Converting to organic farming as a way to enhance adaptive capacity

Organic farming to reduce risk

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

Conventional farming was seen as risky for two main reasons: the persistent market turbulences had led farmers to question whether it was economically feasible to continue as conventional dairy farmers and the “get big or get out” approach to increase profitability seemed to trap them in a vicious circle. The interviewed farmers perceived the prices for conventional raw milk as low and erratic. Most of the interviewed farmers did not expect such a strong drop in prices, nor such a prolonged crisis, following the abolition of the quota system: “we expected problems with the end of the quota, but not as hard!” (farmer 16), “[that prices would] drop that low again, no, I really didn’t believe it!” (farmer 9). While prices for conventional raw milk might increase in the future, they expect them to remain unpredictable and erratic. The market turbulences have thus led them to question whether the conventional system was viable for them: “as long as milk worked rather well, the question [of conversion] did not really arise. But now, it is especially the financial aspect that makes you think” (farmer 3).

The perception of the low and erratic prices as problematic is compounded by the perception that conventional farming does not offer much room to maneuver, giving farmers the feeling of being trapped: “if one is in this vicious cycle, there is no choice” (farmer 17). Indeed, it seems that the only way to cope with low prices is for the farm to grow, to increase the volume of milk produced, and to take advantage of the economies of scale. However, this is not seen as a promising longer-term strategy: “to compensate prices through volumes, after a while you have to stop” (farmer 15). This is partly because the interviewed farmers do not feel that they live in a region with a comparative advantage in milk production: “we’re poorly placed in the Aveyron to produce conventional milk without quotas, other regions can produce more milk and cheaper” (farmer 11) and partly because the farmers perceive that constantly pushing the cows to produce more milk, and the land to produce more crops, is problematic: “we had reached the end of our rope, our harvests were not high enough, we were exhausting our soils” (farmer 9). The interviewed farmers were thus increasingly aware that they needed to change “something”: the milk crisis following the abolition of the quota system had led them to realize that continuing as conventional farmers was not promising and was increasingly risky. However, given that in this region farms have been handed over within families over many generations, farmers have a high commitment to continue this tradition by identifying ways to secure the future of their family farm.

In this context, organic farming was perceived as offering a promising alternative. A conversion shifts the strategy from focusing on quantity to focusing on quality: “to pull through, we have to stop the high volumes and focus on quality” (farmer 10). Producing milk that complies with organic quality standards allows securing higher prices and engaging in markets that seem more stable: “the tipping point for us was that it is a system that seems more sustainable, where we can try to make predictions not just on the short-term, but also on the medium-term” (farmer 12). And indeed, they feel they have “a positive perspective for at least five years” (farmer 14). This medium-term perspective is linked to the contracts between the Chinese investors and the local dairy. It is also linked to the farmers’ awareness of the strong consumer demand for organic products in France, in Europe, and on the global market: “consumption, nowadays it is organic” (farmer 1), “[organic] now seems established […] these are no longer purchases in response to a food safety crisis. The people are getting used to eating healthier” (farmer 20).

Considering the production system, the interviewed farmers perceive organic farming as instrumental in their efforts to reduce expenditures for inputs and to increase their autonomy by focusing on feed produced on-farm: “I think that the first savings will come from a reduction of inputs, we will have to be as autonomous as possible” (farmer 18). Increasing feed autonomy is an important lever to reduce farm exposure to the volatility of input prices and to the cost-price squeeze, which burdens farmers when input costs remain high but milk prices are low or volatile (Van der Ploeg 2000).

However, organic farming is not devoid of uncertainties. The farmers cannot be sure of the future development of organic markets, so that they were aware that converting was “a bet on the future” (farmer 18). The interviewed farmers were aware that more farmers might convert to organic farming, including in areas where the climate enables milk production at a lower cost: “if Ireland goes organic, we’re in trouble” (farmer 6). If the supply of organic milk increases, then “in 20 years […] organic farming will become ordinary” (farmer 17). Also, with increased supply, it might be more difficult to secure markets: “maybe in ten years, the Chinese will have said goodbye to us” (farmer 14). Also, some farmers were concerned about the evolution of organic standards: “if they become too flexible, then organic will become 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 implementation of the agri-environment program in the framework of the CAP 2014–2020 was delayed, and it was uncertain how the maximum payment per farm would be set by the regional authorities. The interviewed farmers perceived the payments as reducing the risk during the conversion period: “as long as there are the payments, the help for the conversion, I don’t take a big risk, I don’t think so” (farmer 2). However, the farmers could not be sure about the payments’ level, nor about their duration. Indeed, during the collective training sessions with farmers, which we participated in, the local consultants of the Chamber of Agriculture were not only reporting delays in the disbursement of the direct payments and uncertainties in the payment ceilings but also questioning whether there would be payments beyond the first 5-year period. Indeed, the budgets for organic farming set by the Ministry of Agriculture are capped, and the number of conversions far exceeded expectations (CGAAER 2017). However, the interviewed farmers were not too worried: “it should work without the payments, they are the cherry on the cake” (farmer 3).

At the same time, the interviewed farmers were well aware that they would face a number of challenges on the farm: “I’m apprehensive to have dirty crops” (farmer 9); “dock [Rumex sp.] will be a problem” (farmer 15). A few interviewed farmers—especially those that were rather intensive—seemed somewhat worried about this plunge into the unknown: “I’m afraid of stopping maize which is the basis of my cows feeding” (farmer 1); “Will I be up to it?” (farmer 15); “I do not really know where I am going” (farmer 8). The change seemed to be easier for those farmers who were “almost organic anyway”: “my production practices weren’t far from organic, and this makes the leap easier” (farmer 20); “we didn’t follow the [organic] principles, but we were not intensive, we never pushed our animals too far, nor our land” (farmer 14). Thus, the interviewed farmers were aware of the risks linked to the changes in production methods, yet confident in their own capacity to manage the demands of organic farming practices: “our neighbours managed it, so we too will manage it” (farmer 9).

Overall, the interviewed farmers perceived risks and uncertainties in the future of both conventional and organic dairy farming (Fig. 2). However, over the short and medium term, organic farming was perceived as less risky, as milk prices were higher and more stable and consumer perception more supportive, and because at the farm level, it offers the opportunity to increase autonomy, especially regarding feed (Coquil et al. 2014; Benoit et al. 2017). Thus, in the context of low and variable prices for conventional milk, organic farming is perceived as an opportunity, offering better prospects for the future. This is quite different from former studies, where converting to organic farming was considered risky, often due to the lack of technical knowledge (Padel 2001). Our study also shows that farmers carefully assess the trade-offs between external factors, such as product quality requirements and prices, and internal demands, such as risks tied to new production techniques. Farmers are thus carefully observing changes on markets, in regulations, and in technical production practices (Lamine 2011; Chantre and Cardona 2014) and, given the developments they perceive as most likely, strive to anticipate how their farm could fare well in the future.

Open image in new window

Organic farming to stimulate learning

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

A conversion to organic farming was widely perceived by the interviewed farmers as a welcome professional challenge. In conventional farming, the farmers had “recipes” that they knew worked well, and they implemented them each year, with only minor adjustments. Some interviewed farmers said they were tired of this routine and welcomed a new challenge: “I need goals, I didn’t have any anymore” (farmer 18). In organic farming, when they will be facing a problem, there will be no synthetic pesticides or fertilizers that can be applied to correct mistakes. Farmers thus perceived organic farming as farming without a safety net: “you don’t have the product or the stuff which will save you” (farmer 14). And, importantly, they look forward to the challenge: “there is no parachute or umbrella to protect you. Before anything else, it requires us to observe nature, and that will be a real treat” (farmer 15). Converting to organic farming was thus perceived as an opportunity to develop new skills: “you have to learn again how to look closely, to listen, to work with nature; and not exploit her, not negate her” (farmer 16). Organic farming is perceived as technically more challenging, and the farmers looked forward to mastering the challenge for their own sense of achievement: “in conventional we are satisfied, but if we manage without polluting, it will be all the more gratifying” (farmer 1), as well as for peer recognition: “now we want to demonstrate to neighboring conventional farmers that our results will be just as good, even being organic” (farmer 7). The changes in the production practices were thus perceived as a welcome learning opportunity: “I’ll have to go back to school for a bit, that’s clear” (farmer 4).

Their openness to learn new production methods and their ability to face their apprehensions were strengthened by the support they received from organic consultants from the Chamber of Agriculture. These consultants were trusted and widely perceived as “good” consultants, which reassured farmers that they would get reliable advice. It was also important that the Chamber of Agriculture designed a collective learning process (Fig. 3). Within this process, the farmers who were considering a conversion to organic farming were invited to visit several local organic dairy farms. Through these visits, they discovered a stimulating, dynamic network of organic farmers who were willing to openly share their experiences: “there are more exchanges than in conventional farming” (farmer 15). Importantly, the visited farmers did not hesitate to talk about their doubts and discuss mistakes they had made, which encouraged the interviewed farmers to be open too: “it allowed us to talk about it, when something had gone wrong, to say ‘I messed this up, don’t do it like that,’ or: ‘I tried this to correct the mistake,’ or: ‘I did this, it works well.’” (farmer 1). This was a welcome contrast to conventional networks, where the interviewed farmers perceived other conventional farmers as often reserved and individualistic.

Open image in new window

These results are well in line with previous studies that have highlighted that conversion to organic farming demands new skills (Cranfield et al. 2010). Indeed, the interviewed farmers appreciate the conversion to organic farming as an opportunity to learn, as a welcome opportunity to break out of their routine, and as an opportunity to face a new challenge. Indeed, organic farmers often experiment, which allows them to keep their practices attuned to local specificities and adaptable to changing economic, social, and ecological conditions (Vogl et al. 2015). Both learning and experimenting can be enhanced through a group process, where production methods are proposed and discussed, insights integrated, practices implemented on individual farms, and the outcome reflected on collectively (Lamine 2011). Such exchanges are stimulated if there is trust in a group: trust in experts’ information and in peer’s experience. Their openness to face a new professional challenge and to engage in experiential learning and the networks created through the collective processes all contribute to enhancing their adaptive capacity.

Organic farming to increase professional satisfaction

The ability to cope with change is linked to the mental health and the emotional buffer of individuals, which enables them to absorb the impact of change (Marshall et al. 2014). It refers to the ability to see the positive aspects of change and to actively engage with it, rather than perceiving change as a burden to be endured. In the interviews, the emotional burden of feeling trapped in the conventional system was often mentioned, and farmers expected that converting to organic farming would contribute to improving their work satisfaction.

Some farmers pointed out the emotional burden linked to the low conventional milk prices, which negatively affected their financial status: “because at night, you wake up, you ask yourself the question: how are we going to pay the bills? That’s a problem, a big problem” (farmer 9). Other farmers pointed at the high workload they have as conventional farmers, linked to the pressure to increase milk production, to cover the costs despite low milk prices: “we were trapped in our system […] to do a lot of milk, and behind that: a lot of work” (farmer 16). The farmers were aware that this was not just a momentary labor peak, but systemic: “we take it on, and then we notice that we’re in a vicious cycle” (farmer 20). The high labor load is also problematic as it prevents farmers from engaging in important activities: “last winter I could not attend any training courses all winter, as I was alone on the farm and overloaded” (farmer 13). Some farmers perceived the conversion to organic farming as an opportunity to reduce the number of cows, and thus their workload: “why not reduce our herd, maybe do better: more [time for] observation, better milk quality” (farmer 20). Another hoped it would contribute to improving his quality of life: “maybe we will have more free time [with] fewer cows, and we will be more peaceful, relaxed” (farmer 12).

These expectations of a better work-life balance built on what they observed during the on-farm visits organized by the Chamber of Agriculture and the organic consultants. There, they met organic farmers who were satisfied and unworried: “we see them in good spirits, serene in their work and with their finances” (farmer 9). When they compared their own situation as conventional farmers with these organic farmers, they realized the contrast: “farmers who have beautiful fields, who work well, and who, in the end, are more relaxed than you are” (farmer 14).

The interviewed farmers also pointed out that some practices in conventional farming were becoming an emotional burden, and they increasingly felt reluctant to engage in them. In particular, they pointed out their dislike of having to spread chemicals on their fields: “having to attach the sprayer irritated me” (farmer 15); “the products, all that; we are not proud when we apply the products” (farmer 1). They were worried about the impact on their soils: “the chemical fertilizers, when you look it up on the internet: it doesn’t help the soil. In the end, on the long term, it destroys more than it helps” (farmer 4). Some started to feel that the chemicals were affecting their health: “last time I did maize […] I put on the full protective suit, as if I went to the moon, with the mask and all. But my head [hurt], I did not feel well” (farmer 14); “if I open a can of herbicide, I get a headache” (farmer 4). The farmers were concerned not only about their own health but also about the impact of potential chemical residues on consumers: “there are human beings at the end of the chain, who will get it all” (farmer 15). They looked forward not to have to “spread all sorts of stuff on the fields, no longer having to have a cupboard full of chemicals” (farmer 16); “we won’t poison ourselves anymore, we won’t poison anybody anymore” (farmer 2).

The interviewed farmers felt increasingly apprehensive about using agrichemicals, especially given the reports in the media on environmental problems related to conventional farming: “I was never motivated to use the sprayer, we know very well that it is harmful” (farmer 12); “I think that the mentality is changing, even those who don’t convert to organic farming think about reducing their use of chemicals” (farmer 9). The public pressure has led one farmer to abstain from using standard safety measures: “I have started not protecting myself when applying chemicals, to show the tourists that it’s not dangerous” (farmer 7). They also faced these critiques at a personal level, when they have had to justify their practices with non-farming neighbors and tourists: “this context, with the pressure to protect the environment, it is really unbearable: we are always suspected to be environmental criminals […] I exaggerate, but it is really a burden” (farmer 19). Indeed, the farmers would like to be valued and respected for their work: “that people see that in agriculture we don’t do a dirty job, that the people from the cities appreciate us a bit […] I would like that the people take a look, that they are curious” (farmer 13); “it is important that we regain a positive image” (farmer 12).

The interviewed farmers expected that organic production practices would enable them to work in closer conformity with their personal values: “it will be a pleasure to work without chemicals” (farmer 1), to have “respect for nature” (farmer 15). “As an organic farmer, I will be better able to look myself in the mirror” (farmer 17). It will enable them to improve their own and consumers’ health: “to be in harmony with myself, with what I preach, to make a healthy product” (farmer 20). And they already received positive feedback: “when you tell people that you are converting, people say: “Great! That’s good!” (farmer 1).

While the organic production practices are considered by the interviewed farmers to be more environmentally friendly, they are aware that they will still have an impact on the environment: “I would like to see [agriculture] without ploughing, natural pastures, but I do not know if this exists. It is absurd to convert to organic farming and consume more fuel” (farmer 13). They thus feel there are trade-offs: “does it really make sense to have 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 the global market is questionable: “it is a pity to produce milk 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-agricultural neighbors have a positive image of organic farmers, their peers—many of whom are conventional farmers—still perceive organic farmers as odd: “the neighbours, the other farmers tell us that we are a bit mad” (farmer 11). Many conventional colleagues question whether organic farming even works, so that interviewed farmers were faced with numerous questions and warnings: “how will you feed your dairy cows and all, from what will you live?” (farmer 20); “you won’t have any grass next year! You won’t have grass for silage!” (farmer 20); or “it won’t work! Your productivity will drop too far. All that you will gain in price, you will lose in volume, because your cows will only produce half as much” (farmer 1). Not only were many conventional peers doubtful, a number of interviewed farmers also faced the doubts of their family members (i.e., their parents or children), as especially parents tend to perceive organic farming as a step backwards. Despite this, all interviewed farmers felt that the perception of organic farming was changing: “the mentality evolves: today, if you are organic, it’s not that you are a revolutionary [as in 1968], it’s that you think about things” (farmer 4).

The interviews highlighted the emotional dimension tied to production practices. Many of the interviewed farmers were emotionally burdened by financial challenges, by a high workload, or by concerns about the potential impact of the use of synthetic chemicals on their own health and on the environment. They also tended to be emotionally burdened by the negative reports in the media, the negative public image of conventional farming, and the need to justify their practices to non-farmers. All of these reduced their work satisfaction, which is particularly problematic as for most, being a farmer was a vocation rather than just a “job.” In many ways, converting to organic farming was linked to the expectation that it would enable them to enjoy their work (Fig. 4), a satisfaction heightened by the positive feedback they already receive for their decision to convert. The importance of such “pleasures” when changing towards more ecological farming practices has been emphasized by Barbier et al. (2015). Indeed, farmers want to be proud of the work they do, which requires a fit between their aspirations and the daily reality of being a farmer (Dessein and Nevens 2007). Work satisfaction and being proud of their work contribute to emotional health, which is essential to enable farmers to cope with change and recover from setbacks.

Open image in new window

Organic farming to maintain the family farm

The fourth dimension of adaptive capacity identified by Marshall et al. (2014) is the level of interest in change. This is related to flexibility and to the ability to explore different options (Darnhofer et al. 2010; Astigarraga and Ingrand 2011). People interested in change observe trends in the broader regional, sectoral, and societal context; can assess possible consequences; and identify a range of alternatives to face change. The aim is not to just 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 own farm, as well as the changes in public perception of conventional farming, the interviewed farmers were aware that they needed to change: “we had to find something: change production or converting, we don’t have the choice anymore!” (farmer 20); “I reached a point where I had to get out of conventional farming, I had to find an exit” (farmer 4). The farmers have thus been looking for options: “find solutions to be able to continue” (farmer 13). With the dairy offering contracts to organic farmers, conversion was a welcome opportunity: “we had been thinking about it for a long time, we kind of jumped on the opportunity” (farmer 14). And indeed, several interviewed farmers perceived conversion to organic farming, now that there was an organic dairy in the region, as an opportunity not to be missed, as a “train that you need to catch, because it won’t come around again” (farmer 9).

The interviewed farmers expressed a strong attachment to the place, to maintaining their farming activity in this territory. They were all born on the territory and grew up in the local farming tradition, on farms that had been in their family for several generations: “to avoid losing what my father had done with the family farm” (farmer 4). They were also committed to continue to be part of the local community. Converting to organic farming was thus not seen as a critique of conventional farming and was not seen as jeopardizing their solidarity with other farmers: “it’s not because I’ll be organic that I will say something bad about my conventional neighbour” (farmer 18); “I think that we need a bit of everything. We need organic, and we need conventional, because, after all, we need volume to feed the planet” (farmer 19). The conversion is thus not a matter of ideology: “we are not born organic, we don’t eat organic, our parents don’t eat organic” (farmer 12); “we evolve in our head, but I am not born with this mentality” (farmer 5). To most of the interviewed farmers, converting to organic farming is primarily a promising strategy to maintain their family farms, while adapting to changes in the broader context. Such changes were required in the past and will be necessary in the future (Fig. 5).

Open image in new window

That the interviewed farmers are open to change is expressed by how they look forward to the upcoming challenges: “it allows us to energize us, in our heads, see other horizons, think about other things. I myself, I really need this to work” (farmer 20); “it’s a new challenge, it renews my motivation, rather than continue what we’ve been doing, routine” (farmer 3). This desire to change and to take up a new challenge is embedded in a wider awareness that practices need to be questioned and renewed regularly, as getting stuck in a routine can be dangerous: “the worry of the farmer – me included, but it seems to me that I stepped out – is to get stuck in a rut. We are so stuck in our habits, we don’t look back. We know we have to put that much nitrogen fertilizer and that much of this. It’s a schema. And one does not want 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, farmers were aware that they needed to implement changes on their farm, if they wanted to ensure its continuity. These results are in line with studies of farms transitioning towards more ecological practices, which showed that transitions were often initiated by farmers perceiving their current practices as problematic and actively looking for alternatives (Lamine and Bellon 2009; Coquil et al. 2014; Chantre et al. 2015). Changing practices is thus recognized as necessary to keep in tune with a changing economic and social context (Goulet and Vinck 2012). The interviewed farmers were aware of the interplay between change and persistence and thus were interested in actively shaping changes on their farm, to avoid getting caught in routines, which were out of synch with society’s expectations of agriculture.