Search

We study a vertical agricultural supply chain with a farmer cooperative who decides his agricultural product selling price and a social enterprise who makes her order quantity decision and resells products to the end market. The effect of market information and agricultural advice provided by the government on the system's outcomes is investigated. A two-stage game model is proposed to characterise this vertical relationship. The equilibrium decisions of the two players under different government supporting cases are derived. We contrast the system outcomes under different cases and conduct comparative analysis. It is found that (1) the farmer cooperative's profit increases if the government provides market information to him and the social enterprise at the same time; (2) the agricultural advice provided by the government can increase the benefits to each participant in the supply chain; (3) to maximise the total supply chain profit as well as its sustainability, the government may choose to provide market information to the social enterprise only; (4) when the wholesale price is intervened by the government or exogenously provided, the social enterprise's social responsibility concern can increase both the farmer cooperative's profit and the social enterprise's social payoff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agricultural advisory, a learning and decision-making approach, is an important part of the agricultural policies in Sub-saharan Africa. This study aims to analyse the agricultural advisory service provided by comparing the organizational framework and implementation strategies with the realities observed in practice. Using simple random sampling method, 6 groups of 30 farmers from 6 different villages and 30 agricultural advisers were selected in the south of Benin, "Atlantique" department. Data were collected through focus group discussion and semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using an analytical framework integrating the institutional and social environment as well as the various modalities used for the provision of agricultural advice. Results highlighted four main categories of factors limiting farmers' access to agricultural advisory service: (i) agricultural advisory service-oriented towards large farms; (ii) individualized and overly specialized advice; (iii) limited number and unskilled agricultural advisers; and (iv) a "gendarme" monitoring and evaluation system little oriented towards the quality of the advice. This critical analysis of the implementation of the agricultural advice service offers some guidelines for strengthening agricultural innovation systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For professionals who work with and for others and whose activities and situations evolve and are not yet stabilized, one of the challenges is that of reconstructing, with their beneficiaries, the purpose of their activities and of reconfiguring their work situations. This is the case for agricultural advisors who are in the position of accompanying farmers in a change of practices in order to cope with environmental problems. A system was designed to support exchanges between advisors so that they can collectively rethink the efficacy of their action, and dare to act differently. We conducted a participatory observation within this system. We studied the way in which, individually and collectively, the participants grasp the two “milieus” designed by the facilitators in relation to an emblematic advisory situation for crop production: the field tour. Our illustrations and analyses show the different ways that the advisors grasp the developmental potential of these designed situations in order to change their own activity in real work situations. We discuss the professional development that this creates. Finally, we highlight possible avenues for improving the facilitation work to better cope with the diversity of the participants and of their workplace.

Abstract The nature of interactions between farmers and advisors is the focus of a growing body of research. While many studies explore the potential role of advisors in facilitating farmers' practice change in practices related to agricultural production such as soil, water, pest and animal health management, studies that specifically investigate how advisors support farmers with financial management (FM) are limited. The contribution this paper makes is to identify who farmers' FM advisors are and to shed light on how farmer-advisor interactions about FM are shaped. Semi-structured interviews with both farmers and a range of advisors (bankers, accountants, farm management consultants, specialist financial advisors and industry funded advisors) were conducted. The main findings are that farm financial information and FM are considered to be sensitive topics and being good at FM is not central to farmers' identity (relative to e.g. production management). Due to the sensitivity and taboo around the topic and the low level of interest in FM, most farmers do not actively seek to acquire financial advice. Farmers most openly discuss FM with their banker and accountant and some seek advice from farm management consultants. Advice seeking from other advisors was limited. Theoretical implications are that FM as a topic of advice introduces unique dynamics to interactions between farmer and advisor, which highlights the importance of better consideration of taboo and sensitive topics in advisory interactions. Furthermore, the findings on how the bankers' authority impacts on the advisory relationship with farmers indicated that issues of power in view of such authoritative advisory relationships need to be better considered. To enhance effective provisioning on FM advice, policy could focus on improving the match between demand and supply, and help create awareness about the importance of discussing FM to reduce the sensitivity of the topic. Highlights • The bank can have authority over the farmer which makes some advice binding. • A product linked to advisors can introduce a bias of excluding farmers from advice. • Sensitivity of the topic of advice can limit productive farmer-advisor interactions. • Policy should encourage interactions about FM to reduce taboo around the topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose:The private sector’s presence in agricultural advisory services worldwide has been on the increase for over three decades. This trend has also been observed in the Mantaro Valley (Peru), in a context of dairy family farming. The objective of the article is to analyse the modalities of advisory services privatisation and assess the consequences of this privatisation for the farmers and their livestock systems. Design/methodology/approach:Data were collected through input suppliers, different types of advisers and producers interviews. Findings:The activity of private advisers is most often associated with the sale of livestock inputs which leads to an increase of production costs and does not take the overall producer needs into account. However, in line with the development of mobile phones, private advisory services are facilitating access to technical support for almost all producers. Public advisory services are less active and still focus on the use of inputs without adapting their services to the evolution of the advisory system. Theoretical implications:The study adds insights regarding the consequences of privatisation of advisory services for small farmers. It shows that inclusion is not always the main concern. The influence on the use of chemical inputs may be more important and may lead to both environmental and economic concerns. Practical implications:This study shows the importance of both improving and regulating the private advisory services and strengthening the coordination of advisory activities between public and private actors for an efficient agricultural advisory system. Originality/value:This study brings new insights regarding the development of private advisory services supported by input suppliers and devoted to small family farms. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This study aimed to identify and better understand management strategies that help livestock farmers adapt to changes in their production contexts, a fundamental challenge. A total of nine beef-cattle farmers were interviewed three times over 1 year to discuss 13 dimensions of livestock farming (e.g. reproduction, feeding, sales, etc.). Characterisation of management strategies rested on three main factors: (i) ranking of the dimensions according to the degree to which farmers desired to control them, (ii) reasons for the ranking and (iii) management guidelines. Although farmers agreed upon the rank of certain dimensions, such as herd management, they differed on that of others, such as sales and administration/regulations. Four motivation categories were identified: risk, pleasure, efficiency and ability to control the dimension. Three management guidelines were identified, which indicated that farmers managed for future survival of their farms at different scales (animal/herd v. whole-farm), involving different resources (biological v. financial) and based on different animal categories (reproductive cows v. animals sold). These results improve understanding of individual livestock farmers and their current management strategies by integrating the motivations behind their strategies. For this reason, they constitute methodological elements that agricultural advisors can use to provide relevant information to farmers while accommodating differences in farm management.

This article examines the role of communication in the process that guides economic actors to integrate the moral obligations implied by adopting sustainability principles in their action choices and to reexamine their practices. We analyze two approaches to implementing agro-environmental measures that encourage farmers to preserve water resources. Verbal interactions between farmers and agricultural advisors, who are part of these policy programs, are analyzed drawing on Jürgen Habermas's theory of communicative action. The discourse analysis used here shows that communicative action encouraged participants to re-examine the validity of the technical, experiential, and normative knowledge that legitimized their reasons for acting. This study brings to light the fact that, in the context of a business primarily oriented towards making a profit, committing to sustainable development does not only operate in technical terms; such a commitment also requires collective validation of the effectiveness of alternative farming practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]