FARMING STYLES RESEARCH: THE STATE OF THE ART1

Jan Douwe van der Ploeg

1. the aims and lay-out of this paper
In this paper I will retell some fragments from the farming styles research tradition. I have
three reasons to do so. The first two are strongly related with the current conjuncture. There
is, currently, a re-emergence of deterministic views that very much stress the impact of
general, external pressures on agriculture, whilst simultaneously neglecting the importance
of responses that are generated at micro-level. This bias is probably due to the worldwide
crisis that seems to reduce, at first sight, everybody to impotence and passiveness. This
applies generally, but also, and maybe especially, to agriculture. Within this context, it is
relevant to reconsider the farm styles analysis. Major changes in agriculture have often
recurred during and after periods of crisis, as the result of initiatives and modifications at
grass root level2. Maybe in a period such as the present one farming styles research is
particularly relevant both theoretically and practically.
The second reason is intimately related to the first one, but merits a separate discussion.
Farming styles research is all about exploring and understanding heterogeneity, which is
considered to be an important asset since, among other things, it provides a wide range of
(potential) responses to uncertain futures. However, the main discourse that currently
dominates the debates about the future of farming and farmers claims that heterogeneity is of
no importance at all. It centres on proposals that imply a far reaching rupture with current
farming practices. The notion of mega-farms is an appropriate symbol here: mega-farms are,
in nearly all respects, a denial of farming as it presently exists. The notion of mega-farms
implies that existing farms, whatever their specific form, nature and dynamics, have no future.
Here again, I would argue, farming styles research is more than relevant: it is an invitation to
explore an agenda that is currently being neglected.
The third reason deals with inquiries into the past. Can farming styles research be used to
come to grips with historical trends and trajectories? Is it possible to disentangle the dialectics
of realities and the potentials they entail by considering historical situations? And what is the
usefulness of it? The response to this third question is, I think, also relevant to the first two
issues raised here.
In this paper I will briefly introduce the concept of farming styles. I will especially stress how
the concept has evolved over time and how is has subsequently been translated into a wider
set of themes and associated conceptualizations. Then I will move to the final question: can
we use farming styles analysis to address changes over time?

2. an empirical introduction: what are we talking about?

Let me introduce two neighbouring farms. They are dairy farms. Their acreage is more or less
the same, but total milk production differs greatly. One produces twice as much as the other
1

Keynote lecture for the Workshop on Historicising Farming Styles, to be held in Melk, Austria, 21-23 of
October, 2010
2
During the agrarian crisis of the 1880s the first cooperatives and cattle breeding syndicates were created.
Especially in the North of the Netherlands these were the outcome of peasant initiatives. Later one this kind of
response was followed in other areas as well. During the 1930s crisis the first foundations of what later became
corporatist agrarian policy were created through a deal between big arable farmers and their labourers.
Elsewhere it equally applies that everyday politics(Kerkvliet, 2009) are the cradle of major changes at national
level.

(800,000 vs. 400,000 kg). Both have just one man working. Milking is automated in the big
one, as is the feeding of concentrates. The architecture of the buildings also differs
considerably. The big farm has highly productive cattle (of the HF type): the average yield is
about 10,000 kg/cow/year. In comparison the smaller farm is, again, lagging behind (as
technicians would say). It has FH cattle which produce only some 7,000 kg/cow/year. Yet,
remarkably, the income earned is exactly the same on these two farms. For many years the
biggest one was thought to be the best one: better prepared for the future. However, during the
current crisis it is, unexpectedly, the smallest one that is better able to resist the adverse
conditions. Its income is positive, albeit low. The larger one has a negative income3.
For many outsiders this might represent a grotesque situation. For insiders, though, it might
be quite familiar4. The two farms differ not only in magnitude but in a wide range of small,
but mutually interdependent differences5. Together these differences create a meaningful and
significant contrast. The style of these two farms, the way is which they are composed and
operated, differs. In turn, the interactions between these styles and the (changing) context in
which they are embedded has unexpected consequences.
Figure 1 illustrates dominant thinking in the late 1960s. Although there was some diversity
(illustrated here with two dimensions, i.e. intensity of farming and scale of farming; the data
are derived from a representative sample of dairy farms), it was generally assumed that farms
would jump, in the years to come, to a new optimum or disappear. Consequently, agrarian
policy was shaped in order to stimulate, if not to create, this jump to large, modern farms.
Fig. 1. Diversity and the contours of the modernization project, 1969

To avoid misunderstandings (possibly provoked by this example), farming styles research is not in favour of
small farms (nor against them). It observes that small farms are often operated in ways that differ from the way
that large farms are run. Their style is different. As Hofstee argued: the biggest mistake a small farmer can make
is try to farm like a big farmer.
4
As a matter of fact, I have used in this example the data of two experimental farms that were created on
purpose for an extended comparative research program at the National Livestock Station in Lelystad. These two
farms (a low cost farm and a high tech farm) were modeled to reflect the differences between the style of
farming economically and the style of vanguard farming. I will come back to this example further on in this text.
5
The interdependence of many small differences implies, in the first place, that many dimensions might be used
in order to distinguish them. Scale and intensity could be used. But grassland use and longevity, or identity and
gender-relations (of historical development pattern and religion) could be used as well (or at least be tested).
Secondly, some differences might be so meaningful within the chain of mutually interdependent differences that
they can stand out as logo for the style as a whole. Here the cattle breed (FH versus HF) could probably be
used in this way.

Figure 2 is based on a representative sample in 1981. It shows that in the 1969-1981 period
there was no single process of convergence (as assumed in the late 1960s). Instead, the
empirical farm development trajectories differed considerably. Instead of convergence there
was divergence. The two farms referred to here above could well have been part of this
panorama. The big farm made indeed a considerable jump in terms of scale, intensity and
total volume of production, whilst the smaller one realized a modest and step-by-step
development.
Fig. 2. Empirical development trajectories in the 19691981 period.

Figure 2 might also be read as indication of how one and the same set of parameters (related
to markets, technological development and agrarian policy) have been interpreted and
actively translated into different courses of action. These reflect different farming styles, just
as they result in a further development of these styles thus contributing to the overall
heterogeneity.

3. What are farming styles? A theoretical introduction.

As such the definition of a farming style should be straightforward. A style of farming simply
is a specific way of farming6. It is a distinctive and valid way of farming that is shared by a
large group of farmers7. It is farming structured (or ordered) in a specific way8 that might be
6

However, things seldom are as simple as they appear to be at first sight. Simple definitions often raise many
new questions. One of the issues left open in this first, simple, definition is how many styles there are (in a
particular area, in a particular epoch, etc). Does every farm entail a specific style (as echoed in the title of a
publication about a well known Friesian breeder: De stijl van de fokstal Knol). Is it an individual attribute? Or
does it refer more to an aggregated phenomenon? That is, does it represent the expression of group behaviour?
And if so, how are such groups identified and delineated? Our initial position here was that a style is shared by a
somewhat larger group of farmers. It represents communality.
7
But then, what is valid supposed to imply? By whom and how it is to be defined? When are we talking about a
large group? How is it constituted? What makes it into a group in the first place? And what are the specific
distinctions between groups? Here one has to take into account that from the 1960s onwards agrarian sciences
and agricultural policies increasingly provided answers but these were answers that were only partly shared (or
not shared at all) by farmers. In this respect farming styles research might be located in the tradition of actororiented research (Long, 2001); it aimed to explore the points of view of farmers themselves.

distinguished from contrasting styles. In our first publication on farm styles we specified the
notion of farming styles by referring to the different opinions on how farming ought to be
organized and to the associated differences in the practice of farming (van der Ploeg and
Roep, 1990:1). Thus, the concept referred, right from the beginning, to both the normative and
the material dimension of farming understanding the latter, to a degree, as an expression and
as reaffirmation of the former9. Together, different styles of farming make for, and explain,
the often very large heterogeneity of farming that can be found within particular settings10.
Thus, a farming style is a specific pattern for tying together land, labour, cattle, machines,
networks, knowledge, expectations and activities; this is done in a goal oriented,
knowledgeable and coherent way11. It is a particular pattern for combining, using and further
developing agrarian resources, both social and material ones. These features have been
highlighted also in several studies of agrarian historians from Wageningen. In other words, a
farming style is a particular mode for patterning the social and the material worlds in a
coherent and self sustaining way. It is, in short, an organized flow of activities through time.
Whilst todays agricultural sciences strongly tend towards the definition of one single
optimum (mostly commonly defined by using economic and technological parameters),
farming styles illustrate the social construction of a wider range of mutually contrasting
optima. In this respect they reflect the everyday life wisdom (or tacit knowledge) that there
are more roads than are leading to Rome.
8

Later on we came to define a farming style more as a particular mode of ordering. In this respect we followed
especially Law, 1994..
9
At that time, this was an important delineation between the then dominant theoretical positions (basically
stemming from neo-classical economics) that focused on farm types and entrepreneurial behaviour. In Roep,
van der Ploeg and Leeuwis (1991:3) we specified that farm styles are distinctive social practices that are
dynamic, partly rooted in history and which embrace both the material and the symbolic dimensions. We
explicitly stated that farming styles is not about individuals(op. cit., page 4). This still leaves open how styles
(as distinctive social practices) might be distinguished and delineated. In subsequent publications (from 1990
onwards) we strongly stressed the element of self classification (see also Leeuwis, 1993)
10
Particular settings meant, in the beginning, particular research settings (e.g. dairy farming in the central peat
area of Holland or mixed farming on the Eastern sandy soils). Later on (and by building on far more empirical
evidence) we could generalize this to spaces that are homogeneous in as far as ecological conditions, resource
endowments, relative factor prices, institutional constraints, technological opportunities and access are equal for
all farmers. This was theoretically important in order to go beyond existing but shortcoming explanations of
diversity in farming. By focusing on farming styles as social practices of knowledgeable and goal-oriented actors
an important line of demarcation could be constructed vis--vis reigning forms of determinism (The Virtual
Farmer is explicit on this). Farming styles research shows that under ceteris paribus conditions there is, time and
again, a considerable and often highly relevant diversity. Quite often this diversity contains promising elements
that allow for new solutions, new trajectories and new institutional arrangements. Later on this point of view
translated into research on endogenous development, novelties and strategic niche management (van der Ploeg
and Long, 1994; van der Ploeg and van Dijk, 1995; Wiskerke and van der Ploeg, 2004; Milone, 2009)
11
This description anticipates one of the most used methods of analysis, i.e. factor analysis (or principal
component analysis, canonical correlation techniques, etc) which explores patterns of coherence that underlie
complex patterns of co-variation. Cluster analysis has equally been applied. Whenever extended series of
agronomic and/or economic data were available, applied modeling has been applied as well, rendering style
specific models that come close to differentiated patterns of co-production: each model is characterized by own
style-specific key variables, style-specific interrelations and style-specific parameters. Later on, colleagues of the
Dutch Farm Accountancy Bureau (LEI) applied fuzzy logic techniques to better represent overlap, combinations
and frontiers. Linear Programming (LP) as developed in agricultural economics has also widely been used, often
in combination with (differentiated) scenario-studies. In Italy farming styles analysis has been combined with
research among butchers (identifying specific styles for meat processing) and consumers (equally identifying
styles among consumers). In a subsequent step the three levels were combined in order to assess different filieri,
i.e. different patterns that interlink production, processing, marketing and consumption in a specific way. This
has recently been repeated with large surveys among farmers, rural dwellers and citizens living in the big cities;
this research is exploring social definitions of the quality of life and (differentiated) mechanisms that are
operated to enlarge this quality of life.

In textbox 1 I have summarized three more formal definitions that have been elaborated, over
time, by our research group. They reflect that, indeed, a style of farming is a concept that can
be defined (and illustrated) from various points of view as I argued some 16 years ago
(1994:17). In this respect the continuously evolving practices in agriculture itself, the
changing views (of a theoretical and socio-political nature) about farming and agriculture and,
more specifically, the locus and focus of farming styles research itself, are all important. I will
comment shortly on these features and then come back to some of the commonalities and
continuities that underly the different definitions.

Textbox 1: some formalized definitions of farming styles

[Born from Within, 1994:18]. First, farming styles represent a specific [] discourse.
Second, [they] entail a specific structuration of the labour process, of the organization of time
and space [] and consequently farming styles result in a particular organization of the
process of production []. Thirdly, styles of farming represent specific connections between
economic, social, political, ecological and technological dimensions.
[The Virtual Farmer, 2003:101]: A farming style is, generally, a mode of ordering: a
systematic and continuous attempt to create congruence within [and between] those domains
in which farmers and their families have to operate.
[And, on page 111]: A farming style can be defined (and researched) at [four] interconnected
levels.
1. A farming style is a coherent set of strategic notions about the way in which farming
should be practiced. It is therefore a particular cultural repertoire. It is a mode of
ordering: a coherent set of strategic notions that guide practical actions and informs
farmers judgments. [] It is a decision-making model; it enables calculation []
2. A farming style also appears as a particular practice: as an internally consistent,
congruous, way of farming. The structure and the internal coherence of this practice is
informed (structured) by the cultural repertoire []
3. The [particular] practice has to be realized through the integration of (or through the
distantiation from) other projects, other modes of ordering [like those of e.g. dairy
industry, banks and different state apparatuses]. [Consequently, a style of farming also
translates into a particular set of relations, i.e.] a socio-technical network, a particular
interweaving of divergent projects. More precisely, a farming style can be defined as a
set of particular relations between markets and technology supply on the one hand,
and farming on the other.
4. [W]hen market ordering and technology policy are explicit parts of a governments
agricultural policies, we can conceptualise farming styles as strategic positions vis-vis government policy.
[In synthesis], a farming style is a systematic and constant attempt to create congruence; at the
individual level, but above all between the various levels.
[The New Peasantries, 2008:136]: [Farming styles are] patterns of coherence underlying
[the] heterogeneity that exists in [] agricultural systems [.] These styles represent the
material, relational and symbolic outcomes of strategically ordered flows through time. Taken
together, they make up a richly chequered range that extends from different forms of peasant
agriculture, via highly complex combinations, to different expressions of entrepreneurial
agriculture.

Farming styles research is very much a product of the specificities of the time and space
allocations in which it is embedded. This is illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3: the concept of farming style as being affected by the circumstances that gave
birth to it
Historical
antecedents
Growing body of
empirical evidence

Locus and focus

(intentions)

Farming style as
specific way of
farming

Some notes on historical antecedents

The original definition, elaborated by Hofstee (1946), the founding father of agrarian
sociology at Wageningen, stressed the dimensions of culture and locality. According to
Hofstee, a style of farming is the complex but integrated set of notions, norms, blocks of
knowledge, experiences, etc., that describe the way farming practices are carried out; they
specify the architecture of farm buildings, the lay-out of the fields, the social division of
labour, etc. Such notions and norms are shared by a group of farmers in a specific region (as
has been further elaborated in French research that centres on groupements professionel
local). In line with the empirical reality of the pre WW2 period, Hofstee equated farming
styles to local cultural patterns. Hence, farming styles definitely had a regional delineation:
they were regional styles. These regional styles of farming were understood as historically
constructed responses to local eco-systems, regional relationships between town and
countryside, regional trading patterns, etc. That is, the regional styles constituted historically
constructed responses to the structuring principles within which farming was embedded at
that time. A range of historical studies (amongst these Hofstee, 1985) has confirmed this point
of view.
In the post WW2 period new structuring principles, particularly those of markets and
technology, became dominant. Markets evolved from being basically regional, albeit
interconnected constellations towards one general European market (which later on dissolved
into the global market): price levels tend to be the same everywhere, and the same trends and
expectations came to reign everywhere. The same was also true of technology: the initial
richness of regional solutions (see also Medici, 1952; Dumont, 1970) was replaced by one,
rather, universal pattern. Consequently, farming styles have become intra-regional responses,
developed by farmers to technology and markets. For instance, the style of farming
economically (characterized by low external input use, low dependence on credit, highly
efficient use of internal resources and skill oriented technologies) can be encountered as much
in Friesland (van der Ploeg, 2000) as it can in Galicia (Domnguez Garcia, 2007), Ireland

(Kinsella et al., 2002), South Africa (Averbeke and Mohamed, 2006), Cameroon
(Steenhuijsen Piters, 1995 and Zuiderwijk, 1998) or Equador (Paredes, 2010).
Locus and focus
Farming styles research very much reflects the specific context (i.e. locus) in which it is
generated. It also reflects the specific focus of the research group (for an extended discussion
see van der Ploeg, Laurent et al, 2009). In our case it is clear that farming styles research very
much reflected the specificities of the Netherlands which has a highly modernized agricultural
sector and an ecology and farming population that could relatively easy be regimented (up
until a certain point at least). We can also be clear about our focus: we wanted to show that
the dynamics of Dutch agriculture went far beyond the induced entrepreneurial approach and
that building upon these multiple dynamics could be highly beneficial not only for farmers
but for society at large. Both locus and focus made our approach into a specific one; it is not a
universally applicable method (as e.g. Vanclay et al, 1998 assumed), although the underlying
position (rejecting the notion of agriculture as a Cartesian theatre determined by the laws of
technology and markets and considering it, instead, as a social construction) is valid
everywhere.
A growing body of empirical evidence
In the late 1980s and the first half of the 1990s our research team engaged in a wide range of
empirical inquiries that resulted in an extensive series of publications on farming styles. The
different research projects quite often involved close cooperation with local and regional
farmers unions, regional authorities, extension services and others, such as institutions for
landscape management and environmental policy. The specific topics changed (from breeding
strategies to ammonia emissions and womens role in farming), but in the end this proved
that the focus on strategically constructed patterns of coherence was highly useful not only for
understanding agriculture, but also for intervening in it.
At precisely this point an important dilemma emerged, whilst an initial error started to have
considerable impact. The dilemma centred on the question of the usefulness of the farming
styles approach. Institutions operating at a national level (especially the Ministry of
Agriculture, the national farmers union and the corporate Landbouwschap) tended to
consider farming styles as a (potential and alternative) classification scheme that would
(potentially) yield a clear and unequivocal delineation of specific groups, each of which could
(potentially) be assigned a specific role and place. This would allow for considerable control
at a distance. Yet such approach would be completely at odds with the way most farmers
used the outcomes of farming styles analysis, i.e. as a denial and rejection of the reigning (and
very restrictive) schemes of classification (basically ordered in terms of stayers and losers,
or valid and non-valid enterprises). At precisely this point one of the weaknesses of our
approach came to the fore: we had strongly personalized the names (the etiquettes) of the
different styles by talking about cowmen instead of the style of fine tuning or economical
farmers instead of the style of farming economically (in this respect we followed the
everyday language of the countryside and, to a degree, the schemes of self-classification used
by farmers). Be it as it is, in retrospect it would have been better to have used verbs instead of
nouns (Law, 1994). This would have been more in line with our own position, that the
usefulness of the farming styles approach for policy, interventions and programmes for
change resides in the possibility to use the different styles as an extended set of design
principles. These could have been used very well for the elaboration of new, more inclusive
policies and the development of programmes that were far more grounded in the differential

dynamics of agriculture as a whole. This was shown in several instances, including the rise of
the first environmental co-operatives (Stuiver and Wiskerke, 2004), the first schemes for
farmers management of nature and landscape, the initial schemes for the accountancy and
reduction of N-emissions at farm level (the MINAS approach) and the systematic comparison
between two experimental farms I referred to here before. On the whole, however, the
national farmers unions, as well as the Ministry of Agriculture, tended towards centralized,
standardized and increasingly exclusive policies, whilst the initial deviations (mentioned
before) were largely eliminated or marginalized. At the same time, farming styles research
increasingly developed into a critique of the reigning expert-system and the associated forms
of intervention.
In synthesis: with the growing body of evidence (that was more or less formalized with the
completion of several PhD theses), the farming styles approach was moved to the margin at
least within dominant political and scientific schemes. In practice, however, it helped to
strengthen new ways forward that until then had remained more or less hidden within the
overall heterogeneity of farming. It is probably telling that the farming styles research group
was the first that clearly described (and theoretically explained) the newly emerging rural
development practices even before this concept was en vogue. Farming styles research also
contributed, I think, to the consolidation and growing weight of the style of farming
economically. In short, its practical impact probably was quite significant, whilst it was
marginalized at the level of the predominant theoretical discourses.

4. The evolving debate: main topics and results

Probably as a consequence of this contradictory relation, the farming styles approach was
increasingly translated to new domains (see also Figure 4). One new line of research focused
on the (re-)moulding of resources into specific entities that together compose a specific and
highly efficient resource base. Co-production is a key word here. It describes the ongoing
interaction of man and living nature (or more generally the social and the material worlds)
that results in the ongoing transformation of both (see e.g. Gerritsen, 2002; Swagemaker et al,
2007). Novelties play an important role within co-production: these are new practices, new
insights, new artefacts, reshaped resources or whatever, that carry the promise of an improved
performance. Novelties emerge out of the ongoing interaction of man and living nature but
are, as yet, not well understood. Consequently it is difficult to make them travel to other
places and other times. Thus, strategic niche management becomes central the niche being
the place were novelties are allowed (or stimulated) to germinate and to be actively developed
and tested (see Wiskerke and van der Ploeg, 2004).
Resources (both natural and social ones) are also central to a second line of research: on
endogenous development especially, but not exclusively, in marginal areas. Endogenous
development builds especially on locally available resources and it contains a guiding model
that centres on the local (see e.g. Ventura, 1995 and Ventura and Milone, 2005). This research
was carried out at the European level (including countries like Portugal, Spain, Italy and
Ireland). The return to farming as a social praxis (and to farming styles as localized actornetworks) is as important in this second line of research as it is in the research that focused on
co-production and the creation of novelties.
Taken together, and strongly stimulated by the interest in new trends and activities, these two
lines disembarked, as it were, in a third line of research on rural development. Rural
development was seen as an outcome of farmers innovativeness (i.e. resulting out of novelty
production) and understood as being strongly rooted in specific styles, and helping to create
and develop new styles (characterized by new forms of multifunctionality and embedded in
8

new networks). (Broekhuizen et al, 1997; Ploeg et al, 2002). An intriguing point is that these
studies show how culture and region reappear in farming as social practice.
Finally, a new line of reflection emerged (which in turn was strongly rooted in previous
farming styles research and the different translations that later followed). This fourth line
represented an intent to revitalize the peasant debate (Ploeg et al, 2000; Ploeg, 2008; Ploeg,
2010). Concerning both the substance of the matter (the nature of family farming) and the
method (longitudinal studies), this fourth line might be interpreted as an outcome of an
inquiry into the longue dure. The lines that interlink, regardless of all changes, the past,
present and future of farming, are central here. This of course raises the question whether such
long term trends are researchable when oral history is not possible anymore (or when required
data are lacking).
Figure 4: Translating farming styles into new fields of interest

Farming styles: theory

and practice
Co-production, the
malleability of
resources and
novelty production

The revival of the

peasant debate;
repeasantization

Endogenous
development; the
regional level

Rural development;
multifunctionality;
territorial cooperatives

6. Can farming styles analysis address change over time?

As indicated before, farming styles might be viewed as actively organized flows through time.
This implies both continuity and change. Some flows might increase, others will decrease.
Consequently, the interrelations will change, sometimes abruptly. Flows might be redirected.
Some will be strengthened, others will be marginalized: they will lose the space (Halamska,
2004) that they require.
These changes might be due to a multiplicity of reasons and stem from different and multiple
sources. Cultural repertoires might change as a consequence of wider societal changes12; the

12

An example of this is the general, although far from completed, readjustment of gender relations in society at
large. Through a myriad of mechanisms this general change translated into the agricultural sector as well,
redefining important parts of different cultural repertoires. In turn this has triggered a strengthening of the style
of farming economically (because farm women are very opposed to the high levels of indebtedness, heavy
workload and stress associated with vanguard farming). It also strongly supported the emergence of
multifunctionality (which in practice meant that farm women often could create their own domain within the

overall conditions within which farming operates might change, thus generating processes of
selection13 and triggering new responses. Finally, within each single style there will be a
series of ongoing adaptations and improvements. In short: talking about farming styles is
identical to talking about often highly complex and strongly differentiated processes of
change over time.
It needs to be stressed that styles of farming do not change overnight. The social and,
especially, the natural resources have been moulded and combined in a way that makes abrupt
changes very difficult to achieve and often highly counterproductive. Fields have been
shaped, over the decades, into a particular phenoforms (Sonneveld, 2004.) that need to be
dealt with in a specific way. Equally, cattle have been bred and selected in order to make for
specific animals that have specific qualities and which require specific conditions (Groen et
al., 1993). They require specific feed and fodder from specific fields, just as they produce a
specific quality of manure (Reijs, 2007) that is to be used in a specific way on specifically
moulded fields (Verhoeven et al, 2003). Together, these interrelations have a specific
environmental impact, and provide specific income (Groot, et al., 2006). Farming styles
resist radical changes14, just as they imply style-specific trajectories for change.
Having said this, it is nonetheless possible to identify different possibilities for historical
research within a farming style perspective. Hofstees work is, in this respect, illustrative. He
used the ratio of arable land to pasture land in the province of Groningen as a logo for
major changes in the cultural repertoire of farmers (Hofstee, 1985)15. We later replicated this,
using the distribution of cubicle sheds through time and space as a logo for the massive, albeit
highly differentiated modernization of Dutch dairy farming in the 1960-1985 period. The
identification of an adequate logo is, of course, crucial in this kind of approach. It is also
important to take into account that the very meaning of such a logo might change over time.
Artefacts such as cubicle sheds, for instance, might be adapted and re-integrated into
alternative frameworks.
This kind of approach is especially interesting when the gradual shift from regional styles
towards intra-regional ones is the main object of research.
When abundant statistical material (standardized farm descriptions for instance) are available,
a lot of other possibilities emerge. These might centre on the differential development of a
wider range of styles and the emergence of new ones. This is, according to the preliminary
findings of some ongoing work in Wageningen, probably a highly interesting and relevant,
albeit extremely difficult field of research. Agricultural development is nearly always thought
in linear terms. Such a perception, however, might very well be the outcome of
straightforward comparisons of average situations from different years e.g. every year there
farm enterprise as a whole). These interrelations are documented in de Rooij (1992),de Rooij et al (1995); Bock
(1998) and Bock and de Rooij (2000).
13
With the tightening of the squeeze on agriculture (and especially with the liberalization and globalization of
agricultural and food markets) it increasingly became clear that highly specialized, large-scale and quickly
expanding farms proved to be (against all expectations) extremely vulnerable, whilst the style of farming
economically turned out to be more resistant and better equipped to face the new conditions of extreme
austerity and high turbulence. This implies new patterns of selection. At the same time, the same conditions spur
the development of multifunctionality: with ever more endeavours being made to link farming to new, more
promising markets.
14
One important exception should be made. In vanguard farming the history of the farm enterprise is becoming
less and less important. Here farm development follows a path of actively organized ruptures (jumps as
indicated in Figure 1).
15
Later on, Priester (1991) developed a critique of this approach.

10

are less farms, the remaining farms are growing, hence scale-enlargement is the natural or
structural trend: small farms disappear, large farms keep growing). Behind the thus resulting
image there very well might be far more differentiated, and probably cyclical trends (e.g.
small farms are growing to medium sized farms; some medium sized expand to large farms
after which the next generation sells the large farm and land, quota, etc. are used by smaller
farms to grow again). The availability of (or the possibility to construct) constant samples is a
crucial requirement here.
At this juncture I think that historical research on how farmers responded to previous periods
of crisis are particularly relevant. It can show the specific responses made to completely new
circumstances, and which strategies were effective and successful. This should not necessarily
to be restricted to the major crises of the 1880s and the 1930s. The aftermath of dramatic
events (like FMD) or abrupt re-adjustment programs (such as the early processes of
liberalization in Australia and New Zealand) might be included as well. Comparative analysis
could prove to be very effective. More generally, I propose that the unequal, but combined,
processes of variation and selection (that together make for the complex and continuously
changing morphology of farming) are seriously studied in order to prepare for the difficult
decades ahead. This is an important task and challenge for historians.

11

References16
Averbeke, W. van and S.S. Mohamed (2006), Smallholder farming styles and development
policy in South Africa: the case of Dzindi Irrigation Scheme, Agrekon 45 (2) (2006), pp. 136
157
Bock, B.(1998) Vrouwen en vernieuwing van landbouw en platteland: de kloof tussen praktijk
en beleid in Nederland en andere Europese landen, Studies van Landbouw en Platteland, 27,
LUW, Wageningen
Bock, B.B. and Rooij, S.J.G. de (2000) Social Exclusion of smallholders and women
smallholders in Dutch agriculture; final national report for the EU project: Causes and
mechanisms of social exclusion of women smallholders, WUR, Wageningen
Domnguez Garca, M.D.(2007), The way you do, it matters. A case study: farming
economically in Galaician dairy agroecosystems in the context of a cooperative, Ph.D.,
Wageningen University, Wageningen
Dumont, R., 1970. Types of Rural Economy: Studies in World Agriculture, [s.n.], London
Gerritsen, P.R.W. (2002), Diversity at Stake: a farmers' perspective on biodiversity and
conservation in western Mexico, Circle for Rural European Studies, Wageningen University,
Wageningen
Groen, A.F., K. De Groot, J.D. Van der Ploeg and D. Roep (1993), Stijlvol fokken, een
orienterende studie naar de relatie tussen sociaal-economische verscheidenheid en
bedrijfsspecifieke fokdoeldefinitie, Bedrijfsstijlenstudie no.9, Vakgroep Veefokkerij en
Vakgroep Rurale Sociologie, Landbouwuniversiteit, Wageningen (1993).
Groot Jeroen C.J., Walter Rossing & Egbert Lantinga (2006), Evolution of Farm
Management, Nitrogen Efficiency and Economic Performance of Dairy Farms Reducing
External Inputs, to be submitted to Livestock Production Science).
Halamska, Maria (2004), A different end of the peasants, in: Polish Sociological Review
3(147)04, pp. 205-268
Hofstee,E.W. (1946), Over de oorzaken van de verscheidenheid in de Nederlandse
landbouwgebieden, Rijksunversiteit Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (1946).
Hofstee, E.W. (1985), Groningen van grasland naar bouwland, 1750-1930, PUDOC,
Wageningen
Kerkvliet, Ben (2009), Everyday politics in peasant societies (and ours), JPS, 36: 1, 227-243

Kinsella, J., P. Bogue, J. Mannion and S. Wilson (2002), Farming economically: cost
reduction for small-scale dairy farms in County Clare, pp149-162, in: J.D. van der Ploeg, A.
Long and J. Banks (2002), Living Countrysides: rural development processes in Europe, the
state of art, Elsevier EBI, Doetinchem
16

I have tried to refer as much as possible to English language publications in order to help colleagues from
elsewhere. However, some key publications are in Dutch or other languages.

12

Law, J. (1994), Organizing Modernity, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford

Leeuwis, C. (1993), Of Computers, Myths and Modelling: the social construction of diversity,
knowledge, information and communication technologies in Dutch horticulture and
agricultural extension. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands
Long, N. (2001), Development Sociology: Actor Perspectives, Routledge, London
Medici, G. di (1952), Italy, Agricultural Aspects, Il Mulino, Bologna (1952).
Milone, Pierluigi (2009), Agriculture in Transition: a neo-institutional analysis, Royal van
Gorcum, Assen
Paredes, M. (2010), Farming styles, potato production and pesticide use in Ccarchi, Equador,
PhD manuscript, Wageningen University, Wageningen
Ploeg, J.D. van der (1994), Styles of Farming: an Introductory Note on Cncepts and
Methodology, pp 7- 30 in: J.D. van der Ploeg and A. Long, Born from within: practice and
perspectives of endogenous rural development, Royal van Gorcum, Assen
Ploeg, J.D. van der (2000), Revitalizing agriculture: farming economically as starting ground
for rural development, pp 497-511, in: Sociologia Ruralis, Special Issue on The SocioEconomic Impact of Rural Development: Realities and Potentials, Vol 40, no 4 (October
2000).
Ploeg, J.D. van der (2003), The Virtual Farmer: past, presence and future of the Dutch
peasantry, Royal Van Gorcum, Assen
Ploeg, J.D. van der (2008), The New Peasantries: struggles for autonomy and sustainability in
an era of empire and globalization, Eartscan, London
Ploeg, J.D. van der (2010), The Peasantries of the Twenty-First Century: the
Commoditisation Debate revisited in: The Journal of Peasant Studies, 2010, Vol 37, no 1, pp
1-30
.
Ploeg, J.D. van der and D. Roep (1990), Bedrijfsstijlen in de Zuidhollandse
veenweidegebieden: nieuwe perspectieven voor beleid en belangenbehartiging,
Landbouwuniversiteit, Wageningen
Ploeg, J.D. van der and A. Long (1994), Born from within: practice and perspectives of
endogenous rural development, Van Gorcum, Assen
Ploeg, J.D. van der and G. van Dijk (1995), Beyond modernization: the impact of endogenous
rural development, Van Gorcum, Assen
Broekhuizen, R. van, L. Klep, H. Oostindie and J.D. van der Ploeg (1997), Renewing the
countryside: an atlas with two hundred examples from Dutch rural society, Misset Publishers,
Doetinchem.

13

Ploeg, J.D. van der, Henk Renting, Gianluca Brunori, Karlheinz Knickel, Joe Mannion, Terry
Marsden, Kees de Roest, Eduardo Sevilla Guzman and Flamina Ventura (2000),
Rural development: from practices and policies towards theory, in Sociologia
Ruralis, Vol 40, numero 4, Octubre 2000, pp 391-408.
Ploeg, J.D. van der, A. Long and J. Banks (2002), Living Countrysides; rural development
processes in Europe: the state of the art, Elsevier, EBI, Doetinchem
Ploeg, J.D. van der, C. Laurent, F. Blondeau and P. Bonnafous (2009), Farm diversity,
classification schemes and multifunctionality, pp 124-131 in: Journal of Environmental
management, Vol 90, suppl. 2.
Priester, P. (1991), De economische ontwikkeling van de landbouw in Groningen, 1800-1910,
PHD manuscript, Landbouwuniversiteit, Wageningen
Reijs, J. (2007) Improving slurry by diet adjustments: a novelty to reduce N losses from
grassland based dairy farms, PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen
Roep, D, J.D. van der Ploeg and C. Leeuwis (1991), Zicht op Duurzaamheid en kontinuiteit:
Bedrijfsstijlen in de Acherhoek, Landbouwuniversiteit, Wageningen
Rooij, Sabine de (1992), Werk van de Tweede Soort: boerinnen in de melkveehouderij, Van
Gorcum, Assen
Rooij, Sabine de, Elly Brouwer and Rudolf van Broekhuizen (1995), Agrarische vrouwen en
bedrijfsontwikkeling, LUW/WLTO, Wageningen
Sonneveld, M.P.W.(2004), Impressions of Interactions: Land as a Dynamic Result of CoProduction between Man and Nature. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen.
Steenhuijsen Piters, Bart de (1995), Diversity of fields and farmers: explaining yield
variations in northern Cameroon, Agricultural University, Wageningen
Stuiver, M. and J.S.C. Wiskerke (2004), The VEL & VANLA environmental co-operatives as
a niche for sustainable development, pp119-148, in: Wiskerke, J.S.C. and J.D. van der Ploeg
eds., Seeds of transition: essays on novelty creation, niches and regimes in agriculture, Assen,
Van Gorcum;
Swagemakers, Paul, Han Wiskerke and Jan Douwe van der Ploeg (2007), Linking birds, fields
and farmers, in: Landscape and Urban Planning, Special Issue
Vanclay, F., L. Mesiti and P. Howden (1998), Styles of farming and farming subcultures:
appropriate concepts for Australian rural sociology?, Rural Society 8 (1998), pp. 57160.
Ventura, Flaminia (1995), Styles of Beef Cattle Breeding and Resource Use Efficiency in
Umbria, in: J.D. van der Ploeg and G. van Dijk (eds), Beyond Modernization, the impact of
endogenous rural development, Van Gorcum, Assen, 1995

14

Ventura, Flaminia and Pierluigi Milone (2005), Traiettorie di Sviluppo: il sostegno a modelli
di sviluppo endogeno: dallesperienza del distretto viti-vinicolo di Montefalco alla
valorizzazione dellarea della Valnerina,, CESAR, Assisi
Verhoeven, Frank P.M., Joan W. Reijs and Jan Douwe van der Ploeg (2003), Re-balancing
soil-plant-animal interactions: towards reduction of nitrogen losses, in: NJAS, Vol.51, nr. 1-2
(sept. 2003), pp 147-164
Wiskerke, Johannes S.C. and Jan Douwe van der Ploeg (2004), Seeds of Transition: Essays
on novelty production, niches and regimes in agriculture, Royal Van Gorcum, Assen.
Zuiderwijk, Adrie (1998), farming gently, farming fast: migration, incorporation and
agricultural change in the Mandara mountains of Northern Cameroon, CLM, Leiden

15