10 pages, This study was carried out to reveal the sources of communication and social network of organic and conventional hazelnut producers in Samsun province. The primary and basic material of the study is the data obtained from the surveys, interviews and observations of the organic and conventional hazelnut producers in Çamlıca, Yüksekyayla villages and Ağcagüney town. Both producer groups were compared in terms of their social networks and communication channels especially on the use of different fertilizers by making suggestions on how to develop it. The results of the research showed that socio-economic status of the organic hazelnut producers was better than conventional producers in terms of land size, income, cooperation capacity, risk management and agricultural supports. Social Network Analysis (SNA) has shown the graphs of communication networks among the producers, their relationships with different public, private and mass media information sources and especially revealed leader farmers whom functioned as source of information transfer (or even blocker) among them. The relationships in organic hazelnut producers’ communication network in the village are strong, dense and information sources are varied. On the contrary, the relationships in communication network of conventional hazelnut producers were looser, strong and information sources were uniform. The main source of technical information for both groups of producers was the experienced leader farmers; as for organic producers, the heads of the local organic producers' union was the main information source in terms of commercial, legal and organizational aspects. In other words, both organic and conventional producers rely on knowledge and experience of producers who take on the role of opinion leader within the village. Therefore, innovation and knowledge transfer to farmers can be delivered through these opinion leaders. As a result of the research, it can be said that institutional information sources do not adequately support organic and conventional hazelnut growers. Thus, organic producers developed their local knowledge source based on their on-farm trials and experiences and shared this knowledge within their peer groups. However, this information needs to be supported with scientific findings.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: D08815
Notes:
Pages 105-136 in Heike Graf (ed.), The environment in the age of the internet: activists, communication, and the digital landscape. United Kingdom: Open Book Publishers, Cambridge. 175 pages.
Risius, Antje (author), Hamm, Ulrich (author), and University of Kassel, Faculty of Organic Agriculture, Food and Agricultural Marketing, Steinstr.19, Witzenhausen, Germany
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2017-02
Published:
Germany: Elsevier Ltd.
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 162 Document Number: D08138
Online journal. 2 pages., Author comments on meanings of these terms: sustainable agriculture, factory farm, family farm, local food, and organic and natural.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: C21758
Notes:
Pages 21-35 in George Baourakes (ed.), Marketing trends for organic food in the 21st Century. World Scientific Publishing Co., Pte. Ltd., Singapore. 338 pages.
Survey and auction results reveal a lack of understanding of the label's meaning as well as a disconnect between the label's function (involving production methods) and consumers' motivations for buying organic (e.g., support for a local sustainable food system).
