The Ontario Potato Sector (OPS) represents a diverse mixture of small-, medium-and large-scale producers applying various production and farm management approaches which include conventional, organic and agroecological production systems. These produce potatoes for chipping, processing (chips, French fries, frozen goods), table (fresh) potatoes, and potatoes for seed. Additionally, the production of potatoes for potato starch is a small but emerging market. The different end use and consumption of potatoes will determine which variety is grown and which production system is required, which will in turn influence which markets channel a farmer can access to sell their products. For example, potatoes produced for chipping tend to be grown by large-scale, conventional producers, with some medium-scale conventional and organic farmers also supplying to this market. Because of the industrialized nature of the potato chipping process, and the buyers requirements, potatoes grown for chipping must be uniform in size and shape (to ensure consistency and suitability with mechanization), with specific sucrose and glucose levels (to optimize their ability to fry) which are developed and maintained after harvest using storage technology (including ventilation, CO2 and temperature regulation) (Kumar et al., 2004). Because of the industrialized nature of chip processing, chipping potato production favors economies of scale and the use of conventional, intensive farming methods, which are more readily accessible to farmers with greater access to capital, technology, and land. Because the majority of potatoes grown in Ontario are produced for chip processing using conventional farming methods, the sector is dominated by a small percentage of large-scale intensive operations (Agri-Food Canada, 2021).

Conversely, potatoes grown for table (fresh) consumption are produced by farmers of all sizes (large, medium, small) and production systems (conventional, organic, agroecological). Farmers may produce for large markets by selling their goods to wholesale distributors, or supply to smaller markets through restaurants or direct-to-consumers. Similarly, large, medium and small-scale farmers grow seed potatoes (tubers which are sold as seeds), but the percentage of cultivators is more limited with roughly 20 farms producing seed potatoes (Ontario Seed Potato Growers Association, 2023). There are also a small group of potato starch producers, but their number is unconfirmed as, unlike the Ontario seed potato growers (OSPGA), they do not have an association.

Government subsidies and protections for specific crops, liberalization of markets and privilege of free-trade mechanisms in the agri-food industry puts pressure on producers to engage in specialized production (Rotz and Fraser, 2015). Increased specialization has supported the rise and dominance of large-scale, industrialized agriculture (Bradshaw, 2004). Conventional potato production in Ontario is characterized and can be defined by large-scale, high-intensity production, Ontario’s potato production system depends on intensive substitution and input use (fossil fuels, agrichemicals, fuel); industrial, mechanized, standardized processes, and sale and distribution of goods to a small selection of corporate buyers (wholesale retailers, processors) (Campbell et al., 2014; Agri-Food Canada, 2021). Oriented around productivity and growth, conventional industrial agricultural systems, including but not limited to potato production, use technologies and economies of scale for efficient production of high quantities of food for local and global markets (Cloke et al., 2001). However, replacing natural systems functions with substitutions to address challenges (e.g., pests, weeds, soil fertility), and technocratic, industrialized processes have been linked to the propagation of more resistant and aggressive pests, soil and water contamination, and public health concerns (Kremen and Miles, 2012; Brzezina et al., 2016). In Canada and the United States, specialization and industrialization of most agricultural sectors has also been linked to rapid decline in crop diversity, which measures the value and range of functional traits within an ecosystem (Fragoso et al., 1997; Matson et al., 1997; Tilman, 1999; Tilman et al., 2001, 2002; Tscharntke et al., 2005; Plummer et al., 2008; Rotz and Fraser, 2015; Goswami et al., 2017). For potato producers, subsidies, long-term contracts (locking farmers into producing pre-determined varieties up to ten years in advance), and protections for specific crops make it more difficult for producers to change their crops or varieties, even in the face of climate and/or market volatility. Prevalence and severity of extreme weather events, droughts, flooding, pest and disease outbreaks (including Late Blight, alternaria, soft rots, botrytis and white mold, etc.) has increased nationally and internationally, so that farmers reliant on conventional applications or limited crop portfolios have been left struggling to maintain productivity and profitability amid changing climate conditions (Rotz and Fraser, 2015).

Small-and medium-sized, diversified, non-conventional producers do exist, but the consolidation of the OPS has led to a dramatic decrease in producers, from 243 farms in 2006, to 147 in 2016 (Agri-Food Canada, 2021). Rising land and production costs driven by urban encroachment and rising fuel costs have driven this consolidation as smaller, family farms became less viable under increased financial pressure (Eisenhauer and Mitchell, 2011; Blais et al., 2021). The sector’s orientation towards conventional and large-scale production threatens small-and medium-scale producers of all production approaches and decreases the likelikood of BMP adoption. The North American agri-food system is controlled by a small number of rich, transnational, oligopolistic corporations which are able to exert significant power over the market and control the value chain (Rotz and Fraser, 2015). By controlling markets, these corporations pressure producers to participate in value chains, and set specific standards or regulations for production which are a requirement for participation—whether or not it is beneficial to the producer (Fulponi, 2006; Karali et al., 2014; Rotz and Fraser, 2015). Smaller farms who are unable to meet corporate standards and regulations (due to lack of resources, time, capital) are then forced to sell their farms or leave the sector (Fulponi, 2006; Rotz and Fraser, 2015).

BMPs for sustainable production are associated with reduced chemical or inorganic fertilizer and pesticide use, agrobiodiversity stewardship, improved soil health and preservation of soil organic materials (Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, 2021). However, as a result of diverse contextual realities, in-situ challenges, and specific needs of individual farmers, there is variation and diversity associated with BMP use. Diverse geography, size, resource access and styles of production will influence which BMPs are best suited (Yiridoe et al., 2010). This paper considers the full array of BMPs, as defined and articulated by participant farmers, outlined by OMAFRA, and referenced by the OPB. These include reduction in chemical inputs (for economic efficiency, soil health, and human health benefits), diverse applications of cover crops and crop rotations to ensure constant soil coverage and reduce instances of erosion and nutrient loss caused by bare soils, reduced tillage to reduce GHG emissions and erosion caused by repeated soil disruption, and seed and varietal selection for climate suitability, pest or disease resistance, heartiness and consumer preferences.

This study applies a Systems Thinking (ST) approach to investigate interactions and links between actors and components in human, social and natural systems which produce emergent patterns, properties, and behaviors (Meadows, 1999; Levy et al., 2018). In the context of food systems, ST examines the widespread, complex, multifaceted, interconnected nature of food systems, to understand underlying, root causes of decision-making factors (Ha et al., 2016). A “system” as defined by Meadows (2008, p. 188) is a “set of elements that [are] coherently interconnected and organized in a way which produces a pattern of behaviors over time.” By exhibiting “emergent properties” or functions, this set of elements becomes greater than the sum of its parts, making it a system (Posthumus et al., 2018, p. 9). ST studies systems holistically and relationally (Monat and Gannon, 2015), to expose “leverage points for systemic change” (Posthumus et al., 2018) and find new approaches to complex problems (Hubert and Ison, 2017). Leveraging ST, this study identifies drivers and barriers influencing BMP uptake, demonstrating how macro-level structural, institutional and organizational barriers differently impact productive practices of potato producers, and highlighting leverage points for systemic change.

Research was conducted with small-, medium-and large-scale potato producers in five regions in Ontario, including: Dufferin County, County of Essex, Gray County, Simcoe County, and Timiskaming District. These regions were selected due to the higher number of potato producers located in these areas. While there are few potato producers operating in more northern districts in Ontario including the Muskoka and Sudbury area, the majority of producers are concentrated in the selected regions. Activities were supported with in-kind support by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), the Ontario Potato Board (OPB), the Ecological Farmers’ Association of Ontario (EFAO) and Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA). A Snowballing Approach was applied to leverage existing relationships with key stakeholders and informants in each farmer typology to identify additional participants. The Snowballing Approach is a method of recruitment whereby participants are engaged through reference from one person to another (Streeton et al., 2004), “quickly building up and enabling the researcher to approach participants with credibility from being sponsored by a named person” (Denscombe, 1997).

Farmers in South-Western and Central Ontario who grow potatoes (including processing [chips, French fries, frozen], fresh [table] consumption, seed) were eligible to participate. Farmers located outside of South-Western and Central Ontario, and those who do not grow potatoes were excluded from our study. Key stakeholders and informants were identified through consultation with our project partners and advisory committee. Identification and outreach to producers was facilitated through our contacts with EFAO, OSCIA and the OPB. Partnering with multiple and diverse farmer-associations contributed to increased scope and diversity of participation. In total, there are 147 potato producers registered with the OPB, the majority of which are located within South-Western and Central Ontario. For this reason, we consider our sample size to be 147.¹

A systematic literature review of five relevant databases (Web of Science, Google Scholar, CAB Direct, AGRICOLA, Agricultural and Environmental Science Collection) and jurisdictional scan of drivers at different levels (e.g., system, organizational, farm, and individual) was conducted to understand how decision making to adopt BMPs is influenced at international, Canadian, and provincial levels. The literature review covered diverse geographical contexts and jurisdictions, demography, and different social, economic and ecological systems to make available different indicators for developing the farm-level survey Ontario Potato Board Membership, 2024.

A farm-level survey was conducted to provide quantitative information about individual farm and farmer characteristics as well as information on management approaches. Questions were posed regarding respondent’s approaches to several aspects of on-farm management, including tillage, fertilizer and pesticide use, and irrigation. BMPs for sustainable agro-ecosystem management commonly identified in the literature focus on the reduction of agro-chemical inputs (Yiridoe et al., 2010; Novita and Ilsan, 2016; Babajani et al., 2023), reduced tillage (Weber and Alberta, 2017; Dessart et al., 2019; Djaman et al., 2022), water conservation (Shock et al., 2007; Miller, 2014; Liang et al., 2019; Government of Ontario, 2022), cover cropping, crop rotation and crop diversity (Dogliotti et al., 2006; Bijttebier et al., 2015; Dessart et al., 2019; Li et al., 2023). For this reason, additional questions were included to capture information regarding use of cover crops, crop rotation and fallowing. Data was also collected about key drivers of decision making and behavioral change. To ensure data reliability, the survey used established metrics and indicators, and followed a standardized and replicable questionnaire format. The survey represents a view of the farm and does not aggregate or integrate information in a causal model based on “average” or “typical” household behavior.

Surveys were distributed online using the survey platform Qualtrics, and in-person at farmer-organization meetings. Initial survey participants were contacted through the Ontario Potato Board and represent potato producers in the province who manage 5-acres or more of potatoes. Surveys were then distributed through the Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario (EFAO) and Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA) to farmers who self-identify as producers who grow potatoes (in addition to other crops) and who belong to or are associated with either or both the EFAO and OSCIA. The survey assessed respondents on a variety of variables including A) demographic information; B) farm characteristics; C) farm management; D) social network; E) perceived challenges and barriers.

Ethnographic data was collected over nine months (Spring 2022 – Winter 2023). Researchers attended three field days, five organizational gatherings, conducted two field-visits and hosted one workshop with students, farmers (conventional, organic, and agroecological), policymakers and other researchers. Out of 14 activities, eight were focused on conventional producers, and six were focused on organic and agroecological producers. Participant observation is a research method where the researcher is immersed in the day-to-day activities of participants, playing a role in a social setting while also taking notes, asking questions, observing, and analyzing (Guest et al., 2013). By taking part in activities and interacting with members of a community in an informal, non-academic way–while being forthcoming about our roles and the nature of our project–participant observation helps researchers to engage more deeply with the lived realities and embodied experiences of participants. Field-visit, field day and organizational gathering observations were recorded immediately after interaction between the research team and potato producers. Interview and workshop notes were recorded in a similar manner.

BMP demonstrations were held at farmer field days in Elora, Ontario by the University of Guelph (UofG), and Alliston, Ontario by the Ontario Potato Board (OPB) in 2022 and 2023. UofG hosted roughly 15 people per event, while the OPB field day hosted roughly 75 participants. Researchers participated in informal conservation and engagement with diverse individuals and groups at these events. Demonstrations were oriented around the use and adaptability of new varieties of potatoes, and on the application of machinery in-field to mitigate soil loss. These demonstrations were informed by current research conducted by the University of Guelph potato research lab, and current innovations being practiced by large-scale producers (in the case of the OPB event). Field visits were conducted in Simcoe County during peak potato harvest and included eight fields and one potato storage and processing site. The fields visited were illustrative of four distinct management approaches, and featured seven unique combinations of management approaches and crop variety.

Researchers attended four organizational meetings between November 2022 and March 2023. The Ontario Potato Board Annual General Meeting is held every December in Guelph, Ontario. There are roughly 100 people in attendance including board members, conventional medium and large-scale producers, researchers and policy makers from OMAFRA and agri-food Canada, and organizations sponsoring the event (agricultural banks, agro-chemical companies, seed distributors, farm machinery manufacturers). The OPB also hosts the Ontario Potato Conference every March with medium and large scale growers from various provinces. This event is attended by roughly 400 guests and features presentations and knowledge sharing, networking, and sponsored booths. In November, the Ecological Farmers’ Association of Canada (EFAO) hosts a series of ‘Regional Gatherings’ for small-scale producers operating in organic and agroecological production systems. This is not specific to potato production and hosts roughly 150 diverse growers from across Ontario. The Ontario Seed Potato Growers Association (OSPGA) hosts their yearly AGM every March in alignment with the OPB AGM because many of its members are also OPB members. The seed sector is much smaller and its membership is limited to 15 producers. Attendees at this event supply seed potatoes to producers across Canada.

A workshop was hosted at the University of Guelph in February 2023, featuring presentations and a panel discussion with three of our key informant farmers. Students, OMAFRA staff, farmers, and researchers were in attendance. The event focused on differences and similarities between farmers from three distinct production typologies (large-scale intensive conventional, medium-scale intensive organic, small-scale agroecological), examining possibilities for future collaboration between producers.

Discourse Analysis (DA) was applied to analyze study results. DA is used to analyze language use in context, including interview and focus groups transcripts, conversations, published and web-based literature, and videos (Hodge, 2017). Context will affect the general use of language, and its “situated meaning” (how it is being used) (Handford and Gee, 2013). DA looks at the general meaning or communicative purpose of a ‘form’ (word, phrase, piece of dialog) and the situated meaning (relationship between a forms’ literal meaning and the way that it is shaped, distorted, affected by context) (Handford and Gee, 2013). DA helps us to analyze contextual meanings of language by describing realities and evaluating them (Fairclough, 2013). Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) emphasizes the exploration of social realities and constraints that positively or negatively affect people to understand sources of inequality and how they can be addressed (Fairclough, 2013). Examining the meaning of the world through a particular perspective, CDA helps to understand underlying challenges impacting diverse farmer typologies based on their contextual realities.

Respondents’ age varied from 35 years (youngest) to 76 (oldest) with an average age of 55.5 years old, and gender skewed male (72%). Reported annual income ranged from $9,000 to $6,000,000, with anywhere from 0 to 90% of that being associated with potato production. The average farm size was 510 acres, ranging from 0.25 to 3,000 acres. All respondents reported owning at least some of their farmed land, and 58% reported renting additional land.

In conversation, participants repeatedly noted the lack of young farmers in the sector. This was associated by many with rising land costs and challenges faced by new entrants. In some cases, farm roles and responsibilities were demarcated by age with younger family members tasked with record keeping and data tracking. In other cases, these roles were more closely associated with gender, as many participants reported that their wives typically manage the bookkeeping or reporting. Proximity to markets emerged as a factor impacting income and economic capacity of farms. Smaller farms are more likely to be profitable when located closer to urban or peri-urban centers where their market and consumer base is located. Many producers noted increasing strain from the rising cost of land. Although most farmers we interacted with owned some agricultural land, many reflected that they were facing pressure from other farmers and developers to sell their property. Some participants pointed to rising land cost as a key driver of farmland consolidation, and many believed urban encroachment was also partially to blame.

To investigate use rates of BMPs, respondents were asked about the on-farm practices they employed, including use of organic or inorganic inputs (fertilizers, pesticide), tillage practices (conventional,² reduced,³ no-till), use of cover crops and use of crop rotations. As reflected in Figure 1, roughly one quarter of respondents reported using solely organic fertilizer (24%), while the remaining respondents used inorganic inputs in some capacity (all inorganic, mostly inorganic, half and half, mostly organic). Similarly in Figure 2, roughly one-quarter (28%) of respondents used solely organic pesticides, while the remaining 72% reported using inorganic in some capacity. The number of respondents using conventional tillage (39%) was similar to those using reduced (35%), while few respondents (9%) reported use of no-till practices. Conversely, cover cropping and crop rotation were almost ubiquitous. Three quarters (74%) of respondents reported using cover crops in some capacity and all respondents (100%) reported using crop rotation in some capacity.

In conversation with farmers, several large-scale producers reported that their agrochemical use was reduced from previous years (fertilizers, pesticides) for multiple reasons including the increased price of inputs, government and corporate regulations on pesticide and fertilizer use, and concerns about soil health. That being said, no large-scale producers we met with could be classified as organically certified. Feeling that chemical use was harmful to human health, medium-and small-scale organic producers replaced petroleum based fertilizers with compost, organic fertilizer and cover crops, and replaced chemical pesticides with biofumigants, commercial organic pesticides and integrated pest management⁴ (IPM) practices including 1–2 year rotations with cereals, selecting pest resistant varieties, spatial and temporal crop diversification, and regular surveillance and monitoring of pest incidence (VanderZaag, 2010; Barzman et al., 2015). These producers were more likely to report weed control as a challenge as there are few commercial organic herbicides approved for use in Canada. To mitigate weeds on organic farms, intensive tillage practices are common for potato producers. Tillage is associated with increased risk of erosion and poor soil health and requires the use of diesel-powered machinery which many felt contributed to increased greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Cover crops were widely used to mitigate the impacts of tillage and erosion, and to promote soil health and increased soil organic matter. Cover crops and crop rotation was common but used for diverse purposes (promoting pest control and biofumigation, weed control, improved soil filtration). Crop variety and length of rotation was determined by farm size, the identified purpose, and value of the non-potato crop for the farmer’s income. While the most diversity was observed amongst the small-scale farmer group, the use of Rye, Clover, Grass/Hay, Oats, and Radish were common across all typologies. As one farmer noted, “We do not have the luxury of more than a 2-year rotation of potato crop. We do not have that much land. So, if there’s no potatoes here, I do not have another crop here that I’m trying to profit from” (Potato farmer, Norfolk County). Many farmers told us that crop rotations are not always financially beneficial in the short term due to lost income from land being taken out of production or added cost for seeds or inputs (including irrigation); but they believe that they are a long-term investment in productivity, and that cover crops “pay for themselves in yield resiliency” (OMAFRA soil health specialist) (Figures 3–10).

To understand the social networking and knowledge sharing farmers participate in, eight questions were asked about the ways that farmers learn about management approaches, which farmers associations they have membership in, what their engagement with farmers associations and OMAFRA is, and how likely they are to trust information provided to them from the OPB or their peers. Trust is an important aspect of knowledge sharing, so it is important to understand which information sources are most trusted, which varies across farmer typologies. Large-scale farmers reported the most trust out of all three groups for the information provided by the OPB (80%), compared to Medium-scale (71%) and small-scale (62%). While based on survey results, Medium-scale respondents reported the highest trust in information from peers and neighbors (72%), compared to small-scale (61%) and large-scale producers (40%). Small-scale farmers’ reported similar membership or affiliation with farmers’ associations (52%) as medium-scale farmers (57%), while no large-scale farmers reported any affiliations. Out of all the associations listed, EFAO was most common.

The strength and importance of social networks between farmers in this sector was varied and reflected differences in farm size and management approach. While medium-scale farmers reported the highest degrees of trust in information from peers and neighbors (according to survey results), this was not echoed in qualitative observations, suggesting that this form of peer-to-peer learning may be a social expectation, but difficult to follow. For large- and medium-scale farmers, competition for land, market-share and resources emerged as a barrier impacting the likelihood of farmers to trust their peers and neighbors. One farmer advised, “farmers like to rubberneck. You do not ask what the neighbors are doing, you look as you are driving past their farm.” Producers feel cautious about sharing information with peers, potentially because of the threats posed by increased economic pressure and fears over consolidation of farms. As another farmer told us, “land prices create silos and competition for land is a real barrier to building bridges.” For small-scale producers however, social networks and inclusion and engagement in farmers’ associations including EFAO and OSCIA were more common amongst participants.

Regional farmers’ associations (including OPB, OSCIA, EFAO, OFA) help to facilitate networking and knowledge exchange between producers but these networks and exchanges differed between farmer typologies and associations. EFAO gatherings were largely attended by small-scale, organic and agroecological farmers including but not limited to potato producers who fell into the ‘organic’ and ‘agroecological’ subgroupings. This was reflected in our survey results where most small-scale farmers who reported affiliation with farmers’ organizations reported engagement and membership with the EFAO. OPB meetings were predominantly attended only by medium-and large-scale potato producers. Both organizational meetings offered networking and engagement opportunities, but because of the smaller, more informal style of the EFAO gatherings which the research team attended, attendees were encouraged to communicate and exchange knowledge, fostering iterative and active peer-to-peer learning. At the EFAO regional gathering, several participants reported the importance of learning from their peers and neighbors about ways to address common problems. The larger, more formal style of the OPB conference encouraged more unidirectional sharing of knowledge, from presenter to audience, with less chance for audience and peer engagement.

When asked which factors had the greatest impact on crop yield, respondents ranked their top choices out of list of options (disease, extreme / unpredictable weather, soil quality, water quality, erosion, pests, lack of adequate infrastructure, and lastly, access to capital) with Extreme / Unpredictable weather listed most commonly as the greatest concern (76%) and water quality as the least commonly cited (no respondents). Respondents were then asked to rank and select which issues most concerned them regarding their farming operation out of a list of options (Rising land prices, Maintaining / increasing crop yields, farm-income / market price of potatoes, energy and resource use, crop quality, weather / environmental change, price of external inputs). The most cited first choice was weather and environmental change (56%), followed by farm income and market price of potatoes (48%), with crop yields least commonly cited (24%). For one-quarter of respondents (24%), the choice to adopt certain practices was also influenced by start-up costs associated with BMPs. Similarly, one-quarter (24%) of respondents reported that compliance regulations including CanadaGAP requirements impacted their decision-making.

The degree to which certain challenges impacted different groups largely depended on the size, management approach, and location of the farm.

Efficiency and profitability were cross-cutting motivating drivers for most producers because farming is a business and businesses need to be profitable (Glover and Kusterer, 2016; FAO, 2020). Profitability is an important aspect of sustainability because farms must be financially viable to continue to produce. However, profitability can be measured in both short and/or long-term gain (Ikerd, 1990). When farmers act in terms of long-term profitability, multiple other decision-making factors must be considered. Discussing the financial benefits of cover crops, one participant noted that cover crops pay for themselves in yield resiliency. For this farmer, the upfront cost was worth it to ensure long-term sustainability and profitability. Another participant explained that in rotations with only field crops⁶ cover crops do not pay, but in vegetable rotation they do. The use of BMPs may involve financial risk, including high start-up costs, or the requirement to take a proportion of land out of production. For producers with tighter margins, the short-term cost for a long-term investment might not be feasible.

Family emerged as a strong motivating driver for farmers throughout the sector, but especially for medium-scale and large-scale producers. Because potato production in Ontario largely takes place on family-owned farms (with a few exceptions), you can see multiple generations working together. Many participants described working on the same land that their grandparents or great grandparents farmed on. In many cases, families immigrated from Europe (The Netherlands, Poland) and settled in Ontario. For these producers, their farms are deeply associated with their familial history, imbuing it with both economic and sentimental value. Connection to family through past and future generations drives the desire to maintain their farms, and to farm in a way that ensures its continued use. Soil health and productivity was discussed in reference to land’s carrying capacity–not only for their use, but also for their children and grandchildren. However, as farmland costs increase alongside urban encroachment, and the rising costs of production, farmers are faced with the choice of selling their land or maintaining a potentially economically unsustainable operation. One participant told us, “Farming is a passion. Some farmers do not want to give up their land for money. They want to keep farming for future generations.” However, there is no guarantee that the children of landowning farmers will decide to stay in the industry. Without children or family to inherit the farm, the choice to sell might be more appealing. For farmers with strong emotional and familial ties to the land they farm on, who have succession plans that pass their land tenure down to their children, sustainability is closely tied to family and future generations.

Farmers consider themselves to be stewards of their land, weighing the ecological damage of management approaches against other factors (e.g., cost, profitability, social implications). For many, ecosystem health is an important aspect of sustainability, but it is often the means to achieve other goals, including productivity (short or long-term). One producer explained, sustainability represents the ability of soil to continue to produce crops year-over-year which depends on the health of the ecosystem. Ecosystem health was often referenced in relation to soil health, measuring ecological decline or climate change in terms of the increasing threat of soil erosion or soil degradation. For many, soil health enables continuous production, and long-term soil quality may have short-term costs but long-term gains. Discussing cover crop use, one producer told us, “You’re always asking your soil to give, give, give. So, what if we give the soil a chance to have a rest and we give to it” (Potato farmer, Norfolk County). Many recognize the environmental impact of farming and aim to mitigate its negative externalities. However, they must balance economic realities with their personal values. One organic producer we spoke with described the trade-offs they make when balancing ecosystem health, asking “what are my values as a person? How am I going to make this work financially? Organic might not be the best fit, but it allows me to be a farmer while also caring for the environment in a fitting way.” Weighing risks and the rewards of different management approaches comes with a value assessment of ecological versus economic advantages.

Human health was a consideration for farmers using reduced or organic inputs who believe that reduced chemical exposure is important for the local community and the production system as a whole. When limiting chemical inputs, farmers must restore or amend nutrients in other ways and find alternative methods for pest and weed control (many of which come with their own trade-offs). As described above, reduced chemical herbicide use often involves increased tillage to control weeds (Colbach and Cordeau, 2022), forcing farmers to make decisions about which externalities they are comfortable with. Discussions of personal health are also tied to decisions about labor practices. As one organic producer told us, given the labor-intensive nature of organic production, it’s important to keep personal health and wellbeing in-mind to maintain the sustainability of production. For some, sustainability is a delicate balance between personal health, community health, and ecosystem health.

Some producers reported acting in the interest of their community. For many, “community” referred to the farming community within their region or within Ontario. For others, community was used more abstractly to describe the general population including consumers. Across farmer typologies, thinking and acting in terms of community was an important aspect of farming and several noted that farmers are likely to collaborate and support each other. “Farmers have to be a community, especially in rural and remote areas” one participant told us, noting that collaboration and community precedes competition. For large- and medium-scale farmers however, community was in conflict with challenges of competition. Related to this, several producers reported that building trusting relationships with other producers was difficult because of competition within the sector. One large-scale producer explained, “it’s hard to build bridges when we are all in competition. It’s easier once you are established, but harder when you are starting out.” Selling to the same markets, relying on a limited selection of buyers, large- and medium-scale farmers are less likely to share knowledge or best practices as compared to small-scale farmers. Amongst small-scale farmers, community and engagement with other farmers was strong. Participation in local farmers’ associations was important for sharing practical knowledge and addressing challenges collectively. With diversified consumers and market channels (selling direct to consumer through CSA programs, farmers markets, on-farm sales) small-scale farmers do not feel the same degree of direct competition between each other. This is important as small-scale producers do not have access to the same financial resources or capital of larger producers and so community support and collaboration is critical to address problems and remain viable.

Farmers operate within complex structures, institutions and organizations which may limit or increase their ability to act on their mental models of sustainability. A structure is a set of variables that are relatively stable over time, which affect the behavior of actors within it (Policonomics, 2012; Bosch et al., 2014). An institution is a “system of established and prevalent rules that structure social interactions” (Hodgson, 2006). These include laws, regulations, social norms, governing frameworks, and organizations (Hodgson, 2006). Whether a structure or institution acts as a driver or a barrier will be determined by a producers’ size, production approach, and market access; characteristics which are further determined by their access to financial resources, geographical location, beliefs and values, and social or organizational relationships. These factors influence the trade-offs and cost–benefit analyzes producers make when implementing management decisions. When considered alongside other factors including farm-typology (large-scale, medium-scale, small-scale) and motivational drivers, the impact of these barriers on the overall sustainability of the system can be unpredictable. Given the complex nature of these barriers, this study applies a systems thinking perspective to describe the feedback loops that characterize the relationships between each farmer typology, and to identify the differing structural, institutional and organizational influences they are impacted by which create barriers for their uptake of BMPs.

Within the medium-scale farmer subsystem, there were three institutional factors that were most highly influential on other factors. These were organic production (regulations, requirements), the intensity of their production, and their participation or access to mainstream markets. This is because market participation, whether mainstream or organic, is mediated by sets of rules, requirements from buyers, contracts, consumer preferences, and regulatory bodies. These institutional frameworks influence farmers access to capital, and the trade-offs in decision making they will make.

Medium-scale producers are diverse, including producers who supply to conventional and organic markets with varying financial resources, land, and market channels. Because they operate on less land than large farmers, medium-and small-scale producers can take advantage of a different set of opportunities, including producing potatoes for the organic market. Organic production is more labor intensive as certain processes associated with the management of weeds and pests cannot be mechanized (Sørensen et al., 2005), which makes these production systems more difficult to manage as farm sizes increase. Organic medium-scale farmers are subject to corporate regulations, including organic certification requirements which are costly and time consuming, however, they have access to higher value, niche markets which offer price premiums to offset the added costs associated with organic production and separates producers from mainstream markets where it is more difficult to outcompete larger farms (Loureiro and Hine, 2002).

Within the small-scale farmer subsystem, we identified structural and institutional factors as influential on decision making and BMP uptake. Niche market access was considered an institutional factor, as it is associated with a set of formal and informal rules and norms including consumer preferences which define goods and actors. Typically, on-farm diversity and income diversity is positively associated with niche market access as participation in niche-markets enables the sale of higher-value crops, which supports diverse production.

Small-scale farmers typically operate with fewer financial resources than large farms (Hoppe, 2010; Ebel, 2020), but more diversity was observed in styles of production (conventional, organic, agro-ecological). Limited productive capacity associated with less physical space impacts the markets and buyers that small-scale farmers will supply to. Supplying to agri-food processing companies such as PepsiCo and Super pufft, and retailers including Walmart and Loblaws is often not financially viable as regulatory requirements and contract stipulations demand economies of scale supported by expensive technology, machinery and infrastructure (Ebel, 2020). Chip production for example requires highly technical storage, testing, and quality assurance processes which many medium-and small-scale producers cannot afford.