An empirical analysis of organic micro-level agricultural knowledge and innovation systems (microAKIS) in three federal states in Germany

ABSTRACT

Purpose

To achieve the ambitious policy goals concerning organic agriculture in Germany, it is crucial to understand which actors and institutions in the German organic microAKIS are most important to farmers and how farmers within the system share knowledge. This study explores these questions by focusing on farmers who are members of organic producer associations (OPAs) in three federal states in Germany.

Design/methodology/approach

Fieldwork was conducted in Brandenburg, Lower Saxony, and Bavaria from April to September 2021 through qualitative research utilizing participant observation on organic farms and in-person and Zoom interviews with farmers and experts in the organic agricultural sector.

Findings

This study concurs with previous studies’ findings that German organic farmers obtain and exchange knowledge, information, and innovations from a wide variety of sources surrounding their farm business as a whole; however, regarding agricultural practices and technologies, fellow farmers and OPAs are the most important sources.

Practical implications

Through comparing the microAKIS in Brandenburg, Lower Saxony, and Bavaria this paper explores how farmers in different states depend diversly on state structures, how in the organic sector farmers rely heavily on the private sector for knowledge and information exchanges surrounding agricultural practices and technologies, and how these networks can be improved. This enables discussions on advancing the sector and meeting policy goals by addressing farmers’ needs.

Theoretical implications

The microAKIS framework is advanced by engaging in a comparative analysis and bottom-up approach to identify significant actors according to farmers in the organic sector in Germany.

Originality/value

This study outlines the individuals and organizations that make up the organic microAKIS in Germany, which has been underexplored in the fast-growing organic sector, and utilizes empirical evidence to display farmers’ perspectives.

KEYWORDS:

• Organic agriculture
• knowledge and advisory networks
• microAKIS
• agricultural extension
• knowledge exchange
• Germany

Introduction

Organic agriculture has become increasingly relevant in discussions on sustainability, biodiversity, and climate change. As of November 6, 2021, the United Nations Climate Change Conference UK website, stated how organic agriculture was emphasized as ‘45 governments [including Germany] pledge[d] urgent action and investment to protect nature and shift to more sustainable ways of farming.’ The European Commission’s Farm to Fork Strategy, a part of the European Green Deal, set the goal of increasing European Union (EU) organic land from 8.5%, in 2019, to 25% by 2030 (European Commission 2019; European Commission 2020). Fueled by consumer popularity and government support, this sector has grown rapidly. The total worldwide organic agricultural land total increased 4.1% in 2020 to 74.9 million hectares, with 14.9 million of those hectares in the EU (Willer et al. 2022). Additionally, organic retail sales have increased worldwide from 106 billion euros in 2019 to 121 billion euros in 2020 (Willer et al. 2021; Willer et al. 2022).

Facilitating farmers’ knowledge and innovation exchanges has emerged as an important theme in policy (Grando et al. 2018; Dockès, Tisenkopfs, and Bock 2011; Knierim et al. 2015; Birke et al. 2021) and academic literature (Dockès, Tisenkopfs, and Bock 2011; Hardt and Franzen 2018; Hermans, Klerkx, and Roep 2015; Stuiver, Leeuws, and van der Ploeg 2004; Sutherland and Labarthe 2022). Organic agriculture is knowledge intensive and requires high levels of expertise and innovativeness for success (Jouzi et al. 2017; Morgan and Murdoch 2000; Malusà et al. 2022). This study concentrates on the actors with which organic farmers exchange knowledge, information, and innovations with, in relation to organic agricultural practices and technologies, in Germany. We focus on Germany as it is a prominent country in the organic sector, with the second-largest organic market in the world. The sector is also governmentally supported by a national goal for the end of 2021 to grow from a current 10.8% to 30% of the organic agricultural land area by 2030 (Kaufmann et al. 2022). Using the framework of micro-level agricultural knowledge and innovation systems (microAKIS), we outline the broad scope of German organic farmers’ microAKIS and identify the most significant actors according to and assembled by farmers. We categorize the actors in the German organic farmers’ microAKIS into education, the public sector, the private sector, organic producer associations (OPAs), and other fellow farmers. We selected these categories by analyzing how past literature organizes microAKIS (Sutherland et al. 2018; Madureira et al. 2022; Laurent et al. 2022; Koutsouris and Zarokosta 2022) and AKIS (Paul et al. 2014; Knierim et al. 2015; Birke et al. 2021) actor categories and by analyzing our own data on farmers’ curated networks. We use the framework of microAKIS as it has been applied to understand farmers’ constructed knowledge system where they seek, generate, and exchange information, knowledge, and innovations (Sutherland and Labarthe 2022; Madureira et al. 2022; Kilis et al. 2022; Kvam, Hårstad, and Stræte 2022; Laurent et al. 2022; Koutsouris and Zarokosta 2022; Konečná and Sutherland 2022).

We focus on the three German federal states of Brandenburg, Lower Saxony, and Bavaria, which we selected as they contain different state agricultural structures. Brandenburg has minimal public agricultural services and an abundance of private advisory services, Lower Saxony has an agricultural chamber, and Bavaria has a mix of public and private advisory services (Batáry et al. 2017; Paul et al. 2014; BMEL 2022; Schmidtner et al. 2012). We show how understanding the agricultural sector in Germany requires a state analysis as the agricultural goals, as well as education, funding, research, advising, and regulations, differ by state (Paul et al. 2014; Kania, Vinohradnik, and Knierm 2014; Birke et al. 2021; Luley et al. 2014). We demonstrate the significance of OPAs in knowledge exchange because the majority of organic land in Germany is farmed in accordance with OPA standards (Kaufmann et al. 2022). We also explore the linkages and knowledge, information, and innovation flows between farmers and all other actors in their social and professional networks. We embed our results in current discussions pivoting around the importance of microAKIS for organic agriculture. We argue that a better understanding of which actors are most important to farmers and how they share knowledge is vital to reaching the ambitious policy goals concerning organic agriculture in Germany and beyond.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. We begin with a literature review focusing on AKIS, microAKIS, knowledge exchange, and organic agriculture. We then present our methods and the settings before discussing our results. The results outline all the stakeholders with which farmers interact with in the organic microAKIS in the three federal states in order to identify where farmers exchange knowledge, information, and innovations in agricultural practices and technologies. We then identify farmers’ OPAs and fellow farmers as the most trusted and significant actors in our study’s farmers’ microAKIS and discuss why this is and how we can improve the sector based on these findings.

Conceptual framework

The concept of AKIS was developed to analyze agricultural knowledge, information, and innovation exchanges and the linkages between actors, often to aid in agricultural development and policy creation (Röling 1990; European Commission 2020; Rivera et al. 2006; Knierim et al. 2015; Gava et al. 2017; Birke et al. 2021; Sutherland and Marchand 2021; Sutherland et al. 2023). AKIS was initially defined as ‘a set of agricultural organizations and/or persons, and the links and connections between them, engaged in such processes as the generation, transformation, transmission, storage retrieval, integration, diffusion and utilization of knowledge and information, with the purpose of working synergically to support decision making, problem solving and innovation in a given country’s agriculture or a domain thereof,’ (Röling 1990, 1). Examples of such actors within AKIS are farmers, public authorities, research and education, the private sector, farmer-based organizations, and third-sector nongovernmental organizations (Birke et al. 2021). The AKIS framework focuses on the interactive transfer of knowledge between actors and employing knowledge systems to strengthen the agricultural sector (Röling 1990; Rivera et al. 2006; Dockès et al. 2011). The approach later replaced the word information with innovation to further emphasize the significance of increasing agricultural innovation in agricultural development while also striving to better recognize, identify, and analyze relationships between all actors in the agricultural sector (Klerkx, van Mierlo, and Leeuwis 2012; Birke et al. 2021; EU SCAR AKIS 2019; Knierim et al. 2015). The European Commission’s Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR) currently defines AKIS as ‘a useful concept to describe a system of innovation, with emphasis on the organizations involved, the links and interactions between them, the institutional infrastructure with its incentives and the budget mechanisms,’ (EU SCAR 2012, 8). This study uses both of these AKIS definitions as they encompass the significance of information, knowledge, and innovation systems and the interactions between pertinent actors as a valuable tool to analyze the agricultural sector.

The microAKIS framework was developed to improve the AKIS approach by addressing some of its weaknesses and by focusing on the farmers’ perspectives (Sutherland and Labarthe 2022; Madureira et al. 2022; Kilis et al. 2022; Kvam, Hårstad, and Stræte 2022; Laurent et al. 2022; Koutsouris and Zarokosta 2022; Konečná and Sutherland 2022). The microAKIS analytical framework originated from within the project Agrilink (Sutherland et al. 2018) with Sutherland and Labarthe conceptualizing microAKIS as ‘the knowledge systems that farmers personally assemble, including the range of individuals and organizations from whom they seek services and exchange knowledge, and the processes involved in the formation and working of the system, including the way farmers translate these resources into innovative activities (or not),’ (2022, 531). MicroAKIS finds that a weakness in AKIS is that it assumes that the traditional actors play important roles and explores which actors are actually beneficial to farmers (Sutherland and Labarthe 2022). MicroAKIS analyzes the relationships between farmers and different categories of advisors and how they either hinder or advance innovations (Sutherland and Labarthe 2022). Six empirical papers were published on microAKIS as part of a special issue from the Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, including 12 European countries (Konečná and Sutherland; Laurent et al. 2022; Koutsouris and Zarokosta 2022; Kilis et al. 2022; Kvam, Hårstad, and Stræte 2022; Madureira et al. 2022). These studies explore various aspects of innovation through the lens of microAKIS and cover a wide range of innovations, such as technologies, biological pest control, direct marketing, and common management of natural resources. These studies investigated farmers’ microAKIS in terms of the type of innovation and their position in the innovation process. MicroAKIS focuses intently on farmers’ decision-making and all exchanges and advice centered on the farmer (Sutherland and Labarthe 2022). Similar to Kvam, Hårstad, and Stræte (2022) we do incorporate AKIS in that we explore the available institutions and encompass a top-down macro level overview of the sector. However, we primarily focus on bottom-up farmer-assembled microAKIS.

Research employing the AKIS concept is increasing in the EU (Birke et al. 2021; Sutherland and Marchand 2021; EU SCAR AKIS 2019; Knierim et al. 2015; Kania, Vinohradnik, and Knierm 2014). The necessity for a well-functioning AKIS is emphasized as it is used to better connect science and practice (EU SCAR AKIS 2019, 13) and strengthen inclusive communication and access to agricultural knowledge by exploring knowledge, information, innovation, and technology transfers (Labarthe et al. 2013). As such, the EU utilizes AKIS as a tool to guide research and policy frameworks (Knierim et al. 2015; Sutherland et al. 2017; EU SCAR AKIS 2019). For example, this is seen in the i2connect project where researchers conducted AKIS analyses on 28 European countries to increase innovation by fostering a supportive network that connects advisors, farmers and foresters (Birke et al. 2021), as well as in the Networking European Farms to Enhance Cross Fertilization and Innovation Uptake through Demonstration (NEFERTITI) project, which works on creating exchanges and a connected network between AKIS stakeholders in 17 countries (Sutherland and Marchand 2021).

It is particularly relevant to examine the links between AKIS actors in Europe and in Germany, where having a mix of public and private advisory services (i.e. a pluralistic system) is increasing, resulting in variations in funding and actors (Birner et al. 2009; Prager et al. 2016; Klerkx et al. 2017; Klerkx 2020; Birke et al. 2021). The wide variety of advisors indicates that they are used for different problems different advisors are used (Knierim et al. 2017; Sutherland et al. 2023; Cofré-Bravo, Klerkx, and Engler 2019; Madureira et al. 2022). For example, a countrywide study on advisory work satisfaction for organic producers in Germany from 2011 to 2013 found that 86 different advice providers were utilized in a case study of 385 organic producers (Luley et al. 2014). Because farmers use a wide variety of advisory and extension services, it is crucial to identify which advisory services they receive and which they are acting on (Luley et al. 2014; Paul et al. 2014; Sutherland et al. 2017; Birke et al. 2021; Madureira et al. 2022).

Once AKIS successfully outlines the pertinent actors in a country’s agricultural sector, the links between them can be better examined. Several findings were pertinent to our study. First, AKIS literature argues that there is a problematic disconnect between farmers and other actors within the agricultural sector (Dockès, Tisenkopfs, and Bock 2011; Klerkx and Proctor 2013; Klerkx et al. 2017; Sutherland et al. 2017; Birke et al. 2021; Kania, Vinohradnik, and Knierm 2014). Considerable research on agricultural extension has stressed the problematic system of researchers working autonomously, without direct involvement from farmers (Adolwa et al. 2017; Klerkx et al. 2017; Röling 1990; Van Crowder and Anderson 1997; Malusà et al. 2022). For example, in Germany, a project on knowledge transfer in organic viticulture concluded that increased vertical information sharing between scientific researchers and growers is crucial and requires further effort (Hardt and Franzen 2018). Another German study on cereal production found that both farmers and advisors agreed that a major issue was the lack of collaboration among farmers, advisors, and plant breeders (Macholdt and Honermeier 2016). Second, the necessity for trust between actors in knowledge exchanges has been found to be crucial for AKIS (Cofré-Bravo, Klerkx, and Engler 2019; Adolwa et al. 2017; EU SCAR 2012). Information and knowledge must be trusted before it is accepted (Curry and Kirwan 2014).

To engage farmers in knowledge exchanges, we applied a constructivist epistemology. Constructivism posits that a person’s social and cultural environment constructs and produces their knowledge, which is imperative for comprehending farmers’ network relationships and their local knowledge (Curry and Kirwan 2014). Receiving advice from friends, peers, or professional acquaintances causes farmers to rank information differently and changes their likelihood of action (Pratiwi and Suzuki 2017). For example, a study analyzing Greek and German olive and cereal growers showed that farmers learn from neighbors’ experiences with practices and technologies and found that peer advice is more effective than subsidies as a motivation for the adoption of technology (Chatzimichael, Genius, and Tzouvelekas 2014). A major conclusion from such works is that knowledge diffusion occurs more readily between individuals who are homophilous about major attributes, such as similar beliefs, education, and social status, and have only a minor degree of heterophily (Rogers 2004). Social networks, which are often homophilous, are a powerful method for exchanging information, and numerous studies have substantiated the importance of social networks in the diffusion of innovations and information in both agriculture and resource governance (Foster and Rosenzweig 1995; Boahene, Snijders, and Folmer 1999; Bandiera and Rasul 2006; Bodin and Crona 2009; Pratiwi and Suzuki 2017; Maertens and Barrett 2013; Isaac et al. 2007; Dapilah, Nielsen, and Friis 2020; Polman and Slangen 2008).

Context

Our research categorizes the actors in Germany’s organic microAKIS into five main actor categories: 1. education, 2. the public sector, 3. the private sector, 4. OPAs, and 5. other fellow farmers. The aim of examining microAKIS in the context of organic agriculture is to understand the relationship between farmers and actors from farmers’ perspectives and to find which actors most aid farmers in their advancement of innovations and problem-solving concerning knowledge exchange on agricultural practices and technologies. Germany is a fitting place to study the organic sector as it is the second largest organic market in the world, spending 15.87 billion euros on organic food and beverages in 2021 (Kaufmann et al. 2022; Willer et al. 2022). Germany has the fourth largest amount of agricultural land in Europe, covering an estimated 1.78 million hectares with 35,716 organic producers as of 2021 (Willer et al. 2022; Kaufmann et al. 2022). Additionally, the German government set a national goal at the end of 2021 to grow the organic agricultural land area from 10.8% to 30% by 2030 (Moewius 2022). As the agricultural sector is largely managed at the state level in Germany, each state has created an Organic Action Plan, ‘Öko-Aktionsplan,’ with varying funding and goals. As of 2021, the Ministry of Brandenburg Action Plan is expected to increase from 14.4% organic agricultural area to 20% by 2024. As of 2022, Lower Saxony’s action plan is to double their proportion of organic farms to 15% by 2025. Lastly, the Bavarian State Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Forestry has the most ambitious action plan among the three federal states, with the goal of reaching 30% organic agricultural land by 2030. As of the end of 2020, Brandenburg had 188,605 hectares (ha) of utilized organically farmed land and 972 organic farms, Lower Saxony had 137,694 ha and 2,253 farms and Bavaria had 386,496 ha and 10,989 farms (BMEL 2022). According to the Agricultural Market Information Company (AMI), more than half of the organically farmed areas in Germany consist of permanent grasslands, with flax, sunflowers, soybeans, vegetables, and legumes (2022), and the top revenue generators are milk, vegetables, and cereals (Kaufmann et al. 2022).

Education

There are four main options for agricultural education in Germany: basic professional training (Berufsausbildung), advanced professional training (Fortbildung), university education (Studium), and further education (Weiterbuildung) (Birke et al. 2021). Basic professional training lasts three years, with the first portion of the students’ time spent at a vocational school (Berufschule) learning about agriculture theoretically from a teacher in a classroom setting. Vocational schools are regulated by the federal government but managed at the state level. The second portion is spent working on a farm, learning firsthand from a farmer as an apprentice (Lehrling). For university education, there are 10 and 13 universities of applied sciences with agricultural programs in Germany (Birke et al. 2021). Although many of these institutions offer organic courses, there is only one university and one university of applied science where farmers can obtain a degree entirely in organic agriculture. At the University of Kassel at Witzenhausen farmers can obtain a bachelor’s and master’s degrees in organic agriculture. Though not located in one of the federal states in this study, it is located near the border of Lower Saxony and merits mention, as many organic farmers attend this university. The Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development (HNEE) in Brandenburg offers both a bachelor’s and master’s degrees in organic agriculture.

Public sector

The three federal states selected for this study had different state agricultural structures. In Brandenburg, advisory services are primarily privatized (Paul et al. 2014). However, the Ministry of Agriculture, Environment and Climate Protection of the State of Brandenburg offers conversion advice, has increased its subsidies for organic conversion, and holds workshops to increase and strengthen the organic sector. Lower Saxony is one of the seven federal states in Germany with an agricultural chamber. The Chamber of Agriculture in Lower Saxony (LWK) is a self-governing organization that oversees agriculture, forestry, food industries, horticulture, fisheries, and public interests in these sectors. The LWK provides ‘consultation, training and development, testing, research and analysis services,’ though it states that the two most important tasks are advice and training (LWK). Although most of LWK is focused on conventional agriculture, it has a department for organic agriculture with seven employees. The chamber consults on conversion, helps with rules and regulation queries, and provides presentations on farms showing machines and crop varieties. Bavaria has a strong infrastructure with many public actors, professional organizations, and associations (Brechmann, Knierim, and Wellbrock 2014; Birke et al. 2021). Public advisory services cover only welfare-oriented advice, administrative and investment issues, and farm development, while production issues are answered through a private advisory that is publicly co-financed (Brechmann, Knierim, and Wellbrock 2014). According to the Bavarian State Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Forestry website, farmers can contact the state, which has 47 field offices and seven offices for rural development, for such queries, as well as for conversion advice.

Organic agriculture and organic producer associations (OPAs)

Farmers in Germany must be certified as organic farmers under EU organic regulations. Organic farming in Germany is currently divided into two groups: farmers who are certified as European Union (EU) organic, ‘EU Bio,’ and farmers who have additional certification from an organic producer association (OPA), ‘association Bio.’ Almost half of the German organic farmers and more than 60% of Germany’s organic land are farmed in accordance with one of Germany’s nine OPAs (Kaufmann et al. 2022). As of 2021, there are 641,980 ha of EU organic land and 1,142,022 ha of association organic land in Germany (Kaufmann et al. 2022). According to the Federation of the Organic Food Industry’s (BÖLW) website, the nine German OPAs with their founding years are Bio Kreis (1979), Bioland (1971), Biopark (1991), Demeter (1928), Ecoland (1997), Ecovin (1985), Gäa e.V. (1989), Naturland (1982), and Verbund Ökohöfe (2006). OPAs contain additional regulations, in addition to the EU’s organic regulations, and have a membership fee, but then offer their members services such as advisory and marketing and are an integral part of the organic sector because of their political lobbying and representation (Kaufmann et al. 2022). Additional benefits of joining an OPA include establishing a network of farmers, advisors, and researchers connected through regional and national meetings and events.

In the last twenty years, two significant projects have taken place nationwide in Germany, in which AKIS diagnosis was the main activity. The first was the PRO AKIS project, Prospects for Farmers’ Support: Advisory Services in the European Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems, conducted between 2013 and 2014 to inventory AKIS in the 27 EU countries (Paul et al. 2014). The German country report from this project mentioned organic agriculture only a few times; for example, when mentioning the Syndicate for Traditional Agriculture (ABL), the organic farmers’ associations, and the Germany Agricultural Society (DLG) as actors in the AKIS of organic farmers (Paul et al. 2014). The report described the German AKIS as heterogeneous and diverse, combined with assorted advisory services by the state, making horizontal knowledge flows difficult. For example, state ministries and public research occur at both the national and state levels; however, advisory is predominantly at the state level (Paul et al. 2014). A recurring finding in the literature is that fragmentation exists vertically, from national to state to local, as well as horizontally, between states, and needs to be recognized and amended (Knierim et al. 2015; Paul et al. 2014; Hermans, Klerkx, and Roep 2015). Then, in 2021, as part of the previously mentioned i2connect project, the University of Hohenheim published a report entitled ‘AKIS and advisory services in Germany: Report for the AKIS inventory’ (Birke et al. 2021). The report focused on the ‘essential features of the institutional and infrastructural environment in which advisors in the green sector operate’ (Birke et al. 2021, i) and mentions organic agriculture to a greater extent than in previous reports (Paul et al. 2014; Knierim et al. 2015). This report describes the German Agricultural Research Alliance (DAFA), the Syndicate for Traditional Agriculture (ABL), the Federation of the Organic Food Industry (BÖLW), and the Federal Program for Organic Farming and Other Forms of Sustainable Agriculture Program (BÖLN) as noteworthy AKIS actors. This paper discusses how these actors facilitate knowledge exchange, advisory, research, and funding prospects in the organic agricultural sector. The report concluded that Germany has a strong, diverse, and pluralistic AKIS that varies by public state (Birke et al. 2021). However, it is important not to only consider AKIS on the national level. Klerkx et al. (2017) argue that farmers’ needs transcend national boundaries and that different advisory formations exist within countries.

Methods

Qualitative fieldwork was conducted over the course of six-months during 2021, split into two-month increments for each federal state. Participant observation on farms and interviews were the main methods used. In each federal state, the farms varied in type, size, geographical proximity, and farmers’ age and gender. Studying these three states maximizes the inclusiveness of variables. The results are not representative of all organic farmers in Germany; rather, they aim to vary as much as possible. The specialties of the farms visited included gardening, fruits, vegetables, viticulture, animal husbandry, and dairy, with most farms having a combination of production types. The selection of these sites and different types of farms allows for (1) the development of a comprehensive and diverse dataset of German organic farmers and (2) the identification of cross-cutting insights at the national level. Originally the research was to include EU certified organic farms; however, owing to access limitations, all but one farm used for participant observation were members of an association. The farms visited were members of: Bioland, Naturland, Demeter, Verbund Ökohöfe, and Biopark. The farms selected for participant observation were identified based on recommendations from organic agricultural advisors, farmers, agricultural specialists, and through online research. Farms where participant observation was conducted were consciously chosen to be dispersed throughout each federal state to explore climatic and specialty variance, as well as to avoid excessive overlap in knowledge networks caused by geographical proximity. Additional farms visited for farm tours and interviews were conducted using snowball sampling (Carolan 2006; Maertens and Barrett 2013). This participatory approach was chosen as it reveals the constructed reality and behavior of the farmers, resulting in an accurate comprehension of farmers’ logic and actions (Röling 1997).

Participant observation was conducted on 15 different farms: 4 in Brandenburg, 4 in Lower Saxony, and 7 in Bavaria. Participant observation on each farm lasted between 2 and 14 days. Walking tours were conducted on an additional ten farms, with visits varying in duration from a few hours to a full day. Walking tours were used as a method to establish rapport and gain knowledge in the limited timeframe available, in contrast to the more extensive approach of participant observation, while still allowing for flexibility and in-depth investigation. If certain topics were not addressed during the unstructured interviews in the walking tours, and provided that time allowed and farmers were willing, they were complemented by recorded semi-structured interviews. Recorded, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 organic farmers from 18 of the 25 farms. Interviews were not recorded if the farmer was either not comfortable with a recorded interview or if one had already been conducted with another farmer on their farm. Unstructured interviews were conducted with 41 farmers. The objective of unstructured interviews was to empower farmers to raise topics and themes they deemed significant without interviewer influence, whereas semi-structured interviews were employed to explore specific topics, while retaining a degree of flexibility. The total interactions with farmers involved 75 organic farmers and a handful of conventional farmers, encompassing casual conversations, unstructured interviews, and semi-structured interviews (Table 1). Conventional farmers were identified through casual introductions by our organic informants. While they provided personal perspectives on the organic sector, they were not the primary sources of data and were used merely used for further contextualization. In addition to the farmers as experts, recorded interviews were conducted with 31 other experts from the agricultural sector. These experts consisted of OPA advisors and employees, academic and institutional researchers, and private and public organization actors dealing with extension services (Table 2). The experts were interviewed using a combination of Zoom and face-to-face interviews. Experts were found through OPAs, private and public advisory online websites, research, and personal references from informants. We strove to choose experts evenly throughout the three federal states, but as the majority of experts work across multiple federal states or even internationally, we cannot confine them to state boundaries as we can with farmers and their farms. Interviewing experts elucidated how they exchange knowledge with farmers and other actors, revealed whether experts and farmers had analogous or opposing perspectives on knowledge systems, and increased our ability to contextualize farmers’ microAKIS. The interviews were semi-structured, and typically lasted between half an hour and an hour, and were conducted in English, German, or a mix of both languages, depending on the preference of the respondent. The interview questions were based on a question guide but were tailored to each interviewee and comprised both open-ended and closed-ended questions. For both farmers and experts, the interview started with questions about their educational background and how they came to their current job positions and then progressed to questions adhering to the research themes. Farmer interviews continued with open ended questions about whom farmers sought out for knowledge exchanges on farming practices and technologies, connections within each person’s microAKIS, and trust within their network. Experts were questioned about how they fit within farmers’ microAKIS, their exchanges with farmers on farming practices and technologies, and their perceptions of farmers’ networks and the sectors.

Table 1. Farms and farmers by federal state.

Federal State	Unstructured interview (Number of farmers)	Recorded interview (Number of farmers)	Participant observation (Number of farms)	Walking tour (Number of farms)	All farmer interactions (Number of farmers)
Brandenburg	15	4	4	4	24
Lower Saxony	12	13	4	4	24
Bavaria	14	10	7	2	28
Total	41	27	15	10	76

Table 2. Expert Interviews.

Expert	Quantity
OPA advisor or employee	13
Academic or research institute researcher	8
Private organization employee	4
Public organization employee	6
Total	31

In this study, we used MAXQDA for data management and analysis. The semi-structured interviews and daily fieldwork notes were inductively coded, with continuous transforming and reorganization into various configurations throughout the analysis process. The daily fieldwork notes encompassed a range of activities such as participant observation, farm tours, unstructured interviews, and unstructured conversations. After the coding and analysis, we compiled a list of all individuals and organizations mentioned by farmers within their microAKIS, considering the frequency and significance of these actors. We then categorized these actors, aligning our categories with those found in AKIS (Paul et al. 2014; Knierim et al. 2015; Birke et al. 2021) and microAKIS literature (Sutherland et al. 2018; Madureira et al. 2022; Laurent et al. 2022; Koutsouris and Zarokosta 2022). Our categories slightly diverge from those in the literature to better align with our data. For instance, while some studies amalgamate research and education institutions into a single category (Birke et al. 2021; Madureira et al. 2022), we opted to distinguish education as its own category to emphasize its significance and comprehensively explore the education and training of farmers. We decided to group together the private sector entities, encompassing both for-profit and non-profit together, as the distinction between them was not significant to farmers in our analysis. We established a separate category for OPAs after our analysis revealed their pivotal role in the microAKIS of farmers in this study. Finally, we recognized the importance of allocating a category to farmers themselves, underscoring their role as experts and the significant impact that peers have in agriculture, as highlighted in the microAKIS literature (Koutsouris and Zarokosta 2022; Laurent et al. 2022; Kvam, Hårstad, and Stræte 2022; Konečná and Sutherland 2022).

Results

Education

The educational system underpins farmers’ microAKIS as it provides them with the fundamental agricultural information, knowledge and experience required throughout their careers. It also establishes a network of actors on which farmers rely. Among the farmers interviewed, 3 had completed basic professional training, 2 had completed basic and master’s professional training, 14 had attended university, 6 had completed a combination of university and basic professional training and one farmer was self-taught. Among the 20 farmers who attended university, 10 had bachelor’s degree and 10 had a bachelor’s and master’s degree. Farmers in all three states agreed that vocational schools provided them with the basic knowledge on agricultural practices and technologies, although almost all stated that the curriculum lacked sufficient material on organic themes. Farmers particularly valued the apprenticeship part of their basic professional training which many stated was lacking from their university training. Notably, universities provide farmers with deeper, more specialized agricultural education, allowing them to explore organic themes and even conduct individual agricultural research projects. Furthermore, a common theme among the participants was seeking advice and exchanging knowledge, innovations, and information with farmers and other actors that they knew as a result of their agricultural education.

Farmers who aim to farm organically typically seek organic farms to apprentice on and attend their closest vocational schools. Agricultural vocational schools in Germany are regulated at the national level, allowing farmers to move between states during their two or three years of vocational training. However, organic opportunities are minimal and differ between and within the federal states. In Brandenburg, there are no options for attending an organic vocational school. In Lower Saxony there is one organic class capped at 25 students per year for the final year of basic vocational school. Bavaria has two organic vocational schools at the master’s level. By law, 10% of the organic course material is required to be taught each year, although multiple farmers expressed that it was up to the teacher’s discretion and that many teachers were not well-informed about organic themes. One Bavarian farmer stated, ‘ … that is a big, a big hole. In the education of the vocational school, because you know, they are right now 10% of organic [land] and their aim is to raise it up to 20 or 30 percent but it is not … so there should at least be 20% organic agriculture education in the vocational school. And right now, it depends really, really strongly on the teacher.’ However, organic farmers mentioned finding merit in learning conventional agricultural practices. An employee from the LWK, the Chamber of Agriculture in Lower Saxony, stated that since basic agricultural practices are the same as organic and conventional practices, only beginning to split into topics such as spraying chemicals and medicines allowed, it is not problematic to have conventional and organic students in the same basic professional school courses. However, the majority revealed a desire to increase the use of organically focused materials. Farmers further stated that their basic vocational school classes were made up of almost entirely future conventional farmers and that they did not create close relationships with their fellow students but rather grew their agricultural network from their apprenticeship portion of their education. The latter exposes farmers to a wide network of actors in the agricultural field. Although the goal is for apprentices to learn from master farmers, a symbiotic relationship involving the exchange of ideas is often created. One Bavarian dairy farmer stated that he enjoyed having an apprentice because ‘ … you get input. Questions are always good for your development. So, you have to wonder and not just do your job.’ Multiple farmers mentioned appreciating the inquisitive nature of apprentices, which caused them to then reflect on and perhaps alter their practices. Additionally, one farmer mentioned that she still regularly texts the farmer that she apprenticed with because his extensive knowledge still greatly assisted her decision-making.

Public sector

Organic farmers in this study varied in terms of their utilization of state resources, correlating with the different state agricultural structures and services available, preferences, farm size, and farm specialty. Farmers in all three federal states reported obtaining information from the state, predominantly on basic conversion advice, field trials, taxes, subsidies, and official paperwork, and farm expansion, through events, state advisors, state websites, and the state magazine. Overall, farmers did not emphasize acquiring information and knowledge from the public sector. Farmers in Brandenburg were largely unimpressed by the public sector. In Lower Saxony, there was a mix of positive and negative accounts, with Bavarian farmers utilizing state services the most. Additionally, because extension services are funded and managed by the state, they exist predominantly within state borders.

In Brandenburg, all farmers and experts interviewed described the public extension services and advisory networks as minimal, severely lacking, or even non-existent. Farmers mentioned using state consultants for information on subsidies, basic animal nutrition, regulations, and farm expansion plans. Farmers also mentioned reading the state magazine, although conventionally situated, as it contained useful material on topics such as the state field trials for crops. Farmers in Brandenburg mentioned a lack of state resources in the organic agricultural sector. One farmer from Brandenburg stated, ‘Organic farming could be much more. We could have a much better percentage of organic farming than we have at the moment. And this is because the policy of the Social Democratic Party.’ He went on to express his hope for increased support for the organic agricultural sector since The Greens, the environmentalist party in Germany, became the head of the Ministry of Agriculture, Environment, and Climate Protection in Brandenburg at the end of 2019. Farmers in Lower Saxony stated that the main reasons for going to LWK were for field trial results, paperwork support for subsidies, and occasionally for specialized state advisory. Although farmers in Lower Saxony had varying experiences with the chamber, it was largely perceived as a beneficial resource. Some farmers also disclosed that they called the chamber with minor, less specialized questions, a service that is available to farmers with their annual fee. Several farmers had positive experiences and relationships with employees in the chamber, while others criticized the chamber as being too conventional and lacking sufficient knowledge of the organic sector. One farmer in Lower Saxony explained that, ‘The problem with the LWK is it should be for all farmers … but it is super dominated by the conventional farmers. So, for organic farming it is not so important, in my opinion, like it is for conventional farmers. Because we are not as represented there.’ A common topic raised by farmers in all the states was the desire for increased support for organic matter by their state agricultural ministries.

Bavaria contains the most extensive state extension services and resources, and the organic farmers correlatingly referenced appreciating and utilizing these resources. Similar to Brandenburg and Lower Saxony, the farmers stated that they would contact the state with questions about paperwork for funding, cross-compliance rules, and farm expansions. One Bavarian farmer mentioned that he periodically utilized a state advisor for feed advice for his dairy cows. Additionally, one winegrower obtained valuable information from the Bavarian State Institute for Viticulture and Horticulture (LWG), stating that numerous wine producers receive and utilize their services. This winemaker and grower also mentioned that many wine growers utilize LWG’s consulting and their wine ring for advising and for any potential legal problems, additionally praising other state departments as ‘very good’ as well. Bavarian farmers largely indicated the benefits of utilizing their state extension services. However, they were not distinguished as their main source but rather as one of the many actors employed when discussing agricultural practices and technologies. One Bavarian farmer ranked about the discrepancy between the amount of money the government puts into conventional and organic research. He stated, ‘I think we could do far more research for organic agriculture, but I don't think it’s the focus of the government.’ Similarly, a farmer in Lower Saxony, speaking about both public and private research, stated, ‘ … only 1% of the research in farming is done for eco[organic] farming and it should be 50% or more.’ Farmers in all three federal states voiced a desire for an increased capacity for organic research at the private, state, and national levels.

Private sector

The private sector contains the most diverse variety of actors in farmers’ microAKIS and is particularly valuable as it crosses state lines linking actors nationally and even internationally. Our research found that farmers who were not able to find specialized knowledge within Germany went abroad, from as close as Austria or the Netherlands to as far as the United States or Australia, for fellow farmers, advisors, and researchers. The use and significance of private actors did not vary significantly among the three federal states. Within the private sector, farmers mentioned receiving and exchanging knowledge and information from both organic and conventional private advisors, associations, and companies through newsletters, magazines, online publications, in-person advisory, and events.

A few significant private associations, mentioned by numerous farmers, are the German Farmers’ Association (DBV), the Small Farmers Association (AbL), and the Young Farmers Alliance (BJL). One of the most significant is the AbL, an organization committed to supporting and advocating for sustainable agriculture, for both conventional and organic farms, raising awareness of current issues, securing access to land, and supporting knowledge exchange. Another private association, the BJL, is also an important national association as it facilitates a network of young farmers starting their careers. There are also private associations that work predominantly within only one federal state. Such associations aim to support and develop the organic sector by supporting farmers, consumers, and companies through advice, politics, projects, and media, building regional organic value chains, and facilitating network connections through newsletters, advisory, events, workshops, and field days.

Farmers also mentioned obtaining information online from the private sector. Three examples of trusted sources are the Thünen Institute, orgprints.com, and the Leibniz Center for Agricultural Landscape Research e.V. (ZALF). Trade fairs such as Agritechniker, Grüne Woche, and EuroTier are also appreciated by many farmers as, they are good networking opportunities. Additionally, farmers in all three federal states used private advisory services for various reasons. Multiple farmers also mentioned utilizing private advisors outside their OPAs for EU and German subsidy paperwork.

Producer associations are also pertinent actors in the private sector, which the farmers in this study utilized to receive and exchanging specialized information and knowledge on agricultural practices, technologies, and market information through events, meetings, and linkages with other members and experts. These associations hold events and send emails and newsletters containing information about market developments as well as advice. Seed companies have magazines, events, and field trials, and they make personal visits to sell their products. Many farmers mentioned the importance of maintaining personal relationships with sellers to obtain the best information. However, farmers in all three federal states mentioned problems with private seed companies and their lack of plant varieties in the organic sector, as they are economically driven and, therefore, focus predominantly on conventional seeds. One farmer in Lower Saxony explained, ‘Sometimes you can’t choose; you just have to take what is there. Especially for specialized crops like pumpkins, or there are only very few companies who grow them. The conventional market is far bigger … there is one big [company] in the Netherlands, but then even there, it was difficult to get the variety.’

To learn about new technologies, farmers stated that machine and technology companies, machine dealers, and events were the most beneficial. Many farmers also mentioned that they had heard about new technologies from other farmers. Informants explained that most farmers create close relationships with nearby machine dealers in order to hear about the latest machines and get instant help with maintenance. Machine dealers keep farmers updated through farm visits, phone calls, and machine demonstrations, and even connect farmers with other farmers who have a machine that they are interested in. Software is also quite useful to farmers. For example, software to manage herds of cattle for both mother and dairy cows, for example, allows farmers to track feeding, growth, breeding, milk control, and animal health. Farmers in all three federal states also expressed a fondness for learning about new technologies from magazines. One Bavarian farmer rattled off a few of the magazines that he consulted to learn about new technologies for his farm, ‘I have a magazine for asparagus and strawberries, a magazine for organic vegetables, a magazine for conventional vegetables, I have a magazine for potato growing.’ Though farmers in all three federal states spoke of their predilection to acquire information from magazines, they relied at least somewhat on conventional magazines. However, most of farmers in this study expressed an affinity for the private magazines produced by OPAs.

Organic producer associations

OPAs are among most noteworthy actors in organic farmers’ microAKIS because of the regional and national networks they facilitate, the services they offer, and how they are sources of trusted and reliable knowledge and information. OPAs provide specialty advisors, offer meetings with farmers and specialists, access to projects, facilitate farmer-to-farmer connections, offer market help, hold events, produce magazines and newsletters, and politically lobby for organic agriculture.

When choosing an OPA, farmers stated that geographical concentration and neighbors as members factored into their decision to join one over another. A dominant benefit of belonging to an OPA are their advisors and advisory services. Farmers stated that the leading specialty advisors were employed by OPAs and were often contacted for advice. One farmer detailed how they changed their associations to utilize a specific experienced advisor. Multiple farmers mentioned that the reason for revering specialty advisors’ recommendations was their accumulation of knowledge and experience from visiting a wide variety and quantity of farms. Trust is also a significant quality of OPA advisors. One Bavarian farmer stated that she trusted the newsletter written by advisors to the extent that she did not need to read anything else. Another farmer, when referencing a specialty advisor, joked about how when he said something everyone immediately believed it. However, larger farms, particularly the more specialized ones, are disproportionately able to utilize advisory services. One Bavarian farmer with an average size farm in terms of hectares but highly specialized in terms of crops explained, ‘Then there are farms that do a very easy kind of farming. Not very specialized. And they don’t earn a lot of money so yeah … they can’t afford a lot of advising.’ Additionally, specialty advisors were not evenly dispersed. For example, in Brandenburg, many farmers are forced to seek advice outside of Brandenburg as there are few or no specialty advisors available. Although OPAs exist across state borders, OPA advisors often consult within their own state. This is partly due to geographical convenience, but also because subsidies for advisory services differ by state. One advisor in Bavaria explained that half of his hourly advisory fee was paid by a subsidy from the Bavarian state government, making it administratively challenging to advise farmers geographically nearby but residing across state borders because of paperwork and policy disparities.

Farmers identified regional meetings held by OPAs as a vital space to exchange knowledge, information, and innovations with fellow farmers, local advisors, specialist advisors, or researchers who were brought in periodically to present on topics pertinent to the specific farmer groups. The meetings were coordinated and run by regional advisors. The meetings were held based on the farmers’ participation and requests. The most important aspect of these meetings was that farmers could meet to exchange on local and geographically specific obstacles. Attendance depended largely on time constraints. Farmers often mentioned a lack of time. Particularly in Brandenburg, farms are more geographically dispersed, increasing the difficulty of attending meetings, unlike in Bavaria, where organic farms are more geographically concentrated. In this respect, multiple farmers liked the transition to Zoom meetings. Throughout all federal states, farmers mentioned that only a small percentage of farmers regularly participated in meetings. One reason often mentioned as to why a farmer would choose not to attend a local meeting was farmer personality, as some farmers were more solitary than others. Regardless, it is important that these meetings be made available to those who want them. Therefore, annual OPA events are held in the winter when the majority of farmers have more time. However, one disadvantage of these regional meetings and annual events is that they are separated by association, resulting in fragmentation among farmers in different OPAs. Multiple farmers mentioned that although their associations separated meetings, events, marketing, advising, and so on, farmers would have no problem and even like exchanging knowledge and working with farmers from other OPAs. A Bavarian farmer explained, ‘Between Bioland and Naturland farmers, or Demeter, there is no problem. They would work together.’ However, this willingness to exchange did not, however, extend to EU organic farmers for most farmers in this study.

Connection to and accessibility to projects are additional benefits for OPA members. OPAs are involved in research and innovation projects to further organic agriculture and connect researchers, and compatible farms and farmers. When universities, private organizations, or public research institutes want to do a project with organic farmers, they often partner with associations. Almost every farmer interviewed was either currently part of a project or had participated in one or more in the past. Similar to attending meetings or events, time is an issue for farmers, stating that it is the main reason a farmer passes over the opportunity to participate in a project. Farmers argued that far fewer EU farmers were part of the projects, as confirmed by the project leaders. Additionally, multiple farmers in all three states mentioned participating in the research but were never presented with the results, demonstrating a lack of reciprocity between practice and research.

Other fellow farmers

Across all three federal states, farmers agreed that fellow farmers were among the most significant sources for generating and exchanging information, knowledge, and innovations is fellow farmers. Farmers create relationships of respect and trust that allow them to readily accept and transform fellow farmers’ knowledge into practical actions and solutions. Farmers know other farmers through geographical proximity, education, working together, projects, being part of the same association, events, meetings, machine rings, and a myriad of other ways. The farmers interviewed indicated having close relationships and regularly speaking to 2–10 other farmers, with some knowing upwards of 150. When facing problems with agricultural practices and technologies, farmers expressed to routinely seeking advice from fellow farmers first or at least in addition to other sources. This is because of two main factors. First, there is a culture of assisting anyone who needs help, which produces a wide, highly linked network of exchanges throughout the organic community. Second, farmers accumulate valuable information and knowledge that is often experiential and regionally specific.

If a farmer asks for specialized advice that has taken years of trial and error to learn, a farmer may be less likely to share it with someone who is not a close confidant. Farmers and experts also mentioned some exceptions due to farmers’ personalities or market competition, but farmers were confident that the majority were eager to help. One Bavarian farmer even mentioned that if he shared prices with trusted fellow farmers, they would not sell under that price. A few farmers attributed this to when organic farming began when it was difficult to find organic knowledge; they relied predominantly on learning experientially or from each other. Other farmers explained that they realized that it was simply more advantageous to work together. One farmer from Lower Saxony stated, ‘ … I think it is always very interesting to speak with another farm. Because maybe you can talk 100 percent and maybe you need 10 percent for your farm. And then it is very good,’ a sentiment that was widespread in this study. Overall, farmers in all three federal states reported that they believed organic farmers were highly connected to one another. Additionally, in all federal states, trust and willingness to accept and act on other fellow farmers’ knowledge were strong. One Bavarian farmer stated, ‘So often it is like a farmer tries a new technique or new practice and if he says well, it is quite good and it worked, well good, I'm going to try it.’ A farmer from Lower Saxony compared farmers’ extremely realistic and sometimes negative evaluations of seed varieties to a salesperson. ‘If you talk to somebody who wants to sell you something, he always has his own intentions, and if you have another farmer, it is far more reliable. Why should he tell you this variety is good if he doesn’t want to sell it to you? It is more the other way around. Most often farmers are quite negative.’

Discussion

In this study, we explore the actors present in German organic farmers’ microAKIS, specifically those who are members of OPAs, and identify which actors farmers deem most important. Research has described Germany’s AKIS as strong, diverse, and pluralistic, with a well-functioning extension system (Knierim et al. 2015; Paul et al. 2014; Birke et al. 2021; Luley et al. 2014; Österle et al. 2016; Hardt and Franzen 2018). Our research on the organic sector aligns with these findings. The microAKIS we explored in the three states of Brandenburg, Lower Saxony, and Bavaria is pluralistic, with farmers exchanging knowledge and information with a wide variety of actors and institutions from the public and private sectors. Our findings demonstrate that, of this broad range of actors, fellow farmers and OPAs are the two most important sources of knowledge exchange on agricultural practices and technologies. Fellow farmers are trusted sources of information, a point repeatedly made in AKIS (Kummer et al. 2017; Sutherland et al. 2017; Malusà et al. 2022; Cofré-Bravo, Klerkx, and Engler 2019; Foster and Rosenzweig 1995; Oreszczyn, Lane, and Carr 2010; Niggli 2015; Paul et al. 2014; Hamm et al. 2017; Skaalsveen, Ingram, and Urquhart 2020) and microAKIS literature (Kvam, Hårstad, and Stræte 2022; Koutsouris and Zarokosta 2022). The benefits of peer-to-peer learning in agriculture are recurrent (Laurent et al. 2022; Kilis et al. 2022; Sutherland and Marchand 2021; Kvam, Hårstad, and Stræte 2022). Similar to Kvam, Hårstad, and Stræte (2022) and Konečná and Sutherland (2022), we also found that farmers often prefer to learn from each other due to their experiential knowledge. Furthermore, the importance of OPAs and other farmer-based organizations in facilitating linkages and networks between actors in Germany resonates with other studies (Proietti and Cristiano 2022; Österle et al. 2016; Birke et al. 2021; Kvam, Hårstad, and Stræte 2022). Knowledge and information exchanges with homophilic partners or members of the same OPA were prevalent in our findings. This illustrates that similar practices and analogous beliefs facilitate strong connections; therefore, OPAs are conducive to knowledge exchange. Thus, homophily among German organic farmers is thus highly institutionalized. This is an important finding considering literature and the emphasis herein on the importance of homophily for successful AKIS (Kabirigi et al. 2022; Chatzimichael, Genius, and Tzouvelekas 2014; Adolwa et al. 2017) this is an important finding. In pluralistic systems, the state’s role in specialized advisory is typically reduced, with the private sector and third-party organizations undertaking these specialized topics (Nettle et al. 2017; Nettle et al. 2021; Klerkx et al. 2017; Klerkx 2020; Hoffmann, Helme, and Bauer 2013; Birke et al. 2021). Our study concurs and clearly illustrates that this is also the case in the organic sector.

This latter point is important because little AKIS (Birke et al. 2021; Paul et al. 2014; Österle et al. 2016) or microAKIS (Kilis et al. 2022) research has focused solely on the organic sector. Research such as ours thus helps illustrate whether findings on AKIS or microAKIS from conventional agriculture concur with the organic sector. The necessity for such research has been stated in previous research (Herrmann and Jánszky 2019; Hardt and Franzen 2018) because organic agriculture is knowledge-intensive and requires high levels of knowledge and innovativeness targeted organic agriculture for success (Bliss et al. 2018; Jouzi et al. 2017; Morgan and Murdoch 2000; Malusà et al. 2022). In light of the growing organic sector being heavily driven by sustainability agendas at the national (Kaufmann et al. 2022) and international scales (European Commission 2020) recent calls for more research on AKIS in the organic sector have thus been made (Herrmann and Jánszky 2019; Hoffmann, Helme, and Bauer 2013; Hardt and Franzen 2018). A key point in this literature is that more bottom-up detailed research allowing for a more locally specific and contextual understanding of organic AKIS is particularly needed (Laurent et al. 2022; EU SCAR AKIS 2019). Sutherland and Labarthe (2022) explained the importance of shifting to a farmer-centric and bottom-up perspective in their research using microAKIS. A major reason for this is that such research allows findings such as ours to highlight opportunities and challenges within the sector as experienced by farmers themselves. For example, farmers from all three states revealed a desire for increased state-organized organic education, research, and field trials, as well as better interstate collaboration. The latter aligns with the findings of Knierim and Birke, which illustrate the fragmentation of horizontal knowledge flows in Germany (Knierim et al. 2015; Birke et al. 2021). Our study concurs with Sutherland et al. (2017) on how farmers seek knowledge from different sources for different issues, specifically on how farmers seek neighbors’ advice on agricultural practices, and that production advice was not a primary activity for state-funded advisory services. Furthermore, farmers appreciated the trajectory of increasing organic topics offered by universities but were disappointed that vocational schools did not follow the trend of increased organic topics, particularly with the national goal of reaching 30 percent organic agricultural land (Kaufmann et al. 2022). Additionally, as many farmers mentioned not feeling connected to agricultural research by universities and public and private institutions and that much was not of practical use for them, this further reiterates the need for more collaboration between researchers and farmers. Connecting practices and research have been highlighted in the literature (Herrmann and Jánszky 2019). We also found in our research that farmers were concerned with the partiality of knowledge from technology suppliers (Konečná and Sutherland 2022; Kvam, Hårstad, and Stræte 2022), but that trust can be developed with time through the creation of relationships (Konečná and Sutherland 2022).

Using the microAKIS framework is, as our results illustrate, a good way to identify the most significant actors, as well as the improvement potential, from the farmers’ point of view. Categorizing German organic farmers’ microAKIS into education, the public sector, the private sector, organic farming associations, and other fellow farmers helped us identify challenges and opportunities. We believe that utilizing this categorization combined with a microAKIS analytical framework can aid in the transition toward increased organic agriculture in Germany. It is crucial to look at traditional AKIS actors as well as categories established from farmers’ needs and desires (Laurent et al. 2022; Sutherland and Labarthe 2022). Exploring what farmers realistically utilize and understand and how they meet their needs is of utmost importance to the sector. This is highly desired, both nationally (Kaufmann et al. 2022) and internationally (European Commission 2020). As the German organic sector is well-developed, insights from Germany might be of worldwide relevance despite large national and regional differences.

Conclusion

Organic agriculture is being increasingly endorsed at the regional, national, and international levels. Thus, microAKIS is a useful framework for understanding and developing the agricultural sector. We employed microAKIS through qualitative research in three states in Germany and categorized the German organic agricultural sector into education, public sector, private sector, OPAs, and other fellow farmers. Exposing the current networks and what farmers value and require in future knowledge exchange systems, our research reiterates the necessity of employing farmers’ perspectives to address sectoral issues. Our research also demonstrates that although organic advisory and education vary by state, throughout Germany there is a demand for more organic material taught in vocational schools, increased availability of public organic advisory, and increased state organic research. Although the organic sector in Germany is strong and diverse, it is fragmented by the states and between OPAs or the absence of an association, that is, possessing only the EU organic certification. Our research reiterates that the state lacks the capacity to fully support organic farmers and relies heavily on the private sector for exchanges in agricultural practices and technologies. Furthermore, our empirical research identifies the demand for increased facilitation of farmer-to-farmer knowledge exchanges, particularly those that are regional and specialty focused. This research concludes that German organic farmers have strong exchanges of knowledge but require increased education, research, and resources to fulfill the ambitious goals set by the national government regarding organic farming. We argue, in line with the emerging literature, that such needs can be identified using bottom-up microAKIS analysis.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge and would like to thank all the farmers for their valuable perspectives and contributions to this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by IRI THESys Graduate Program: [grant no Travel Allowance Scholarship].

Notes on contributors

Elizabeth Grace Leonnig

Elizabeth Grace Leonnig is currently a PhD candidate at the Geography Department and member at the IRI THESys (Integrative Research Institute on Transformations of Human-Environment Systems) at the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany. She holds a MSc from University College London in Anthropology, Environment and Development. Her research focuses on knowledge and innovation networks, human-environment systems, and organic agriculture in Germany.

Jonas Østergaard Nielsen

Jonas Østergaard Nielsen is Professor of Integrative Geography at the Geography Department and Research Group Leader at the IRI THESys (Integrative Research Institute on Transformations of Human-Environment Systems) at the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany. He holds a PhD in Human Geography from the University of Copenhagen. Jonas’ research is concerned with human dimensions of global climate change, land-use change, and how these issues open up for explorations around global-local interactions in an increasingly connected world. Jonas is also a Scientific Steering Committee member of the Global Land Programme.