Skip to main content
Log in

Why wheat farmers could reduce chemical inputs: evidence from social, economic, and agronomic analysis

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Agronomy for Sustainable Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Though European policies recommend pesticide reduction, most farmers still manage their crops with a high level of chemical inputs, notably in arable crop-based systems. Factors influencing farmers’ practices and the reasons why they do not adopt alternative techniques are not well-known. Actual reports on that topic are based on monodisciplinary analyses either in agronomy, sociology, or economics, whereas farmers’ motives are most probably manifold. Therefore, we surveyed winter wheat agricultural practices to understand the factors influencing the choice of crop management plans implemented by farmers. We interviewed 71 farmers in the French Department of Eure-et-Loir. Results revealed three main types of practices depending on inputs and wheat yield: (1) 29 % of farmers use low levels of inputs and get low yield, (2) 38 % of farmers use medium levels of inputs and get high yield, (3) 33 % of farmers use high levels of inputs and get medium yield. We found that the medium-input type is the most efficient with better economic results whatever the wheat price. On the other hand, the high-input type has a lower economic performance. We showed that farm profile, individual motives, and social commitments explain the level of input use. High-input practices are often implemented by farmers who have less family labor availability and who rarely join extension groups, whereas low-input practices are conducted by farmers bearing civic responsibilities and showing environmental awareness. The novelty of our study is to use a multidisciplinary analysis to take into account agronomic, social, and economic factors.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abadi Ghadim AK, Pannell DJ (1999) A conceptual framework of adoption of an agricultural innovation. Agric Econ 21:145–154. doi:10.1016/S0169-5150(99)00023-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arellanes P, Lee DR (2003) The determinants of adoption of sustainable agriculture technologies: evidence from the hillsides of Honduras. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference of Agricultural Economists (IAAE). 16–22 August 2003, Durban, South Africa

  • Aubertot JN, Barbier JM, Carpentier A, Gril JJ, Guichard L, Lucas P, Savary S, Savini I, Voltz M (2005) Pesticides, agriculture and the environment. Reducing the use of pesticides and limiting their environmental impact. Summary of the Collective Scientific Expert Report INRA and Cemagref, France

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagheri A, Shabanali Fami H, Rezvanfar A, Asadi A, Yazdani S (2008) Perceptions of paddy farmers towards sustainable agricultural technologies: case of Haraz catchments area in Mazandaran province of Iran. Am J Applied Sci 5(10):1384–1391. doi:10.3844/ajassp.2008.1384.1391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blazy JM, Ozier-Lafontaine H, Doré T, Thomas A, Wery J (2009) A methodological framework that accounts for farm diversity in the prototyping of crop management systems. Application to banana-based systems in Guadeloupe. Agric Syst 101:30–41. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2009.02.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boussemart JP, Leleu H, Ojo O (2011) Could society’s willingness to reduce pesticide use be aligned with farmers’ economic self-interest? Ecolog Econ 70:1797–1804. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.05.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bürger J, de Mol F, Gerowitt B (2012) Influence of cropping system factors on pesticide use intensity—a multivariate analysis of on-farm data in North East Germany. Eur J Agron 40:54–63. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2012.02.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton M, Rigby D, Young T (1999) Analysis of the determinants of adoption of organic horticultural techniques in the UK. J Agr Econ 50(1):47–63. doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.1999.tb00794.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butault JP, Dedryver CA, Gary C, Guichard L, Jacquet F, Meynard JM, Nicot P, Pitrat M, Reau R, Sauphanor B, Savini I, Volay T (2010) Écophyto R&D. Quelles voies pour réduire l’usage des pesticides ? Synthèse du rapport d’étude, INRA Editeur (France), 90 p.

  • Carolan MS (2005) Barriers to the adoption or sustainable agriculture on rented land: an examination of contesting social fields. Rural Sociol 70(3):387–413. doi:10.1526/0036011054831233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerf M, Guillot MN, Olry P (2011) Acting as a change agent in supporting sustainable agriculture: how to cope with new professional situations? The J Agr Educ Ext 17(1):7–19. doi:10.1080/1389224X.2011.536340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charles R, Jolliet O, Gaillard G, Pellet D (2006) Environmental analysis of intensity level in wheat crop production using life cycle assessment. Agr Ecosyst Environ 113:216–225. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.09.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chikowo R, Faloya V, Petit S, Munier-Jolain NM (2009) Integrated Weed Management systems allow reduced reliance on herbicides and long-term weed control. Agr Ecosyst Environ 132:237–242. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2009.04.009

  • Colbach N, Lucas P, Meynard JM (1997) Influence of wheat crop management on take-all development and infection cycles. Phytopathology 87:26–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Comer S, Ekanem E, Muhammad S, Singh SP, Tegegne F (1999) Sustainable and conventional farmers: a comparison of socio-economic characteristics, attitude and beliefs. J Sustain Agr 15(1):29–45. doi:10.1300/J064v15n01_04

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ducos G, Dupraz P, Bonnieux F (2009) Agri-environment contract adoption under fixed and variable compliance costs. J envir Plann Mgmt 52(5):669–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Souza Filho HM, Young T, Burton MP (1999) Factors influencing the adoption of sustainable agricultural technologies: evidence from the State of Espı́rito Santo, Brazil. Technol Forecast Soc Change 60:97–112. doi:10.1016/S0040-1625(98)00040-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards-Jones G (2006) Modelling farmer decision-making: concepts, progress and challenges. Anim Sci 82:783–790. doi:10.1017/ASC2006112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eltun R, Korsæth A, Nordheim O (2002) A comparison of environmental, soil fertility, yield, and economical effects in six cropping systems based on an 8-year experiment in Norway. Agr Ecosyst Environ 90:155–168. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00198-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everitt BS, Landau S, Leese M, Stahl D (2011) Cluster analysis, 5th edn. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feder G, Just RE, Zilberman D (1985) Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: a survey. Econ Devel Cult Change 33(2):255–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbell BJ, Carlson GA (1998) Effects of insecticide attributes on within-season insecticide product and rate choices: the case of U.S. apple growers. Amer J Agr Econ 80:382–396. doi:10.2307/1244510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet F, Butault JP, Guichard L (2011) An economic analysis of the possibility of reducing pesticides in French field crops. Ecolog Econ 70:1638–1648. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joffre OM, Bosma RH (2009) Typology of shrimp farming in Bac Lieu Province, Mekong Delta, using multivariate statistics. Agr Ecosyst Environ 132:153–159. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2009.03.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler U, Kreuter F (2012) Data Analysis Using Stata, 3rd edn. Stata Press, College Station

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhfuss L, Jacquet F, Préget R, Thoyer S (2012) Le dispositif des MAEt: une fausse bonne idée ? Revue d’Etude en Agriculture et Environnement 93(4):395–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamine C, Meynard JM, Bui S, Messéan A (2010) Réductions d’intrants: des changements techniques, et après? Effets de verrouillage et voies d’évolution à l’échelle du système agri-alimentaire. Innovations Agronomiques 8:121–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Loyce C, Meynard JM, Bouchard C, Rolland B, Lonnet P, Bataillon P, Bernicot MH, Bonnefoy M, Charrier X, Debote B, Demarquet T, Duperrier B, Félix I, Heddadj D, Leblanc O, Leleu M, Mangin P, Méausoone M, Doussinault G (2008) Interaction between cultivar and crop management effects on winter wheat diseases, lodging, and yield. Crop Prot 27:1131–1142. doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2008.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loyce C, Meynard JM, Bouchard C, Rolland B, Lonnet P, Bataillon P, Bernicot M, Bonnefoy M, Charrier X, Debote B, Demarquet T, Duperrier B, Félix I, Heddadj D, Leblanc O, Leleu M, Mangin P, Méausoone M, Doussinault G (2012) Growing winter wheat cultivars under different management intensities in France: a multicriteria assessment based on economic, energetic and environmental indicators. Field Crops Res 125:167–178. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2011.08.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marra M, Pannell DJ, Abadi Ghadim A (2003) The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve? Agric Sys 75:215–234. doi:10.1016/S0308-521X(02)00066-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meynard JM, Girardin P (1991) Produire autrement. Courrier de la Cellule Environnement INRA 15:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Pingault N, Pleyber E, Champeaux C, Guichard L, Omon B (2009) Produits phytosanitaires et protection intégrée des cultures: l’indicateur de fréquence de traitement (IFT). Agreste - Notes et études socio-économiques 32:61–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Région Centre (2010) Document régional de développement rural (DRDR). Programme de développement rural 2007–2013. Version 4, p 345

  • Rivaud A, Mathé J (2011) Les enjeux cognitifs du défi environnemental dans les exploitations agricoles. Econ Rurale 323:21–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tatlidil FF, Boz I, Tatlidil H (2009) Farmers’ perception of sustainable agriculture and its determinants: a case study in Kahramanmaras province of Turkey. Environ Dev Sustain 11(6):1091–1106. doi:10.1111/j.1574-0864.2005.00305.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vereijken P (1989) From integrated control to integrated farming, an experimental approach. Agr Ecosyst Environ 26:37–43. doi:10.1016/0167-8809(89)90036-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the students from the DA AGRECINA (ecology and agronomic innovations) of Agricultural Engineering Schools of ESA Angers and ISARA Lyon, who conducted the surveys, and their professor Marie Mawois, as well as local institutions (cooperatives, Chamber of Agriculture, and advice organizations) for giving their time to students, and farmers who took part in the survey. We also want to thank Claire Lamine and Marianne Cerf for their contribution to this work. This research was done with the financial support of ANR Systerra—Popsy program (ANR 08-STRA 12).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stéfanie Nave.

About this article

Cite this article

Nave, S., Jacquet, F. & Jeuffroy, MH. Why wheat farmers could reduce chemical inputs: evidence from social, economic, and agronomic analysis. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 33, 795–807 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0144-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0144-y

Keywords

Navigation