farming case study

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Making Small Farms More Sustainable — and Profitable

• Lino Miguel Dias,
• Robert S. Kaplan,
• Harmanpreet Singh

A case study of Better Life Farming, an innovative public-private partnership in India, Indonesia, and Bangladesh.

Smallholder farms provide a large proportion of food supply in developing economies, but 40% of these farmers live on less than U.S.$2/day.  With a rapidly growing global population it is imperative to improve the productivity and security of farmers making up this sector.  This article presents the results of Better Life Farming, an ecosystem that connects smallholder farmers in India, Indonesia, and Bangladesh to the capabilities, products, and services of corporations and NGOs.

More than 2 billion people currently live on about 550 million small farms, with 40% of them on incomes of less than U.S. $2 per day. Despite high rates of poverty and malnutrition, these smallholders produce food for more than 50% of the population in low-and middle-income countries, and they have to be part of any solution for achieving the 50% higher food production required to feed the world’s projected 2050 population of nearly 10 billion people.

• LD Lino Miguel Dias is Vice-President Smallholder Farming in the Crop Science Division at Bayer AG, a global pharmaceuticals and life sciences company based in Germany, and Invited Professor at University of Lisbon, Portugal.
• Robert S. Kaplan is a senior fellow and the Marvin Bower Professor of Leadership Development emeritus at Harvard Business School. He coauthored the McKinsey Award–winning HBR article “ Accounting for Climate Change ” (November–December 2021).
• HS Harmanpreet Singh is Smallholder Partnerships Lead for the Asia Pacific region at Bayer AG, a global pharmaceutical and life Sciences company.

Partner Center

• Person Of The Week
• Transportation
• Real Estate
• Artificial Intelligence
• Renewable Energy
• The Green Podcast
• The Ocean Optimism Podcast
• Mountain Conversations
• Documentaries
• About Green.Org
• Contact Green.Org

Vertical Farming: A Case Study in Sustainable Urban Development

• 1.1 Introduction
• 2 Historical Background
• 3 Key Concepts and Definitions
• 4 Main Discussion Points
• 5 Case Studies or Examples
• 6 Current Trends or Developments
• 7 Challenges or Controversies
• 8 Future Outlook
• 9 Conclusion
• 10.1 Share this:
• 10.2 Like this:
• 10.3 Related

Vertical Farming: Revolutionizing Sustainable Urban Development

Introduction.

Vertical farming has emerged as a critical solution for sustainable urban development, addressing pressing issues of food security and environmental concerns. This innovative approach to agriculture involves cultivating crops in vertically stacked layers, using advanced technologies such as hydroponics and aeroponics. By maximizing land and resource efficiency, vertical farming has the potential to transform urban landscapes and ensure a sustainable future.

Historical Background

The concept of vertical farming can be traced back to the early 20th century when visionaries like Buckminster Fuller and M. C. Escher first explored the idea of growing crops in urban environments. However, practical applications of vertical farming gained traction only in the 1990s. Early pioneers like Dickson Despommier and his students at Columbia University further developed the concept, paving the way for the modern vertical farming movement.

Key Concepts and Definitions

Vertical farming can be defined as the practice of growing crops in vertically stacked layers or structures, usually indoors or in controlled environments. This approach allows for year-round cultivation, independent of weather conditions. Sustainable urban development refers to the creation of cities that prioritize environmental, social, and economic sustainability. Key terms associated with vertical farming include hydroponics, a method of growing plants without soil, and aeroponics, a technique that involves misting plant roots with nutrient-rich solutions.

Main Discussion Points

Advantages of vertical farming in sustainable urban development are multifaceted. Firstly, vertical farming maximizes land utilization by utilizing vertical space in urban areas. By stacking crops vertically, a significantly smaller land area is required compared to traditional farming methods. This efficient use of land not only conserves valuable space but also reduces the need for deforestation. Additionally, vertical farming minimizes greenhouse gas emissions by minimizing transportation distances between farms and urban centers.

Secondly, vertical farming offers the potential for increased food production in urban areas. By bringing agriculture closer to consumers, the freshness and nutritional value of produce are preserved. This localized production also reduces the carbon footprint associated with long-distance transportation. Furthermore, the controlled environment of vertical farms allows for year-round cultivation, ensuring a stable food supply regardless of seasonal variations.

Technological innovations have played a pivotal role in advancing vertical farming. Automated systems for monitoring and control enable precise monitoring of environmental conditions such as temperature, humidity, and nutrient levels. This level of precision ensures optimal growing conditions for crops, resulting in higher yields. LED lighting has also revolutionized vertical farming by providing tailored spectra of light that accelerate plant growth while minimizing energy consumption. Integration of renewable energy sources, such as solar panels and wind turbines, further enhances the sustainability of vertical farming operations.

Economic and social benefits of vertical farming are equally significant. Job creation and economic growth are stimulated as vertical farms require a skilled workforce for operations and maintenance. In urban areas, where unemployment rates may be higher, vertical farming presents an opportunity for local communities to thrive. Moreover, vertical farming improves food access and security by providing fresh produce in food deserts and areas lacking access to nutritious food. Community engagement and education opportunities are also promoted through vertical farming, as local residents can actively participate in farming activities and gain knowledge about sustainable agricultural practices.

Case Studies or Examples

The Plant Chicago serves as an exemplary model of an urban vertical farm and food business incubator. Located in Chicago, this converted meatpacking facility houses a variety of vertically stacked crops, aquaponics systems, and food production businesses. The Plant Chicago demonstrates the potential for vertical farming to revitalize abandoned industrial spaces and foster sustainable economic development.

AeroFarms, based in New Jersey, is a leading vertical farming company that has pioneered numerous technological advancements in urban agriculture. By utilizing aeroponic systems and LED lighting, AeroFarms achieves impressive crop yields while minimizing resource usage. Their approach demonstrates the scalability and commercial viability of vertical farming.

Sky Greens, situated in Singapore, showcases the innovative use of rotating systems in vertical farming. The rotating structure allows crops to receive uniform light exposure, promoting optimal growth. Sky Greens demonstrates the adaptability of vertical farming to limited land availability in densely populated cities.

Current Trends or Developments

Vertical farming is increasingly being integrated into urban planning policies as cities recognize its potential to address food security and environmental concerns. Governments are incentivizing the adoption of vertical farming through grants and tax benefits. This integration ensures that future urban developments prioritize sustainability and resilience.

The expansion of vertical farming in commercial agriculture is another emerging trend. Large-scale vertical farming operations are being established worldwide to meet the growing demand for locally sourced, fresh produce. This expansion not only supports local economies but also reduces the dependence on imported food.

Research advancements in crop selection and cultivation techniques are continuously improving the efficiency and productivity of vertical farming. Scientists are developing crop varieties that are better suited for vertical farming environments, resulting in higher yields and nutritional value. Additionally, cultivation techniques are being refined to optimize resource utilization and minimize waste.

Challenges or Controversies

High initial investment costs and scalability issues pose challenges to the widespread adoption of vertical farming. The construction and setup of vertical farming facilities require substantial capital investment, limiting accessibility for smaller-scale farmers. Furthermore, scaling vertical farming operations to meet the demand of larger populations remains a challenge due to limited technological and logistical capabilities.

Energy consumption and environmental impact have been subjects of debate surrounding vertical farming. Critics argue that the energy-intensive nature of vertical farming, particularly the use of artificial lighting, may offset the environmental benefits. However, advancements in energy-efficient LED lighting and the integration of renewable energy sources are mitigating these concerns.

Debates over the nutritional value and taste of vertical farm produce have also emerged. Some argue that the controlled environment of vertical farms may result in less flavorful produce compared to field-grown crops. However, proponents argue that the shorter time from harvest to consumption ensures higher nutrient retention and freshness, ultimately outweighing any perceived taste differences.

Future Outlook

Vertical farming holds immense potential to revolutionize urban agriculture and contribute to sustainable development. As technology continues to advance, vertical farming will become increasingly efficient and scalable. Collaboration between vertical farming and other sustainable practices, such as renewable energy generation and waste management, will further enhance the environmental impact of urban agriculture.

The adoption of vertical farming on a global scale will require collaboration between governments, businesses, and communities. Sharing best practices and knowledge across borders will accelerate the development and implementation of vertical farming technologies. By embracing vertical farming, cities worldwide can ensure food security, reduce environmental degradation, and create thriving urban communities.

Vertical farming represents a milestone in sustainable urban development, offering a viable solution to pressing food security and environmental challenges. By maximizing land utilization, employing technological innovations, and stimulating economic and social benefits, vertical farming has the potential to revolutionize agriculture. Embracing this transformative approach will pave the way for a sustainable and resilient future.

Despommier, D. (2011). The vertical farm: feeding the world in the 21st century. Macmillan. Son, J. E., & Goyal, R. K. (2011). Vertical farming: A sustainable solution to the global food supply crisis? Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 1, 441-447. AeroFarms. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://aerofarms.com/ The Plant Chicago. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.plantchicago.org/ Sky Greens. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.skygreens.com/

Share this:

Related posts, vertical farms and the role of women in agriculture, vertical farming: navigating the challenges of food waste, vertical farming and the art of crop diversity, leave a reply cancel reply.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Discover more from Green.org

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Farmer-to-Farmer Case Study Series

Farmers adapt to challenges in unique ways. Some of these strategies are unique to a specific location, while others are universal to agriculture. By adopting farming practices such as tillage, residue management, crop rotations, soil organic amendments and resource-use efficiency farmers have been able to overcome barriers, often in unexpected ways. Innovative approaches used by Pacific Northwest farmers to improve on-farm sustainability and longevity are being featured in a series of case studies.

The REACCH Producer Survey showed that other farmers are the most trusted source of information for producers. The goal of these case studies is to inspire others to take management risks on their farms that can improve their overall sustainability and resiliency into the future, by showcasing producers who have done so successfully. Case studies are in progress and will be added to this page as they are completed.

Profiled Farmers

Dryland case studies.

Ron and Andy Juris: Stripper Header (low rainfall)    Video     Full Case Study Highlights the experiences of a father-son team who use the stripper header and direct seeding to maximize water retention and residue retention in a low-rainfall area of WA.

Ron Jirava: Conservation Tillage in a Winter Wheat-Fallow System (low rainfall)    Video    Full case study in progress. Explores tillage strategies used by an innovative farmer in an area that receives 11.5 inches of precipitation annually. These strategies include use of an undercutter sweep, and experimentation with a no-till winter wheat-fallow rotation.

Bill Jepson: Flex Cropping (low rainfall)    Video     Full Case Study Features a direct-seed, OR grain farmer who produces cash crops annually in a traditional wheat-fallow system using a flexible approach based on weather and markets. In addition to increasing the overall farm profit, this system has improved weed control and increased soil organic matter on the farm.

Steve and Becky Camp: Enhancing Crop Diversity (intermediate rainfall)   Video     Full Case Study Features a husband and wife team who have been able to improve soil health and moisture retention by diversifying to a 4-5 year crop rotation utilizing unconventional crops in a low-rainfall area in eastern WA.

Eric Odberg: Precision Nitrogen Application (high rainfall)    Video     Full Case Study Highlights the experiences of a fourth generation, no-till grain farmer for incorporating variable rate nitrogen technology into his farm management strategy in a high-rainfall dryland production region in ID.

Drew Leitch (high rainfall)    Video    Full Case Study in progress Highlights a third-generation farmer who has successfully produced both spring seeded and fall seeded cover crops on his farm in Nez Perce county. Cover crops improve soil health and provide needed grazing for his cow-calf herd.

Steve and Nate Riggers (high rainfall)     Video   Full case study in progress

Irrigated Case Studies

Dale Gies: Biofumigant Cover Cropping in Potatoes    Video     Full case study in progress.  Demonstrates how a wheat-potato farmer has incorporated a mustard cover crop to act as a soil fumigant without destroying soil structure in an irrigated agriculture system in WA.

Jake Madison: Deficit Irrigation    Video    Full Case Study in progress Relates unique strategies used by an Oregon farmer to cope with water limitations. By providing wheat, corn, and alfalfa with less water than they would need to achieve maximum yields, but still enough to be profitable, this farmer saves water for the farm's most valuable crops, primarily potatoes and onions.

Lorin Grigg: Strip-Tillage for Onions and Sweet Corn    Video     Full Case Study in progress Discusses Grigg’s cover cropping and strip tillage strategy to protect onion and sweet corn seedlings from windblown sand near Quincy, WA.

Eric Williamson: Strip-Tillage of Vegetables with Livestock Integration    Video    Full Case Study in progress Williamson's vegetable farm in the Columbia Basin has transitioned to strip-tillage and direct seeding over the past 15 years in order to reduce soil loss and crop damage caused by high winds. The farm also incorporates cover cropping, soil amendments, and integrated livestock.

Rangelands and Dairy Case Studies

Maurice and Beth Robinette: Holistic Management (ranching) Near Cheney WA, Maurice Robinette and his daughter Beth use holistic management practices to run their ranch. See videos on Maximizing Water and Summer Calving

Jay Gordon: A Community-Based Response to Flooding (dairy)    Video     Full Case Study in progress Gordon, a sixth-generation dairy farmer and member of the Washington State Dairy Federation, is part of a group of community partners and researchers who are developing proposals to respond to flooding in the Chehalis Valley.

Ron and Andy Juris: Stripper Header (low rainfall)

Highlights the experiences of a father-son team who use the stripper header and direct seeding to maximize water retention and residue retention in a low-rainfall area of WA.

Left: The Jurises' stripper header, mounted on their combine. Photo by Hilary Davis.

Ron Jirava: Conservation Tillage in a Winter Wheat-Fallow System (low rainfall)

Left: Undercutter. Photo by Bill Schillinger

Bill Jepsen: Flex Cropping (low rainfall)

Features a direct-seed, OR grain farmer who produces cash crops annually in a traditional wheat-fallow system using a flexible approach based on weather and markets. In addition to increasing the overall farm profit, this system has improved weed control and increased soil organic matter on the farm.

Left: Spring wheat grows in winter wheat stubble. When sufficient water is stored in the soil profile over the winter, Jepsen plants spring wheat or spring barley. Photo by Bill Jepsen. 

Steve and Becky Camp: Enhancing Crop Diversity (intermediate rainfall)

Features a husband and wife team who have been able to improve soil health and moisture retention by diversifying to a 4-5 year crop rotation utilizing unconventional crops in a low-rainfall area in eastern WA.

Left: Austrian winter peas farm contrast with wheat and fallow in the background—a more common pattern for the Camps’ area. Photo by Karen Sowers.

Eric Odberg: Precision Nitrogen Application (high rainfall)

Photo by Guy Swanson

Highlights the experiences of a fourth generation, no-till grain farmer for incorporating variable rate nitrogen technology into his farm management strategy in a high-rainfall dryland production region in ID.

Drew Leitch: Grazed Cover Cropping (high rainfall)

Left: Cows grazing in cover crop. Photo by Doug Finkelnburg.

Steve and Nate Riggers: Enhancing Cropping Diversity (high rainfall)

Steve and Nate Riggers grow winter and spring wheat on the Camas Prairie in Idaho, but have incorporated spring broadleaf crops such as peas, lentils, and canola. They also grow less-common crops like buckwheat, turf grass seed, crested wheatgrass seed, and alfalfa in an area that receives about 22 inches of rain annually.

Dryland alfalfa by Darrell Kilgore

Dale Gies: Biofumigant Cover Cropping in Potatoes

Trials of biofumigant efficacy at the Gies farm. Photo: Andy McGuire.

Demonstrates how a wheat-potato farmer has incorporated a mustard cover crop to act as a soil fumigant without destroying soil structure in an irrigated agriculture system in WA.

Jake Madison: Deficit Irrigation

Because Madison’s water sources are limited, Madison deficit irrigates wheat, corn, alfalfa and other hay crops, while high-profit vegetable crops, including potatoes and onions, receive full water. Photo: Darrell Kilgore

Relates unique strategies used by an Oregon farmer to cope with water limitations. By providing wheat, corn, and alfalfa with less water than they would need to achieve maximum yields, but still enough to be profitable, this farmer saves water for the farm's most valuable crops, primarily potatoes and onions.

Lorin Grigg: Strip-Tillage for Onions and Sweet Corn

Grigg plants onions into tilled strips between spring wheat residues. The residues reduce wind erosion, protecting emerging onion seedlings. Photo: Darrell Kilgore

Eric Williamson: Strip-Tillage of Vegetables with Livestock Integration

Planting wheat in strips facilitates planting of the following corn crop using strip tillage. Photo by Darrell Kilgore

Livestock-related case studies are also available at the website of Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources .

The Camp, Gies, Grigg (video), Jepsen, Jirava, Juris, Leitch, Madison, Odberg, Riggers and Williamson case studies are material that is based upon work that is supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture, under award number 2011-68002-30191 (Regional Approaches to Climate Change for Pacific Northwest Agriculture). The Grigg case study (written and video) relied on support from Western Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (Western SARE). The Gies case study was completed with the support of the Laird Norton Family Foundation.

Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Journals
• > Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems
• > Volume 37 Issue 3
• > Performance of organic farming in developing countries:...

Article contents

Introduction, literature review: economic performance of organic farming in developing countries, conclusions, performance of organic farming in developing countries: a case of organic tomato value chain in lebanon.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2022

The future of food value chains has increasingly been reliant on the wider adoption of sustainable farming practices that include organic agriculture. Organic farming in developed countries is standardized and occupies a niche in agro-food systems. However, such a standard model, when transferred to developing countries, faces difficulty in implementation. This study aims to investigate the factors affecting the expansion of organic agriculture in Lebanon, a Middle Eastern context, and analyzes the economic performance of organic tomato among smallholder farmers. Accordingly, the study was able to determine the production costs, map the organic value chain and assess the profitability of organic tomato by comparing it with the conventional tomato in the same value chain. The study finds organic farming being increasingly expensive primarily due to the inherently high cost of production in Lebanon and the inefficient organization of the organic value chain. As a result, we suggest a blended approach of organic farming with other models, in particular agro-tourism, as a local solution to the sustainability of organic farming in developing countries with limited resources (land and labor) and characterized by long marketing channels. In countries such as Lebanon, a country endowed with rich cultural heritage and natural and beautiful landscapes, the agro-tourism model can harness organic farming and tourism activities. We also propose the adoption of local collective guarantee systems for organic production as a way to alleviate the costs of third-party auditing in Lebanon.

Global issues such as climate change, food security and food safety are at the forefront of various policy and academic debates. As industrial agriculture continues to be scrutinized, there are calls for alternative farming systems to meet the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Eyhorn et al ., Reference Eyhorn, Muller, Reganold, Frison, Herren, Luttikholt, Mueller, Sanders, Scialabba and Seufert 2019 ). In today's environment, problems associated with conventional farming systems are tragically noticeable and have drastic effects on the environment and public health (Horrigan et al ., Reference Horrigan, Lawrence and Walker 2002 ; Carvalho, Reference Carvalho 2017 ). Organic agriculture has been popularized as an innovative approach to maintain the environment and human health as well as become a source of sustainable global food supply in the 21st century (Gomiero et al ., Reference Gomiero, Pimentel and Paoletti 2011 ; Reganold and Wachter, Reference Reganold and Wachter 2016 ; Shennan et al ., Reference Shennan, Krupnik, Baird, Cohen, Forbush, Lovell and Olimpi 2017 ). Although recent years have witnessed an increase in organic farming, reaching a total area of about 72 million hectares and a market value of 97 billion euros as of 2018 (Willer et al ., Reference Willer, Schlatter, Trávníček, Kemper and Lernoud 2020 ), organic agriculture still occupies only 1.5% of the global agricultural land.

Organic agriculture has gained an excellent reputation from the ecological and food safety perspective, especially from the educated, middle-to-high income and health-conscious segments of the society (Rana and Paul, Reference Rana and Paul 2017 ). Socially, organic farming has added benefits in terms of a better work environment, improved employment opportunities, education, health and livelihoods in less favored areas (Qiao et al ., Reference Qiao, Halberg, Vaheesan and Scott 2016 ; Jouzi et al ., Reference Jouzi, Azadi, Taheri, Zarafshani, Gebrehiwot, Van Passel and Lebailly 2017 ). However, the relative economic performance of organic vis-à-vis conventional farming remains contentious (Crowder and Reganold, Reference Crowder and Reganold 2015 ; Reganold and Wachter, Reference Reganold and Wachter 2016 ). Questions continue to be raised about the appropriateness of organic farming to feed the growing world population, which is expected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050 (Connor and Mínguez, Reference Connor and Mínguez 2012 ; Connor, Reference Connor 2013 ). This question is even more relevant for developing countries where population is rising and poverty is rampant (Vanlauwe et al ., Reference Vanlauwe, Coyne, Gockowski, Hauser, Huising, Masso, Nziguheba, Schut and Van Asten 2014 ). The main criticism against organic farming lies in its relatively lower yields (and thus the need for more land to fill potential food supply gaps) and higher prices for consumers (de Ponti et al ., Reference de Ponti, Rijk and van Ittersum 2012 ; Seufert et al ., Reference Seufert, Ramankutty and Foley 2012 ; Ponisio et al ., Reference Ponisio, M'Gonigle, Mace, Palomino, De Valpine and Kremen 2015 ).

Nonetheless, empirical findings are rather promising and provide evidence of relatively lower yield gaps between organic and conventional farming systems (Badgley et al ., Reference Badgley, Moghtader, Quintero, Zakem, Chappell, Aviles-Vazquez, Samulon and Perfecto 2007 ; Schrama et al ., Reference Schrama, de Haan, Kroonen, Verstegen and Van der Putten 2018 ). For example, using large meta-datasets, de Ponti et al . ( Reference de Ponti, Rijk and van Ittersum 2012 ), Ponisio et al . ( Reference Ponisio, M'Gonigle, Mace, Palomino, De Valpine and Kremen 2015 ) and Seufert et al . ( Reference Seufert, Ramankutty and Foley 2012 ) reported yield gaps ranging from 19 to 25% between organic and conventional farming systems. Furthermore, the relative performance of organic and conventional farming is context-specific and can vary across crops and geographies (Seufert et al ., Reference Seufert, Ramankutty and Foley 2012 ; Seufert and Ramankutty, Reference Seufert and Ramankutty 2017 ). For example, in water scare environments, organic farming tends to provide higher yields than conventional farming because of the higher water-holding capacity of soils in the former (Gomiero et al ., Reference Gomiero, Pimentel and Paoletti 2011 ). Also, a review article (based on 88 papers) revealed higher yields (26%), gross margins (51%) and organic carbon content (53%) under organic farming in the context of the tropics and subtropics (Te Pas and Rees, Reference Te Pas and Rees 2014 ). More importantly, growers have become more profitable under organic agriculture (Crowder and Reganold, Reference Crowder and Reganold 2015 ; Berg et al ., Reference Berg, Maneas and Salguero Engström 2018 ) as the popularity of organic produce rises among urban consumers (Rana and Paul, Reference Rana and Paul 2017 ).

In general, the future of global food supply depends on the wider adoption of sustainable food systems that include organic agriculture, reductions of food waste and changes in dietary habits, especially against the most resource-intensive animal-based protein sources (Tscharntke et al ., Reference Tscharntke, Clough, Wanger, Jackson, Motzke, Perfecto, Vandermeer and Whitbread 2012 ; Garnett et al ., Reference Garnett, Appleby, Balmford, Bateman, Benton, Bloomer, Burlingame, Dawkins, Dolan and Fraser 2013 ; Muller et al ., Reference Muller, Schader, Scialabba, Brüggemann, Isensee, Erb, Smith, Klocke, Leiber and Stolze 2017 ). In the Global North, organic produce generally fetches higher prices than conventionally farmed products. Unfortunately, available data are generated from high-income countries (Kniss et al ., Reference Kniss, Savage and Jabbour 2016 ) and thus more evidence is needed to guide policies supporting sustainable development in developing countries. It remains the subject of empirical work to determine whether the transition to organic agriculture can generate net economic benefits across products and geographies. Smallholder farmers in many developing countries continue to suffer from low yields, market uncertainty, high transition costs and poor farm management skills (Hanson et al ., Reference Hanson, Dismukes, Chambers, Greene and Kremen 2007 ; Qiao et al ., Reference Qiao, Halberg, Vaheesan and Scott 2016 ; Jouzi et al ., Reference Jouzi, Azadi, Taheri, Zarafshani, Gebrehiwot, Van Passel and Lebailly 2017 ). Furthermore, the development and professionalization of the organic sector, accompanied by increased international trade, has called for third-party certification to become the norm in most developed organic markets; anyone wishing to sell their produce on high-value markets must meet such established criteria (Darnhofer, Reference Darnhofer 2006 ). However, third-party audit certification might not always be appropriate in developing countries and may be too expensive to implement (Faour, Reference Faour 2015 ; Salame et al ., Reference Salame, Pugliese and Naspetti 2016 ; Skaf et al ., Reference Skaf, Buonocore, Dumontet, Capone and Franzese 2019 ; Mardigian et al ., Reference Mardigian, Chalak, Fares, Parpia, El Asmar and Habib 2021 ).

This study aims to identify the factors affecting the expansion of organic agriculture and analyze the economic performance of organic tomato in Lebanon. Organic farming, although started in the nineties in Lebanon, remains a tiny niche (Chbeir and Mikhael, Reference Chbeir and Mikhael 2019 ); an innovative approach is needed to promote the sector and attract the educated, younger generation in agriculture. Given the slow growth of organic farming in Lebanon, the empirical study aims to answer several questions: (1) Do production costs justify the high market price? (2) What other factors, if any, make organic production in Lebanon highly expensive? (3) Where to intervene in the value chain to enhance the profitability of organic farming for the producers and affordability of organic produce to consumers? and (4) Are there innovative solutions that were tested in Lebanon or other developing countries that could be beneficial to smallholders? By answering these questions, the study seeks to contribute to the organic farming literature as follows. First, the economic performance of organic agriculture is context-specific. Such studies are scant in Lebanon that is characterized by net food imports and unstable political and market environment. Secondly, agricultural land is relatively scarce in Lebanon; thus, more evidence is needed to identify important challenges when farmers make farm decisions, including the decision to transition from conventional to organic farming practices. Thirdly, there are unique institutional (e.g., certification procedures) and marketing challenges across boundaries and crop groups.

The paper develops as follows. First, we provide a review of relevant studies in developing countries. Secondly, we aim to zoom in on the economical sustainability of organic agriculture in the Middle Eastern context and present a case study that analyzes the profitability of organic tomato in Lebanon. Finally, the main findings and potential suggestions are discussed.

Undoubtedly, organic farming provides many ecological and social benefits (Gattinger et al ., Reference Gattinger, Muller, Haeni, Skinner, Fliessbach, Buchmann, Mäder, Stolze, Smith and Scialabba 2012 ; Lynch et al ., Reference Lynch, Halberg and Bhatta 2012 ); however, the economic aspect remains a first-order condition for the wider adoption of organic farming practices. Many argue that organic farming is still less efficient to sustain food production in developing countries (Bourn and Prescott, Reference Bourn and Prescott 2002 ; Connor and Mínguez, Reference Connor and Mínguez 2012 ; Smith-Spangler et al ., Reference Smith-Spangler, Brandeau, Hunter, Bavinger, Pearson, Eschbach, Sundaram, Liu, Schirmer and Stave 2012 ). A review of the relevant literature that applied poverty, household income (net profit), external input costs and/or prices shows that organic farming can be profitable in developing countries, although yield gaps can be as high as 30–40% (Seufert et al ., Reference Seufert, Ramankutty and Foley 2012 ; Ponisio et al ., Reference Ponisio, M'Gonigle, Mace, Palomino, De Valpine and Kremen 2015 ). Apparently, many of the economic benefits of organic farming come from the price premium. For example, Adamtey et al . ( Reference Adamtey, Musyoka, Zundel, Cobo, Karanja, Fiaboe, Muriuki, Mucheru-Muna, Vanlauwe, Berset, Messmer, Gattinger, Bhullar, Cadisch, Fliessbach, Mäder, Niggli and Foster 2016 ) and Bett and Ayieko ( Reference Bett and Ayieko 2017 ) in Kenya, and Yadava and Komaraiah ( Reference Yadava and Komaraiah 2020 ), Eyhorn et al . ( Reference Eyhorn, Van den Berg, Decock, Maat and Srivastava 2018 ) and Mariappan and Zhou ( Reference Mariappan and Zhou 2019 ) in India, documented the profitability of organic farming on rice, wheat and maize. In Indonesia, Adiprasetyo et al . ( Reference Adiprasetyo, Sukisno, Ginting and Handajaningsih 2015 ), Fachrista et al . ( Reference Fachrista, Irham and Suryantini 2019 ) and Widhiningsih ( Reference Widhiningsih 2020 ) reported similar evidence about organic vegetables. In fruits, Kleemann ( Reference Kleemann 2011 ) and Kleemann et al . ( Reference Kleemann, Abdulai and Buss 2014 ) confirmed the economic benefits of organic certification for pineapple farmers in Ghana. Organic farming is also reported to have improved the income of cotton growers in India (Fayet and Vermeulen, Reference Fayet and Vermeulen 2014 ; Altenbuchner et al ., Reference Altenbuchner, Vogel and Larcher 2017 ) and honey producers in Ethiopia (Girma and Gardebroek, Reference Girma and Gardebroek 2015 ).

Despite such promises, however, small farmers are reluctant to transition to organic agriculture. Also, the dichotomy between conventional and organic practices and stringent certification requirements may favor industrialized organic farming (and exclude small farms); some farms could fulfill requirements without having certification (Darnhofer et al ., Reference Darnhofer, Lindenthal, Bartel-Kratochvil and Zollitsch 2010 ; Konstantinidis, Reference Konstantinidis 2012 ). Consequently, blended approaches such as agro-tourism (e.g., Davis et al ., Reference Davis, Hill, Chase, Johanns and Liebman 2012 ; Reganold and Wachter, Reference Reganold and Wachter 2016 ) and local participatory systems for certification such as ‘Participatory Guarantee Systems’ (PGS) (Nelson et al ., Reference Nelson, Tovar, Gueguen, Humphries, Landman and Rindermann 2016 ; Home et al ., Reference Home, Bouagnimbeck, Ugas, Arbenz and Stolze 2017 ) may be preferred to promote the wider acceptability of organic practices in developing countries.

The integration of organic farming practices with ecosystem services has shown some promising results by increasing the economic value of organic farms (Porter et al ., Reference Porter, Costanza, Sandhu, Sigsgaard and Wratten 2009 ; Sandhu et al ., Reference Sandhu, Wratten and Cullen 2010 ). A unique advantage of such a blended approach is that it can add more value to the product by bringing producers and consumers in one place and expanding the contribution of organic agriculture beyond goods production (Kuo et al ., Reference Kuo, Chen and Huang 2006 ; Vrsaljko et al ., Reference Vrsaljko, Turalija, Grgić and Zrakić 2017 ). Several studies have documented the benefits of the agro-touristic model in the context of developing countries (e.g., Aoki, Reference Aoki 2014 ; Arida et al ., Reference Arida, Wiguna, Narka and Febrianti 2017 ; Duffy et al ., Reference Duffy, Kline, Swanson, Best and McKinnon 2017 ; Fantini et al ., Reference Fantini, Rover, Chiodo and Assing 2018 ). For instance, in countries such as Indonesia, Cuba, Brazil and Nepal, this approach has shown promising outcomes by increasing household incomes and creating more jobs (Arida et al ., Reference Arida, Wiguna, Narka and Febrianti 2017 ), food security (Duffy et al ., Reference Duffy, Kline, Swanson, Best and McKinnon 2017 ), creating marketing relationships (Fantini et al ., Reference Fantini, Rover, Chiodo and Assing 2018 ) and improving human health (Aoki, Reference Aoki 2014 ). Similarly, PGS, as an alternative certification system, may offer support for small organic farms by creating access to local and regional markets, as demonstrated in several countries such as Mexico and Brazil (Sacchi et al ., Reference Sacchi, Caputo and Nayga 2015 ; Nelson et al ., Reference Nelson, Tovar, Gueguen, Humphries, Landman and Rindermann 2016 , Reference Nelson, Tovar, Rindermann and Cruz 2010 ; Kaufmann and Vogl, Reference Kaufmann and Vogl 2018 ).

In summary, empirical studies in several developing countries revealed that organic farming can be an important alternative to intensive agriculture. The evidence suggests that organic farming is economically sustainable but varies across geographies and crops, suggesting the need for further studies in various contexts. Furthermore, available studies suggest the need for alternative approaches and certification procedures to enhance the attractiveness of organic farming for smallholders in developing countries.

Data collection

First, a focus group was held with the national technical organic committee at the Lebanese Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) to provide and discuss an overview of the sector, its public policy, its trends and challenges.

Secondly, data about organic farmers in Lebanon, including their contact names, crops grown, farm location and size, were obtained from the MoA. Based on this information, it was possible to choose tomato production at the food system of this study. Tomato is one of the major horticultural crops in Lebanon and has the highest number of organic growers per crop. We obtained a list of 30 certified organic tomato farmers that operating at the time of the study.

Finally, a structured questionnaire, which was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the American University of Beirut, was used to collect relevant data related to production costs, revenues and profits. All the 30 organic tomato farmers were contacted for an interview. However, only 15 of the farmers were able to participate in the study. Data regarding the production costs included fixed costs, establishment costs and variable costs such as labor and other inputs. Current and recollection data over the last 2 years were sought to gather yield, production, marketing information from the farmers. A farm visit accompanied the collection of data from the farmers.

Complementary data

To complement information from farmers and to determine selling prices and market channels, a market study was also carried out among organic shops and farmer markets in Beirut, the capital. These markets represent different marketing chains of organic tomato in Lebanon. The market study included, among others, the business relationship between organic farmers and organic shops, how organic shops identify farmers with organic certification, the seasonality of demand for organic produce, the order quantity, characteristics of the buyers (final consumers), selling prices and their assessment about the future of organic farming in Lebanon.

For conventional farming, a secondary data source was used. Accordingly, data for detailed costs of conventional tomato farming were acquired from a reference tool entitled ‘Production Costs of all Agricultural Products in Lebanon’, which was published in Arabic in 2016 by the Association of Importers and Distributors of Supplies for Agricultural Products in Lebanon.

Overview of the Lebanese organic agriculture

Over the past few decades, the contribution of Lebanese agriculture to household income and food security dropped significantly due to the lack of effective policy, changes in temperature and rainfall patterns, water scarcity and increasing population. Urbanization has also been a major factor in the decline of the agriculture sector in Lebanon. In fact, Lebanon was once considered an agricultural country as late as the start of the Lebanese civil war (Salame et al ., Reference Salame, Pugliese and Naspetti 2016 ). However, following the end of the war, there have been major construction activities, especially along with the coastal areas (Faour, Reference Faour 2015 ). This has significantly reduced the agricultural land and, potentially, contributed to the increased use of high-input practices (Skaf et al ., Reference Skaf, Buonocore, Dumontet, Capone and Franzese 2019 ; Mardigian et al ., Reference Mardigian, Chalak, Fares, Parpia, El Asmar and Habib 2021 ). Currently, the production agriculture sector contributes about 5% of GDP, employs 8% of the effective labor force and involves 20–25% of the active population, either on a part-time or full-time basis (Marzin et al ., Reference Marzin, Bonnet, Bessaoud and Ton-Nu 2017 ).

Cognizant of the multifaceted contribution of agriculture to the national economy, the Lebanese government is trying to revitalize the sector and increase its contribution to the GDP from 5 to 8%. In light of the ongoing and unprecedented triple crises in Lebanon – economic, financial and the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic—the government has published a strategic document, the ‘Lebanon National Agriculture Strategy 2020–2025’ (MOA, 2020 ). The strategy stipulates the agri-food sector as a national priority and a key driver for transforming the Lebanese economy. More importantly, the document highlights the urgency of creating strong linkages between ‘sustainable agriculture and preservation of ecosystem services and/or eco-tourism’ to take advantage of the ‘highly valued cultural and culinary heritage, and the increasing awareness for healthy and organic food’ in Lebanon (MOA, 2020 : 33). The strategic document targets a 30% increase by 2025 in the number of certified organic operators in Lebanon compared to that of 2019. As of 2019, the total area with certified production was 1952 ha, mainly in plant production. As shown in Figure 1 , the area under organic agriculture was 3303 ha in 2013 but significantly dropped to 1276 ha in 2014 and has shown a steady growth thereafter. Footnote 1 Currently, there is only one certification body granting certifications for organic farmers. Lebanon also lacks organic producers' associations and organic market associations, which are critical to provide the necessary skills, scale and resources and create better market opportunities for organic fruits and vegetables, which account for the majority of the current organic market in Lebanon.

Fig. 1. Organic agriculture area (ha) in Lebanon (2012–2019) ( source : MOA, 2020 ).

Drivers and transition to organic

An estimation of the market share of organic foods in the overall Lebanese market is less than 1% (Rahhal, Reference Rahhal 2016 ). This is mainly attributed to supply-side constraints as the demand for organic produce is on the rise. Lebanon being a high-middle income country, the demand for organic products is highly driven by the health issues, the environmental complications of the alternatives and the increasing awareness tied to organic foods. Yet, organic products when available on the market are exceedingly expensive beyond the reach of low- to middle-income households; producers are unable or unwilling to lower prices. When interviewed, organic producers and sellers seem to attribute high production costs to justify the high prices of organic products in Lebanon. However, there is almost no empirical data showing the relationships between organic production costs and extreme market prices. Some leading organic growers in Lebanon also seem to attribute the high organic prices to lower yields and lack of multi-crop farms (Rahhal, Reference Rahhal 2016 ).

We conducted this case study with the objectives of determining the production costs, mapping the organic value chain, determining the profitability of organic farming for farmers and comparing it with the conventional one of selected crops in the same value chain. The certified organic farmers that participated in this study had a medium-size organic farm ranging from 1.2 to 4 ha. They were certified by Controllo e Certificazione Prodotti Biologici (CCPB), an Italian-based agency, that certifies organic and eco-friendly products around the world and the only active certification body in Lebanon through its affiliate CCPB Middle East at the time of the field study. Most of the farms needed 2–3 years as a transition period before they were granted the certification. Most of the farms were certified after 2010 except for two farms. This may suggest the rising trend in the last decade. The certification average cost was 600–650 USD per year.

Organic tomato producers were asked about the factors motivating the transition to organic farming. The increasing demand toward healthier diets was a main drive for the interviewed farmers to transition to organic. Since these farmers were producing for the market, this motivation will likely be due to the increasing demand for organic products in the Lebanese market out of health concerns that consumers have in general. Figure 2 shows the main factors stated by the farmers to transition to organic farming. However, only 47% of the farmers made a living in organic farming, while 53% mentioned that they depended on other sources for a living. This may raise a question about the economic sustainability of organic farming as the main source of living for all farmers in Lebanon.

Fig. 2. Factors motivating the transition to organic farming in Lebanon (multiple answers possible).

Production costs

All costs incurred in the growing organic tomato were gathered during the field study. Table 1 lists the production costs for 1000 m 2 or 0.1 ha (the standard unit for agricultural land in Lebanon) of tomato production under organic and conventional management in Lebanon. The direct comparison between production costs under the two systems showed an 11.60% increase in production costs of tomato under organic production to the conventional one.

Table 1. Comparison between organic and conventional production costs of tomato production per 1000 m 2   a

a Organic production costs were generated from a questionnaire developed for the purposes of this study and conducted with 15 producers of certified organic vegetables in Lebanon. Conventional production costs were attained from the data published in ‘Production Costs of all Agricultural Products in Lebanon’.

b Include composting.

c Prorated costs of greenhouse structure and covers.

d An average cost calculated for the total surveyed farms area. A farmer having only 1000 m 2 will pay $650 per yr for certification.

Labor and greenhouse costs are the major cost drivers under both farming systems. Although conventional farmers invest more in the use of pesticides for tomato production which particularly includes the use of herbicides for weed control, organic farmers invest more in labor costs due to manual weeding. Apparently, organic certification adds to the costs reported under organic tomato. As shown in Table 1 , the prorated cost of certification was $25 per 1000 m 2 . However, the cost of certification is paid in a lump sum ($650 at the time of the study). Meaning, if farmers were to practice organic farming in a large area, the certification cost can be less expensive. Since most of the organic producers are smallholders, this certification cost remains a big chunk of the production costs. Currently, certification costs are paid in foreign currency (i.e., USD) as the certification body is a foreign company. This has a negative impact as the value of the cost increased exponentially with the devaluation of the local currency; since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the local currency has lost more than 80% of its value against the USD.

Yield and marketing channels

In a 1000 m 2 or 0.1 ha plot of land, about 2750–3000 tomato plants can be grown. Based on evidence from our primary data, on average, the yield obtained from a standard organic tomato field, in this area, was 6 tons. The average yield from a standard tomato field under conventional was reported at 16 tons, according to the information from the Association of Importers and Distributors of Supplies for Agricultural Products in Lebanon.

In terms of outlets, more than 50% of the tomato farmers reported having sold 70% of their yield via organic produce distributor and no direct market access. This distributor has a well-established market coverage and dominates the organic sector in Lebanon. The rest of the farmers either sold their produce at the farm gate or the farmers market, the only available outlet for organic produce in the capital. Tomato farmers also experienced post-harvest losses, estimated to be 25% of retail value (15% due to pests and 10% due to returned produce). The profitability of organic tomato was highly dependent on the marketing channel.

Based on the analysis of the tomato organic value chain, we have identified and mapped three marketing channels for organic tomato ( Fig. 3 ).

Fig. 3. Marketing channels used by organic tomato growers in Lebanon. Source : own survey.

Channel 1: This channel has the longest chain. The farmer sells to a distributor at a price ranging from $0.89 to $1/kg. The distributor, in turn, sells the produce at $2.5/kg to organic shops or retailers, at a gross margin of 150–212.5%. Finally, organic shops or retailers sell organic tomato at a price of $3.5–4$/kg, or at a 40–60% margin. The gap between the farm gate price and the price that final consumers pay is extremely wide. Apparently, the main profit goes to the distributor in the study context. Of course, one may argue that due to the high perishability of tomatoes, distributors relatively bear higher risks as well as the overuse of (fancy) packaging materials. However, in the study context, such risks are minimal, as the demand for organic tomato is still very high and the distance between tomato farms to the final market is relatively short. Indeed, 10 out of 15 organic tomato farmers followed this channel, while eight of them followed both channels 1 and 3. Most of the farmers who followed this channel were big-size farms and would have to deal with intermediaries or have some kind of pre-arranged contractual agreement with organic distributors.

Channel 2: In this channel, the farmer skips distributors and directly sells to organic shops at a price ranging from $1.66 to $2/kg. The organic shops, subsequently, sell to the final consumers at $3.33/kg. As expected, the benefit to the farmers is much better than channel 1. In fact, all channel 2 members, including the final consumers, have added benefits compared to channel 1. We found three farmers who followed this channel.

Channel 3: This is a direct marketing approach and cuts out all the intermediaries. As shown in Figure 3 , the farmer sells organic tomato at $2.67/kg to the final consumer either at the farmers market or farm gate. Indeed, this scenario appears to be the best for both the farmers and final consumers. Nonetheless, it has its risks for the tomato farmers. The farmer may not be able to sell his/her entire produce since the farmers market is not always available, and is located in the city, away from most of the rural farms. At the same time, accessibility to the farm may be difficult for consumers. Three farmers reported to having followed this channel.

Farmer's profitability

Using data collected on production costs, yield, losses, and selling prices, the profitability of organic tomato was calculated. The most representative channel based on the results described above was a mixture between channels 1 and 3 (70% to the distributor, and 30% directly to consumers). For this reason, the profitability of a typical organic tomato producer was calculated based on this formula (70–30). A comparison of profitability between organic and conventional management for tomato production is given in Table 2 .

Table 2. Profitability of tomato production under organic and conventional farming in Lebanon a

Note : All Production costs are in USD.

a Data for the organic production costs were generated through own surveys and for the conventional production costs were attained from published data ‘Production Costs of all Agricultural Products in Lebanon’.

b 70% of yield for distribution company with $1/kg as selling price: 3150 kg × $1 = $3150; 30% of yield for direct sale to consumers with $2.67 as selling price: 1350 kg × $2.67 = $3604.

c See Table 1 for the total cost calculations.

d Average price/kg for a conventional wholesaler is $0.45.

As can be seen in Table 2 , organic tomato appeared to be less profitable in the study context, which was about $117 (per 1000 m 2 ) less than that of the conventional one. The higher yield in conventional farming offsets the higher prices for organic tomato. Nonetheless, organic tomato can be more profitable if farmers cut out intermediaries and sell their produce directly to the consumers (channel 3).

Alternative approaches to promote organic farming: the agro-tourism model

In Lebanon, people have become more and more interested in authentic farm-based experiences and rural landscapes, which generate incomes for the rural communities (Ghadban et al ., Reference Ghadban, Shames, Abou Arrage and Abou Fayyad 2017 ). Recently, a few organic operators have adopted the model from ‘farm to fork’ and established an end-market on their farms to provide touristic activities such as restaurants with specialty chefs, kids park, kids' activities, culinary activities and special occasions ( Fig. 4 ). This has attracted many people to spend their holidays, weekends and summer vacation in those agro-touristic areas (Ghadban et al ., Reference Ghadban, Shames, Abou Arrage and Abou Fayyad 2017 ). This has enabled the Lebanese people to connect to the farm and organic producers to increase awareness and value of organic products. Furthermore, these agro-touristic operators use social media to advertise their on-farm culinary and touristic activities and e-commerce platforms for direct sales. One of the co-authors was able to visit those agro-touristic farms and observe the farm culinary and touristic activities and the sale of organic products ( Fig. 4 ).

Fig. 4. Coupling agriculture to touristic activities on organic farms in Lebanon. On-farm restaurant; chef serving fresh fruits from the farm; on-farm eggs haunting and on-farm kids activity. ( Note : pictures are courtesy of Biomass and Bioland farms.)

Based on analysis of the profitability of tomato under organic vs conventional practices in Lebanon, this section discusses the lessons learned from the case study and alternative approaches that could enhance the economic, ecological and social sustainability of organic farming in Lebanon and beyond.

Lesson learned from Lebanon's case

Analysis of organic tomato in Lebanon shows that production costs do not justify the high prices that final consumers pay, especially in the most-used channel (channel 1). In this channel, there is a huge margin between what the farmers receive and what the final consumer pays. On the other hand, organic farming can be profitable if there is a short path connecting farmers and final consumers (channel 3). In the case of tomato, organic yields are low, approximately a third of the yield under conventional farming. Due to the wider yield gaps, the profitability of organic farming largely depends on the channel choice. The issue for organic farmers in Lebanon is that they are not the ones benefitting from the high prices; the ‘middlemen’ (distributors) seem to have higher control over the organic sector in Lebanon. Surprisingly, many of the organic tomato growers (10 out of 15) ended up selling via the unprofitable, longer chain. This observable fact is somewhat strange to organic approaches elsewhere that favor short circuits (i.e., farmer markets and community-supported agriculture). Apart from production costs, different factors play a role in these high prices, some of which are better perceptions toward organic produce, but most of all the productivity issue, as organic tomato yield being less by 60% than the conventional and the higher risk that the producer encounter in organic farming due to the lack of effective inputs. Unfortunately, the distributor (‘middleman’) controls the prices in the organic shops and retailers and makes most of the profits. To a lesser extent, some overhead costs and losses due to its perishability play a role in the pricing strategy. The other factor may relate to the profession. If producers have another profession, which seems to be the case in Lebanon, they do not put enough time and effort to develop their market linkages. Also, the distributor is better equipped, having invested in warehouses, packaging facilities and the ability to apply international standards for export, and tends to have a contract farming arrangement with smallholders. Therefore, those farmers cannot individually supply to the desired market.

The way forward to enhance organic farming in Lebanon and beyond

Organic agriculture is a national and a global need, and Lebanon must work on improving the weaknesses, and take advantage of the opportunity at hand. Given Lebanese touristic and rich natural heritages along the Mediterranean Sea and the family based agrarian structure, there is a tendency in the country to move toward an agro-touristic model in organic farming. In such a blended model, the producer establishes an end-market on the farm coupled with touristic activities (i.e., restaurants with specialty chefs, kids park, kids' activities, culinary activities, special occasions, etc.). This way of adding value to the farm and its organic products enables the producers to diversify their revenue (touristic and agribusiness) and fetch a high price for their organic products. Increasing consumers' awareness of the public health issues related to the conventional approach is likely to raise the demand for fresh and local produces, especially organic vegetables and fruits. Similarly, the need to overcome high production costs, including third-party certifications, is likely to nurture the agro-tourism model where an owned plot of land, usually a bit farther away from people clusters and in an enchanted place, is turned into an organic agro-touristic farm. Optimally, the land must have never been cultivated or used for conventional farming before, as this will limit contamination problems, pest pressure and costs of transition to organic. Ideally, the land would have a natural undisrupted well of water or spring flowing to help irrigate it, which ensures the water for irrigation is clean. Some organic producers or distributors have already established their restaurants and recipes and on-farm concepts of serving daily produces. By doing so, they educate the consumer and engage them in the organic experience and ultimately nurture the country's agro-tourism, which emphasizes health improvement and sustainability of living along with farm biodiversity. Although the current financial and economic crisis in Lebanon and the COVID-19 pandemic may have a negative impact on the agro-tourism model, the crises have given important lessons about the role of local (short) food supply chains, including the organic food chain. Such behavioral changes among consumers tend to benefit the agro-tourism model in the medium to long term.

Another important question worth answering is where to intervene in the organic value chain to make organic products more accessible and consequently organic farming in Lebanon more competitive. We suggest several steps that need to be applied to meet the consumer's high demand for organic products, but at the same time enhance the affordability of organic produce to the low- and middle- class. Considering the low productivity made by organic farmers, the latter needs technical assistance and training to increase their efficiency in organic farming. Also, organic farmers must be oriented toward a solid marketing strategy, where no company or shop can control their sales and prices (Rana and Paul, Reference Rana and Paul 2017 ). Primary producers should improve their communication with downstream actors and final consumers by the means of new tools such as social media or mobile apps. This can benefit both the farmers and the final consumers. For consumers, direct contact with the farm will increase trust, and prices will become more reasonable due to the direct chain between them and the farmer. At the same time, even if prices are somehow lower, farmers' profits will increase by avoiding intermediaries.

Also, organic farmers can assemble themselves in the form of producer groups or cooperatives that are based on mutual trust and long-term partnerships to increase their bargaining power and create better market opportunities. Here, the PGS that proved effective in some developing countries (such as Brazil, India and Mexico) can be a trustful way. If well introduced, PGS can allow producers to have a reliable collective certification method without necessarily depending on one third-party certification body as is the case currently in Lebanon. This can also be expected to have a positive impact on lowering certification costs, which were found to be a factor in the higher production costs for organic in this study. In fact, PGS is an organic quality assurance mechanism recognized by IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) as an alternative to audit certification. Under this system, farmers, producers and extractivist, organized in groups, collectively carry out conformity assessment activities and share responsibility for the certification decision, where possible supported by technicians and consumers.

Finally, more organic markets should be made available, especially in rural areas. The farmers market ‘Souk el Tayyeb’ in the capital Beirut is a great initiative that helps farmers sell their organic produce, but the Lebanese organic market and sector need more markets in different regions in a way that helps more farmers to have access to such markets. Also, the Ministry of Agriculture, as mentioned in Urfi et al . ( Reference Urfi, Hoffmann and Kormosné Koch 2011 ), should provide some kind of financial support or subsidized agri-loans to compensate farmers for the revenues lost during the transition period and extension services to improve their management skills necessary for organic farming. In this way, organic farmers are encouraged to continue farming organically, and more farmers are motivated to transition to organic.

The future of food value chains has increasingly been reliant on the wider adoption of sustainable farming practices that include organic agriculture. However, the standard model when transferred to developing countries faces difficulty in implementation. The study has analyzed the economic performance of organic tomato among smallholder farmers in Lebanon, a Middle Eastern context. The findings show that organic farming has become increasingly expensive primarily due to the inherently high cost of production in Lebanon and the inefficient organization of the organic value chain. Some models and strategies are emerging in developing countries to help adapt organic farming to the context and respond to consumer high demand for organic produce. Two of these are the agro-touristic model and local participatory systems for certification and guarantee.

An agro-tourism model is a blended approach that combines organic and free-range food derived from fresh on-farm produce to touristic activities and locations. Such agro-touristic farms can help promote tourism and sustainable farming methods and provide an enjoyable experience to customers. Agro-touristic places can attract families that wish to spend some time away from the city and those younger generations who wish to know more about farming practices. Indeed, Lebanon has great agro-ecology diversity, from coastal to high altitude areas, with lots of tourist attractions, and a predominantly family based agrarian structure that can support the agro-tourism model. Family farms in Lebanon are small and strongly connected to the country's natural, religious and cultural heritages, and grow a wide variety of crops such as fruit trees, olive trees, cereals, vegetable crops and vines (Marzin et al ., Reference Marzin, Bonnet, Bessaoud and Ton-Nu 2017 ). This makes the agro-touristic model a good match to the country's agrarian structure and a better approach to promote the attractiveness of organic farming for small family farms in Lebanon.

Furthermore, other innovative approaches are emerging to maximize the economic, ecological and social benefits of organic farming in developing countries. Due to the difficulty and costs of third-party audit certification, some alternatives are being created in developing countries such as Brazil, India and Mexico, one of the most successful being the ‘PGS’. PGS has never stopped to exist and serve organic producers and consumers eager to maintain local economies and direct, transparent relationships. ‘The verification of the organic quality of a product or process is not concentrated in the hands of a few. All involved in the process of participatory certification have the same level of responsibility and capacity to establish the organic quality of a product or process’ (IFOAM).

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the Lebanese Ministry of Agriculture for sharing data related to organic agriculture in Lebanon. We also thank Ms Sara Badran for her support (under Undergraduate Research Volunteer Program) in gathering relevant literature.

Conflict of interest

The authors report no potential conflict of interest.

1 The Lebanese Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) attributes the drop in organic agriculture area (2013 and 2014) to the closure of one of the two certification bodies in Lebanon (LIBAN CERT) and the unwillingness of many operators to join the other.

Fig. 1. Organic agriculture area (ha) in Lebanon (2012–2019) ( source : MOA, 2020).

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

• Google Scholar

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

• Volume 37, Issue 3
• Gumataw Kifle Abebe (a1) , Andrew Traboulsi (a2) and Mirella Aoun (a2) (a3)
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170521000478

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Reply to: Submit a response

- No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Your details

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests.

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.

Advertisement

Delivering “less but better” meat in practice—a case study of a farm in agroecological transition

• Research Article
• Open access
• Published: 23 March 2022
• Volume 42 , article number  24 , ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Kajsa Resare Sahlin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7361-4941 1 ,
• Johannes Carolus 2 , 3 ,
• Karin von Greyerz 4 ,
• Ida Ekqvist 4 &
• Elin Röös 4  

5073 Accesses

8 Citations

25 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Eating “less but better” meat can be a strategy to guide meat consumption in Western or high-income countries towards sustainability, but what “better” means depends on the perspective. Multiple studies and reports suggest that agroecological farming systems could contribute to a broad range of sustainability benefits, but few studies have examined the implications for people and nature following trade-offs between sustainability priorities at the farm level. Therefore, this study explored the effects on a broad range of sustainability themes following agroecological transition on a case farm in east-central Sweden. We applied a novel mixed-methods approach, combining the indicator-based SMART-Farm tool with additional quantitative and qualitative analysis of the farm’s climate impact, contribution to global food security, economic performance, and working conditions. The results showed improvements for aspects within environmental, social, economic, and governance-related sustainability dimensions, with corroborating results across methods. The case farm thus served as an example of transition to a more sustainable production system, but as expected, there were both trade-offs and synergies between sustainability aspects. Negative effects were found for economic aspects at the farm and societal level. For this case, one may conclude that “better” meat production both supports and depends on, a more sustainable farm; but that “better” meat and a more sustainable farm cannot be viewed in isolation from the wider food system. Also, “better” can be described by several states along a transition pathway. Key contributions of the study are threefold, a) articulation of the links between agroecology and the concept “less but better,” b) empirically demonstrating synergies and trade-offs in striving for more sustainable meat production, and c) a novel methodological approach for sustainability assessment.

Similar content being viewed by others

A systematic review of the definitions and interpretations in scientific literature of ‘less but better’ meat in high-income settings

Future farming: protein production for livestock feed in the EU

The Meat Crisis: The Ethical Dimensions of Animal Welfare, Climate Change, and Future Sustainability

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

There is growing scientific consensus that Western or high-income consumers must reduce meat intake to lower the environmental impact of diets (Resare Sahlin et al. 2020 ). Intensively and extensively managed pastures and cropland for the production of food, feed, and fiber occupy 33% of the global ice-free land surface and livestock production, mainly cattle, accounts for 10–15% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (IPCC 2019a ). However, livestock, especially ruminant livestock, are integral to some farming systems, e.g., agroecological systems (Altieri and Rosset 1996 ). Hence, while there is a need for drastic reductions in meat production and consumption (in high-income countries), there is also a need to integrate some animals into farming systems in smart ways so that they contribute positively. The concept of “less but better” meat, used by several organizations and institutions as a strategy to guide meat consumption towards sustainability, is an attempt to capture this dual need (see, e.g., A Greener World 2017 ; Slow Food 2018 ; Tirado et al. 2018 ; WWF-Germany 2018 ; Eating Better 2017 ). It prescribes eating smaller quantities of meat (“less…”) with increased attention to quality aspects (“…but better”). What “better” meat actually refers to is, however, a matter of perspective (Resare Sahlin et al. 2020 ), but a common interpretation is that it entails a more environmentally sustainable meat choice (see e.g., Eating Better 2021 ). One such choice is extensively reared livestock, where agricultural production is aligned with local ecosystems according to agroecological principles, building on the integration of livestock into mixed farming systems, and as utilizers of pasture biomass (de Boer et al. 2014 ; Dumont et al. 2018 ) (Fig.  1 ). In such systems, livestock can act as engineers to forge beneficial links between agricultural systems and ecosystems and create synergies between environment and production in agroecosystems (Tittonell 2014 ; Dumont et al. 2018 ). Therefore, transitioning to agroecology as a pathway to sustainability in farming is gaining increasing attention (see, e.g., Poux and Aubert 2018 ; FAO 2019 ; HLPE 2019 ) For example, the recent farm-to-fork strategy of the European Union aims for 25% of agricultural land to be farmed organically by 2030, a tripling of the current level (European Commission 2020 ).

Cattle on semi-natural pastures in an organically certified farm in east-central Sweden. Photograph by Kajsa Resare Sahlin.

Agroecological transitions occur along a continuum, where the initial stages are characterized by “weak” agroecological practices, focusing on efficiency in the use of inputs and replacing conventional inputs and practices with biological options. In later stages, production systems are “re-designed” to build on “strong” agroecological practices that are integrative, locally determined, and biodiversity-based (Prazan and Aalders 2019 ). A key aspect of agroecology is using animals as convertors of biomass that is inedible to humans instead of feeding animals cereals and pulses (Altieri and Rosset 1996 ). Limiting livestock production to leftover biomass places a cap on the amount of meat that can be produced without causing feed-food competition (van Zanten et al. 2018 ). To avoid expansion of arable land following increased use of agroecological methods, the overall number of livestock and associated consumption of animal-source foods would need to decrease, both at the global (Muller et al. 2018 ) and regional level (Karlsson and Röös 2019 ). Reducing the number of ruminants is also essential for meeting global climate goals (Clark et al. 2020 ).

Meat produced in agroecological farming systems could be an example of producing both “less” and “better” meat, but there are known trade-offs between sustainability aspects in extensive and improved meat production (Resare Sahlin et al. 2020 ). Most previous studies on sustainable meat have examined a limited range of aspects (e.g., Clark and Tilman 2017 ; Poore and Nemecek 2018 ) and few studies have assessed the implications for people and nature of trade-offs between sustainability priorities at the farm level. Here, we extended existing research by investigating the effects on a broad range of sustainability aspects following the agroecological transition of a farm in line with the “less but better” concept. As a case, we used a Swedish beef and arable farm that is undergoing an agroecological transition from intensive bull beef production to a more extensive organic system. The study contributes to previous research by articulating the links between agroecology and the concept “less but better” and to previous work on assessing the sustainability of meat by combining a holistic assessment encompassing ecological, social, economic, and governance dimensions with additional quantitative and qualitative analysis of climate impact, contribution to global food security, economic performance and effects on working conditions.

2 Material and methods

2.1 case study methodology.

It is challenging to make an all-encompassing sustainability assessment of a farming system because of its complexity, as many independent components interact dynamically. By empirically combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in a novel way, the case study methodology we applied facilitated a more holistic understanding of the complex outcomes for people, nature, animals, and society of this agroecological transition (see, e.g., Harrison et al. ( 2017 ) on case study methodology). By doing so, the study exemplifies and explores, but it is of course context specific, and the study does not aim to produce generalizable results. Instead, the particular case captured the real-world experiences and effects of a journey toward sustainability as one node in the greater food system. Many more will need to make this journey in the future, as meeting sustainability challenges become ever more urgent. In discussing the results, however, we refer to existing literature and highlight when outcomes are typical/non-typical for this type of agroecological transition.

2.2 A farm in agroecological transition

The case study farm (hereafter “the farm”) is located in east-central Sweden and produces beef and crops for food, feed, and biofuels. As is common in the region, the farm is a cluster of several (previous) family farms and the farm owns some land and farm buildings but leases the majority of its land and pastures through long-term agreements with old aristocratic estates. In 2019, the farm applied for and was selected to participate in the UNISECO project on diversification of Swedish beef and dairy farms to improve sustainability (see www.uniseco-project.eu ; Landert et al. 2020 ). In initial interviews for the project, the farm reported that it had begun transforming from conventional, intensive beef and crop production to an organic, more extensive system because it wanted to be part of the growing consumer movement to eat less meat and choose meat more selectively. The farm also wanted to be less dependent on purchased inputs and to have more equal buyer–seller relations.

Over the 3-year period 2017–2020, substantial changes occurred at all levels on the farm, from types and amounts of inputs used to on-farm processes and outputs (Table 1 ). In 2017 (pre-transition, year 1), the farm was an intensive, large-scale system finish-feeding 1200 intact bulls in closed indoor systems using mainly purchased concentrate feed. Livestock was kept at three different locations on the farm and transported between these locations as they transitioned through age groups. The cropping system for producing commercial crops and silage relied on the intensive use of fertilizers and chemical pesticides, and the farm employed approximately 14 full-time workers. Production was highly market oriented and had a relatively high flow of capital. In addition to the intact bulls, the farm also reared 50 suckler cows and 150 heifers extensively to maintain semi-natural pastures included in its leasing agreements.

In 2018, the farm began converting to organic and stopped purchasing bull calves, as part of a transition to keeping only heifers (Table 1 ). In the year 2020 (the second year of assessment, year 2), the farm reared 350 heifers extensively on semi-natural pastures and organic silage from the farm, thus totally abolishing the need for feed imports. Stocking density has been reduced substantially and the year-round bullpens have been replaced with loose-housing for 5–6 months in winter. The cropping system still produced commercial crops and silage, but using only organic fertilizers and no pesticides and with some increase in the complexity of the crop rotation, e.g., under-sown green manure and flowering plants. Downsizing production has more than halved the annual turnover and staff. The farm is still highly market-oriented, but the number of buyers of the farm’s products has doubled.

This particular farm was selected for analysis because out of the 11 farms participating in the Swedish UNISECO case, its changes to its management regime were the most substantial and all-encompassing. Additionally, changes were relevant for both components of the “less but better” meat strategy (Resare Sahlin et al. 2020 ), and this case can thus make an important contribution to understanding the concept’s usefulness for sustainable meat at the farm level.

In the extensive system created by the agroecological transition on the farm, the production relies increasingly on local resources and more integrated management (Prazan and Aalders 2019 ) (Fig. 2 ). However, the agroecological practices implemented in cropping are mostly “weak”, while beef production is based on “strong” agroecological practices, most importantly adjusting stocking density to available semi-natural pastures and relying only on forage as feed, in an effort to use livestock as convertors of fiber-rich biomass instead of consumers of human-edible resources.

Agroecological practices, characterized by Prazan and Aalders ( 2019 ), which are applied at the farm in year 1 and year 2. In columns two and three, the black text indicates practices which are conventional or not agroecological, the red text indicates practices which constitute “weak” agroecology, and the green text indicates practices which constitute “strong” agroecology.

2.3 Sustainability assessment tools and indicators

To investigate whether the agroecological transition has contributed to more sustainable farming and meat options, we used several sustainability assessment tools and indicators in a mixed-methods approach. How best to assess sustainability at the farm level is a source of much debate (e.g., de Olde et al. ( 2017 )), and there are a great number of tools available (e.g., Arulnathan et al. 2020 ; Chopin 2021 ). We used the SMART-Farm tool (Sustainability Monitoring and Assessment RouTine; RRID: SCR_018197, hereafter referred to as SMART) which is considered to be one of the most complete sustainability assessment tools (Arulnathan et al. 2020 ). However, it does not permit in-depth assessments of all sustainability dimensions, so we, therefore, complemented the analysis by investigating four further key areas: 1) climate impact , studied because SMART does not calculate GHG emissions, which are critical for the sustainability of meat, especially beef (Poore and Nemecek 2018 ), 2) the farm’s contribution to global food security , as a common criticism of agroecology and organic farming is that yields are too low to feed the world (Barbieri et al. 2017 ; Dumont et al. 2018 ), 3) the economic performance in quantitative terms, to address the core challenge of economic viability for sustainable farming (de Roest et al. 2018 ; van der Ploeg et al. 2019 ), and 4) working conditions for staff, as the foreman and owner of the farm were the main informants for the SMART analysis. Further details on all parts of the sustainability assessment can be found in Supplementary Material (SM) to this paper.

2.3.1 SMART

SMART operationalizes the Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture (SAFA) indicators, which are core themes and criteria for sustainable food and agriculture developed by the FAO (FAO 2013 ). SAFA encompasses the three principal pillars of sustainability—ecological, social, and economic dimensions—and also incorporates criteria for sustainable governance. SMART can, thus, be used for holistic comparisons of farming systems and for identifying more sustainable practices or products. It uses over 350 quantitative and qualitative indicators, which are weighted and aggregated to assess 21 themes and 58 sub-themes of sustainability (see SM). It is operationalized in licensed software which requires training before application in the field. On-farm assessments are made through interviews with farm managers, using over 300 interview questions (Landert et al. 2019 , 2020 ).

After completing the software training, we held structured on-farm interviews for SMART with the foreman and owner of the farm in July 2019 and April 2020 (see SM). Some background and complementary information were obtained using templates, where the interviewees were asked to provide management details. Verification of some information was made by phone and email. The SMART assessments were also quality checked by the tool owners before results were generated in the software.

2.3.2 Climate impact of beef

We calculated the carbon footprint of 1 kg of beef meat (slaughter weight, SW) before and after the agroecological transition on the farm, using a “cradle to farm-gate” life cycle approach. To clearly illustrate the effect of transition from intensive rearing to grass-based extensive production, we delimited the calculation to the bull herd in year 1, thus excluding suckler cows and heifers present on the farm in 2017. The following major emissions sources were accounted for: enteric fermentation, manure management, feed production, grazing, transports, energy use in animal houses, purchased calves, and production and use of fertilizers, pesticides, and bedding. Emissions from enteric fermentation, manure management, and soils used for feed production and grazing were calculated using IPCC tier 2 methodology, while nitrogen (N) in manure was calculated using tier 1 methodology (IPCC 2019b ). Emissions from bought-in products were calculated using emission factors from the literature (see Sect. 1.8 in SM). For bought-in dairy calves, which are a “by-product” of milk production, emissions associated with the mother animal (the dairy cow) were allocated to both milk and meat, while suckler cows are reared solely to produce meat, and thus emissions from the mother cow were allocated only to the meat. The climate impact was calculated as kg CO 2 equivalents with global warming potential including feedbacks using a 100-year time horizon, with a factor of 1 for CO 2 , 34 for CH 4 , and 298 for N 2 O (IPCC 2013 ). Changes in soil carbon were not accounted for but are discussed in the SM.

2.3.3 Global food security

Drawing on previous work by Cassidy et al. ( 2013 ) on assessing farm contributions to global food security, we calculated the number of people that could be fed per hectare in terms of energy (kcal), protein, complete protein (a complete amino acid profile), and fat. On-farm land use and land required for growing purchased feed were considered. Areas of semi-natural pasture were not included in total land use, as it is not suitable for cropping and is thus not relevant for this indicator of food-feed competition. For crops sold for feed, we calculated two versions of the food security indicator: one delimited to production on the farm (hence not considering the nutrients in feed crops) and one considering also meat (theoretically) produced from sold feed, assuming that the crops sold for feed were used to produce beef according to an average Swedish feed ration for beef production. We calculated the associated land use that this theoretical production would require in terms of additional feed and included these “virtual” hectares in the total land use (see SM).

2.3.4 Working conditions

To evaluate the effects of the agroecological transition on working conditions, which is a critical aspect for agricultural sustainability (Dumont and Baret 2017 ), we developed an interview guide to assess the impacts for employees, based on Dumont and Baret ( 2017 ) and conducted interviews with four members of farm staff in April 2020 (see SM). We transcribed and abductively coded the interview responses using the first set of codes based on the dimensions of working conditions discussed in Dumont and Baret ( 2017 ), while subsequent codes emerged during coding. Using the method developed by Ose ( 2016 ), we then thematically clustered the material, focusing on perceived changes and impacts of the on-farm transition.

2.3.5 Economic performance

To quantitatively evaluate the economic impact of the farm transition, we collected economic data to compute indicators (Table 2 ) from the Farm Accountancy Data Network of the EU (FADN 2018 ). These data reflect central aspects affecting farm income at the farm level (e.g., costs for labor, machinery and buildings, and subsidies) and specifically for crop and beef production (e.g., costs of fertilizer, seeds, veterinary services, and revenues) (see SM).

3 Results and discussion

3.1 smart shows an overall improvement in sustainability.

The SMART assessment revealed an overall improvement in the sustainability performance of the farm (Fig.  3a  and 3b ). Of the 21 SMART themes, extensification of farming and transition to agroecology led to improvements in 19 themes, with the largest changes in performance scores recorded for product quality and information (an increase from 34 to 83%), accountability (an increase from 25 to 55%), human safety and health (an increase from 59 to 89%), corporate ethics (an increase from 34 to 63%), biodiversity (an increase from 43 to 66%), and animal welfare (an increase from 59 to 84%). Participation was not affected by the transition, while the local economy was negatively affected (decrease from 64 to 45%).

( a ) Overall performance score on the 21 sustainability themes included in SMART. The dotted line shows assessment results for year 1 (2017), and the black solid line shows results for  year 2 (2020). Percentages in brackets refer to change between year 1 and year 2. ( b ) Results for the subthemes to the 21 themes in SMART, divided by (from top left) social well-being, governance, economic resilience, and environmental aspects. For all charts, the dotted line shows the results for year 1 (2017), and the black solid line shows results for year 2 (2020). Percentages in parentheses refer to change between years 1 and 2.

Some management changes had particular impacts across indicators. For example, abolishing the use of pesticides, a common feature of many agroecological farming systems (including organic farming, which only permits the use of a limited amount of substances (EC 834/ 2007 )), reduced health risks for workers, and improved food safety and quality, as it lowered the risk of residues in harvested crops. It also contributed positively to biodiversity, especially abolishing the use of substances listed as particularly persistent in soil and water by the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) database referenced by SMART. Abolishing the use of pesticides also implied that the farm is acting more responsibly towards its surrounding community, thus contributing positively to aspects of good governance. Another change that brought benefits in several areas was applying for organic certification, in which a thorough review of the entire farming business was performed, ensuring that management had knowledge of all aspects of the farm and its implications. This process also sparked more active sustainability work in general, including participation in the present sustainability assessment. Certification also provided more information and certainty for the consumer, e.g., regarding pesticides and associated risks, thus having positive impacts on product quality and transparency. Outcomes for biodiversity improved too, thanks to the reduced use of N fertilizer following agroecological transition (from > 400 kg of total N/ha to < 300 kg (Table 1 )). Despite this, SMART still rated the total amount of N applied in year 2 to be too high (within the orange zone in Fig.  3 ). In general, N inputs to agroecological systems are substantially lower per hectare than those to conventional systems, due to the non-use of synthetic N fertilizers (Billen et al. 2021 ). Organic farms have also been shown to be associated with higher on-farm biodiversity, although the variation is large and outcomes are dependent on surrounding landscapes (Tuck et al. 2014 ).

Animal welfare improved thanks to better indoor conditions, less crowding, improved silage storage, and allowing all ruminants access to grazing, although the naturally short grazing season in Sweden reduced the score. By extension, improved animal welfare also positively affected the product quality score, partly explaining its large increase (from 34 to 83%). In general, animals in organic production, especially beef animals, have a greater possibility to express natural behaviors (Presto Åkerfeldt et al. 2021 ). Lameness is however commonly reported to be a problem in both organic and conventional production (Presto Åkerfeldt et al. 2021 ) but was not an issue on the case farm, where SMART deemed the prevalence of lame animals to be below threshold values.

The reduced performance for the local economy (decrease from 64 to 45%) was largely driven by a reduced number of local work opportunities and partly also by lack of internships on the farm and reduced purchases from local or national sellers, which in turn were explained by the overall reduced use of inputs in year 2.

In the similar SMART assessment of the 131 farms which participated in UNISECO, Landert et al. ( 2020 ) found large variations in sustainability performance, with SMART scores for practically all themes ranging from 0 to 40% for the worse performing farms to 80–100% for the best performing farms. The case farm’s performance is roughly in line with the European median, but the agroecological transition has brought its performance more into line with that of the top-scoring European farms (some theme results in the 80–100% range in Fig.  3a ), although the precise comparison is difficult. The great variation found between UNISECO farms (Landert et al. 2019 ) makes generalization challenging, but Landert et al. ( 2020 ) established that agroecological farms performed better than conventional farms for biodiversity (scoring 54% on average for farms in different types of agroecological transition and 42% for conventional farms). Similar results were found in this study (biodiversity scores of 43 and 66% before and after agroecological transition, respectively). Interestingly, the pre-transition score for biodiversity (year 1) is partly attributable to the semi-natural pastures grazed by the 200 extensively managed suckler cows and heifers, arguably indicating that some agroecological practices were used on the farm already within the conventional system. If the farm in its conventional state (year 1) had reared only intact bulls and thus not managed the semi-natural pastures, the score for biodiversity would have been 34%, i.e., below the European average for conventional farms, instead of the actual 43%.

Despite the overall greater sustainability in year 2, SMART results and comparison to European top scores showed there is still room for improvement. The complementary methods used provided some nuance to the SMART results and indicated that, for some aspects, on-farm decisions may not be sufficient to change outcomes for sustainability. This is discussed in the following sections.

3.2 Less stress and a safer working environment, but changes can be challenging

SMART showed that contracts and salaries were unaffected by the agroecological transition and, in interviews, staff reported feeling that they have secure employment. The daily tasks changed for several interviewees and the change in management was primarily perceived as positive by all four employees, largely pertaining to reduced overtime, less stress, and a generally more controllable workload:

“Before…well, it was almost unbearable really. No matter how much you worked, it was always the same amount left. We could never keep up. Now we are perhaps catching up a little. It’s like…well, it’s not fun if you can never see the light at the end of the tunnel” (Employee 4)

The working environment had also become safer thanks to the shift from keeping intact bulls indoors in pens to the loose-housing and grazing system with heifers. The employees reported several injuries caused by handling the bulls and mentioned that they always had to take precautions in an attempt to reduce risks. One member of staff even refused to handle the bulls because they felt it was too dangerous:

“Now we have the heifers, and of course, there are some of those that can be tricky as well, but it is, well…you can go in and pet them, it’s like night and day. Now I dare to, but I wouldn’t go in before.” (Employee 2)

However, the transition was perceived as a substantial change and all changes can be challenging and demand good leadership, especially in a situation where the case farm transitioned from conventional to organic production, which has different philosophical underpinnings. The staff reported that, despite feeling supported and able to manage their new tasks and responsibilities, they were not involved in the transition decision and had no common understanding of why the shift had occurred, other than that the old system was “too much to handle.” The vision for the organic farming system was perceived as originating from the farm owner and manager, but there were indications of a common understanding developing between management and staff:

“Well, it’s both fun and scary…I think it’s easier with a small farm where it’s just you. Now everyone has to be interested and pull in the same direction. [-] The pressure is quite big on [the farm manager]…I mean, he/she has to tell us about it [organic] so that we get into it and also get interested”. (Employee 4)

3.3 Smaller farming business with higher labor productivity and margins

The agroecological transition led to a significant downsizing of the farming business, both for costs and outputs (Table 3 ). In particular, the downscaled beef production was reflected in the net value-added, and thus net farm income, both of which declined substantially. Consequently, while beef production contributed nearly 85% of total revenues in 2017, its contribution was reduced to around 60% in 2020, making the farm less dependent on this source of income. In contrast, labor productivity was higher in 2020, largely explained by the reduced number of employees: net value added decreased by roughly 40% and, the labor input decreased from 14.5 to 7.15 annual work units, resulting in an increase in labor productivity of 18%.

Despite the reduced overall economic activity, the gross margin of the majority of agricultural commodities was higher in 2020, including the gross margin for finishing cattle. This was due to generally lower variable production costs, particularly for pesticides and fertilizers, and higher market prices for all products except barley, the market price of which dropped in 2020. Despite increasing gross margin and market prices, the quantity of meat sold, and thus overall revenue, decreased substantially. This led to an output-to-input ratio < 1, which is not economically sustainable in the long term.

The smaller farming business in 2020 had a negative impact on the SMART score for the local economy because of fewer job opportunities. This gives nuance to previous findings that agroecological farming acts as a driver for increased local employment by replacing input factors with labor. For example, van der Ploeg et al. ( 2019 ) claim that agroecological farming offers “huge potential and radical opportunities” for European farming because it can deliver a win–win-win; increased farmer income, lower use of agrochemicals, and societal benefits from increased employment. As pointed out by Rosset and Altieri already in 1997, however, agricultural science in developed countries has been geared towards maximizing production with minimal labor—“the most limiting factor.” In all high-income countries, including Sweden, farming has therefore moved towards increased farm size, mechanization, specialization, and pursuit of economies of scale. This is also evident on the case farm, as several former small farms are now managed as one large farming company, mechanization is high, the farm produces only beef and cereals and, in 2017, still sought to increase profitability through higher outputs, and not higher product value or lower costs. Given this historical legacy and the investments made in mechanization and increasing efficiency, the reduced number of job opportunities in the initial stage of agroecological transition is perhaps not surprising. Many beef farmers in Sweden face financial struggles (Hessle et al. 2017 ) and, like many conventional farms, the case farm has experienced “the squeeze on agriculture,” i.e., rapidly increasing costs relative to revenues (Rosset and Altieri 1997 ; van der Ploeg et al. 2019 ). However, the increased labor productivity found in year 2 showed that, per worker, more economic net value was created compared with the pre-transition assessment (2017). Combined with the larger margin for both crops and cattle in year 2, this could indicate that the farm is potentially moving from economies of scale to “economies of scope,” where value is created from more diverse and efficient use of on-farm resources rather than increasing outputs (de Roest et al. 2018 ). Additionally, working conditions have evidently improved, which indicates that, despite fewer job opportunities, the jobs available seem to be more sustainable after the transition, both in terms of economic value and job satisfaction among workers. Overall, this nuances the negative SMART result for the local economy, but judging by the reduced output-to-input ratio and the reduction seen for the SMART sub-themes profitability and value creation, the farm has not yet fully realized the potential economic sustainability gains from agroecological transition. This potential is also uncertain, e.g., Landert et al. ( 2020 ) did not find a clear pattern of better (or worse) economic performance on agroecological farms, which instead seems to be more context specific. One aspect of this for the case study farm was that in year 2, some parts of the farming operation were still awaiting organic certification, which affected sales opportunities. Embargoed crops were reported by the farmers to generate higher revenues when sold as organic feed than as conventional crops for human consumption. Additionally, the gross margin for oats and triticale increased by several hundred percent between years 1 and 2 (Table 3 ), mainly because of higher market prices and, somewhat surprisingly, higher yields for oats and lower variable costs for triticale. This shows that factors beyond the control of the farm (e.g., certification processes and fluctuating market prices) heavily impact on-farm sustainability. Further, the agroecological transition is ongoing and not complete, and the close partnerships in short value chains that are central to agroecological system re-design (de Roest et al. 2018 ) take time to establish.

3.4 Higher emission intensity and shift in emission sources show that “less” and “better” must go hand in hand

The agroecological transition increased the emission intensity per kg meat from 24 to 32 kg CO 2 e/kg SW (with a Swedish average of 23 kg CO 2 e/kg SW (Moberg et al. 2020 )). This shows a trade-off arising from agroecological transition, for example, in relation to the increased SMART scores for biodiversity and soil and water quality. The increase in emission intensity was largely explained by the shift from dairy calves to suckler calves. Methane from enteric fermentation is the largest source of GHG emissions for both systems, but in year 2, a substantial share of these emissions arose in rearing bought-in calves, i.e., from the mother cows. For the intensive system (2017), purchased concentrate feed and N 2 O from manure management and transport were other considerable emission sources, while for the extensive system (2020), other sources were more marginal (SM, Table S12 ).

Despite the increase in emission intensity per kilogram of meat, agroecological transition lowered the climate impact of beef production in absolute terms by roughly 70%. In 2017, livestock rearing on the farm contributed 6.2 million kilograms of CO 2 e, which was reduced to 1.9 million kilograms in 2020 (Fig.  4 ). It should be noted that we did not model changes in soil carbon following the transition but, judging from the crops grown on the farm and the changes in yields, we concluded that there will likely be a reduction in soil carbon, and hence emissions of carbon dioxide from soils, as a result of the transition (see SM Sect. 1.9).

Total emissions from beef production on the farm in 2017 (left) and 2020 (right), divided by sources of emissions.

These results are in line with previous findings that extensively reared ruminants to tend to contribute more GHG emissions per kilogram of product (Clark and Tilman 2017 ). However, a more holistic perspective is needed for determining the overall sustainability implications of higher emission intensities. In 2019, the average Swedish beef consumption was ~ 24 kg (SW) per person and year (SJV 2020 ). If that meat had been exclusively sourced from the farm before the agroecological transition, consumption would have given rise to around 570 kg of CO 2 e. Limiting intake to ~ 7 kg (SW) as suggested by the EAT-Lancet commission (Willett et al. 2019 ) and sourcing all beef from the farm in year 2 would have contributed 225 kg of CO 2 e and would have simultaneously been “better” for a range of other sustainability areas. This illustrates the potential in the “less but better” strategy; by reducing demand, GHG emissions can be kept at acceptable levels, allowing meat production to realize several other positive values. However, if consumers had replaced meat from the farm in year 1 with beef produced using less sustainable practices than those employed on the farm pre-transition, local environmental gains would have occurred at the cost of increased export of negative environmental impact, either from Sweden to abroad or from one farm to another. The farm has undertaken efforts to couple the on-farm transition with changes in consumer behavior by beginning to sell meat in boxes directly to quality-conscious consumers. Increased attention to quality can be an entry point to more sustainable food practices, but “gourmet” consumers nevertheless often eat diets rich in meat and do not necessarily have de facto more sustainable eating habits than other consumers (Schösler and De Boer 2018 ). This reinforces the inherent connection between “less” and “better”—choosing a more sustainable meat option must go hand-in-hand with reduced intake in order to transform trade-offs between sustainability areas into synergies (Resare Sahlin et al. 2020 ).

3.5 A farm-to-food system perspective is needed for assessing how to sustainably feed the world

Despite lower production volumes in year 2 (Table 1 ), the farm still provided calories for marginally more people per hectare than in year 1 (Table 4 ), primarily because of abolished use of concentrate feeds, which “imports” land use to the farm. For protein, fewer people could be fed per hectare in year 2 compared with year 1, not primarily because of reduced meat production, but lower yields and changes to sales of crops following organic conversion. Pre-transition (year 1), the farm sold over 600 tons of wheat (providing nearly 65 tons of protein) for human consumption, while in year 2 only oats and rye were sold for human consumption (around 36 tons of protein), because all other crops were awaiting organic certification and could thus only be sold as organic feed. The reduced meat output in 2020, however, explains the fewer number of people fed per hectare in terms of complete protein (containing all amino acids, i.e., either meat or a combination of grain legumes and cereals). Furthermore, a higher number of people could be fed per hectare in terms of fat in year 2, because the total land use was smaller (Table 4 ) and because a larger share of the land was used to produce crops for food (12.5% of total acreage in year 1 and 25% in year 2). The crop sold for food was mainly oats, which is a fat-rich cereal, thus contributing to the increase in fat per hectare in year 2. Notably, the oat yields reported in year 2 exceeded Swedish organic averages (SCB 2020 ), impacting the number of people fed per hectare by + 0.7 and + 0.5 per hectare for calories and protein, respectively (Table 4 ). Should that high oat yield be an (ex-ante) overestimation by the farmers, the number of people fed per hectare for calories would in fact be reduced. These figures should thus be interpreted as the outcomes of an atypical year.

When also considering beef production from sold feed, the results differed slightly and showed a reduction between the assessments in the number of people fed per hectare for calories and protein (Table 4 ). Lower yields in 2020, resulting in a slight total reduction in cereals sold as feed and thus a corresponding reduction in “virtual” beef production, explain this reduction. Using crops for feed resulted in a greater number of people fed per hectare for protein (comparing version “a” and “b” of the indicator in Table 4 ), i.e., 4.1 compared with 3.7 persons/ha in year 1 and 3.8 compared with 2.9 persons/ha in year 2. This was expected, because considering meat from sold feed (version “b” of the indicator) meant that on-farm land use for feed crops actually yielded food for human consumption, whereas with version “a” of the indicator, crops for feed only “leave” the farm, thus resulting in land use in the calculation without any food production. The increase occurred despite land use to produce silage being included as “virtual hectares” (required for a complete feed ration) (see SM). Although total meat production (on and off-farm) was substantially lower in year 2, total land use was much higher pre-transition due to purchased feed. In this case, lower production volume and higher land use happened to make both systems equally efficient, providing 2.4 people with complete protein per hectare (Table 4 ). Similarly, the farm delivered more fat from crops (which produce fat more efficiently per hectare than animals) in 2020, and simultaneously, total land use was lower, thus providing 1.9 people with fat per hectare in year 2 compared with 1.6 in year 1 (Table 4 ).

Some yield reductions can be expected following agroecological transition, at least initially (Altieri and Rosset 1996 ; Muller et al. 2018 ). On the farm, changes in yields varied in magnitude and direction, e.g., grass-clover ley yields more than halved, while decreases were more modest for wheat and triticale, and oat yields even increased (Table 1 ). As the food security indicators above illustrate, yield is not a good standalone metric of farming performance—what is produced provides a better view of a farm’s sustainability in relation to the wider food system (Cassidy et al. 2013 ), especially concerning organic production (Muller et al. 2018 ). Since further net expansion of cropland is unsustainable (Steffen et al. 2015 ), in order for organic production to be a viable option for feeding the world, production and consumption of animal-source foods must be both significantly reduced and transformed to reduce the use of feeds which compete with food (Muller et al. 2018 ; van Zanten et al. 2018 ; Willett et al. 2019 ). This means that how crops and livestock are produced at the farm level, and by extension in the wider food system, is critical for food system sustainability. Ruminant livestock can play a positive role in this regard by transforming in-edible biomass into highly nutritious food, but only when limited to land that is unsuitable for cropping (so that arable land can be used for direct food production) or fed waste streams from food production (Mottet et al. 2017 ; van Zanten et al. 2018 ). This case study is interesting as it is implementing this avoided feed-food competition in practice. Between years 1 and 2, the farm doubled the area used for crops for direct human consumption (to 25% of total land use). This was possible thanks to downscaling of cattle production to a number compatible with the area of semi-natural pastures and raising cattle on grazing and organic silage only, which eliminated the land use associated with producing concentrate feed. If the farm were to moreover dedicate 15 hectares (3% of its cropland) previously cultivated with wheat to the production of peas and fava beans, this would compensate for the entire loss of protein following the reduced yields and would increase the number of people that could be fed per hectare in terms of calories, complete protein, and fat (scenario 1, Table S21 , SM). This could potentially help reduce the need for N fertilizers, that SMART deemed to be problematic on the farm (see Section  3.1 ) and thus potentially contribute to further environmental improvements. If the farm moreover were to sell an equivalent amount of the wheat and barley produced in 2020 to human consumption instead of feed, six to seven people could be fed per hectare in terms of calories and protein, compared with approximately three people without this change (scenario 2 Table S21 , SM). This would exceed the average figure of five people that should be fed per hectare of arable land globally (considering seven billion people and 1.5 billion hectares of cropland (Röös et al. 2021 )). It would also likely contribute positively to farm income, as prices for food crops are generally higher than for feed. Furthermore, introducing “stronger” agroecological practices, such as a more complex crop rotation where 20% of the cereal acreage (about 60 ha) is replaced with e.g., pulses, potatoes, and oilseed rape would provide calories and protein for around nine people per hectare and also significantly increase the farm’s production of fat and complete protein (although still not enough to feed five persons per hectare) (scenario 3 Table S21 , SM). Greater on-farm diversity is also likely to further increase SMART scores for biodiversity and soil quality.

As it is undesirable to increase meat production from a sustainability perspective (Röös et al. 2017 ; van Zanten et al. 2018 ; Willett et al. 2019 ) and as organic cropping generally produces lower yields (Muller et al. 2018 ), farm-to-food system interaction is important for sustainability. Value-chain actors and consumers must choose, and be willing to pay for, products which foster transitions to sustainability at the farm level in order for this to be viable. Otherwise, the agroecological transition on the farm will likely stop in this initial stage and never realize its full potential. In another case study of a Swedish farm, Röös et al. ( 2021 ) used similar indicators to assess farm sustainability in relation to the wider food system. They found that long-term, reliable, and fair sales outlets for farm products were essential for on-farm transition to more sustainable practices at the local and food system level, including keeping ruminants on pasture and using cropland for production for direct human consumption. Without such buyer–seller relations, farms would not have the financial capacity to make continuous sustainability improvements, as livestock production is currently an avenue to increase the value per hectare of land.

3.6 “Better” meat, a more sustainable farm, and a sustainable food system

The results for our case farm showed that agroecological transition improved sustainability for a range of aspects assessed, which can be interpreted as the farm delivering “better” meat (and crops) in year 2. However, the analysis also highlighted several trade-offs between sustainability themes.

The transition to a more sustainable production system is not necessarily equivalent to sustainable “enough.” Since SMART facilitates comparison of farms across the globe, the tool results cannot be used to determine whether the benefits deriving from, e.g., discontinued use of pesticides on the farm accurately match real, marginal improvements in product quality, health, and good governance for the particular Swedish case. A benchmark for the average performance of Swedish farming would be necessary for a more detailed analysis of the importance of improvements on the farm. Obtaining results for an average farm was not feasible within the scope of this project (the first application of SMART in Sweden) and may not even be possible due to lack of required data on national averages of, e.g., farm sustainability work, crop rotations, animals on pasture, feeding regimes, etc. On the other hand, SMART reflects a common, globally accepted description of sustainable farming, since it operationalizes the SAFA indicators and is judged to be one of the best tools available (Arulnathan et al. 2020 ). Our complimentary analysis of climate impact, contribution to global food security, working conditions, and economic performance provided additional insights on how the case farm is performing in relation to wider food system sustainability goals, and also quantitatively supported some of the SMART results. For example, the improvement to the SMART theme for atmosphere was reflected in the substantial overall reduction in GHG emissions from beef production and, although the SMART scores for workplace safety and quality of life were high already in year 1, SMART results and staff interviews reflected further positive development. “Better,” as in more sustainable, can describe several states along a transition pathway, and beef and crop production on the farm is in different stages of agroecological transition (Fig 2 ). They contribute differently to farm-level sustainability, e.g., rearing heifers on semi-natural pastures contributed a substantial proportion of the SMART score for biodiversity in both assessments, while abolishing the use of pesticides in crop production had widespread impacts across several SMART themes. There is perhaps no clear answer to whether “better” meat (or crops) is synonymous with more sustainable farming but, based on our case results, it can be concluded that “better” meat production both supports and is dependent on a more sustainable farm. The case results also illustrate that “better” meat and a more sustainable farm cannot be viewed in isolation from the wider food system.

3.7 Challenges and opportunities with the applied research approach

The mixed-methods approach applied here involves challenges, with implications for data quality and reliability of results. For example, SMART requires the interviewer to make an on-site assessment for some indicators, e.g., regarding air quality in animal houses or the dirtiness of animals. The interviewer is inevitably affected by their perception of what a stable or animal should look like, which is in turn largely formed by the context in which the interviewer previously worked. The training required before application of the tool partly remedied this, and the tool provides some rules of thumb (e.g., to base assessment on the worse 10% of the herd) to improve uniformity in assessments. Researcher impact also becomes less relevant when comparing assessments for the same farm, since there are likely “even biases.” Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge the potential impact of the researcher/interviewer when comparing SMART results between farms, years, and farming contexts.

Because the farm had not been in the habit of monitoring all aspects of on-farm operations, during interviews, the farm owner and manager made qualitative estimates of quantitative information. Sometimes the mental models of the interviewees clashed with how the tool and indicators function, so it is possible that the interviewer described and asked about issues that were perceived differently by the interviewees. Moreover, the farm participated in the Swedish UNISECO case study, which i) aimed for on-farm sustainability improvements and ii) was carried out in collaboration with a food industry company. There are clear legal agreements in place separating the roles and involvement of the company and the independent research, but it is still possible that farmers could feel pressured to provide certain information. Effects of this on the results can be minimized by cross-checking information, performing quality checks on SMART assessments, and using internationally acknowledged methods for calculating climate impact, but not all uncertainty relating to this can be ruled out. Some examples of results which stand out were commented upon above.

Moreover, the economic analysis assesses the performance of the farm for a specific year. While this is straightforward for annual crops, the production cycles of livestock are not “completed” (i.e., bought, bred, and sold) within the assessment year, which complicates the analysis. To account for costs and revenues of livestock occurring in different years, change in livestock value is estimated and transferred in the analysis by considering the potential market price, excluding the required rearing costs until the point of sale. As we used the same approach in both assessments of the case farm, temporal comparisons were straightforward, but comparing between different farms or setting the numbers in the context of average FADN indicator values would be more difficult.

It would have been ideal to monitor the farm over many years, to gain a better understanding of the agroecological transition and its motivations and effects. The two assessments made provided snapshots of particular years but, as shown for example by the economic results and analysis, assessment of multiple years is necessary to draw more firm conclusions about outcomes for economic sustainability. However, the study already involved handling large amounts of data and, even with the analysis limited to two assessments, it was beyond the scope of the work to consider all details of the transition. The key contribution of the study is the novel methodological approach employed, the results of which clearly showed that without considering economics, the environment, social well-being, and good governance, one cannot obtain a meaningful understanding of sustainable farming or more sustainable meat options.

4 Conclusions

A novel mixed-methods approach was used in the holistic assessment of the sustainability impacts of agroecological transition by a real-world case study farm extensifying its livestock production and applying organic practices. The analysis investigated whether meat produced in such a system could be a more sustainable option in line with the “less but better” strategy. The results showed improved sustainability for environmental, social, economic, and governance-related aspects, with corroborating results across methods. The case farm is thus an example of the transition to a more sustainable production system, but this is not necessarily equivalent to sustainable “enough.” As expected, there were both trade-offs and synergies between sustainability themes, for example in terms of increased emission intensity per kg meat, but with a simultaneous dramatic reduction in overall emissions. This highlights the inherent connection between “less” and “better”; by reducing demand, GHG emissions can be substantially reduced while beef production using “strong” agroecological practices contributes to environmental, social, and economic sustainability. “Better” can also describe several states along a transition pathway, e.g., on the case farm, beef production had transitioned further than crop production. However, “better,” i.e., more sustainable, meat production both supports and depends on a more sustainable farm, and a more sustainable farm cannot be viewed in isolation from the wider food system. “Less but better” can thus guide sustainability improvements at the farm level, but it is beyond the control of the individual farm to fully realize these improvements. Involvement by value-chain actors and policymakers is also crucial.

Availability of data and material

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the present study are not publicly available since, despite being anonymized, they portray a single farm, so publicly sharing the data can be experienced as sensitive for the case study participants. Datasets are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code availability

The SMART licensed software is not available for public use. It is available for purchase at: https://www.fibl.org/en/index.html .

A Greener World (2017) What is better meat? In: www.agreenerworld.org . https://agreenerworld.org/a-greener-world/what-is-better-meat/ . Accessed 22 Nov 2018

Altieri MA, Rosset P (1996) Agroecology and the conversion of large-scale conventional systems to sustainable management. Int J Environ Stud 50:165–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207239608711055

Article   Google Scholar  

Arulnathan V, Heidari MD, Doyon M et al (2020) Farm-level decision support tools: a review of methodological choices and their consistency with principles of sustainability assessment. J Clean Prod 256:120410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120410

Barbieri P, Pellerin S, Nesme T (2017) Comparing crop rotations between organic and conventional farming. Sci Rep 7:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14271-6

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Billen G, Aguilera E, Einarsson R, et al (2021) Supplemental information Reshaping the European agro-food system and closing its nitrogen cycle : the potential of combining dietary change , agroecology , and circularity supplemental notes note S1 . Methods and hypothesis for assessing N fluxes. One Earth 4:

Cassidy ES, West PC, Gerber JS, Foley JA (2013) Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare. Environ Res Lett 8:8. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015

Chopin P (2021) Avenues for improving farming sustainability assessment with upgraded tools , sustainability framing and indicators . a review. Agron Sustain Dev 41:. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00674-3 (2021)

Clark M, Tilman D (2017) Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environ Res Lett 12:064016. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5

Clark MA, Domingo NGG, Colgan K, et al (2020) Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets. Science (80- ) 370:705–708. https://doi.org/10.5880/pik.2019.001

de Boer J, Schösler H, Aiking H (2014) “Meatless days; less but better”? Exploring strategies to adapt western meat consumption to health and sustainability challenges. Appetite 76:120–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.02.002

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

de Olde EM, Henrik Moller B, Fleur Marchand B et al (2017) When experts disagree: the need to rethink indicator selection for assessing sustainability of agriculture. Environ Dev Sustain 19:1327–1342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9803-x

de Roest K, Ferrari P, Knickel K (2018) Specialisation and economies of scale or diversification and economies of scope? assessing different agricultural development pathways. J Rural Stud 59:222–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.04.013

Dumont AM, Baret P V (2017) Why working conditions are a key issue of sustainability in agriculture? a comparison between agroecological, organic and conventional vegetable systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.07.007

Dumont B, Groot JCJ, Tichit M (2018) Review: make ruminants green again - how can sustainable intensification and agroecology converge for a better future? Animal 12:S210–S219. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731118001350

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Eating Better (2017) Meat and sustainable diets: why we recommend ‘less and better.’ Eat. Better News, http://www.eating-better.org

Eating Better (2021) Sourcing better framework

EC 834/2007 (2007) Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 European Council Brussels

European Commission (2020) Farm to fork strategy - for a fair, healthy and environmentally friendly food system Brussels

FADN (2018) Farm accountancy data network. An A to Z of methodology.

FAO (2019) The future of food and agriculture - alternative pathways to 2050. Rome

FAO (2013) SAFA Indicators. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, Rome

Google Scholar  

Tirado R, Thompson KF, Miller KA, Johnston P (2018) Less is more - reducing meat and dairy for a healthier life and planet. Scientific background on the Greenpeace vision of the meat and dairy system towards 2050. Exeter

Harrison H, Birks M, Franklin R, Mills J (2017) Case study research: foundations and methodological orientations. Forum Qual Sozialforsch 18:1–12. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-18.1.2655

Hessle A, Kumm KI, Bertilsson J et al (2017) Combining environmentally and economically sustainable dairy and beef production in Sweden. Agric Syst 156:105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.06.004

HLPE (2019) Agroecological and other innovative approaches - a report by the high level panel of experts on food security and nutrition. Rome

IPCC (2019a) Climate change and land — IPCC. In: IPCC Spec. Rep. Clim. Chang. Desertif. L. Degrad. Sustain. L. Manag. food Secur. Greenh. gas fluxes Terr. Ecosyst. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/ . Accessed 11 Sep 2019

IPCC (2019b) 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories - volume 4 agriculture, forestry and other land use. Switzerland

IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA

Karlsson JO, Röös E (2019) Resource-efficient use of land and animals-environmental impacts of food systems based on organic cropping and avoided food-feed competition. Land Use Policy 85:63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.035

Landert J, Pfeifer C, Carolus J, et al (2019) Deliverable report D3.1 report on environmental, economic and social performance of current aefs, and comparison to conventional baseline. UNIABDN

Landert J, Pfeifer C, Carolus J et al (2020) Assessing agro-ecological practices using a combination of three sustainability assessment tools. J Sustain Org Agric Syst 70:129–144. https://doi.org/10.3220/LBF1612794225000

Moberg E, Karlsson Potter H, Wood A et al (2020) Benchmarking the Swedish diet relative to global and national environmental targets—identification of indicator limitations and data gaps. Sustainability 12:1407. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041407

Mottet A, De Haan C, Falcucci A et al (2017) Livestock: on our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate. Glob Food Sec 14:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.01.001

Muller A, Schader C, El-HageScialabba N et al (2018) Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat Commun 8.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01410-w.DOI:10.1038/s41467-017-01410-w

Ose SO (2016) Using excel and word to structure qualitative data. J Appl Soc Sci 10:147–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1936724416664948

Poore J, Nemecek T (2018) Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science (80- ) 360:987–992

Poux X, Aubert P-M (2018) An agroecological Europe in 2050: multifunctional agriculture for healthy eating - findings from the ten years for agroecology (TYFA) modelling exercise

Prazan J, Aalders I (2019) UNISECO deliverable report D2.2: typology of AEFS and practices in the EU and the selection of case studies this page is left blank deliberately. REPORT D2.2. Typology of AEFS and Practices in the EU and the Selection of Case Studies 1

Presto Åkerfeldt M, Gunnarsson S, Bernes G, Blanco-Penedo I (2021) Health and welfare in organic livestock production systems-a systematic mapping of current knowledge. Org Agric 11:105–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-020-00334-y

Resare Sahlin K, Röös E, Gordon LJ (2020) ‘Less but better’ meat is a sustainability message in need of clarity. Nat Food 1:520–522. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00140-5

Röös E, Bajželj B, Smith P et al (2017) Greedy or needy? Land use and climate impacts of food in 2050 under different livestock futures. Glob Environ Chang 47:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GLOENVCHA.2017.09.001

Röös E, Bajzelj B, Weil C et al (2021) Moving beyond organic – a food system approach to assessing sustainable and resilient farming. Glob Food Sec 28:100487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100487

Rosset PM, Altieri MA (1997) Agroecology versus input substitution: a fundamental contradiction of sustainable agriculture. Soc Nat Resour 10:283–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941929709381027

SCB (2020) Skörd för ekologisk och konventionell odling 2019

Schösler H, De Boer J (2018) Towards more sustainable diets: insights from the food philosophies of “gourmets” and their relevance for policy strategies. Appetite 127:59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.04.022

SJV (2020) Statistics database of the Swedish board of agriculture. In: Off. Stat. Sweden. http://statistik.sjv.se/PXWeb/pxweb/sv/Jordbruksverkets statistikdatabas/Jordbruksverkets statistikdatabas__Konsumtion av livsmedel/JO1301K2.px/?rxid=5adf4929-f548–4f27–9bc9–78e127837625

Slow Food (2018) Slow meat. In: www.slowfood.com . https://www.slowfood.com/what-we-do/themes/slow-meat/ . Accessed 22 Nov 2018

Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, et al (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science (80- ) 347:1259855–9. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855

Tittonell P (2014) Ecological intensification of agriculture-sustainable by nature. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 8:53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.08.006

Tuck SL, Winqvist C, Mota F et al (2014) Land-use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 51:746–755

van der Ploeg JD, Barjolle D, Bruil J et al (2019) The economic potential of agroecology: Empirical evidence from Europe. J Rural Stud. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.09.003

van Zanten HHE, Herrero M, Van Hal O et al (2018) Defining a land boundary for sustainable livestock consumption. Glob Chang Biol 24:4185–4194. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14321

Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B et al (2019) Food in the anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 6736:3–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4

WWF-Germany (2018) Einkaufsratgeber fleisch und wurst. In: www.wwf.de . https://www.wwf.de/aktiv-werden/tipps-fuer-den-alltag/vernuenftig-einkaufen/einkaufsratgeber-fleisch/?fbclid=IwAR2148bI90z5yQb_UM43qhSFFBBn0qIF1EEUKkRVsxWMwXJgx7Zan6yuwbI . Accessed 22 Nov 2018

Download references

Acknowledgements

Jan Landert, scientific collaborator in the Department of Socioeconomics, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), is thanked for his invaluable assistance in the application and farm-level sustainability assessment using the SMART Farm-tool. Thanks also to Dr. Gerald Schwarz, Thünen Institute, for facilitating and aiding the study by coordinating the UNISECO project and participating in initial discussions on the conceptualization of this study.

Open access funding provided by Stockholm University. The research was funded by the Horizon 2020 project UNISECO under the European Commission Grant Agree number: 773901.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University, Kräftriket 2B, 10691, Stockholm, Sweden

Kajsa Resare Sahlin

Thünen Institute of Farm Economics, Bundesallee 63, 38116, Braunschweig, Germany

Johannes Carolus

Institute for Rural Development Research, Kurfürstenstraße 49, 60486, Frankfurt/Main, Germany

Department of Energy & Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Lennart Hjelms väg 9, 75651, Uppsala, Sweden

Karin von Greyerz, Ida Ekqvist & Elin Röös

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Kajsa Resare Sahlin and Elin Röös jointly developed the research design and conceptualization. Kajsa Resare Sahlin collected all data except staff interviews, which were conducted by Elin Röös. Johannes Carolus contributed all economic methods and analyses. Karin von Greyerz performed the climate calculations, under supervision by Elin Röös. Ida Ekqvist contributed the calculations of indicators for global food security, under supervision by Elin Röös and Kajsa Resare Sahlin. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Kajsa Resare Sahlin, and Elin Röös and Johannes Carolus commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kajsa Resare Sahlin .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval.

The processes followed in this study were approved for UNISECO by the European Commission and the James Hutton Institute (UK).

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in the study.

Consent for publication

The authors affirm that human research participants provided informed consent for publication of the anonymous information and descriptions in this study.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 191 KB)

Rights and permissions.

This article is published under an open access license. Please check the 'Copyright Information' section either on this page or in the PDF for details of this license and what re-use is permitted. If your intended use exceeds what is permitted by the license or if you are unable to locate the licence and re-use information, please contact the Rights and Permissions team .

About this article

Resare Sahlin, K., Carolus, J., von Greyerz, K. et al. Delivering “less but better” meat in practice—a case study of a farm in agroecological transition. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 42 , 24 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00737-5

Download citation

Accepted : 03 November 2021

Published : 23 March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00737-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• “Less but better” Meat
• Agroecological transition
• Sustainability assessment
• SMART-Farm Tool RRID:SCR_018197
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Agricultural Value Chains, Contract Farming, and Rural Development

By Molly Ingram, PhD ’22 (Economics)

Transformation of agricultural production

As low- and middle-income countries urbanize, demand for food, especially processed food, grows rapidly. To meet such demand, agricultural production transitions from subsistence farming and trade in raw or minimally processed goods, with little off-farm value-added, to more complex value chains where firms purchase inputs from farmers (or upstream firms), add value to products via processing, and then sell products to downstream firms or consumers. This transformation creates new economic opportunities from domestic, international, and multinational organizations. The “supermarket revolution” that occurred in parts of Africa, Latin America, and Asia over the past two decades underscores this evolution.

Challenges for transformation and a role for policy

A necessary component of this transition is farmer market participation. However, agricultural markets are riddled with imperfections, especially for low-income countries, which impact both farmers and the would-be buyers of their products. Farmers often lack access to credit, insurance, high-quality inputs, and other relevant services. Firms commonly face uncertainty regarding prices, output volumes, output quality, and default risk. Contract farming arrangements can help overcome some of these challenges.

Contract farming is an agreement made at the beginning of the agricultural season between a farmer, or farmer group, and an aggregator, in which the aggregator promises to purchase crops from the farmer post-harvest and the farmer promises to sell to the aggregator. An aggregator could be a firm, exporter, processor, nonprofit organization, co-op, or other entity. Although the most basic form of contract farming is a simple procurement or marketing contract, there are often additional terms, and the specifics of contract farming arrangements vary widely. Often, contracts will offer farmers some combination of access to credit, capital inputs, technical assistance, and/or price premiums.

Such potential benefits to contract farming have attracted the attention of international development organizations, governments, and other actors with an interest in agricultural and rural development.  Contract farming’s ability to improve outcomes for all actors along the value chain, farmers, and firms— and thus promote further economic growth—may help reduce rural poverty and spur further economic activity.

One way organizations have considered supporting contract farming opportunities for smallholder farmers is via subsidies that induce firms to expand existing operations to new areas and farmers.  This type of policy supports small farmers by creating more economic opportunities and helps firms overcome the one-off fixed cost of establishing a contracting operation in a new area. These one-time costs, combined with informational asymmetries between firms and farmers regarding productivity, output quality, trustworthiness, and more, cause firms to maintain smaller contracting operations than would be profitable if firms had complete information about farmers. In this scenario, subsidizing expansion generates welfare increases for all parties.

Who benefits?

If rural development and poverty reduction is a policy goal of encouraging contract farming is, it is important to understand who benefits and how they benefit from contract farming arrangements. Farmers that choose to participate in contract farming must expect to benefit from participation, and many empirical studies of different schemes generally find that participation benefits households. Benefits could be derived in a variety of ways: increased household income, less volatile income, partial insurance against price risk, improved food security, and more. The benefits participation generates depend on the details of the contracting arrangement.

While participation is commonly found to improve households’ wellbeing, not all smallholder farming households have the option to participate in contract farming, even if there is a contract farming scheme operating within their region. Firms select which farms to contract with based on different criteria that are important to managing the cost and risk of contracting. Common criteria include proximity to the firm or accessibility via vehicle, access to irrigation, membership in a farming association or co-op, and size of the farm. Often the households that participate in contract farming have more people, hold more land, produce more output, and participate more in existing agricultural markets than non-contracted households. From a rural development standpoint, this can cause concern that contract farming only benefits households that are already better off and not the households that policy makers would like to target, especially if the objective is poverty reduction.

This raises the question of whether the presence of a contract farming scheme can generate benefits for households that are not contracted by the firm. Obtaining empirical evidence of spillovers is challenging, because data is often only collected from contracted and non-contracted households within the region where the contracting firm works. In these cases, impacts of contracting are estimated by comparing outcomes for the contracted and non-contracted households while controlling for any bias from the non-random selection of contracted households to the extent the data allow. Existing research suggests one way in which non-contracted households may benefit from a contract farming scheme operating in their region is through labor markets. When contracted households increase production or use labor-intensive production methods to meet the requirements of the contract, their labor demand increases. If surplus labor is available, it is most often from members of non-contracted households, and these wages augment the incomes of non-contracted households. My recent research on a contract farming scheme in Mozambique indicates another channel through which non-contracted households can benefit from the presence of a contracting firm operating in their region: spot market purchases.

A case study from Mozambique

From 2017 to 2019, a pilot program on contract farming expansion was carried out in Mozambique. Through this program, a firm in central Mozambique that contracted with farmers to purchase maize expanded their contracting region and increased the number of contracted households by nearly 50 percent. Household surveys were conducted with contracted and non-contracted households in the newly entered region and with households that lived beyond the new contracting boundary. These surveys allow researchers to estimate the benefits of the scheme for participating households and the benefits that accrue to non-contracted households from residing within the contracting region.

The firm offered group contracts with up to 25 households per village. The contracts are procurement contracts in which the firm agrees to come to the village post-harvest and buy the output from the farmers at a price comparable to the market price as opposed to the farm-gate price. Although the price is not fixed in advance, by offering a price within some margin of the market price, the firm essentially insures the contracted households against a bad price offer from another buyer. Additionally, the contracted households do not pay any transport costs that they previously would have incurred if they did not want to sell at farm-gate.

Once the firm’s truck is in the village to pick up the harvest from the contracted households, the transportation costs are sunk; so if space remains in the truck, the firm is willing to buy from non-contracted households to minimize its per-unit costs. To avoid negotiation costs with each farmer and maintain a favorable relationship with the village, the firm pays the same price to everyone. Non-contracted households have an opportunity to sell to the firm and now also avoid having to accept a low price. The firm’s participation in the spot market also adds competitive pressure to traders and other buyers, which can impact the prices offered. In the two years after the expansion of the contracting region, maize prices within the region were 11 percent higher than average for both contracted and non-contracted households. Income from maize sales was 20 percent higher for contracted households and 15 percent higher for non-contracted households than maize income prior to the contracting expansion.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the World Bank and the Mozambique Agricultural Aggregator Pilot for allowing me access to the data, and thanks for research-related financial support from the World Bank and the Einaudi- Social Science Research Council (SSRC) Dissertation Proposal Development Program. This research was presented at the 2022 Agricultural & Applied Economics Association (AAEA) Annual Meeting thanks to travel-related financial support from the Emerging Markets Institute .

About Molly Ingram, PhD ’25 (Economics)

Molly Ingram is a fourth-year PhD student in the Department of Economics at Cornell University. Her research lies at the intersection of development, industrial organization, and macroeconomics, and her work evaluates the role agricultural markets or, more broadly, agricultural value chains play in economic growth and development. Prior to joining Cornell, Ingram received an MSc in economics from the University of Wisconsin and worked as a senior research associate at Innovations for Poverty Action on WASH Benefits in Kenya.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Southeastern Mississippi Poultry and Beef Farm Case Study

Case study background:.

This case study was developed for a family owned 90-acre poultry and beef farm in southeast Mississippi.  The farm includes six commercial broiler houses on 10 acres, pasture on 60 acres, and woodlands on 10 acres.  Family income is solely dependent on poultry and beef cattle production.  The poultry operation sells five flocks of commercial broilers (approximately 460,000 total heads) per year.  Currently, there are approximately 40 head of beef cattle on the property.  While the poultry and beef cattle enterprises are individual operations, they are uniquely connected: the poultry litter from the broiler operation helps fertilize both the pastureland, where the cattle graze, as well as the hay fields that provide much of their winter feed.  An NRCS-designed nutrient management plan (NMP) for the farm covers both the poultry and beef cattle operations.  Southeast Mississippi has a humid subtropical climate characterized by hot, humid summers and temperate winters.  While rainfall is generally plentiful, drought and flooding occur throughout the area.

Management Goals

The management goals for the poultry farm are to increase family income by reducing cooling water use during the summer, improving bird weight gain, and reducing both feed conservation ratio and labor requirements.  The management goals for the beef production farm include increasing herd size, matching genetics and forage programs to climate, improving soil health and water quality by testing and matching poultry litter applications to soil needs, establishing paddock grazing to improve forage efficiency, and reducing the farm’s overall environmental footprint.

The poultry-beef joint operation with A) rows of 12-year-old poultry houses, and B) sheltered broiler chickens in a ground floor poultry house system. Litter from the chickens is C) stored under an open-air system to release methane build-up, and D) spread over the pastures to fertilize beef cattle grazing fields.

Climate Change Impacts

The average annual temperature in Mississippi was highly variable during the 20 th century and only increased approximately 0.1°F during that time.  While this was less than other states in the southeastern U.S. during this time, temperatures in Mississippi are projected to increase during the 21 st century.  This will result in increased heat stress and soil moisture loss.  Extreme rainfall events are not uncommon in Mississippi; however, changing rainfall patterns (heavier rain events followed by more extended dry periods) will continue to challenge agricultural producers.

Climate change and variability have the potential to affect these poultry and beef operations in several ways.  For the poultry operation, climate change and increasing temperatures may mean:

• More days with extreme heat will increase the heat load in poultry houses and require additional electricity to run fans longer to cool the birds and prevent heatstroke.
• More water will be needed to alleviate increased heat stress on the birds.  Additionally, a cool cell system will provide cold water via sprinkler systems to help maintain safe house temperatures.
• Fewer birds are placed in houses to lessen the risk of heat-related losses, leading to fewer birds for the farmer to sell and a reduction in income.
• Increased number of potentially dangerous storms (tornadoes, hurricanes, straight-line winds) that can threaten dwellings and farm structures, including poultry houses.
• Less sustainability and increased use of natural resources (particularly water).

For the beef cattle system, potential climate change vulnerabilities include:

• Changing rainfall patterns that reduce available moisture during the April-October growing season threaten both forage quality and quantity.
• Increases in the frequency and intensity of severe storms and extreme rainfall events could result in increased erosion of pastureland/hay fields, especially in areas with bare soil where plant roots do not hold the soil structure in place.
• More days with extreme heat increase stress on animals and forage, especially during droughts.  In hotter weather, cattle prefer resting in the shade as opposed to foraging, which slows weight-gain.  This means a longer time is required for calves to reach an acceptable market weight, decreasing annual farm income.  Heat stressed pastures will result in reduced grazing forage and winter hay yields, especially if soils become dry.  Thus, production costs will increase since additional supplemental feeding will be required during the winter.
• Hotter nighttime temperatures prevent body cooling, which increases animal heat load, resulting in disturbed rest, decreased appetite, and reduced weight gains.
• With climate change causing longer growing seasons and fewer cold days/nights, some believe this may increase cattle forage consumption and growth duration.  However, the potential for reduced feed intake and weight gain of heat-stressed cattle and lower quality and quantity of intolerant forage species throughout the year might offset any potential positives of climate change unless adaptations are made.

Challenges and Opportunities

Climate change and variability will continue impacting the poultry operations as higher temperatures require more water use to alleviate heat stress and more electricity use to keep poultry houses cooler.  By consulting with local Extension services and upgrading the facilities now, the poultry farm expects to improve bird weight gains, reduce cooling water use in summer and labor requirements, use poultry litter more effectively, and increase family income.  Changing rainfall patterns and more days with extreme heat will increase stress on the beef cattle farm; however, switching to more heat tolerant livestock and matching the forage program to a drier and longer grazing season will increase resilience to these threats.  Conducting soil and poultry litter analyses will help inform application rates and improve forage quality and quantity, while implementing best management practices and nutrient management plans (NMPs) will reduce erosion, improve water quality and quantity, and reduce the farms overall environmental foot print.

The greatest challenge that managers faces in terms of climate change is the difficulty of planning for problems five years in the future while still trying to address problems that exist today.  The real opportunity of impending climate change is that preparing for it makes current operations more sustainable, profitable, economically friendly, and solves animal farming problems encountered today.  However, not all animal farming problems are equal.  For example, the goals and objectives for the poultry operation are more easily achieved than the goals and objectives for the grazing beef operation because 1) the broilers are housed in environmentally controlled houses (fans, sprinklers, ventilation, etc.) while the beef cattle are exposed to the elements, making them more vulnerable to climate variability, 2) many of the beef management strategies, such as purchasing more heat-tolerant breeds and forage varieties, buying more winter forage, and purchasing more fences for paddocks, are repeating and more costly than replacing sprinkler and feeding broiler systems, and 3) the goal of improving pastureland for beef cattle is variable and complex and requires years of implementation, whereas our poultry objectives are primarily engineering advances which are easy, immediate, and are known to reduce costs.  While considering opportunities to address climate change impacts, the farm's ability to fully prepare is challenging given the cost and uncertain benefits of some potential strategies.

Adaptation Actions

The Adaptation Workbook was used during a brainstorming session to identify potential approaches and tactics that can be implemented on the poultry and beef farms to increase resilience to climate change and variability.  For the poultry farm, adaptation actions include:

• Analyzing soil and litter samples to determine appropriate pastures application rates in compliance with NMP guidelines.  This will allow the farm to stay in compliance with the NMP, better protect the environment, and improve soil and forage conditions.
• Timing poultry litter applications based on soil analysis will help avoid fecal run-off and pollution, while adding buffer strips and setback distances near lowlands and creek will protect water quality on the property and improve soil conditions.
• Installing sprinklers that use 60% less water to cool the chickens compared to the current cool cell system will provide better environmental conditions for the flock, increase sustainability, and reduce the farms carbon footprint through reduced water usage.
• Replacing the old feeder system to prevent feed wastage and improving feed conversion will increase flock performance and feed sustainability.
• Drilling another water well on the property will improve water availability and reduce rural water purchases and dependence.

Adaptation actions to implement on the beef farm include:

• Timing litter applications to improve soil productivity will reduce nutrient loss and runoff and increase forage quality and quantity to support additional livestock.
• Adding cross fencing and paddocks will better utilize the pastureland for quicker land recovery and increased forage quality and quantity.
• Matching the forage program to climate change (e.g., planting heat tolerant varieties) will improve forage quality, quantity, and sustainability.
• Matching livestock genetics to climate change (e.g., heat tolerant breeds) will reduce the risk of slow weight gain and injuries/illnesses due to heat stress.

Cross-fencing and paddock establishment with A) adequate water tubs and B) shade shelters help to improve both cattle well-being and pasture health through grazing rotation and forage recovery.&nbsp; Re-seeding sparse pastureland with native or grazing-tolerant grass species (C) and creating riparian buffer zones (D) help prevent soil erosion, nutrient loss, and water pollution.

Monitoring:

As the climate changes, this Mississippi beef and poultry farm will continually monitor their management decisions and how those decisions impact challenges and opportunities in production agriculture and farm health.  Specifically, for the poultry farm, they will 1) measure and monitor feed conversion ratios and average flock market weight to determine the effectiveness of feeding systems and 2) record water meter usage and heat-related deaths to determine the effectiveness of new water systems.  Monitoring on the beef farm will include 1) recording and comparing herd size, weight gains and related deaths for different genetic groups, 2) recording the start and end of the grazing season to take advantage of a lengthening growing season, 3) measuring and comparing the weights and fiber contents of hay bales between years, and 4) tracking annual costs of hay and supplements for comparison between years.

Additional Resources:

Southeastern Mississippi Poultry and Beef Farm 2-page fact sheet

Project Status

• Northern Forests
• Northern Plains
• Southern Plains
• International
• Climate Literacy & Training
• Climate Solutions
• Climate Vulnerabilities
• Environmental Justice
• Partnering Agencies
• Tribal Nations
• Aquaculture
• Specialty Animals
• Carbon & Greenhouse Gases
• Climate Science
• Specialty Crops
• Field Crops
• Pests & Disease
• Saltwater Intrusion
• Education (K-12)
• Altered Precipitation
• Temperature
• Agroforestry
• Food Security
• Agriculture
• Seasonal Shifts
• Assessments
• Demonstrations
• Tribal Programs
• Research & Data

A Case Study of Farmers Practicing Precision Agriculture in Dharmapuri District of Tamil Nadu

• October 2021
• VOLUME 8,(ISSUE 10, 2021):104-116

• PSG College of Arts and Science

• Guru Nanak College

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Saravanan Raj

• EUR J AGRON

• M. J. Robertson

• R. Maheswari

• Jose C Samuel
• Mehta Mungarwal
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

OPEN ACCESS REPOSITORY

Case study /, climate-smart agriculture case studies 2021.

This publication describes climate-smart agriculture (CSA) case studies from around the world, showing how the approach is implemented to address challenges related to climate change and agriculture. The case studies operationalize the five action points for CSA implementation: expanding the evidence base for CSA, supporting enabling policy frameworks, strengthening national and local institutions, enhancing funding and financing options, and implementing CSA practices at field level.

The publication provides examples of the innovative roles that farmers, researchers, government officials, private sector agents and civil society actors can play to transform food systems and help meet the Sustainable Development Goals; it also demonstrates how these actors can collaborate. The case studies discuss context-specific activities that sustainably increase agricultural productivity and incomes, adapt and build resilience of people and food systems to climate change, and reduce and/or remove greenhouse gas emissions where possible.

CASE STUDIES OF AGROECOLOGY

 See more case study collections on …. Land & Soil , Pastoralism , Seed sovereignty.

AFSA’s collection of case studies shows how agroecology benefits Africa in terms of food security, nutrition, poverty reduction, climate change adaptation and mitigation, biodiversity conservation, cultural sensitivity, democracy, and value for money.

Agroecology works in harmony with nature. It builds on traditional agricultural practices using research, technology and indigenous knowledge, while ensuring that farmers are in control of all aspects of food production.

With agroecology, African farmers produce abundant healthy food sustainably.

Ugandan Universities pledge to collaborate with civil society and spearhead action towards transition to Agroecology.

Nurturing Nature: Agroecological practices and strategies for enhancing soil health, seed vitality, and resilience

ZAMBIA’S TRAILBLAZING BOKASHI FERTILIZER INITIATIVE RESHAPES AGRICULTURE

LANDSCAPE RENAISSANCE: THE ETHIOPIAN VILLAGE REVERSING DEGRADATION AND DROUGHT

RESTORING VITALITY TO AFAR REGION’S DRY VALLEYS: A BEACON OF INNOVATION IN ETHIOPIA

AGROECOLOGY INITIATIVE ADDRESSES FOOD INSECURITY IN CAMEROON’S SAHEL REGION

KENYAN FARMERS TRIUMPH OVER CLIMATE ADVERSITY WITH AGROECOLOGICAL PRACTICES

CAMEROONIAN YOUNG AGRICULTURAL ENTREPRENEURS REVOLUTIONIZE FERTILIZATION

TURNING ARID LANDS INTO BREADBASKETS: REHEMA FARM’S JOURNEY TO FEED AFRICA

PIONEERING AGROECOLOGICAL INITIATIVE FLOURISHES AT “LE JARDIN D’EDEN” IN BENIN

UNVEILING UNION ALHERI’S BLUEPRINT FOR SOIL REVITALIZATION IN NIGER

Sixteen Healthy Soil Healthy Food and Agroecology Success Stories From Across Africa

AGROECOLOGY FARMERS MORE RESILIENT IN THE FACE OF THE RISING PRICES OF AGRICULTURAL INPUTS

BIBA KENYA CHAMPIONS SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE IN NAKURU: A BEACON OF HOPE AND RESILIENCE

BLOOMING RESILIENCE: THE TRANSFORMATIONAL JOURNEY OF N’GORAL GUIDALA’S WOMEN IN MAURETANIA

BUSAINO FRUITS AND HERBS: A GREEN OASIS TRANSFORMING UGANDA’S AGROECOLOGY LANDSCAPE

A Revolutionary Farming Blueprint in Uganda: “Plant Every Day to Harvest Every Day”

Food forests in Kenya create food sovereignty

Ugandan women securing land for agroecology

Agroecology saves soil and boosts yield in the hills

Start typing and press Enter to search

Phoebe Nakakande is a Certified Public Accountant of Uganda-CPA(U). She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Development Economics from Makerere University and is also a member of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Uganda (ICPAU). She has over 10 years’ working experience handling Finance and Administrative roles in both NGO and private sectors.

Email: [email protected]

Ruth Nabaggala is the African Agroecological Entrepreneurship (AAE) Project Officer of the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA). Ruth has over 15 years of experience in managing agricultural projects, and coordinating Agroecological entrepreneurial assignments at community, regional and national levels.

She headed the Agroecology Market & Business Development Department at Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM Uganda) for over 10 years. As a coordinator, manager and supervisor, Ruth has been in charge of directly coordinating projects, supervising staff, supporting publication development, and organizing conferences and high-level events.

Ruth has led teams of over 20 NGOs at a time, and has supported the transition of over 100,000 farmers from subsistence agriculture to farmer entrepreneurship. Through Ruth’s leadership, PELUM Uganda developed a farmer-led Value Chain Development Model (PESA Agro Enterprise Marketing model), which has supported a 20+% increase in income for over 50,000 farmers.

Email: [email protected]

Abbot started his professional journey in the healthcare industry, where he worked alongside local communities of individuals living with HIV. His role included managing partnerships with sub-grantee organizations and overseeing their activities. Abbot has a strong inclination towards Monitoring and Evaluation, coupled with a deep passion to support organizations in accomplishing their objectives and strengthening their capabilities. For over a decade, Abbot has been involved in measuring the impact of interventions related to agroecological agriculture and reproductive health. Throughout his career, he has worked with a variety of organizations, ranging from community-based NGOs to national and international NGOs. Abbot is an active member of the Uganda Evaluation Association, which is the professional body of evaluators in Uganda.

Email: [email protected]

Charles is a seasoned pan-Africanist and development practitioner with 13 years of experience in public policy analysis and effective social change organizing. He holds a Master of Human Rights degree from Makerere University, as well as a Postgraduate Diploma in Governance and Public Policy from the Uganda Management Institute. As Advocacy and Campaign Coordinator, Charles oversees Policy Research and Advocacy campaigns aimed at mobilizing citizen support for sustainable food systems. He also serves as a secretariat liaison staff for the Citizen Working Group in Agroecology. Charles has written extensively on a variety of development-related topics, and he is deeply committed to promoting active citizenship and proactive citizen agency in order to position civil society as the vanguard for justice, equity, and human dignity. Charles has played a critical role and held leadership responsibilities primarily in civil society and the NGO sub-sector throughout his career.

Email: [email protected]

Simon is an impassioned advocate for sustainable development, climate and social justice, the right to healthy food, and community development issues in Africa. Simon earned his Bachelor’s degree in Mass Communication from Uganda Christian University and is currently serving as a Program Officer at AFSA. Simon is actively involved in the organization’s Climate Working Group activities, displaying his commitment to promoting sustainable practices across Africa. Additionally, Simon serves as the focal person for facilitating the AFSA Youth Group, responsible for organizing the organization’s youth-oriented programs

Email: [email protected]

Charles is an agricultural extension, training, and rural development expert with eight years of experience working for government and non-governmental organizations in Uganda. In his current role as an AFSA Healthy Soil Healthy Food (HSHF) project officer, Charles is responsible for overseeing capacity-building initiatives for HSHF organizations. Charles has published several journal articles on topics such as agroforestry, stakeholder analysis, community action planning, and Ugandan indigenous seeds and foods and has taught in both academic and rural farm settings. He is passionate about agroecology and climate adaptation strategies and holds a Master’s degree in Environmental and Natural Resource Management, a Post-Graduate Diploma in Project Monitoring and Evaluation, and a Bachelor’s degree in Agriculture.

Email: [email protected]

Ndèye Awa holds a Master’s Degree in Local Development Engineering and a Professional Degree in Applied Foreign Languages from the Gaston Berger University of Saint-Louis. She has four years of experience in community development through her volunteer services with the NGO CorpsAfrica/Senegal and management of the Baba Garage Women’s Entrepreneurship Centre. Ndèye Awa also gained two years of experience in Marketing and Communication. During her community service, she built a school canteen in a primary school covering six villages and 130 children. She also managed a centre for training and coaching more than 600 women in various income-generating activities. As a Project Officer with AFSA, she is implementing the policy advocacy strategy for the recognition of Farmer Managed Seed Systems (FMSS) and the promotion of neglected crops in Niger, Chad and Tanzania with a vision of going regional (Africa) within four years. Ndèye Awa is a very dynamic woman, committed to sustainable development, especially in agriculture, resilience/food sovereignty, women’s entrepreneurship and education of children in rural areas.

Email: [email protected]

Kirubel is an avid Pan-African who is committed to environmental, social justice, and human rights causes in Africa. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in English literature from Addis Abeba University and has worked in both national and international NGOs for over ten years in environmental advocacy and communication.

Email: [email protected]

Michael’s first career was in water supply, including six years drilling boreholes in rural villages across West and Central Africa, then two years running a local authority water department in the Kalahari, Botswana. Returning to UK, he became a community activist in London, gained a master’s degree in rural development, then worked in community regeneration in deprived post-industrial areas of Northern England. Now back in Africa, he worked for seven years promoting ecological organic agriculture in Tanzania, managing farmer training, advocacy and climate change adaptation projects before joining AFSA working on communications, research and project management.

Email: [email protected]

Famara Diédhiou holds an MBA from the African Center for Higher Studies in Management (CESAG, Dakar, Senegal) and a master’s degree in regional planning, environment and urban management. Famara has 12 years’ professional experience working mostly in rural development, particularly in the establishment of community seed and cereal banks, and organizing women’s groups for urban-rural partnership and advocacy. Active in organic and agroecology movements, he also developed strong international experience both in Africa and outside the continent. Currently Famara is active in various networks in West Africa to advance the food sovereignty struggle and African driven solutions.

Email: [email protected]

Juliet is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA). She also holds a Bachelor’s of Commerce degree (Accounting Option). Juliet is currently perusing a Master of Business Administration at Heriot-Watt University- Edinburgh.

She brings over 15 years of experience working with NGOs and the private sector to her role as AFSA’s Finance and Administration Officer. Juliet is in charge of handling, supervising, and planning AFSA’s financial tasks.

She provides strategic leadership in financial management in line with AFSA strategies, policies, procedures, statutory laws, and international financial standards to the Secretariat and Over 30 partners in 54 countries across African continent where AFSA operates. She has vast NGO experience, including sub granting to partners and provides training and capacity building to AFSA partners.

Email: [email protected]

Million has been working for over two decades on intergenerational learning of bio-cultural diversity, agriculture, the rights of local communities to seed and food sovereignty and forest issues. He has a PhD in environmental learning, an MSc in tourism and conservation, and a BSc in Biology, and is a member of the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food).

Email: [email protected]

Bridget is a social scientist with over 15 years work experience with NGOs in management, strategic planning, budgeting, fundraising, and gender mainstreaming. Her competencies are mainly in policy analysis, campaigns and advocacy, capacity building, generation and dissemination of information on food sovereignty. As AFSA’s Program Coordinator, Bridget oversees policy advocacy on seed sovereignty, community land rights, climate justice, and consumer action, supporting AFSA working groups to implement agreed strategies and work plans, and spearheading fundraising initiatives within the organization. She has a Master of Arts Degree in Social Sciences (Public Administration), Bachelor of Arts Degree in Social Sciences (Sociology) and a Post Graduate Diploma in Monitoring and Evaluation.

Email: [email protected]

Joyce Brown is the Director of Programs and lead on Hunger Politics work at Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) in Nigeria.

She also coordinates the youth forum of the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa and co-coordinates the Alliance for Action on Pesticides in Nigeria. Joyce is a passionate food sovereignty and public health activist who has worked to resist the spread of GMOs and corporate control of the Nigerian food system.

She believes that systemic problems, driven by false narratives, are at the root of global and African issues and her work focuses on exposing these narratives and promoting real, people-centered, contextual, and sustainable solutions. Joyce holds a Bachelor’s degree in Microbiology and a Master’s degree in Public Health and is skilled in program coordination, communication, research, writing, and editing.

Amadou C. KANOUTE is the head of CICODEV Africa, a Pan-African Institute for Consumer Citizenship and Development. The organization aims to inform, educate, protect, and represent consumers and has a vision of a world where citizens and decision makers are aware of the impacts of their choices as consumers and the impact of production models on trade, the environment, and development.

In 2007, Amadou joined Greenpeace International and served as Project Leader and then Executive Director, helping to develop Greenpeace Africa’s three-year development plan and establish the organization’s first permanent base on the continent.

Previously, he was the Regional Director of Consumers International’s Office for Africa for seven years and Director of the sub-regional office for West and Central Africa for nine years. Under his leadership, Consumers International’s membership grew from 5 consumer organizations in 3 countries to 120 organizations in 46 countries in Africa.

He initiated programs that built the capacity of African consumer organizations to participate in and influence policy formulation in areas such as public utility reform and food and nutrition security. Amadou holds an MBA in project management and evaluation and is fluent in English and French. He was born in 1954 in Thies, Senegal and is married with 4 children.

Hakim Baliraine has a strong background in agriculture and advocacy, having completed various training programs and obtaining certifications in sustainable agriculture, soil and water conservation, land use management, and agroecology.

Currently, Hakim holds multiple leadership positions nationally, regionally, and globally. Nationally, He chairs ESAFF Uganda and sits on the National Steering Committee of Agroecology and Organic Agriculture.

At the regional level, he is the current Chairperson of ESAFF region and the Vice Co.Chair of the regional steering Committee of AU EOA-I. And globally, he represents the People Coalition on Food Sovereignty in Africa to the Global Executive Committee, he represents ESAFF Uganda in World Rural Forum and was recently elected as the Chairperson of the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA).

Hakim Baliraine possède une solide expérience dans le domaine de l’agriculture et du plaidoyer, ayant suivi divers programmes de formation et obtenu des certifications en agriculture durable, conservation des sols et de l’eau, gestion de l’utilisation des terres et agroécologie.

Actuellement, Hakim occupe plusieurs postes de direction au niveau national, régional et mondial. Au niveau national, il préside l’ESAFF Ouganda et siège au comité directeur national de l’agroécologie et de l’agriculture biologique.

Au niveau régional, il est l’actuel président de la région ESAFF et le vice-président du comité de pilotage régional de l’AU EOA-I. Au niveau mondial, il représente la Coalition populaire pour la souveraineté alimentaire en Afrique au Comité exécutif mondial, il représente l’ESAFF Ouganda au Forum rural mondial et a récemment été élu président de l’Alliance pour la souveraineté alimentaire en Afrique (AFSA).

Fifamè Fidèle Houssou-Gandonou is the Regional Coordinator of the Campaign on Food Security in the Association of Councils of Churches in West Africa, based in Lomé, Togo.

Fidele is a parish priest and a teacher at the Protestant University of West Africa. Born on 23 April 1974 in Cotonou, Benin, Fidele is married and mother of a boy. She studied theology in Porto-Novo (Benin), Yaoundé (Cameroon) and Paris (France).

She is a pastor of the Protestant Methodist Church of Benin (EPMB) and holds a doctorate in theology. The objective pursued in her research is to entrench feminism in Benin using ethical tools to demonstrate the validity of feminism.

Her thesis was published in the edition Globethics under the title: The ethical foundations of feminism: a reflection from the African context. Fidele is a member of the Circle of Concerned African Theologians, and a trainer in Animation and Applied Bible Studies.

Anne Wanjiku Maina is a development practitioner who has been actively working with communities and challenging false solutions being pushed in Africa like Genetic Engineering, the push for a green revolution in Africa and carbon markets as a strategy to cope with climate change in Africa.

Anne articulates these issues at the national, regional and international level in forums such as the UNFCCC and CBD.

She has over fifteen years’ experience and has been instrumental in the growth and development of various regional networks in Africa; the Eastern and Southern Africa Small Scale Farmers’ Forum (ESAFF), Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM) Association and the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA).

Anne is the National Coordinator of the Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya (BIBA Kenya) a member of AFSA. www.bibakenya.org

Mariama Sonko is a small-scale farmer, the treasurer of her AJAC LUKAAL grassroots association, the national coordinator in Senegal, and the chair of the international movement “We Are The Solution”. Mariama lives in Niaguiss, a village in southwestern Senegal.

In 1990 she joined the movement and since then she has been supporting local knowledge and farming practices. She has five children, and her own agricultural produce is the basis of her family’s diet. She fights for the human and socio-economic rights of women and youth. We are the Solution practices agroecology and family farming, encourages food sovereignty, farmer seeds, biodiversity and the demand for equitable access to resources.

‘We Are the Solution’ stemmed from a 2011 campaign for food sovereignty in Africa. In 2014, it became a rural women’s movement. The movement works for the promotion of farmer knowledge and practices, better agricultural governance by decision-makers and valorization of the production of African Family Farming (agroecology and farmer seeds), which have always preserved food sovereignty in Africa.

Fassil Gebeyehu Yelemtu (PhD) is the general coordinator of the African Biodiversity Network. ABN accompanies Africans in expressing their views on issues such as food and seed sovereignty, genetic engineering, agrofuels, biodiversity protection, extractive industries and smallholder farmers’ rights.

ABN focuses on indigenous knowledge, ecological agriculture and biodiversity rights, policies and legislation.

They are at the forefront of culturally centered approaches to social and ecological issues in Africa by sharing experiences, co-developing methodologies and creating a united African voice on the continent on these issues.

Mariama SONKO est une paysanne, trésorière de son Association de base AJAC LUKAAL, coordinatrice nationale au Sénégal, et présidente du mouvement international “Nous sommes la solution”.

Mariama vit à Niaguiss, un village du sud-ouest du Sénégal. En 1990, elle a rejoint le mouvement et depuis lors, elle soutient les connaissances locales et les pratiques agricoles. Elle a cinq enfants et ses propres produits agricoles sont à la base de l’alimentation de sa famille.

Elle lutte pour les droits humains et socio-économiques des femmes et des jeunes. Nous sommes la Solution pratique l’agroécologie et l’agriculture familiale, encourage la souveraineté alimentaire, les semences paysannes, la biodiversité et la demande d’accès équitable aux ressources. Nous sommes la solution ” est née d’une campagne 2011 pour la souveraineté alimentaire en Afrique. En 2014, il est devenu un mouvement de femmes rurales.

Le mouvement œuvre pour la promotion des connaissances et des pratiques paysannes, une meilleure gouvernance agricole par les décideurs et la valorisation de la production de l’agriculture familiale africaine (agroécologie et semences paysannes), qui ont toujours préservé la souveraineté alimentaire en Afrique.

Fifamè Fidèle Houssou-Gandonou est la coordinatrice régionale de la Campagne sur la sécurité alimentaire de l’Association des Conseils des Eglises en Afrique de l’Ouest, basée à Lomé, Togo. Fidele est curé de paroisse et professeur à l’Université protestante d’Afrique de l’Ouest. Née le 23 avril 1974 à Cotonou, au Bénin, Fidele est mariée et mère d’un garçon.

Elle a étudié la théologie à Porto-Novo (Bénin), Yaoundé (Cameroun) et Paris (France). Pasteur de l’Église méthodiste protestante du Bénin (EPMB), elle est titulaire d’un doctorat en théologie. L’objectif poursuivi dans sa recherche est d’enraciner le féminisme au Bénin en utilisant des outils éthiques pour démontrer la validité du féminisme.

Sa thèse a été publiée dans l’édition Globethics sous le titre : Les fondements éthiques du féminisme : une réflexion dans le contexte africain. Fidele est membre du Circle of Concerned African Theologians et formateur en animation et études bibliques appliquées.

Fassil Gebeyehu Yelemtu (PhD) est le coordinateur général du Réseau africain de la biodiversité. ABN accompagne les Africains dans l’expression de leurs points de vue sur des questions telles que la souveraineté alimentaire et semencière, le génie génétique, les agrocarburants, la protection de la biodiversité, les industries extractives et les droits des petits exploitants agricoles.

ABN se concentre sur les savoirs autochtones, l’agriculture écologique et les droits, politiques et législations liés à la biodiversité.

Ils sont à l’avant-garde des approches culturellement centrées sur les problèmes sociaux et écologiques en Afrique en partageant leurs expériences, en co-développant des méthodologies et en créant une voix africaine unie sur le continent sur ces questions.

Juriste de formation, Jean-Paul SIKELI est titulaire d’un DESS en droits de l’homme et d’un DEA en droit public, option droit international.

Ses recherches ont porté sur la tension entre les droits de l’homme et la biotechnologie moderne dans le contexte de la sécurité alimentaire d’une part, et la lutte contre le terrorisme en droit international, d’autre part.

Il est l’auteur de plusieurs articles et d’un ouvrage sur les OGM publié aux Editions Universitaires Européennes. Au niveau professionnel, Jean-Paul SIKELI a été consultant pour la FAO à l’occasion d’un projet national sur les semences et consultant à l’Inades-Formation International.

Il a occupé les postes de Chargé de Programme puis de Secrétaire Exécutif de la Coalition pour la protection du Patrimoine Génétique Africain (COPAGEN), poste qu’il occupe depuis août 2014.

COPAGEN est un mouvement associatif citoyen qui défend les droits des communautés sur les ressources génétiques contre diverses formes de menaces, y compris les OGM et le phénomène d’accaparement des terres et des ressources naturelles. Jean-Paul SIKELI a mené de nombreuses initiatives de plaidoyer pour sauvegarder le patrimoine génétique africain.

Ali Aii Shatu détient un diplôme national supérieur en soins infirmiers vétérinaires. En octobre 2000, elle a été recrutée en tant que coordonnatrice du programme de promotion des femmes et des femmes à MBOSCUDA et a occupé ce poste pendant six ans et a été élue au conseil d’administration de MBOSCUDA en tant que présidente du sous-comité des finances en 2010, poste qu’elle détient encore.

Pour sa vaste expérience et son excellence, Ali a été élu pour représenter le Comité de coordination des peuples autochtones d’Afrique (IPACC), un réseau de 150 organisations de peuples autochtones dans 20 pays africains de l’AFSA. Elle a également été le point focal de l’IPACC sur les questions liées à l’alimentation et à l’agriculture.

En novembre 2016, elle a été élue pour servir l’Alliance en tant que trésorière. Une mère de trois, deux fils et une fille, Mme Ali s’est consacrée au mouvement de souveraineté alimentaire qui promet à ses enfants un avenir meilleur.

Josephine Atangana est basée au Cameroun. Elle représente la Plate-forme sous-régionale de l’Afrique centrale des organisations de producteurs – PROPAC au sein de AFSA. Fondé en 2005, PROPAC regroupe des plates-formes nationales de 10 pays dans la sous-région de l’Afrique centrale.

PROPAC est un membre fondateur de l’Organisation panafricaine des agriculteurs (PAFO). La mission de PROPAC est d’aider au positionnement des producteurs et de leurs organisations comme de véritables entrepreneurs et partenaires dans l’élaboration, la mise en œuvre et l’évaluation des politiques agricoles en Afrique Centrale.

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Cabilla Manor Farm, a woodland creation case study

Learn how Cabilla Manor Farm used woodland creation to build a resilient business model.

Applies to England

Woodland creation case study: cabilla manor farm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f53qCFX-R0

Merlin Hanbury-Tenison, owner of Cabilla Manor Farm in Cornwall, shares how he is integrating woodland creation into the farming system at Cabilla.

40,000 new trees were funded through the England Woodland Creation Offer (EWCO) .

Updates to this page

Sign up for emails or print this page, related content, is this page useful.

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Factors affecting the adoption of anti-predation measures by livestock farmers: the case of northern chile.

1. Introduction

2. background on livestock and conflict in the coquimbo region, 3. materials and methods, 3.1. the study area, 3.2. survey and sampling, 3.3. the model, 3.4. measures adopted and variables, 4. results and discussion, 5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• McNeill, J.R. Animal Domestication in World History. Hist. Teach. 2008 , 41 , 335–355. [ Google Scholar ]
• Naranjo-Ramírez, J.F.; Ruíz-Buitrago, J.D. Regarding some myths and realities about cattle livestock production. Cienc. Tecnol. Agropecu. 2020 , 21 , e1524. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bökönyi, S. Definitions of Animal Domestication , Clutton-Brock, J., Ed.; The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Pastoralism, and Predation, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 1989; pp. 22–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Diamond, J. Armas, Gérmenes y Acero. Breve Historia de la Humanidad en los Útimos 13000 Años ; DeBolsillo: Barcelona, Spain, 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zeder, M.A. The Domestication of Animals. J. Anthropol. Res. 2012 , 68 , 161–190. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23264664 (accessed on 10 May 2024). [ CrossRef ]
• FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations World Livestock. Transforming the Livestock Sector through the Sustainable Development Goals ; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2018; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/CA1201EN/ca1201en.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2024).
• FAO. Ayudando a Desarrollar una Ganadería Sustentable en Latinoamérica y el Caribe: Lecciones a Partir de Casos Exitosos ; Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación: Rome, Italy; Oficina Regional para América Latina y el Caribe: Santiago, Chile, 2008; Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/i0082s (accessed on 15 May 2024).
• Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P.; Wassenaar, T.; Castel, V.; Rosales, M.; Haan, C.D. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options ; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2006; Available online: https://www.fao.org/4/a0701e/a0701e00.htm (accessed on 10 May 2024).
• Nelson, G.; Rosegrant, M.; Palazzo, A.; Gray, I.; Ingersoll, C.; Robertson, R.; You, L. Food Security, Farming and Climate Change to 2050: Scenarios, Results and Policy Options ; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• FAO. Estado Mundial de la Agricultura y la Alimentación ; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2012; Available online: http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/i3028s/i3028s.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2024).
• Costales, A.C.; Pica-Ciamarra, U.; Otte, J. Livestock in a Changing Landscape: Social Consequences for Mixed Crop-Livestock Production Systems in Developing Countries. Informe de Investigación de la Iniciativa de Políticas Pecuarias en Favor de los Pobres n. 07-05. 2007. Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/cef59015-34b7-471b-88a6-e98f830cf90e/content (accessed on 10 May 2024).
• Rodríguez, D.I.; Anriquez, G.; Riveros, J.L. Food security and livestock: The case of Latin America and the Caribbean. Cienc. Investig. Agrar. 2016 , 43 , 5–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Upton, M. The Role of Livestock in Economic Development and Poverty Reduction ; Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative, PPLPI Working Paper No. 10; Food and Agriculture Organization-Animal Production and Health Division: Rome, Italy, 2004; Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/bp224e (accessed on 10 May 2024).
• Sansoucy, R. Livestock-a driving force for food security and sustainable development. World Anim. Rev. 1995 , 84–85 , 5–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• CAST-Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Role of Animal Agriculture in the Human Food Supply ; CAST: Ames, IA, USA, 2001; Available online: https://www.fao.org/4/v8180t/v8180t07.htm (accessed on 10 May 2024).
• Fafchamps, M.; Gavian, S. The determinants of livestock prices in Niger. J. Afr. Econ. 1997 , 6 , 255–295. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Horowitz, M. The Culture Role of Agriculture: Scope Documentation and Measurement ; Documento presentado en la Primera reunión de expertos sobre documentación y medición de los diversos roles de la agricultura en los países en desarrollo; FAO: Roma, Italy, 2001; Available online: https://www.fao.org/4/Y2599S/y2599s00.htm (accessed on 10 May 2024).
• FAO. El sector Pecuario en el Mundo: Transformando el Sector Pecuario a Través de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible ; Resumen; FAO: Roma, Italy, 2019; 12p, Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/0f9d81ed-4b18-4d45-a462-87ee3bb5403e/content (accessed on 5 May 2024).
• Pezo, D.; Muschler, R.; Tobar, D.; Pulido, A. Intervenciones y Tecnologías Ambientalmente Racionales (TAR) para la Adaptación al Cambio Climático del Sector Agropecuario de América Latina y el Caribe ; Inter-American Development Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas). Censo Agropecuario y Forestal. 2007. Available online: https://www.ine.gob.cl/estadisticas/economia/agricultura-agroindustria-y-pesca/censos-agropecuarios (accessed on 20 May 2024).
• INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas). Censo Agropecuario y Forestal. 2021. Available online: https://www.ine.gob.cl/estadisticas/economia/agricultura-agroindustria-y-pesca/censos-agropecuarios (accessed on 20 May 2024).
• ODEPA. Desafíos del Sector Bovino de Carne. 2022. Available online: https://bibliotecadigital.odepa.gob.cl/bitstream/handle/20.500.12650/71666/Art_DesafiosSectorBovinodeCarne202206.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2024).
• Dhakal, S.; Rimal, S.; Paudel, P.; Shrestha, A. Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Livestock Predation by Leopards in Bardia National Park, Nepal. Land 2023 , 12 , 1156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, B.; Du, Y.; Zhao, M.; Xie, Y. Input Behavior of Farmer Production Factors in the Range of Asian Elephant Distribution: Survey Data from 1264 Households in Yunnan Province, China. Diversity 2023 , 15 , 1147. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Inskip, C.; Zimmermann, A. Human-felid conflict: A review of patterns and priorities worldwide. Oryx 2009 , 43 , 18–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saberwal, V.K.; Gibbs, J.P.; Chellam, R.; Johnsingh, A.J.T. Lion-Human conflict in the Gir Forest, India. Conserv. Biol. 1994 , 8 , 501–507. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Graham, K.; Beckerman, A.P.; Thirgood, S. Human-predator-prey conflicts: Ecological correlates, prey losses and patterns of management. Biol. Conserv. 2005 , 122 , 159–171. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bonacic, C.; Galvez, N.; Ibarra, J.; Amar, M.; Sanhueza, D.; Murphy, T.; Guarda, N. Evaluación del Conflicto Entre Carnívoros Silvestres y Ganadería ; Technical Report; Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (PUC): Santiago, Chile, 2007; Available online: https://www.sag.gob.cl/ (accessed on 5 May 2024).
• Ahmed, R.A.; Prusty, K.; Jena, J.; Dave, C.; Das, S.K.; Sahu, H.K.; Rout, S.D. Prevailing human carnivore conflict in Kanha-Achanakmar corridor, Central India. World J. Zool. 2012 , 7 , 158–164. Available online: http://idosi.org/wjz/wjz7(2)12/14.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2024).
• Iriarte, A.; Jaksic, F. Los Carnivoros de Chile ; Ediciones Flora & Fauna-CASEB Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile: Santiago, Chile, 2012; 257p, Available online: http://www.florayfauna.cl/muestras%20libros/muestraCarnivoros.pdf (accessed on 5 May 2024).
• Sepúlveda, C. Puma Concolor como Amenaza para Ganaderos de Cautín, Región de la Araucanía, y Evaluación de Perros Protectores de Rebaño como Herramienta de Mitigación del Conflicto. Agronomy Degree Thesis, Facultad de Cs, Agronómicas, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile, 2015. Available online: https://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/151000 (accessed on 10 May 2024).
• Dickman, A.J. Complexities of conflict: The importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Anim. Conserv. 2010 , 13 , 458–466. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gittleman, J.L.; Funk, S.M.; Macdonald, D.W.; Wayne, R. Carnivore Conservation ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amar, M.F. Evaluación Económica, Ecológica y Socio-Cultural Del Conflicto de Predación de Ganado Doméstico por la Especie Puma Concolor (Linnaeus 1771) en las Comunas de San José de Maipo y Putre, Chile. Master’s Thesis, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Silva-Rodríguez, E.A.; Soto-Gamboa, M.; Ortega-Solís, G.R.; Jiménez, J.E. Foxes, people and hens: Human dimensions of a conflict in a rural area of southern Chile. Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat. 2009 , 82 , 375–386. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rodríguez, V.; Poo-Muñoz, D.A.; Escobar, L.E.; Astorga, F.; Medina-Vogel, G. Carnivore-livestock conflicts in Chile: Evidence and methods for mitigation. Hum.-Wildl. Interact. 2019 , 13 , 10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Washburn, B.E. Hawks and owls. Wildlife Damage Management Technical Series. 2016, Volume 6, p. 17. Available online: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/15130 (accessed on 10 May 2024).
• Almuna, R.; Cruz, J.M.; Vargas, F.H.; Ibarra, J.T. Landscapes of coexistence: Generating predictive risk models to mitigate human-raptor conflicts in forest socio-ecosystems. Biol. Conserv. 2020 , 251 , 108795. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Montecino-Latorre, D.; San Martín, W. Evidence supporting that human-subsidized free-ranging dogs are the main cause of animal losses in small-scale farms in Chile. Ambio 2019 , 48 , 240–250. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Villatoro, F.J.; Sepulveda, M.A.; Stowhas, P.; Silva-Rodriguez, E.A. Urban dogs in rural areas: Human-mediated movement defines dog populations in southern Chile. J. Environ. Manag. 2019 , 229 , 67–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Crespin, S.J.; Simonetti, J.A. Reconciling farming and wild nature: Integrating human–wildlife coexistence into the land-sharing and land-sparing framework. Ambio 2019 , 48 , 131–138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• WCS. Diagnóstico de la Relación Entre la Ganadería y los Carnívoros en la Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego, Chile: Situación de los Perros Asilvestrados y los Zorros Chilla y Culpeo ; Wildlife Conservation Society: Punta Arenas, Chile, 2019; 61p, Available online: https://chile.wcs.org/Portals/134/DIAGNS~1.PDF?ver=2020-09-30-193420-347 (accessed on 20 April 2024).
• Davies-Mostert, H.; Hodkinson, C.; Komen, H.; Snow, T. Predators and Farmers ; Endangered Wildlife Trust: Johannesburg, South Africa, 2007; 30p, Available online: https://dargleconservancy.org.za/documents/Predators%20and%20Farmers%20book.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2024).
• Mascote, C.; Castillo, A.; Peña-Mondragón, J.L. Perceptions and Knowledge of the Jaguar Among Children in Communities Neighboring the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2016 , 9 , 1940082916679407. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khattak, R.H.; Teng, L.; Mehmood, T.; Ahmad, S.; Rehman, E.U.; Basak, S.M.; Liu, Z. A Perspective of the Human–Grey Wolf ( Canis lupus ) Conflicts in Kumrat Valley, Northern Pakistan. Diversity 2022 , 14 , 887. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sepúlveda, C.; Pino, R.; Donoso, D.; Iriarte, A. El Puma en la Región de Coquimbo: Develando su Ecología e Interacción con la Ganadería ; Ediciones SAG Región de Coquimbo y Flora & Fauna: Santiago, Chile, 2016; p. 59. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amit, R.; Rojas, K.; Carrillo, E. Conservación de Felinos y sus Presas Dentro de Fincas Ganaderas ; (Inf. Tec.), Programa Jaguar del Instituto Internacional en Conservación y Manejo de Vida Silvestre (ICOMVIS) Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica (UNA); UNA: Heredia, Costa Rica, 2009; 100p. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Azevedo, F.C.C. Food habits and livestock depredation of sympatric jaguars and pumas in the Iguazu National Park area, south Brazil. Biotropica 2008 , 40 , 494–500. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marchini, S.; Macdonald, D.W. Predicting ranchers’ intention to kill jaguars: Case studies in Amazonia and Pantanal. Biol. Conserv. 2012 , 147 , 213–221. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alvarado, L.D.A.; Fernández, M.S.M.G.; Rossi, M.A.S.; Fernández, M.S.F.M.; Jiménez, E.C. Interacciones entre los grandes felinos silvestres (Jaguar y Puma) y las comunidades humanas en Costa Rica. In UNA-SCU-ACUE-1923-2017 ; Universidad Nacional: Heredia, Costa Rica, 2017; p. 55. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nowak, P. Why farmers adopt production technology. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1992 , 47 , 14–16. Available online: https://www.jswconline.org/content/47/1/14.short (accessed on 15 April 2024).
• Cáceres, D.; Silvetti, F.; Soto, G.; Rebolledo, W. La adopción tecnológica en sistemas agropecuarios de pequeños productores. Agro Sur 1997 , 25 , 123–135. Available online: http://revistas.uach.cl/html/agrosur/v25n2/body/art01.htm (accessed on 10 May 2024). [ CrossRef ]
• Legesse, G.; Siegmund-Schultze, M.; Abebe, G.; Zárate, A.V. Determinants of the adoption of small ruminant related technologies in the highlands of Ethiopia. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosystems 2013 , 16 , 13–23. Available online: https://www.revista.ccba.uady.mx/ojs/index.php/TSA/article/view/1519/802 (accessed on 5 April 2024).
• Nederlof, E.S.; Dangbégnon, C. Lessons for farmer-oriented research: Experiences from a West African soil fertility management project. Agric. Hum. Values 2007 , 24 , 369–387. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roco Fuentes, L.; Engler Palma, A.; Jara-Rojas, R. Factores que influyen en la adopción de tecnologías de conservación de suelos en el secano interior de Chile Central. Rev. Fac. Cienc. Agrar. 2012 , 44 , 31–45. Available online: http://www.scielo.org.ar/pdf/refca/v44n2/v44n2a03.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2024).
• Nyberg, Y.; Wetterlind, J.; Jonsson, M.; Öborn, I. Factors affecting smallholder adoption of adaptation and coping measures to deal with rainfall variability. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2021 , 19 , 175–198. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jara-Rojas, R.; Russy, S.; Roco, L.; Fleming-Muñoz, D.; Engler, A. Factors affecting the adoption of agroforestry practices: Insights from silvopastoral systems of Colombia. Forests 2020 , 11 , 648. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rust, N.A. Can stakeholders agree on how to reduce human-carnivore conflict on Namibian livestock farms? A novel Q-methodology and Delphi exercise. Oryx 2016 , 50 , 339–346. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Madden, F.; McQuinn, B. Conservation conflict transformation: The missing link in conservation. In Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating towards Solutions ; Redpath, S., Gutiérrez, R., Wood, K., Young, J., Eds.; Ecological Reviews; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2015; pp. 257–270. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Currey, K.; Kendal, D.; Van der Ree, R.; Lentini, P.E. Land Manager Perspectives on Conflict Mitigation Strategies for Urban Flying-Fox Camps. Diversity 2018 , 10 , 39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• FIA, Fundación para la Innovación Agraria. Resultados y Lecciones en Producción de Carne Caprina en Lonquimay ; Fundación para la Innovación Agraria: La Reina, Chile, 2008; Available online: https://bibliotecadigital.fia.cl/handle/20.500.11944/2026 (accessed on 10 April 2024).
• Ramírez, I. Evolución y perspectivas de la producción caprina en la IV Región de Coquimbo. In Dinámicas de los Sistemas Agrarios en Chile: La Región de Coquimbo ; IRD Editions; Livenais, P., Aranda, X., Eds.; IRD Editions: Marseille, France, 2003; pp. 188–197. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Villalobos, S. Ocupación de tierras marginales en el Norte Chico: Un proceso temprano. Cuad. Hist. 1983 , 3 , 63–78. Available online: https://cuadernosdehistoria.uchile.cl/index.php/CDH/article/view/46466 (accessed on 10 April 2024).
• INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas). Sistema Estadístico Regional, Región de Coquimbo ; Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas: Santiago, Chile, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas). Compendio Estadístico 3.1 Estadísticas del Medio Ambiente ; Publicación Anual; INE: Santiago, Chile, 2010; pp. 459–484. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flora y Fauna. Informe Técnico Final: Diagnóstico del Estado Poblacional del Puma (Puma Concolor) y Evaluación de la Interacción con la Ganadería de la Región de Coquimbo ; Consultora Flora y Fauna Chile: Santiago, Chile, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ; Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Poloczanska, E.S., Mintenbeck, K., Tignor, M., Alegría, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S., Möller, V., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 3–33. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/ (accessed on 15 June 2024).
• Dirección Meteorológica de Chile. Reporte Anual de la Evolución del Clima en Chile 2018. 2019. Available online: https://climatologia.meteochile.gob.cl (accessed on 10 May 2024).
• Squeo, F.; Arroyo, M. Presentación Científica del Libro Rojo de la Flora Nativa y de los Sitios Prioritarios para su Conservación: Región de Coquimbo ; Ediciones Universidad de La Serena: La Serena, Chile, 2001; pp. 3–11. [ Google Scholar ]
• Börgel, R. Geografia de Chile: Geomorphologia Volume 2 of Geografia de Chile ; Instituto Geográfico Militar: Santiago, Chile, 1983. [ Google Scholar ]
• Myers, N.; Mittermeier, R.; Mittermeier, C.; Da Fonseca, G.; Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 2000 , 403 , 853–858. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cowling, R.; Rundel, P.; Lamont, B.; Arroyo, M.; Arianoutsou, M. Plant diversity in Mediterranean-climate regions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1996 , 11 , 362–366. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• ODEPA. Panorama de la Agricultura Chilena. 2019. Available online: https://www.odepa.gob.cl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/panorama2019Final.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2024).
• Cragg, J.G. Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods. Econometrica 1971 , 39 , 829–844. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roco, L.; Engler, A.; Bravo-Ureta, B.; Jara-Rojas, R. Farm level adaptation decisions to face climatic change and variability: Evidence from Central Chile. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014 , 44 , 86–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boza, S.; Jara-Rojas, R. Peri-urban family farming and agricultural earnings: The effect of long-term participation in an extension program in a metropolitan area. Cienc. Investig. Agrar. 2018 , 45 , 200–209. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Kartzow, R. Situación de la Institucionalidad de Apoyo a la Innovación Comercial de la Agricultura Familiar y de los Procesos de Gestión Comercial de la Agricultura Familiar en Chile ; IICA: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2016; Available online: http://repositorio.iica.int/handle/11324/2544 (accessed on 15 June 2024).
• Silva, E. Evaluación de Conflictos Entre Zorros Chilla ( Pseudalopex griseus ) y Agricultura de Subsistencia en una Localidad Rural del sur de Chile: ¿mito o realidad? Veterinary Medicine Degree Thesis, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pérez, P. Depredación en la producción de pequeños rumiantes. TecnoVet 2009 , 15 , 12–17. Available online: https://revistaterapiaocupacional.uchile.cl/index.php/RT/article/view/39118 (accessed on 15 June 2024).
• Wooldridge, J.M. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data ; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pilarova, T.; Bavorova, M.; Kandakov, A. Do farmer, household and farm characteristics influence the adoption of sustainable practices? The evidence from the Republic of Moldova. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2018 , 16 , 367–384. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahmad, S.; Xu, H.; Ekanayake, E.M.B.P. Socioeconomic Determinants and Perceptions of Smallholder Farmers towards Agroforestry Adoption in Northern Irrigated Plain, Pakistan. Land 2023 , 12 , 813. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deressa, T.T.; Hassan, R.M.; Ringler, C.; Alemu, T.; Yesuf, M. Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Glob. Environ. Change 2009 , 19 , 248–255. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wekesa, B.M.; Ayuya, O.I.; Lagat, J.K. Effect of climate-smart agricultural practices on household food security in smallholder production systems: Micro-level evidence from Kenya. Agric. Food Secur. 2018 , 7 , 80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Roco, L.; Poblete, D.; Meza, F.; Kerrigan, G. Farmers’ options to address water scarcity in a changing climate: Case studies from two basins in Mediterranean Chile. Environ. Manag. 2016 , 58 , 958–971. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Amsalu, A.; de Graaff, J. Determinants of adoption and continued use of stone terraces for soil and water conservation in an Ethiopian highland watershed. Ecol. Econ. 2007 , 61 , 294–302. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gebre, G.G.; Isoda, H.; Rahut, D.B.; Amekawa, Y.; Nomura, H. Gender differences in the adoption of agricultural technology: The case of improved maize varieties in southern Ethiopia. Women’s Stud. Int. Forum 2019 , 76 , 102264. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Abegunde, V.O.; Sibanda, M.; Obi, A. Determinants of the Adoption of Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices by Small-Scale Farming Households in King Cetshwayo District Municipality, South Africa. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 195. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mujeyi, A.; Mudhara, M.; Mutenje, M.J. Adoption determinants of multiple climate Smart agricultural technologies in Zimbabwe: Considerations for scaling-up and out. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 2020 , 12 , 735–746. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Klein, L.; Hessling-Zeinen, S.; Adler, F.; Gerdes, U.; Blome, S.; Beilage, E.; Campe, A. Exploring pig farmers‘ decision-making concerning biosecurity measures against African Swine Fever. Prev. Vet. Med. 2023 , 217 , 105949. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Okata, E.O.; Al-Hassan, R.M. Does publishing poultry vaccination schedule increase awareness and compliance among small-scale farmers? Evidence from Eastern Ghana. Cogent Food Agric. 2023 , 9 , 2241709. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• González, L. Consideraciones sobre algunos de los factores socio-psicológicos que influyen en la difusión y adopción de tecnologías. Pastos Forrajes 2012 , 27 , 395–403. Available online: https://payfo.ihatuey.cu/index.php?journal=pasto&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=769&path%5B%5D=271 (accessed on 5 May 2024).
• Berzi, D.; Cerri, J.; Musto, C.; Zanni, M.L. Use of European Funds and Ex Post Evaluation of Prevention Measures against Wolf Attacks ( Canis lupus italicus ) in the Emilia-Romagna Region (Italy). Animals 2021 , 11 , 1536. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Garforth, C. Livestock Keepers’ Reasons for Doing and Not Doing Things Which Governments, Vets and Scientist Would Like Them to Do. Zoonoses Public Health 2015 , 62 , 28–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ramírez-Álvarez, D.; Napolitano, C.; Salgado, I. Puma ( Puma concolor ) in the Neighborhood? Records Near Human Settlements and Insights into Human-Carnivore Coexistence in Central Chile. Animals 2021 , 11 , 965. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jaime, E. Relaciones Geográficas y Prácticas Culturales Entre los Cabreros y la Fauna Depredadora en la Región de Coquimbo (Chile) ; Revista Huellas; Instituto de Geografía, EdUNLPam: Santa Rosa, CA, USA, 2017; Volume 21, Available online: http://cerac.unlpam.edu.ar/index.php/huellas (accessed on 10 July 2014).
• García-Huidobro, N. Politicas Públicas Adecuadas, que Compensen Economicamente a los Criadores Pecuarios ante Ataque de Depredadores Salvajes, Permiten Tutelar el Derecho de Vivir en un Medioambiente Libre de Contaminación. Law Degree Thesis, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile, 2018; p. 79. Available online: https://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/153360 (accessed on 10 July 2024).

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Núñez, C.; Roco, L.; Moreira, V. Factors Affecting the Adoption of Anti-Predation Measures by Livestock Farmers: The Case of Northern Chile. Diversity 2024 , 16 , 567. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090567

Núñez C, Roco L, Moreira V. Factors Affecting the Adoption of Anti-Predation Measures by Livestock Farmers: The Case of Northern Chile. Diversity . 2024; 16(9):567. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090567

Núñez, Camila, Lisandro Roco, and Victor Moreira. 2024. "Factors Affecting the Adoption of Anti-Predation Measures by Livestock Farmers: The Case of Northern Chile" Diversity 16, no. 9: 567. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090567

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals