Converting to organic farming as a way to enhance adaptivecapacity

Maëlys Bouttes & Ika Darnhofer & Guillaume Martin

Received: 19 December 2017 /Accepted: 20 July 2018 /Published online: 31 July 2018# The Author(s) 2018

Abstract Farmers are facing an increasingly turbulentcontext, driven by volatile markets, shifting policies,and new societal expectations. Insights into farmers’adaptive capacity are helpful to understand how farmersperceive various options, and what they think is neces-sary to enable their farms to persist through uncertaintimes.We focus on dairy farmers, who have faced strongmarket volatility in the last few years. We conductedinterviews with 20 dairy farmers who were starting theirconversion to organic farming in Aveyron, France. Theanalysis showed that the interviewed farmers perceivedorganic farming as less risky, especially given stableprices and positive consumer perception. Also, theyexpected organic farming to increase their autonomy,especially regarding feed, thus reducing their farm’sexposure to volatile input prices. Interviewed farmerswere aware of technical risks linked to new productionpractices but were confident in their ability to managethem. Organic farming was also perceived as stimulat-ing their learning, especially through a collective dy-namic and an open exchange of experiences. Theinterviewed farmers expected that the higher prices oforganic milk would enable them to reduce the number ofcows, thus reducing their workload. This would give

them more time to observe, reflect, experiment, andlearn, thus not only increasing their professional satis-faction but also enabling them to better copewith chang-es. Overall, they perceived organic farming as an attrac-tive option to maintain the viability of their family farm,an important motivation given their rootedness in theterritory. The interviews thus showed that their decisionto convert to organic farming was driven by their ex-pectation that it would enhance their adaptive capacity,thus enabling them to better face current turbulences andfuture changes in the broader context.

Keywords Dairy farming . Transition . Adaptiveness .

Vulnerability . Resilience . Farmmanagement

Introduction

Farmers are facing an increasingly turbulent context.They have to cope with policy shifts, volatile commod-ity markets, global competition, increasingly stringentenvironmental regulations, and more frequent extremeclimatic events, as well as changes in consumer prefer-ences and societal expectations. Whether a farm is vul-nerable to these changes or whether it is able to adaptand cope with them depends to a large extent on itsadaptive capacity (Darnhofer et al. 2010). Indeed, vul-nerability is generally understood as dependent on asystem’s exposure to hazards, its sensitivity to thesehazards, and its adaptive capacity (Smit and Wandel2006; Marshall et al. 2014). While exposure and sensi-tivity determine the potential impacts of a hazard,

Org. Agr. (2019) 9:235–247https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-018-0225-y

M. Bouttes :G. MartinAGIR, Université de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, INP-EI Purpan,31320 Auzeville, France

I. Darnhofer (*)University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna,Feistmantelstr. 4, 1180 Vienna, Austriae-mail: ika.darnhofer@boku.ac.at

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s13165-018-0225-y&domain=pdf

adaptive capacity enables to mitigate these impacts(Marshall et al. 2013). Adaptive capacity thus refers tothe potential to cope with novel situations and enableadaptation, without losing options for the future (Nelsonet al. 2007).

At the farm level, adaptive capacity depends on thefarm’s organization, e.g., the diversity of activities andmarketing channels, and on the farmer him/herself, e.g.,through his/her monitoring of the context and engagingin learning processes (Darnhofer et al. 2010). While anumber of studies that assess adaptive capacity (e.g.,Astigarraga and Ingrand 2011; David et al. 2010) focuson the activities at the farm level, this paper focuses onfarmers’ perception. As Flaten et al. (2005) point out, itis important to understand how farmers evaluate alter-natives, to understand their frame of reference. Farmers’choices are driven by the criteria they think are impor-tant to secure the future of their farm and by theirsubjective perception of options. Indeed, studies haveshown the importance of farmer subjectivity and of theambition to be a Bgood farmer^ (Burton 2004).

Recently, the strong turbulences on the milk marketchallenged many dairy farmers. After several decadeswhen milk prices were regulated or the produced quan-tities subject to quotas, the milk market in the EuropeanUnion was deregulated in March 2015. In a context of aweak demand on global markets, in France—as in muchof the European Union—this liberalization contributedto a rapid and strong drop in prices paid to farmers forraw milk. Many conventional dairy farmers were facedwith prices that did not cover their production costs,which led to protests organized by farmer associationsacross Europe and ultimately to interventions by theEuropean Commission (European Commission 2016).As it is unclear when conventional milk prices wouldrecover, farmers started to consider alternative markets.Some perceived entering organic markets as a promisingstrategy, as the price for organic raw milk was higherand has remained relatively stable following marketderegulation. And indeed, organic farming may be per-ceived by farmers as offering levers to adapt their farmsin the face of rising market turbulences (Milestad andDarnhofer 2003).

In this paper, we explore whether farmers expect thatconverting to organic farming will improve their abilityto face changes. Our aim is to better understand whataspects of organic farming they perceive as increasingtheir adaptive capacity. In the next section, we brieflydescribe the case study region and the approach to data

collection, and characterize the farms. In the BResultsand discussion^ section, we present and discuss how thefarmers perceived that they would enhance the adaptivecapacity of their farm through converting to organicfarming. This covers four areas: why they perceive thatconverting reduces risk and uncertainty; how they feelthat organic farming enhances their ability to plan, ex-periment, and learn; why they perceive organic farmingas enhancing their ability to cope with change; and towhat extent they feel they need to change to enable theirfamily farm to persist. We conclude that the interviewedfarmers perceived converting to organic farming as away to enhance their adaptive capacity in four ways:reducing risks, stimulating learning, increasing profes-sional satisfaction, and enabling to maintain familyfarms in the area (Fig. 1).

Material and methods

The case study is located in Aveyron, a mountainousdepartment in southwestern France with very varied soiland climatic conditions. The area was selected, as itallowed us to study a group of farmers concurrentlyengaging in the conversion to organic farming. Indeed,until 2015, out of about 1200 dairy farms in Averyron(CA Midi-Pyrénées 2012), 40 were organic(FranceAgriMer 2016), while in 2016, some 50 farmersdecided to convert. This was in large part due to a dairythat previously processed mostly conventional milk butin 2015 decided to increase its engagement in the or-ganic milk market. After joining forces with Chineseinvestors, the dairy’s strategy was to produce organicmilk powder for the Chinese and the European market.It aimed to increase the amount of organic milk proc-essed in its local plant from 8 to 46million liters by 2021(Doumayzel 2017). To achieve this aim, the dairy wasactively encouraging dairy farmers to convert to organicfarming by offering attractive contracts and by encour-aging the advisory services of the Chamber of Agricul-ture to facilitate the conversion process. More broadly,the French government also promoted organic farmingthrough its agri-environment program, offering directpayments to all dairy farmers during the first years afterconversion.

For the study, we purposively selected farms to in-clude some that were closer to and some that werefurther away from organic practices. We thus includedlarger and smaller farms, as well as more or less

236 Org. Agr. (2019) 9:235–247

intensive farms (classified based on the share of maizein the utilized agricultural area). Our aim was to capturea wide range of perceptions of how organic farming mayenhance or reduce adaptive capacity, especially com-pared to conventional dairy farming. To identifyfarmers, we initially asked local organic consultantswho were involved with farmers engaging in conver-sion, and then identified additional farmers throughsnowballing. We stopped data collection after 20farmers, as data saturation was reached.

The 20 farms covered a range of sizes in terms ofagricultural area (36–145 ha, with a mean of 81 ha), ofherd size (35–125 heads, with a mean of 56 dairy cows),and of produced milk (200,000–800,000 kg/year with amean of 390,000 kg). One farm had a milking robot;two farms processed part of their milk on-farm; and sixfarms were engaged in direct marketing. As an indicatorof land-use intensification, we used the share of maize inthe agricultural area, which varied from 0 to 42% (with amean of 16%), indicating that on some farms, maizesilage was relied upon to feed their cows, whereas onothers, milk production was mainly pasture-based. Al-most half (45%) of the farms had another on-farmactivity (pig, sheep, or beef cattle breeding, potato ortobacco cropping). Most farmers had another person

working with them on the farm, often a family member(1–3 people, with a mean of 1.9). The interviewedfarmers ranged from 29 to 66 years of age (with a meanof 47 years) and had been farming for 5 to 41 years (witha mean of 20 years). The sample thus includes a broadrange of experiences, from young farmers to some whowill soon retire. All interviewed farmers were deeplyrooted in the territory, as their families had been man-aging the farm for several generations.

To collect farmers’ perceptions regarding their con-version to organic farming, we used semi-structuredinterviews. These provide rich qualitative data onfarmers’ knowledge, reasoning, views, and perceptions(Miles and Huberman 1994). A preliminary list of ques-tions was drafted based on issues raised in the literature,as well as during participant observation at collectivetraining sessions and at farm visits organized by theChamber of Agriculture. This preliminary list was re-fined through discussions with organic consultants. Theinterviews covered three broad areas. Firstly, farmers’goals and expectations, the constraints they perceived,and the uncertainties they had for their farm and fordairy farming on their territory. Secondly, we askedabout farmer networks and sources of information, i.e.,professional actors with whom they were in regular

Fig. 1 In the interviews withdairy farmers, we identified fourmechanisms through which theyexpect organic farming toenhance their adaptive capacity:(a) by reducing risks, esp. due tohigher and more stable milkprices; thus, while conventionalfarmers felt like balancing on awire, they expect organic to belike a more comfortablesuspension bridge; (b) bystimulating learning, especiallythrough collective dynamics andan open exchange of experienceswith other farmers; (c) byincreasing professionalsatisfaction thanks to a lowerworkload; (d) by enabling farmersto maintain their family farm,which is an important motivationgiven their rootedness in theterritory (illustration by Z’Lex forthe authors)

Org. Agr. (2019) 9:235–247 237

contact, as well as their involvement in professionalnetworks. Thirdly, we raised questions specific to theirdecision to convert to organic farming, i.e., at what timethey started to think about conversion and why; theirperceptions of other organic farmers; the reactions byneighboring farmers and by their family when theyshared their thoughts about converting to organic farm-ing; and the doubts and risks they perceived aboutorganic farming. The interviews were carried out duringspring and summer 2016, as all the farmers started theirconversion in spring 2016. The interviews lasted 1–4 h.They were recorded and transcribed in full.

To analyze the interview transcripts, we took anabductive approach (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2009).We started with the four dimensions defining adaptivecapacity that were proposed by Marshall et al. (2014):perceptions of risk and uncertainty; skills for planning,experimenting, learning, and reorganizing; the ability tocope with change; and the level of interest in change. Asthese dimensions were developed in the context of ad-aptation to climate change, we revised them iterativelybased on the interviews, to operationalize them in thecontext of market volatility and the conversion to or-ganic farming. In the analysis, our aim was not to assessthe level of adaptive capacity of the individual farms butto understand how the interviewed farmers perceivedorganic farming as enabling them to enhance their adap-tive capacity.

Results and discussion

Organic farming to reduce risk

As Marshall et al. (2014) point out, to be able to copewith and adapt to change, it is fundamental to manage therisks associated with change and to be willing to engagein a new path if it seems promising, even if its outcome isuncertain. In the context of our study, it was important tounderstand both the risks that the interviewed farmersperceived in relation to either continuing as conventionalfarmers or converting to organic farming (Xu et al. 2018).This allows to understand why—even if organic farmingis perceived as risky and uncertain—they perceived it asmore promising within the current context.

Conventional farming was seen as risky for two mainreasons: the persistent market turbulences had ledfarmers to question whether it was economically feasi-ble to continue as conventional dairy farmers and the

Bget big or get out^ approach to increase profitabilityseemed to trap them in a vicious circle. The interviewedfarmers perceived the prices for conventional raw milkas low and erratic. Most of the interviewed farmers didnot expect such a strong drop in prices, nor such aprolonged crisis, following the abolition of the quotasystem: Bwe expected problems with the end of thequota, but not as hard!^ (farmer 16), B[that prices would]drop that low again, no, I really didn’t believe it!^(farmer 9). While prices for conventional raw milkmight increase in the future, they expect them to remainunpredictable and erratic. The market turbulences havethus led them to question whether the conventionalsystem was viable for them: Bas long as milk workedrather well, the question [of conversion] did not reallyarise. But now, it is especially the financial aspect thatmakes you think^ (farmer 3).

The perception of the low and erratic prices as prob-lematic is compounded by the perception that conven-tional farming does not offer much room to maneuver,giving farmers the feeling of being trapped: Bif one is inthis vicious cycle, there is no choice^ (farmer 17).Indeed, it seems that the only way to cope with lowprices is for the farm to grow, to increase the volume ofmilk produced, and to take advantage of the economiesof scale. However, this is not seen as a promising longer-term strategy: Bto compensate prices through volumes,after a while you have to stop^ (farmer 15). This ispartly because the interviewed farmers do not feel thatthey live in a region with a comparative advantage inmilk production: Bwe’re poorly placed in the Aveyron toproduce conventional milk without quotas, other re-gions can produce more milk and cheaper^ (farmer 11)and partly because the farmers perceive that constantlypushing the cows to produce more milk, and the land toproduce more crops, is problematic: Bwe had reachedthe end of our rope, our harvests were not high enough,we were exhausting our soils^ (farmer 9). Theinterviewed farmers were thus increasingly aware thatthey needed to change Bsomething^: the milk crisisfollowing the abolition of the quota system had led themto realize that continuing as conventional farmers wasnot promising and was increasingly risky. However,given that in this region farms have been handed overwithin families over many generations, farmers have ahigh commitment to continue this tradition by identify-ing ways to secure the future of their family farm.

In this context, organic farming was perceived asoffering a promising alternative. A conversion shifts

238 Org. Agr. (2019) 9:235–247

the strategy from focusing on quantity to focusing onquality: Bto pull through, we have to stop the highvolumes and focus on quality^ (farmer 10). Producingmilk that complies with organic quality standards allowssecuring higher prices and engaging in markets thatseem more stable: Bthe tipping point for us was that itis a system that seems more sustainable, where we cantry to make predictions not just on the short-term, butalso on the medium-term^ (farmer 12). And indeed,they feel they have Ba positive perspective for at leastfive years^ (farmer 14). This medium-term perspectiveis linked to the contracts between the Chinese investorsand the local dairy. It is also linked to the farmers’awareness of the strong consumer demand for organicproducts in France, in Europe, and on the global market:Bconsumption, nowadays it is organic^ (farmer 1), B[or-ganic] now seems established […] these are no longerpurchases in response to a food safety crisis. The peopleare getting used to eating healthier^ (farmer 20).

Considering the production system, the interviewedfarmers perceive organic farming as instrumental intheir efforts to reduce expenditures for inputs and toincrease their autonomy by focusing on feed producedon-farm: BI think that the first savings will come from areduction of inputs, we will have to be as autonomous aspossible^ (farmer 18). Increasing feed autonomy is animportant lever to reduce farm exposure to the volatilityof input prices and to the cost-price squeeze, whichburdens farmers when input costs remain high but milkprices are low or volatile (Van der Ploeg 2000).

However, organic farming is not devoid of uncer-tainties. The farmers cannot be sure of the futuredevelopment of organic markets, so that they wereaware that converting was Ba bet on the future^(farmer 18). The interviewed farmers were aware thatmore farmers might convert to organic farming, in-cluding in areas where the climate enables milk pro-duction at a lower cost: Bif Ireland goes organic,we’re in trouble^ (farmer 6). If the supply of organicmilk increases, then Bin 20 years […] organic farm-ing will become ordinary^ (farmer 17). Also, withincreased supply, it might be more difficult to securemarkets: Bmaybe in ten years, the Chinese will havesaid goodbye to us^ (farmer 14). Also, some farmerswere concerned about the evolution of organic stan-dards: Bif they become too flexible, then organic willbecome meaningless to consumers^ (farmer 7).

Another uncertainty concerned the direct payments,which are offered to organic farmers within the French

agri-environment program.1 However, the implementa-tion of the agri-environment program in the frameworkof the CAP 2014–2020 was delayed, and it was uncer-tain how the maximum payment per farm would be setby the regional authorities. The interviewed farmersperceived the payments as reducing the risk during theconversion period: Bas long as there are the payments,the help for the conversion, I don’t take a big risk, I don’tthink so^ (farmer 2). However, the farmers could not besure about the payments’ level, nor about their duration.Indeed, during the collective training sessions withfarmers, which we participated in, the local consultantsof the Chamber of Agriculture were not only reportingdelays in the disbursement of the direct payments anduncertainties in the payment ceilings but alsoquestioning whether there would be payments beyondthe first 5-year period. Indeed, the budgets for organicfarming set by the Ministry of Agriculture are capped,and the number of conversions far exceeded expecta-tions (CGAAER 2017). However, the interviewedfarmers were not too worried: Bit should work withoutthe payments, they are the cherry on the cake^ (farmer3).

At the same time, the interviewed farmers were wellaware that they would face a number of challenges onthe farm: BI’m apprehensive to have dirty crops^ (farmer9); Bdock [Rumex sp.] will be a problem^ (farmer 15). Afew interviewed farmers—especially those that wererather intensive—seemed somewhat worried about thisplunge into the unknown: BI’m afraid of stopping maizewhich is the basis of my cows feeding^ (farmer 1); BWillI be up to it?^ (farmer 15); BI do not really knowwhere Iam going^ (farmer 8). The change seemed to be easierfor those farmers who were Balmost organic anyway^:Bmy production practices weren’t far from organic, andthis makes the leap easier^ (farmer 20); Bwe didn’tfollow the [organic] principles, but we were not inten-sive, we never pushed our animals too far, nor our land^(farmer 14). Thus, the interviewed farmers were awareof the risks linked to the changes in production methods,yet confident in their own capacity to manage the de-mands of organic farming practices: Bour neighboursmanaged it, so we too will manage it^ (farmer 9).

1 In 2016, the expected payments for organic farms were in the range35–300 €/ha (the payments depend on land use, e.g., 35 or 130 €/ha forpastures and 300 €/ha for annual crops or pastures with more than 50%of legumes) during the first 5 years following the conversion and in therange 35–160 €/ha for the next 5 years (FNAB 2018).

Org. Agr. (2019) 9:235–247 239

Overall, the interviewed farmers perceived risks anduncertainties in the future of both conventional andorganic dairy farming (Fig. 2). However, over the shortandmedium term, organic farming was perceived as lessrisky, as milk prices were higher and more stable andconsumer perception more supportive, and because atthe farm level, it offers the opportunity to increaseautonomy, especially regarding feed (Coquil et al.2014; Benoit et al. 2017). Thus, in the context of lowand variable prices for conventional milk, organic farm-ing is perceived as an opportunity, offering better pros-pects for the future. This is quite different from formerstudies, where converting to organic farming was con-sidered risky, often due to the lack of technical knowl-edge (Padel 2001). Our study also shows that farmerscarefully assess the trade-offs between external factors,such as product quality requirements and prices, andinternal demands, such as risks tied to new productiontechniques. Farmers are thus carefully observing chang-es on markets, in regulations, and in technical produc-tion practices (Lamine 2011; Chantre and Cardona2014) and, given the developments they perceive asmost likely, strive to anticipate how their farm couldfare well in the future.

Organic farming to stimulate learning

To cope with and adapt to change, it is essential toexperiment and learn, so as to prepare for the future(Marshall et al. 2014). These skills are linked to indi-vidual creativity, i.e., how personal preferences, on-farmresources, and the specific advantages of the region canbe combined. But there is also a collective dimension,i.e., sharing experiences among peers and learning fromeach other (see Olsson et al. 2008).

A conversion to organic farming was widely per-ceived by the interviewed farmers as a welcome profes-sional challenge. In conventional farming, the farmershad Brecipes^ that they knew worked well, and theyimplemented them each year, with only minor adjust-ments. Some interviewed farmers said they were tired ofthis routine and welcomed a new challenge: BI needgoals, I didn’t have any anymore^ (farmer 18). In or-ganic farming, when theywill be facing a problem, therewill be no synthetic pesticides or fertilizers that can beapplied to correct mistakes. Farmers thus perceivedorganic farming as farming without a safety net: Byoudon’t have the product or the stuff which will save you^(farmer 14). And, importantly, they look forward to the

Fig. 2 The interviewed farmersperceived risks and uncertaintiesin the future of both conventionaland organic dairy farming,including (a) price volatility, (b)the pressure to grow and invest,(c) the technical production riskson the farm, and (d) the uncertainconsumer demand. Overall,organic farming was perceived asreducing external pressures andincreasing autonomy, hencereducing risk (illustration byZ’Lex for the authors)

240 Org. Agr. (2019) 9:235–247

challenge: Bthere is no parachute or umbrella to protectyou. Before anything else, it requires us to observenature, and that will be a real treat^ (farmer 15).Converting to organic farming was thus perceived asan opportunity to develop new skills: Byou have to learnagain how to look closely, to listen, to work with nature;and not exploit her, not negate her^ (farmer 16). Organicfarming is perceived as technically more challenging,and the farmers looked forward to mastering the chal-lenge for their own sense of achievement: Bin conven-tional we are satisfied, but if we manage without pollut-ing, it will be all the more gratifying^ (farmer 1), as wellas for peer recognition: Bnow we want to demonstrate toneighboring conventional farmers that our results willbe just as good, even being organic^ (farmer 7). Thechanges in the production practices were thus perceivedas a welcome learning opportunity: BI’ll have to go backto school for a bit, that’s clear^ (farmer 4).

Their openness to learn new production methods andtheir ability to face their apprehensions were strengthenedby the support they received from organic consultantsfrom the Chamber of Agriculture. These consultantswere trusted andwidely perceived as Bgood^ consultants,which reassured farmers that they would get reliableadvice. It was also important that the Chamber of Agri-culture designed a collective learning process (Fig. 3).Within this process, the farmers who were considering aconversion to organic farming were invited to visit sev-eral local organic dairy farms. Through these visits, theydiscovered a stimulating, dynamic network of organicfarmers who were willing to openly share their experi-ences: Bthere are more exchanges than in conventionalfarming^ (farmer 15). Importantly, the visited farmers didnot hesitate to talk about their doubts and discuss mis-takes they had made, which encouraged the interviewedfarmers to be open too: Bit allowed us to talk about it,when something had gone wrong, to say ‘I messed thisup, don’t do it like that,’ or: ‘I tried this to correct themistake,’ or: ‘I did this, it works well.’^ (farmer 1). Thiswas a welcome contrast to conventional networks, wherethe interviewed farmers perceived other conventionalfarmers as often reserved and individualistic.

These results are well in line with previous studies thathave highlighted that conversion to organic farming de-mands new skills (Cranfield et al. 2010). Indeed, theinterviewed farmers appreciate the conversion to organicfarming as an opportunity to learn, as a welcome oppor-tunity to break out of their routine, and as an opportunityto face a new challenge. Indeed, organic farmers often

experiment, which allows them to keep their practicesattuned to local specificities and adaptable to changingeconomic, social, and ecological conditions (Vogl et al.2015). Both learning and experimenting can be enhancedthrough a group process, where production methods areproposed and discussed, insights integrated, practicesimplemented on individual farms, and the outcomereflected on collectively (Lamine 2011). Such exchangesare stimulated if there is trust in a group: trust in experts’information and in peer’s experience. Their openness toface a new professional challenge and to engage inexperiential learning and the networks created throughthe collective processes all contribute to enhancing theiradaptive capacity.

Organic farming to increase professional satisfaction

The ability to cope with change is linked to the mentalhealth and the emotional buffer of individuals, whichenables them to absorb the impact of change (Marshallet al. 2014). It refers to the ability to see the positiveaspects of change and to actively engage with it, ratherthan perceiving change as a burden to be endured. In the

Fig. 3 Organic farming is perceived as an opportunity to learn.This is illustrated by a farm visit where consultants show theresults of two trials to a group of farmers, who listen and discusstheir own observations. For the interviewed farmers, the collectivelearning process set up by the consultants and the joint visits toestablished organic farmers were key to strengthening their confi-dence in their own ability to face the technical challenges involvedin the conversion to organic farming (illustration by Z’Lex for theauthors)

Org. Agr. (2019) 9:235–247 241

interviews, the emotional burden of feeling trapped inthe conventional system was often mentioned, andfarmers expected that converting to organic farmingwould contribute to improving their work satisfaction.

Some farmers pointed out the emotional burdenlinked to the low conventional milk prices, which neg-atively affected their financial status: Bbecause at night,you wake up, you ask yourself the question: how are wegoing to pay the bills? That’s a problem, a big problem^(farmer 9). Other farmers pointed at the high workloadthey have as conventional farmers, linked to the pressureto increase milk production, to cover the costs despitelow milk prices: Bwe were trapped in our system […] todo a lot of milk, and behind that: a lot of work^ (farmer16). The farmers were aware that this was not just amomentary labor peak, but systemic: Bwe take it on, andthen we notice that we’re in a vicious cycle^ (farmer20). The high labor load is also problematic as it pre-vents farmers from engaging in important activities:Blast winter I could not attend any training courses allwinter, as I was alone on the farm and overloaded^(farmer 13). Some farmers perceived the conversion toorganic farming as an opportunity to reduce the numberof cows, and thus their workload: Bwhy not reduce ourherd, maybe do better: more [time for] observation,better milk quality^ (farmer 20). Another hoped it wouldcontribute to improving his quality of life: Bmaybe wewill have more free time [with] fewer cows, and we willbe more peaceful, relaxed^ (farmer 12).

These expectations of a better work-life balance builton what they observed during the on-farm visits orga-nized by the Chamber of Agriculture and the organicconsultants. There, they met organic farmers who weresatisfied and unworried: Bwe see them in good spirits,serene in their work and with their finances^ (farmer 9).When they compared their own situation as convention-al farmers with these organic farmers, they realized thecontrast: Bfarmers who have beautiful fields, who workwell, and who, in the end, are more relaxed than youare^ (farmer 14).

The interviewed farmers also pointed out that somepractices in conventional farming were becoming anemotional burden, and they increasingly felt reluctantto engage in them. In particular, they pointed out theirdislike of having to spread chemicals on their fields:Bhaving to attach the sprayer irritated me^ (farmer 15);Bthe products, all that; we are not proud when we applythe products^ (farmer 1). They were worried about theimpact on their soils: Bthe chemical fertilizers, when you

look it up on the internet: it doesn’t help the soil. In theend, on the long term, it destroys more than it helps^(farmer 4). Some started to feel that the chemicals wereaffecting their health: Blast time I did maize […] I put onthe full protective suit, as if I went to the moon, with themask and all. But my head [hurt], I did not feel well^(farmer 14); Bif I open a can of herbicide, I get aheadache^ (farmer 4). The farmers were concerned notonly about their own health but also about the impact ofpotential chemical residues on consumers: Bthere arehuman beings at the end of the chain, who will get itall^ (farmer 15). They looked forward not to have toBspread all sorts of stuff on the fields, no longer havingto have a cupboard full of chemicals^ (farmer 16); Bwewon’t poison ourselves anymore, we won’t poison any-body anymore^ (farmer 2).

The interviewed farmers felt increasingly apprehen-sive about using agrichemicals, especially given thereports in the media on environmental problems relatedto conventional farming: BI was never motivated to usethe sprayer, we know very well that it is harmful^(farmer 12); BI think that the mentality is changing, eventhose who don’t convert to organic farming think aboutreducing their use of chemicals^ (farmer 9). The publicpressure has led one farmer to abstain from using stan-dard safety measures: BI have started not protectingmyself when applying chemicals, to show the touriststhat it’s not dangerous^ (farmer 7). They also faced thesecritiques at a personal level, when they have had tojustify their practices with non-farming neighbors andtourists: Bthis context, with the pressure to protect theenvironment, it is really unbearable: we are alwayssuspected to be environmental criminals […] I exagger-ate, but it is really a burden^ (farmer 19). Indeed, thefarmers would like to be valued and respected for theirwork: Bthat people see that in agriculture we don’t do adirty job, that the people from the cities appreciate us abit […] I would like that the people take a look, that theyare curious^ (farmer 13); Bit is important that we regaina positive image^ (farmer 12).

The interviewed farmers expected that organic pro-duction practices would enable them to work in closerconformity with their personal values: Bit will be apleasure to work without chemicals^ (farmer 1), to haveBrespect for nature^ (farmer 15). BAs an organic farmer,I will be better able to lookmyself in the mirror^ (farmer17). It will enable them to improve their own andconsumers’ health: Bto be in harmony with myself, withwhat I preach, to make a healthy product^ (farmer 20).

242 Org. Agr. (2019) 9:235–247

And they already received positive feedback: Bwhenyou tell people that you are converting, people say:BGreat! That’s good!^ (farmer 1).

While the organic production practices are consid-ered by the interviewed farmers to be more environmen-tally friendly, they are aware that they will still have animpact on the environment: BI would like to see [agri-culture] without ploughing, natural pastures, but I do notknow if this exists. It is absurd to convert to organicfarming and consume more fuel^ (farmer 13). They thusfeel there are trade-offs: Bdoes it really make sense tohave four passes with the harrow in organic farming,rather than use a tiny amount of chemicals?^ (farmer 7).Similarly, they find that producing organic milk for theglobal market is questionable: Bit is a pity to producemilk that goes to the other end of the planet. But for now,to convert to organic farming, we don’t have a choice^(farmer 17).

Moreover, while consumers and non-agriculturalneighbors have a positive image of organic farmers,their peers—many of whom are conventionalfarmers—still perceive organic farmers as odd: Btheneighbours, the other farmers tell us that we are a bitmad^ (farmer 11). Many conventional colleagues ques-tion whether organic farming even works, so thatinterviewed farmers were faced with numerous ques-tions and warnings: Bhow will you feed your dairy cowsand all, from what will you live?^ (farmer 20); Byouwon’t have any grass next year! You won’t have grassfor silage!^ (farmer 20); or Bit won’t work! Your pro-ductivity will drop too far. All that you will gain in price,you will lose in volume, because your cows will onlyproduce half as much^ (farmer 1). Not only were manyconventional peers doubtful, a number of interviewedfarmers also faced the doubts of their family members(i.e., their parents or children), as especially parents tendto perceive organic farming as a step backwards. De-spite this, all interviewed farmers felt that the perceptionof organic farming was changing: Bthe mentalityevolves: today, if you are organic, it’s not that you area revolutionary [as in 1968], it’s that you think aboutthings^ (farmer 4).

The interviews highlighted the emotional dimensiontied to production practices. Many of the interviewedfarmers were emotionally burdened by financial chal-lenges, by a high workload, or by concerns about thepotential impact of the use of synthetic chemicals ontheir own health and on the environment. They alsotended to be emotionally burdened by the negative

reports in the media, the negative public image of con-ventional farming, and the need to justify their practicesto non-farmers. All of these reduced their work satisfac-tion, which is particularly problematic as for most, beinga farmer was a vocation rather than just a Bjob.^ In manyways, converting to organic farming was linked to theexpectation that it would enable them to enjoy theirwork (Fig. 4), a satisfaction heightened by the positivefeedback they already receive for their decision to con-vert. The importance of such Bpleasures^ when chang-ing towards more ecological farming practices has beenemphasized by Barbier et al. (2015). Indeed, farmerswant to be proud of the work they do, which requires afit between their aspirations and the daily reality ofbeing a farmer (Dessein and Nevens 2007). Work satis-faction and being proud of their work contribute toemotional health, which is essential to enable farmersto cope with change and recover from setbacks.

Organic farming to maintain the family farm

The fourth dimension of adaptive capacity identified byMarshall et al. (2014) is the level of interest in change.

Fig. 4 The farmers expected that converting to organic farmingwould allow them to enjoy their work more, thus enabling them tocope with change and recover from setbacks. This is illustrated bya farmer who is serene and satisfied, even if he produces less milk,as shown by the partly filled tank. His work satisfaction is en-hanced by the tourist enjoying a glass of his fresh organic milk,indicating the positive feedback from consumers and the positiveimage of organic farming in the media (illustration by Z’Lex forthe authors)

Org. Agr. (2019) 9:235–247 243

This is related to flexibility and to the ability to exploredifferent options (Darnhofer et al. 2010; Astigarraga andIngrand 2011). People interested in change observetrends in the broader regional, sectoral, and societalcontext; can assess possible consequences; and identifya range of alternatives to face change. The aim is not tojust react once change has occurred but to be pro-active,to recognize opportunities, and to be able to seize them.

Given the problems they were facing on their ownfarm, as well as the changes in public perception ofconventional farming, the interviewed farmers wereaware that they needed to change: Bwe had to findsomething: change production or converting, we don’thave the choice anymore!^ (farmer 20); BI reached apoint where I had to get out of conventional farming, Ihad to find an exit^ (farmer 4). The farmers have thusbeen looking for options: Bfind solutions to be able tocontinue^ (farmer 13). With the dairy offering contractsto organic farmers, conversion was a welcome opportu-nity: Bwe had been thinking about it for a long time, wekind of jumped on the opportunity^ (farmer 14). Andindeed, several interviewed farmers perceived conver-sion to organic farming, now that there was an organicdairy in the region, as an opportunity not to be missed,as a Btrain that you need to catch, because it won’t comearound again^ (farmer 9).

The interviewed farmers expressed a strong attach-ment to the place, to maintaining their farming activityin this territory. They were all born on the territory andgrew up in the local farming tradition, on farms that hadbeen in their family for several generations: Bto avoidlosing what my father had done with the family farm^

(farmer 4). They were also committed to continue to bepart of the local community. Converting to organicfarming was thus not seen as a critique of conventionalfarming and was not seen as jeopardizing their solidaritywith other farmers: Bit’s not because I’ll be organic that Iwill say something bad about my conventionalneighbour^ (farmer 18); BI think that we need a bit ofeverything.We need organic, andwe need conventional,because, after all, we need volume to feed the planet^(farmer 19). The conversion is thus not a matter ofideology: Bwe are not born organic, we don’t eat organ-ic, our parents don’t eat organic^ (farmer 12); Bweevolve in our head, but I am not born with thismentality^ (farmer 5). To most of the interviewedfarmers, converting to organic farming is primarily apromising strategy to maintain their family farms, whileadapting to changes in the broader context. Such chang-es were required in the past and will be necessary in thefuture (Fig. 5).

That the interviewed farmers are open to change isexpressed by how they look forward to the upcomingchallenges: Bit allows us to energize us, in our heads, seeother horizons, think about other things. I myself, Ireally need this to work^ (farmer 20); Bit’s a new chal-lenge, it renews my motivation, rather than continuewhat we’ve been doing, routine^ (farmer 3). This desireto change and to take up a new challenge is embedded ina wider awareness that practices need to be questionedand renewed regularly, as getting stuck in a routine canbe dangerous: Bthe worry of the farmer – me included,but it seems to me that I stepped out – is to get stuck in arut. We are so stuck in our habits, we don’t look back.

Fig. 5 The farmers were aware that to persist over the long term, asystem needs to change with its context. Thus, over the past twogenerations, dairy farmers adapted to maintain their family farm.While the current farmer’s grandparents milked their cows by handand the cows were fed with hay, the next generation mechanized

and used information and communication technologies, and cowswere fed with maize. The current farmer converts to organicfarming and the cows are grazing. What will happen in the futureis unknown but likely to be different from today (illustration byZ’Lex for the authors)

244 Org. Agr. (2019) 9:235–247

We know we have to put that much nitrogen fertilizerand that much of this. It’s a schema. And one does notwant to get out of the rut. It feels comfortable in there.But the problem is: one sinks in^ (farmer 17).

Given the changes in the broader context, farmerswere aware that they needed to implement changes ontheir farm, if they wanted to ensure its continuity. Theseresults are in line with studies of farms transitioningtowards more ecological practices, which showed thattransitions were often initiated by farmers perceivingtheir current practices as problematic and activelylooking for alternatives (Lamine and Bellon 2009;Coquil et al. 2014; Chantre et al. 2015). Changingpractices is thus recognized as necessary to keep in tunewith a changing economic and social context (Gouletand Vinck 2012). The interviewed farmers were awareof the interplay between change and persistence andthus were interested in actively shaping changes on theirfarm, to avoid getting caught in routines, which were outof synch with society’s expectations of agriculture.

Conclusion

While looking for a way out of the crisis in conventionaldairy farming, the interviewed farmers perceived organ-ic farming as an attractive option, particularly because itcan enhance their adaptive capacity. They regarded or-ganic farming as a way to enhance their adaptive capac-ity through four mechanisms: reducing risks, stimulat-ing learning, increasing professional satisfaction, andenabling them to maintain their family farm. Thefarmers perceived organic farming as less risky due tohigher and more stable prices for organic milk, and byenabling them to increase their feed autonomy and thusreducing their farm’s exposure to volatile input prices.While farmers were aware that on the short term theywould face technical risks linked to implementing new,unfamiliar production practices, they also felt thatconverting would lower their long-term risks, as organicfarming is in line with consumer expectations. More-over, the interviewed farmers were confident that theywould be able to master organic production practices,because they trusted the organic consultants and becausethe Chamber of Agriculture set up a collective learningprocess, so that they could build on each other’s expe-rience rather than having to face the challenge alone.Learning is also linked to professional satisfaction, asmany of the farmers were looking forward to a new

challenge that would enable them to break through therepetitive routine they faced as conventional farmers,giving them an opportunity to learn and master newskills, and thereby demonstrate their professional exper-tise and competence. They also expected their profes-sional satisfaction to be increased because they wouldbe under less pressure and have more time to observeand reflect, thereby enabling them to better cope withchanges. Indeed, the higher prices of organic milk andthe higher feed autonomy would enable them to securetheir income with fewer animals, thus reducing labordemands. Thus, they perceived that converting to organ-ic farming would enable them to maintain their familyfarm, which was important to them, both to maintain thefamily’s and regional traditions and because to themfarming is not a Bjob^ but a preferred way of life.

This study, based on a group of farmers who have juststarted their conversion to organic farming, highlightsthe aspects that were decisive in their decision to engagein the conversion process. While the fact that the localdairy became involved in the organic milk market wasdoubtlessly important and is likely to have tipped thebalance for a number of farmers, the root cause seems tobe their increasing dissatisfaction with conventionalfarming. Indeed, a farmers’ decision on whether or notto convert is deeply influenced by his/her satisfactionwith the current strategy and the satisfaction he/sheexpects to derive from an alternate strategy. In this study,the farmers were clearly questioning the dominant strat-egy in conventional farming, which pushes farms toenlarge, increase the number of dairy cows, and inten-sify so as to increase the amount of milk produced. Thefarmers point out that in this region it leads to a high debtload and a high labor load, while exhausting the cowsand depleting their soils. Moreover, some of them feelthat the use of agrichemicals threatens their health and isperceived negatively by consumers. A conversion toorganic farming thus might well be initiated by invitingfarmers to openly reflect on their current productionsystem and encourage them to honestly assess whetherthey expect that it will secure the future of their farm,regarding, e.g., financial stability, protection of naturalresources, and quality of life. As was the case for thisgroup of farmers in the Aveyron, organic farming mightthen emerge as a way out of a production system thatoffered them only a narrow Broom for manoeuvre.^

This study also highlights that a conversion to organ-ic farming should not just be advocated by highlightingeconomic benefits or that the production practices are in

Org. Agr. (2019) 9:235–247 245

line with societal demands for environmental protection.While these are important considerations, this studyshows that the subjective, personal satisfaction of thefarmer also plays a crucial role, especially if organicfarming is perceived by the farmer as enabling him/herto achieve his/her professional ambitions. These may belinked to organic farming encouraging farmers to en-gage in a collective learning process and thus interactingwith peers in a close network; to have more time to thinkabout interactions on his/her farm, thus stimulating, e.g.,experiments to improve the nutrient flows, or to developa new on-farm activity; or mastering technical chal-lenges and thereby boosting their feeling of proficiencyand self-efficacy. The study thus highlights the impor-tance of avoiding to assume that farmers are rationaldecision makers narrowly focused on economics and/oroptimizing productivity, and acknowledging thatfarmers have a complex and interacting set of valuesand preferences, ideals and motivations, ambitions, andemotional drivers. It might thus be helpful to presentorganic farming as a way that enables farmers to com-bine traditions, societal demands, and personal ambi-tions, rather than just as a set of production practices.

In their assessment of organic farming, theinterviewed farmers integrated very different elements,such as expected development of markets, regulations,demands by consumers and citizens, perception bypeers, impact on emotional health, likely technical chal-lenges, learning requirements, and the richness of thecollective learning process. As this study is based onfarmers’ perceptions at the beginning of the conversionprocess, it would be important to assess whether andhow their perceptions of organic farming change insubsequent years. Indeed, the management of a familyfarm is based on complex and dynamic interactionsbetween very different elements, and the relative impor-tance of individual elements or dynamics is likely tochange over time. This highlights the importance ofadaptive capacity to ensure the long-term persistenceof a farm. If organic farming enhances this adaptivecapacity, this may be an important aspect to highlightto farmers considering a conversion, as many familyfarmers aim not so much to maximize their profits oryields on the short term, than to ensure the persistence oftheir farm over the long term.

Acknowledgments Thanks to specific scholarship from INRA,Toulouse INP, and Ecole des Docteurs Toulouse, Maëlys Boutteshad the opportunity to stay at the University of Natural Resources

and Life Sciences, Vienna, to work on this paper. The authors wishto thank the farmers who generously gave their time and sharedtheir thoughts during the interviews. We thank Z’lex, an organicdairy farmer and cartoonist in Aveyron (France), for his insightfulcartoons that were created in discussions with the authors. Wethank Stéphane Doumayzel and Sandrine Viguie from the Cham-ber of Agriculture, Johann Kévin Galtier and Maxime Vial fromAPABA, and Nicolas Juillard from BTPL for their support withthe implementation of the surveys. We are grateful to the anony-mous reviewer and to the editor for their insightful comments andsuggestions on an earlier version of this paper.

Funding information Open access funding provided by Univer-sity of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU). Thisstudy was funded by INRA and the Midi-Pyrénées region as part ofthe ATARI project and Maëlys Bouttes’s PhD project and by theFrench ANR Agrobiosphère program as part of the TATABOXproject (ANR-13-AGRO-0006).

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestrict-ed use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, providedyou give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate ifchanges were made.

References

Alvesson M, Sköldberg K (2009) Reflexive methodology: newvistas for qualitative research. SAGE, Newcastle upon Tyne

Astigarraga L, Ingrand S (2011) Production flexibility in extensivebeef farming systems. Ecol Soc 16:7. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03811-160107

Barbier C, Cerf M, Lusson J-M (2015) Cours de vie d’agriculteursallant vers l’économie en intrants : les plaisirs associés auxchangements de pratiques. Life course of farmers going to theeconomy in inputs: pleasures associated with changes inpractices Activités https://doi.org/10.4000/activites.1081

Benoit M, Tchamitchian M, Penvern S, Savini I, Bellon S (2017)Potentialités, questionnements et besoins de recherche del’agriculture biologique face aux enjeux sociétaux.Potentialities, questions and research needs of organic farm-ing in the face of societal challenges. Econ Rural 361:49–69.https://doi.org/10.4000/economierurale.5309

Burton R (2004) Reconceptualising the Bbehavioural approach^ inagricultural studies: a socio-psychological perspective. JRural Stud 20:359–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2003.12.001

CGAAER (2017) Ambition Bio 2017 program first interim report.http://agriculture.gouv.fr/programme-ambition-bio-2017-premier-bilan-intermediaire

Chantre E, Cardona A (2014) Trajectories of French field cropfarmers moving toward sustainable farming practices:change, learning, and links with the advisory services.Agroecol Sust Food 38:573–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2013.876483

246 Org. Agr. (2019) 9:235–247

https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03811-160107https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03811-160107https://doi.org/10.4000/activites.1081https://doi.org/10.4000/economierurale.5309https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2003.12.001https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2003.12.001http://agriculture.gouv.fr/programme-ambition-bio-2017-premier-bilan-intermediairehttp://agriculture.gouv.fr/programme-ambition-bio-2017-premier-bilan-intermediairehttps://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2013.876483https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2013.876483

Chantre E, Cerf M, Le Bail M (2015) Transitional pathwaystowards input reduction on French field crop farms. Int JAgric Sustain 13:69–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2014.945316

Coquil X, Béguin P, Dedieu B (2014) Transition to self-sufficientmixed crop–dairy farming systems. Renew Agr Food Syst29:195–205. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170513000458

Cranfield J, Henson S, Holliday J (2010) The motives, benefits,and problems of conversion to organic production. AgricHum Values 27:291–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9222-9

Darnhofer I, Bellon S, Dedieu B, Milestad R (2010) Adaptivenessto enhance the sustainability of farming systems. A review.Agron Sustain Dev 30:545–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0394-0_4

David C, Mundler P, Demarle O, Ingrand S (2010) Long-termstrategies and flexibility of organic farmers in southeasternFrance. Int J Agric Sustain 8:305–318. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2010.0497

Dessein J, Nevens F (2007) BI’m sad to be glad^. An analysis offarmers’ pride in Flanders. Sociol Rural 47:273–292.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2007.00437.x

Doumayzel S (2017) La filière lait de vache biologique (the valuechain of organic cow’s milk). La Volonté Paysanne. 13July 2017, p. 8

European Commission (2016) Evolution of compulsory contracts,producer organisations and the market situation for milk andmilk products. Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2016). Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/milk/milk.../com-2016-724_en.pdf

Flaten O, Lien G, Koesling M, Valle PS, Ebbesvik M (2005)Comparing risk perceptions and risk management in organicand conventional dairy farming: empirical results fromNorway. Livest Prod Sci 95:11–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.10.014

FNAB (2018) https://www.produire-bio.fr/les-aides/aides-bio-pdrr-3/

FranceAgriMer (2016) La filière du lait de vache biologique enFrance (The value chain of organic cow’s milk in France).Les Études de FranceAgriMer, édition Décembre 2016.FranceAgriMer, Montreuil

Goulet F, Vinck D (2012) L’innovation par retrait. Contribution àune sociologie du détachement. Innovation by withdrawal.Contribution to a sociology of detachment. Rev françaiseSociol 53:195. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfs.532.0195

Lamine C (2011) Anticiper ou temporiser: injonctionsenvironnementales. Anticipate or temporize: environmental

injunctions. Sociol Trav 53:75–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soctra.2010.12.002

Lamine C, Bellon S (2009) Conversion to organic farming: amultidimensional research object at the crossroads of agri-cultural and social sciences. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 29:97–112. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2008007

Marshall NA, Tobin RC, Marshall PA, Gooch M, Hobday AJ(2013) Social vulnerability of marine resource users to ex-treme weather events. Ecosystems 16:797–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9651-6

Marshall NA, Stokes CJ, Webb NP et al (2014) Social vulnerabil-ity to climate change in primary producers: a typology ap-proach. Agric Ecosyst Environ 186:86–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.01.004

CAMidi-Pyrénées (2012) Agriculture in Aveyron. www.aveyron.chambagri.fr

Miles M, Huberman A (1994) Qualitative data analysis: An ex-panded sourcebook. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Milestad R, Darnhofer I (2003) Building farm resilience: theprospects and challenges of organic farming. J SustainAgric 22:81–97. https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v22n03

Nelson DR, Adger WN, Brown K (2007) Adaptation to environ-mental change: contributions of a resilience framework.Annu Rev Environ Resour 32:395–419. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.32.051807.090348

Olsson P, Folke C, Hughes TP (2008) Navigating the transition toecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef,Australia. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:9489–9494. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706905105

Padel S (2001) Conversion to organic farming: a typical exampleof the diffusion of an innovation? Sociol Rural 41:40–61.https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00169

Smit B, Wandel J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vul-nerability. Glob Environ Chang 16:282–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008

Van der Ploeg JD (2000) Revitalizing agriculture: farming eco-nomically as starting ground for rural development. SociolRural 40:497–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00163

Vogl CR, Kummer S, Leitgeb F, Schunko C, Aigner M (2015)Keeping the actors in the organic system learning: the role oforganic farmers’ experiments. Sustain Agric Res 4:140–148.https://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v4n3p140

Xu Q, Huet S, Poix C, Boisdon I, Deffuant G (2018) Why dofarmers not convert to organic farming? Modeling conver-sion to organic farming as a major change. Nat ResourModel. https://doi.org/10.1111/nrm.12171

Org. Agr. (2019) 9:235–247 247

https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2014.945316https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2014.945316https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170513000458https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9222-9https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9222-9https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0394-0_4https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0394-0_4https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2010.0497https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2010.0497https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2007.00437.xhttps://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/milk/milk/com-2016-724_en.pdfhttps://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/milk/milk/com-2016-724_en.pdfhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.10.014https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.10.014https://www.produire-bio.fr/les-aides/aides-bio-pdrr-3/https://www.produire-bio.fr/les-aides/aides-bio-pdrr-3/https://doi.org/10.3917/rfs.532.0195https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soctra.2010.12.002https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soctra.2010.12.002https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2008007https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9651-6https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9651-6https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.01.004https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.01.004http://www.aveyron.chambagri.frhttp://www.aveyron.chambagri.frhttps://doi.org/10.1300/J064v22n03https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.32.051807.090348https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.32.051807.090348https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706905105https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0706905105https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00169https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00163https://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v4n3p140https://doi.org/10.1111/nrm.12171

Converting to organic farming as a way to enhance adaptive capacityAbstractIntroductionMaterial and methodsResults and discussionOrganic farming to reduce riskOrganic farming to stimulate learningOrganic farming to increase professional satisfactionOrganic farming to maintain the family farm

ConclusionReferences