The concept of technology adoption (along with its companions, diffusion and scaling) is commonly used to design development interventions, to frame impact evaluations and to inform decision-making about new investments in development-oriented agricultural research. However, adoption simplifies and mischaracterises what happens during processes of technological change. In all but the very simplest cases, it is likely to be inadequate to capture the complex reconfiguration of social and technical components of a technological practice or system. We review the insights of a large and expanding literature, from various disciplines, which has deepened understanding of technological change as an intricate and complex sociotechnical reconfiguration, situated in time and space. We explain the problems arising from the inappropriate use of adoption as a framing concept and propose an alternative conceptual framework for understanding and evaluating technological change. The new approach breaks down technology change programmes into four aspects: propositions, encounters, dispositions and responses. We begin to sketch out how this new framework could be operationalised.
5 pages, Resiliency to weather extremes is already a part of farming in the North Plains, but now climate change is adding new uncertainties. Engaging farmers on this often controversial topic can be challenging given the wide range of beliefs farmers hold about climate change. Scenario planning provides a framework for Extension and agricultural system stakeholders to come together using the latest climate science to discover robust adaptive management options, prioritize Extension programming needs, and provide an open forum for starting the discussion.
Sustainable agriculture is among the most urgently needed work in the United States, for at least three reasons: we face an environmental crisis, a health crisis, and a rural economic crisis. Addressing these pressing crises through sustainability transition will require growing our agricultural workforce: both because the current farm population is aging, and because sustainable agriculture is knowledge-intensive work that substitutes experiential knowledge of farm ecosystems for harmful industrial inputs. Given its social value, sustainable agriculture ought to be a welcoming profession. But at present, US agriculture is decidedly unwelcoming for nearly all who work in it – and it puts new entry and sustainable farmers at a distinct disadvantage. In this paper, we first examine why it is so hard to enter and succeed in sustainable farming. We find that new entrants struggle to gain critical access, assets, and assistance, encountering substantial barriers that stand between them and the land, capital, markets, equipment, water, labor, and training and technical assistance they need to succeed. Secondly, we review promising policy and civil society interventions targeted at addressing these barriers, nearly all of which have already been piloted at the local and state levels or through modest public funding. These interventions are most effective, we find, when they are linked up through robustly governed networks to provide “wraparound” coverage for new entry sustainable farmers. Such networks can help patch together complementary sources of support (e.g. federal, state, local, NGO, cooperative) and synergistically address multiple barriers at once. Finally, we propose additional interventions that are more aspirational today, but that could offer important pathways to support new sustainable farmers in the longer term.
12 pages, via Online journal, Corn (Zea mays) grown in the southern Piedmont requires 200 to 280 kg nitrogen (N) ha−1 annually and requires up to 0.87 cm of water per day, making groundwater systems susceptible to nitrate (NO3−) leaching. A perennial white clover (Trifolium repens L.) living mulch (LM) system may reduce NO3-N leaching by using legume N to replace mineral N, though little information is available on such a system in the southern Piedmont. Therefore, a HYDRUS-1D model was used to simulate water and NO3-N flux in three cover crop systems. Cereal rye (Secale cereal L.) (CR), crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.) (CC), and a white clover LM were fertilized with 280, 168, and 56 kg N ha−1. The HYDRUS-1D model was calibrated and validated with observed water contents and NO3-N data that were collected over two years. Water and NO3-N flux models were created for each treatment and evaluated using coefficient of determination, percentage bias, and index of agreement, and showed good agreement to observed data. Nitrate leaching below 1 m in 2015/2016 was 23.5, 12.7, and 21.4 kg ha−1 for the CC, LM, and CR treatments, respectively, but was less than 1 kg ha−1 for all treatments in 2016/2017 due to prolonged drought. Differences in leached NO3-N among treatments were attributed to variation in mineral N application rate and NO3-N uptake by cover crops. Overall, results suggest that the use of a perennial LM system may reduce NO3-N leaching when compared to annual CC and CR cover crop systems.
19 pages, A Small Farm Resource Center (SFRC) is an informal in-situ extension model used for testing promising agricultural and rural livelihoods options on a physical central site, with some measure of extension methodology. There is a need to evaluate SFRCs as research-extension models operating outside of formal government extension and advisory services. Seven SFRCs located in Southeast Asia were studied to classify extension methodologies adopted by those centers, evaluate extension efficacy, and to provide recommendations for amplifying their services. On average in 2013, SFRCs were 21.1 years old, covered 24.2 ha, cost 242,000 USD to establish and had a yearly operating cost of 28,500 USD. The work of the seven SFRCs could be classified into five predominant extension methodologies: on-site and off-site demonstrations, on-site and off-site trainings, and off-site extension outreach. Most of the SFRCs utilized combinations of these and tailored their methods to the particular context. Besides agricultural production, SFRCs also offered socio-cultural and socio-economic assistance, owing to a cycle of extension knowledge refinement. SFRCS were re-engaged in 2021 and all 7 were still operational, and the majority provided the same number or more services (57%) as in 2013, utilized the same amount of space (71%), and were perceived to have the same or more efficacy (71%) even in the face of decreasing or stagnating funding (71%) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, SFRCs continue to be used successfully throughout Southeast Asia and provide cost-effective and needs-based extension and advisory services to underserved populations outside of formal extension services.
12 pages, Many environmental dilemmas such as water scarcity originate from human behavior. This study aimed to analyze Iranian farmers’ water conservation behavior using Bandura’s social-cognitive theory. To this end, a cross-sectional survey was conducted to collect the required data. The research instrument was a questionnaire. A sample of 380 farmers was selected using a multistage stratified random sampling method. The results indicated that variables of social-cognitive theory could predict about 73% of farmers’ water conservation behavior variance. Investigation of direct effects of factors on farmers’ water conservation behavior revealed that the major determinants are as follows: intention of water conservation, social-structural factors, perception of others’ behavior, outcome expectancy, self-efficacy, and water conservation co-regulation. Findings showed that factors that have been mentioned in social-cognitive theory could be considered for enhancing farmers’ water conservation behaviors since the theory provides a more realistic insight into farmers’ behaviors with an emphasis on farmers’ social and structural contexts
22pgs, In nine of the last 10 years, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported that the average funds generated on-farm for farm operators to meet living expenses and debt obligations have been negative. This paper pieces together disparate data to understand why farm operators in the most productive agricultural systems on the planet are systematically losing money. The data-driven narrative we present highlights some troubling trends in US farm operator livelihoods. Though US farms are more productive than ever before, rising input costs, volatile production values, and rising land rents have left farmers with unprecedented levels of farm debt, low on-farm incomes, and high reliance on federal programs. For many US farm operators, the indicators of a “good livelihood”—stability, security, equitable rewards for work—are largely absent. We conclude by proposing three axes of intervention that would help US agriculture better sustain all farmers' livelihoods, a crucial step toward improving overall agricultural sustainability: (1) increase the diversity of people, crops, and cropping systems, (2) improve equity in access to land, support, and capital, and (3) improve the quality, accessibility, and content of data to facilitate monitoring of multiple indicators of agricultural “success.”.
29pgs, Farmers experience poor health outcomes and are considered ‘hard to reach’. Agricultural advisors (‘advisors’) are uniquely positioned to support and signpost farmers on health issues. This paper explores the acceptability and terms of reference of a potential health role for advisors, and offers key recommendations for developing a bespoke farmers’ health training programme.
6 pages., Evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that we need to drastically reduce our consumption of animal products for reasons related to the environment and public health, while moral concerns about the treatment of animals in agriculture are becoming ever more common. As governments increasingly recognize the need to change our food production and alternative protein products become more appealing to consumers, agriculture finds itself in a unique period of transition. How do farmers respond to the changing atmosphere? We present secondary analyses of qualitative and quantitative data to highlight some of the uncertainty and ambivalence about meat production felt throughout the farming community. Survey data from France and Germany reveals that in both countries, those who work in the meat industry have significantly higher rates of meat avoidance than those who do not work in the industry. While non-meat-industry workers are more likely to cite concerns for animals or the environment, meat industry workers more often cite concerns about the healthiness or safety of the products. Concurrently, interviews with people who raise animals for a living suggest that moral concerns among farmers are growing but largely remain hidden; talking about them openly was felt as a form of betrayal. We discuss these findings in the context of the ongoing agricultural transition, observe how tension has manifested as polarization among Dutch farmers, and offer some thoughts about the role of farmers in a new world of alternative proteins.
