Crop-Livestock Farming Systems Assessment in Europe

The adoption of an innovation by farmers (or the decision not to adopt) can be viewed as a process of decision making. It requires the use of an individual's ability to perceive, understand and interact with their environment. In this sense, the persons values (cultural norms) and goals as well as environmental factors will influence the decision making process.

A conceptual framework of the decision making process associated with innovation uptake has been proposed by Botha and Atkins (Figure below) which is made up a series of widely recognized steps (Rogers, 1962). Here we are primarily interested in the awareness, interest and also the initial stages of the evaluation phase of the process.

The awareness raising stage of the process is carried out by the attendance of the farmer at the workshop to discuss the innovation as well as presentations on the innovations which will take place as part of the workshop. The interest and evaluation stages of the process will be investigated using exploratory questions in the workshop.

In the process of evaluating an innovation for potential adoption the farmers must weigh up a) whether they are able to adopt the innovation and b) whether they are willing to adopt it. Whether a farmer is willing to take up an innovation will depend on whether the farmer will be better able to achieve their goals by using the improved technology (the goals could be a range of social, environmental, financial elements). There are three important factors determining whether an innovation is able to be taken up or not. These are whether it is technically feasible for the innovation to be implemented, whether the innovation is likely to be economically viable (i.e profitable and dependable) and whether the innovation is likely to be socially acceptable to the farmer and farming family.

Rogers identifies several characteristics of an innovation which map on the factors described above and that will influence the likelihood of an innovation being taken up. These include:

1) The relative advantage of implementing the innovation – this could be financial, social or environmental.

2) The degree to which innovation is compatible with existing values (cultural norms) and past experiences (e.g. existing systems)

3) Complexity of the innovation and the degree to which an innovation is relatively difficult to understand and use.

4) Divisibility or the degree to which an innovation can be trialled on a small scale basis (i.e. minimum financial outlay and risk).

5) Communicability or the ease at which the innovation or concept can be diffused to others

It is these characteristics that will form the basis of a workshop designed to assess the acceptability of innovative mixed farming solutions developed in Cantogether.

Four innovations at farm or district level have been chosen to be discussed in workshops held in 3 countries. These innovations cover a broad range of options, from options typically at he farm scale as self sufficiency in livestock feed ( implemented in CELTICA case study - Wales) or agroforestry (implemented in OVIARAGON - Spain) to options typically at the district scale as the collaboration between upland and lowland farms (implemented in Switzerland) . Biogas production is an innovation at the farm scale (implemented in San Giuliano - Italy) with consequences at the district one by the ability to provide digestates to neighbor farms.

Workshops were conducted in three countries where a number of the innovative mixed farming systems were discussed in terms of their acceptability to producers and other supply chain members. The countries were Spain, Wales (UK) and Switzerland. Due to time constraints, only one innovation (biogas) was discussed in Switzerland

Participants invited were largely farmers but also included other stakeholders such as advisors, researchers and supply chain members.

The agenda for the innovation acceptability discussions was as follows:

1. Introduction – 5 minutes

Purpose of discussion, how innovations were selected, programme of discussion.

2. Innovation discussions – 45 minutes per innovation

Each innovation was then discussed in turn, starting with a short introduction (5 minutes) to the innovation by the facilitator followed by a series of key questions (10 minutes each):

1) What can we learn from this innovation and how would a comparable system work for our country/region?

2) What relative advantages or disadvantages could you see by implementing such an innovation on your farm?

3) Please explain how it would be hard/easy to implement the innovation on your farm

4) To what extent is the innovation compatible/incompatible with:

a) Your farming system

b) Your goals as a farmer

Notes were taken by a note taker and recordings made to facilitate the write up of the workshop report. A reporting template was circulated to partners to assist with workshop reporting.