Abstract
The main objectives of this report are to assess the extent to which it is possible to differentiate among the management system panels of ARGOS farms/orchards and to assess how such difference is manifest in the social dimensions of farm life. The report is framed by a brief outline of the social dynamics of agricultural sustainability and the emerging significance of market audit systems as a key structuring feature of contemporary attempts to achieve more sustainable production systems. The findings are presented separately for the kiwifruit and sheep/beef sector. The report concludes with recommendations for transdisciplinary engagement among the ARGOS objectives. Overall the current set of ARGOS social data for the kiwifruit sector suggests that, while there is great similarity among the panels, the Organic panel demonstrates the greatest number of distinctive characteristics. The assessment of difference among kiwifruit panels reflects survey results (six variables with statistically significant differences between the Organic and the other panels), qualitative data (more obviously distinctive characteristics attributed to the Organic panel) and causal map analysis (Organic orchardists listed a greater number of factors). The other surveyed data and the sketch maps do not show many panel differences. These kiwifruit results provided evidence of a number of key themes for which there was evidence of panel differences, including: breadth of view, good farming, environmental positioning, feedbacks, orchard management approaches, scope of control, and on- and off-farm relationships. While we have found that it is the Organic panel which is most distinctive, we also note that on some variables the Gold orchardists were closer to the Organic panel than the Kiwigreen panel (more double arrows and total connections in causal maps; a greater readiness to assume risk in the interviews). The sheep/beef results show that, once the many similarities among sheep/beef farmers are taken into account, the Organic panel again demonstrated several distinctive characteristics compared to the Conventional and Integrated panels. This assessment similarly reflects survey results (14 variables with statistically significant differences between the Organic and the other panels), qualitative data (distinctive response of Organic panel to several topics of enquiry) and causal map analysis (Organic farmers had a greater number of important factors). In addition, both the sketch map and the causal map data indicated that location explained some of the variation among farmers. The sheep/beef results provided evidence of a number of key themes for which there was evidence of panel differences, including: breadth of view, good farming, environmental positioning, feedbacks, on- and off-farm relationships, production system management and responses to innovation and risk. While we have found that it is the Organic panel which is most distinctive, we also note that on some variables the Integrated farmers were more similar to the Organic than the Conventional ones. Finally, the report interprets the findings in terms of their potential to differentiate the panels on the basis of social dimensions. While the literature shows at least 15 potential bases for social differentiation between panels, our results support 12 of these. Of these there is six (community; grower networks; craft orientation; sense of place; grower stress and wellbeing; identity) for which there evidence for subtle to moderate differentiation while the remaining six (commercial and economic orientation; learning and expertise; symbolic ‘look’ of the farmscape; indicators of on-farm processes; positioning towards nature/environment; farm management approaches) provide a stronger base for differentiation among panels. In its conclusion, the report identifies key indicated themes that have potential for transdisciplinary discussion, including: audit and market access, resilience, and intensification.