers and extensionists in identifying research needs, designing and implementing experimental protocols, and delivering research results. This paper provides a brief outline of an alternative to the top-down approach termed “Farmers-First-and-Last”, developed and tested by Robert Chambers of the Institute of Developmental Studies, which has been effective in working with diversified farmers in developing countries.