Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Agronomist–farmer knowledge encounters: an analysis of knowledge exchange in the context of best management practices in England

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores how knowledge is exchanged between agricultural advisors and farmers in the context of sustainable farming practices in England. Specifically the paper examines the nature of the knowledge exchange at the encounters between one group of advisors, agronomists, and farmers. The promotion of best management practices, which are central to the implementation of sustainable agricultural policies in England, provide the empirical context for this study. The paper uses the notion of expert and facilitative approaches as a conceptual framework for analyzing knowledge exchange encounters between agronomists and farmers. Data were derived from semi-structured interviews with 31 agronomists and 17 farmers, in the context of three initiatives promoting a range of best management practices including (a) targeted use of nitrogen (N), (b) use of nutrients within manure, and (c) management practices to improve soil structure. The interviews revealed that, although many agronomist–farmer knowledge exchange encounters are characterized by an imbalance of power, distrust, and the divergence of knowledge, other encounters provide a platform for the facilitation of farmer learning in their transition to more sustainable practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. BMPs (also referred to as Good Management Practices or Good Agricultural Practices) are based on the principle of improving resource management; although aimed primarily to benefit the environment, they also offer cost savings. Examples relevant to his study include nutrient management by budgeting, reducing and targeting artificial and organic fertilizers; timing cultivation and operations to avoid soil damage and reduce erosion risk; reducing cultivations to prevent structural damage to soil and save energy and labor costs; promoting and managing soil organic matter to improve soil structure. In the USA BMPs have been introduced as a federal initiative, they include soil conservation and other agronomic practices and aim to provide water quality benefits.

  2. For example, in 2002, 96% of farmers used an advisor in the UK (JT Research Agribus 2003) reported on the website Farmers Weekly Interactive (May 2006); and in 2006, four out of five of “barometer” farmers who feature in the UK’s popular farming journal Farmers Weekly employ an agronomist (Farmers Weekly, November 4th, 2005).

  3. A method of cultivation designed to reduce soil erosion. Plowing is carried out across the slope, rather than up and down it, to reduce the flow of water and thus the potential for erosion.

Abbreviations

AICC:

Association of Independent Crop Consultants

BIAC:

British Institute of Agricultural Consultants

BMPs:

Best management practices

DEFRA, UK:

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

FRS:

Fertilizer Recommendation System

KEE:

Knowledge exchange encounter

NGO:

Non-Governmental Organization

NPK:

Nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium

SMI:

Soil Management Initiative

References

  • Angell, B., J. Francis, and A. Chalmers, C. Flint. 1997. Agriculture and the rural economy: Information and advice needs. London: DEFRA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arce, A.C., and N. Long. 1992. The dynamics of knowledge: Interfaces between bureaucrats and peasants. In Battlefields of knowledge: The interlocking theory and practice of social research and development, eds. N. Long, and A. Long, 211–246. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auerswald, K., and M. Kutilek. 1998. A European view to the protection of the soil resource. Soil Tillage Research 46: 9–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bager, T., and J. Proost. 1997. Voluntary regulation and farmers’ environmental behaviour in Denmark and The Netherlands. Sociologia Ruralis 37 (1): 79–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergsma, E. 1996. The bridge between land use and advisers. Land Husbandry, the International Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 1: 81–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergsma, E. 2000. Incentives of land users in projects of soil and water conservation: The weight of intangibles. Geojournal 50: 47–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, J., J. Clark, and C.M. Harrison. 2000. Knowledge in action: Actor network analysis of a wetland agri-environment scheme. Ecological Economics 35: 119–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, L. 1978. On understanding: Two views of communication. Rural Sociology 43 (3): 450–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carolan, M.S. 2006. Sustainable agriculture, science and the co-production of ‘expert’ knowledge: The value of interactional expertise. Local Environment 11 (4): 421–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CEC. 2002. The sixth environment action programme of the European community 2002–2012. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/newprg/index.htm. Accessed 1 September 2006.

  • Cerf, M., D. Gibbon, B. Hubert, R. Ison, J. Jiggins, M. Paine, J. Proost, and N. Röling. 2000, eds. Knowing and learning for change in agriculture: Case studies from industrialised countries. Paris L’institut National de la Recherche Agronomic (INRA) Editions.

  • Cooper, N.K. 1999. Street level bureaucrats and agri-environmental schemes: The case of the FRCA project officer implementing ESA schemes in England and Wales. PhD Dissertation, King’s College, London.

  • Coughenour, C.M. 2003. Innovating conservation agriculture: The case of no-till cropping. Rural Sociology 68 (2): 278–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coughenour, C.M., and S. Chamala. 2000. Conservation tillage and cropping innovation: Constructing the new culture of agriculture. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curry, N. 1997. Providing new environmental skills for British farmers. Journal of Environmental Management 50: 211–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curry, N., and M. Winter. 2000. The transition to environmental agriculture in Europe: Learning processes and knowledge networks. European Planning Studies, 8 (1): 107–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, G.E. 1980. The educational role of farm management extension work by state advisory services. Journal of Agricultural Economics 31 (2): 149–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 2000. Towards sustainable agriculture: A pilot set of indicators. London: Defra Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • DEFRA. 2002. The strategy for sustainable farming and food: Facing the future. London: DEFRA Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • DEFRA. 2003. Codes of good agricultural practice for the protection of water, air and soil: Summary. London: DEFRA Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • DEFRA. 2006. Cross compliance handbook for England. London: DEFRA Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • DEFRA. 2007. The protection of waters against pollution from agriculture: Consultation on implementation of the Nitrates Directive in England. London: DEFRA Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dissanayake, W. 1992. Knowledge culture and power: Some theoretical issues related to the agricultural knowledge and information systems framework. Knowledge and Policy; the International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilisation 5 (1): 65–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobbs, T.L. 1993. Enhancing agricultural sustainability through changes in federal commodity policy: Marginal versus radical change. Policy Studies Report No. 2. Greenbelt, MD: Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture.

  • Dobbs, T., and J. Pretty. 2001. Future directions for joint agricultural-environmental policies: Implications of the United Kingdom experience for Europe and the United States. South Dakota State University Economics Research Report and University of Essex Centre for Environment and Society Occasional Paper. Brookings, SD: University of South Dakota.

  • Earle, T.R., C.W. Rose, and A.A. Brownlea. 1979. Socio-economic predictors of intention towards soil conservation and their limitation in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 9: 225–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldon, J. 1988. Agricultural change, conservation, and the role of advisors. ECOS 9 (4): 15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel, P.G.H. 1990. Knowledge management in agriculture: Building upon diversity. Knowledge in Society 3 (3): 28–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel, P.G.H. 1997. The social organisation of innovation: A focus on stakeholder interaction. Amsterdam: KIT Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eshuis, J., and M. Stuiver. 2005. Learning in context through conflict and alignment: Farmers and scientist in search of sustainable agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 22 (2): 137–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fearne, A.P. 1990. Communications in agriculture: Results of a farmer survey. Journal of Agricultural Economics 41: 371–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, J., and R. Lenz. 2003. Rooted in grass: Challenging patterns of knowledge exchange as a means of fostering change in southeast Minnesota farm community. Agriculture and Human Values 20: 65–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garforth, C., B. Angell, and J. Archer. 2003. Fragmentation or creative diversity? Options in the provision of land management advisory services. Land Use Policy 20 (4): 323–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasson, R., and B. Hill. 1996. Socio-economic determinants of the level and rate of on-farm innovation. Kent, UK: Wye College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. 1987. Social theory and modern sociology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giles, A.K. 1983. Some human aspects of giving and taking farm management advice. Journal of Agricultural Economics 34: 317–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, I., T. Dunn, and E. Phillips. 1997. Power, interests and extension of sustainable agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 37 (1): 97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassanein, N., and J.R. Kloppenburg Jr. 1995. Where the grass grows again: Knowledge exchange in the sustainable agriculture movement. Rural Sociology 60 (4): 721–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, E. 1991. Changing technologies: Negotiating autonomy on Cheshire Farms. PhD Dissertation, South Bank Polytechnic, London.

  • Hemidy, L., and M. Cerf. 2000. Managing change in advisory services: Controlling the dynamics of resource transformation and use. In Knowing and learning for change in agriculture. Case studies from industrialised countries, eds. M. Cerf, D. Gibbon, B. Hubert, R. Ison, J. Jiggins, M. Paine, J. Proost, and N. Röling, 351–368. Paris: INRA Editions.

  • Ingram, J., and C. Morris. 2007. The knowledge challenge within the transition towards sustainable soil management: An analysis of agricultural advisors in England. Land Use Policy 24 (1): 100–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ison, R.L, and D.B. Russell, eds. 2000. Agricultural extension and rural development. Breaking the traditions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joint Nature Conservation Council (JNCC). 2002. Environmental effects of the CAP and possible mitigation measures. Report to DEFRA. London: DEFRA Publications.

  • Jones, G.E., M.J. Rolls, and R.B. Tranter. 1987. Information management in Agriculture British Library Review and Report 5931. London, UK: British Library.

  • Juntti, M., and C. Potter. 2002. Interpreting and reinterpreting agri-environmental policy: Communication, trust and knowledge in the implementation process. Sociologia Ruralis 42 (3): 215–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick, S. 2002. Facilitating sustainable natural resource management: Review of the literature. Prepared for Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment as part of the evaluation of the Implementation of Best Practice in Sustainable Agriculture project. University of Tasmania.

  • Kloppenburg, J. Jr. 1991. Social theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural science: Local knowledge for and alternative agriculture. Rural Sociology 56 (4): 519–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. ed. 1986. Power, action and belief. A new sociology of knowledge? Boston, MA: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeuwis, C. 2000. Learning to be sustainable. Does the Dutch agrarian knowledge market fail? Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 7 (2): 79–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, N. 1992. From paradigm lost to paradigm regained. The case of actor-oriented sociology of development. In Battlefields of knowledge: The interlocking theory and practice of social research and development, eds. N. Long, and A. Long, 16–43. London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, N., and J.D. van der Ploeg. 1989. Demythologizing planned intervention. Sociologia Ruralis 29: 227–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, N., and M. Villarreal. 1994. The interweaving of knowledge and power in development interfaces. In Beyond farmer first: Rural people’s knowledge, agricultural research and extension practice, eds. I. Scoones, and J. Thompson, 41–52. London, UK: ITG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, P., J. Clark, S. Seymour, and N. Ward. 1997. Moralising the environment: Countryside changes, farming and pollution. London, UK: UCL Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg, C.C. 1997. Towards general model of consultancy: Foundations. Journal of Organisational Change Management 10 (3): 193–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, F. 1996. How farmers research and learn: The case of arable farmers of East Anglia, UK. Agriculture and Human Values 13 (4): 39–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, E.J.P. 2002. Environmental information for agronomists 2002: Needs and provision. A report by the Farmed Environment Company for Crop Protection Association UK Ltd. and UKASTA.

  • Morgan, K., and J. Murdoch. 2000. Organic vs. conventional agriculture: Knowledge, power and innovation in the food chain. Geoforum 31: 159–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, C., and M. Winter. 1999. Integrated farming systems: The third way for European agriculture? Land Use Policy 16: 193–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Napier, T.L., C.S. Thraen, A. Gore, and W.R. Goe. 1984. Factors affecting the adoption of conventional and conservation tillage practices in Ohio. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 39 (3): 205–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2002. FarmBill 2002 summary of NRCS conservation programs. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/farmbill/2002. Accessed 23 March 2006.

  • Nerbonne, J.F., and R. Lentz. 2003. Rooted in grass: Challenging patterns of knowledge exchange as a means of fostering social change in a southeast Minnesota farm community. Agriculture and Human Values 20 (1): 65–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, P.J., and P.F. Korschin. 1998. The human dimension of soil and water conservation: A historical and methodological perspective. In Advances in soil and water conservation, eds. F.J. Pierce, and W.W. Frye, 159–184. Chelsea MI: Ann Arbor Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, J., D.P. Farmer, A.P Bailey, J.D.H. Keatinge, T. Rehman, and R.B. Tranter. 1997. Integrated arable farming systems and their potential uptake in the UK. Farm Management 9 (10): 483–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pence, R.A., and J.L. Grieshop. 2001. Mapping the road for voluntary change: Partnerships in agricultural extension. Agriculture and Human Values 18 (2): 209–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pretty, J. 1995. Regenerating agriculture: Policies and practice for sustainability and self-reliance. London, UK: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations. 4th edn. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Röling, N. 1992. The emergence of knowledge systems thinking: A changing perception of relationships among innovation, knowledge process and configuration. Knowledge and Policy 5 (1): 42–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Röling, N.G., and J.L.S. Jiggins. 1994. Policy paradigm for sustainable farming. European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 1 (1–3): 23–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Röling, N.G., and M.A.E. Wagemaker, eds. 1998. Facilitating sustainable agriculture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scoones, I., and J. Thompson. 1994. Beyond farmer first: Rural people’s knowledge, agricultural research and extension practice. London, UK: ITG.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaxson, T.F. 1997. Soil erosion and land husbandry. Land Husbandry 2 (1): 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheath, G.W., and R.W. Webby. 2000. The results and success factors of a farm monitoring and study group approach to collective learning. In Knowing and learning for change in agriculture. Case studies from industrialised countries, eds. M. Cerf, D. Gibbon, B. Hubert, R. Ison, J. Jiggins, M. Paine, J. Proost, and N. Röling, 111–120. Paris, France: INRA Editions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K.A., A.J. Brewer, A. Dauven, and D.W. Wilson. 2000. A survey of the production and use of animal manures in England and Wales. I. Pig manure. Soil Use and Management 16 (2):124–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tebrugge, F., and A. Bohrnsen. 2001. Farmers and experts opinion on no-tillage in West Europe and Nebraska. In Conservation agriculture. A world-wide challenge Volume 1, eds. L. Garcia-Torres, J. Benites, and A. Martinez-Vilela, 61–71. Brussels: ECAF Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trautmann, N.M., K.S. Porter, and R.J. Wagenet. 1998. Modern agriculture: Its effects on the environment. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Cooperative Extension.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsouvalis, J., S. Seymour, and C. Watkins. 2000. Exploring knowledge-cultures: Precision farming, yield mapping and the expert-farmer interface. Environment and Planning A32: 908–924.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay, F. 1992. The social context of farmers’ adoption of environmentally sound farming practices. In Agriculture, environment and society, eds. G. Lawrence, F. Vanclay, and B. Furse, 94–121. Melbourne, Australia: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanclay, F., and G. Lawrence. 1994. Farmer rationality and the adoption of environmentally sound practices: A critique of the assumptions of traditional agricultural extension. European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 1 (1): 59–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Crowder, L., and J. Andersen. 1997. Linking research, extension and education: Why is the problem so persistent and pervasive? European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 3 (4): 241–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Ban, A.W., and H.S. Hawkins. 1996. Agricultural extension. 2nd edn. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldenstrom, C. 2002. Constructing the world in dialogue. PhD thesis, Stockholm University.

  • Ward, N. 1995. Technological change and the regulation of pollution from agricultural pesticides. Geoforum 26 (1): 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, N., and R. Munton. 1992. Conceptualising agriculture –environment relations. Combining political economy and social cultural approaches to pesticide pollution. Sociologia Ruralis 32 (1): 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, M. 1995. Networks of knowledge: A review of environmental advice, training, education and research for the agricultural community in the UK. Report to WWF. Cheltenham: CCRU.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the Economic and Social Research Council in UK who funded a post graduate research studentship which enabled me to carry out this study. I would also like to thank all those concerned with the case study initiatives who assisted with the research, in particular the participating farmers and advisors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Countryside and Community Research Institute, University of Gloucestershire, Dunholme Villa, Park, Cheltenham, GL50 2RH, UK

    Julie Ingram

Authors
  1. Julie Ingram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie Ingram.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ingram, J. Agronomist–farmer knowledge encounters: an analysis of knowledge exchange in the context of best management practices in England. Agric Hum Values 25, 405–418 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9134-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9134-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation