Does instrumentalization of “organic farming” lead to enhancement or dissolution? - A case study of the local dissemination processes of organic farming

Egon Noe

Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Dep. of Agroecology, Research Centre Foulum, 
PO Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark. 

Telephone: +45  8999 1207. Fax: +45 8999 1200. E-mail: Egon.Noe[a]agrsci.dk
Abstract. 
The dissemination of “organic farming” is a topic of great attention as a measure to environmental regulation, high value food production, etc. and the Danish case of organic agriculture is generally regarded as a success story. The prevailing strategy of the Danish organic movement has been to mobilise non-organic actors in the dissemination of the ‘organic mode of farming’. A strategy that is embedded in a dogmatic belief that the ‘internal conversion’ in terms of values, ideas and thinking almost automatically will follow the ‘external conversion’ into the ‘organic mode’ of farming according to the rules. In this paper farmers’ network-strategy to disseminate organic farming is explored through a longitudinal case study within a local area with a high density of organic farmers. Through farmers narratives it is explored how farmers were mobilised into the network, how they contributed to mobilise conventional farmers, advisors and other actors into the network of organic farming, and finally if the dogma of symmetry between the external and internal conversion can be sustained or not. Three phases of network-building was revealed: 1) the pioneer phase dominated by actors that is not belonging to the mainstreams of agriculture, 2) the enrolment phase, where local conventional actors are mobilised into the organic network, and. 3) the non-connection phase, where farmers converting to the organic mode of farming no longer necessarily are enrolled in the organic network and where the conventional agricultural networks have adopted organic farming as a concept into the conventional network strategies. The farmers’ narratives partly confirm the dogma of coherence between the external and internal conversion process, but reject any mechanistic connection between the two processes, and add to a much more complex sociological under standing of these conversion processes. The push and pull into organic networks, due to the facing of social and technical risk, may be stronger explanation of the internal conversion process than the technical changes in the farming practice. In the non-connection phase there are no forces of pull and push of the farmers into the social and technical network relations of organic farming. The revealed scenario is that the non-connected conventional actors will, in numbers, dominate organic farming but not contribute to reproduce organic farming as an alternative development of agriculture. 

Keywords: Organic farming, dissemination, self-organisation, actor network  
Introduction
The dissemination of “organic farming” is a topic of great attention from many different perspectives, e.g. from a an environmental point of view to disseminate a more eventually friendly farming practice (Pugliese, 2001) and from a policy view because organic farming represents an alternative mode of regulation, in terms of voluntary schemes and involvement of the market forces (Michelsen, 2001)  
The Danish case is generally regarded as a success story in the dissemination of organic agriculture. From 1994 to 2000, the total number of organic farmers increased by a factor 2.5 - from 677 to 1,617. During the same period, the size of organic farmland increased by a factor 3 (Danish Plant Directorate, 2001). Characteristic of the development of organic agriculture in Denmark is the early enrolment of the main actors from the conventional agricultural arena (Michelsen, 1996 & 2001; Noe and Stoye, 2000; Lynggaard, 2001). So, from an institutional point of view the organic movement has been successful in forming an institutional interrelationship with the institutions within the conventional agriculture sector in what Lynggaard (2001) calls a creative conflict situation. From a regulatory perspective Danish organic agriculture is regarded as a successful case of self-regulation. Michelsen (2001) finds that there have been few serious offences against the public regulation of organic farming compared to e.g. the top-down introduced IP-label of integrated pest management, where up to 25% of the farmers were deprived
If organic farming is approached from an instrumental point of view, as a certain mode of production prescribed by rules and secured by control, it is not a problem if the organic mode of farming is disseminated solely as technical matter of production. But perhaps this instrumental approach overlooks some of the important aspects of what makes organic farming interesting to an instrumental view in the first place, such as the alternative discourse, the values, the alternative food network, the consumers perceptions. The instrumentalization of organic agriculture as a political means to push agriculture towards environmental conservationism threatens the broader objectives of the organic movement to work for a sustainable alternative of agriculture (Tovey, 1997).
As Lynggaard refers to, there has been a strong dissemination strategy within the organic movement in Denmark. A strategy that builds on a dogmatic belief in an almost mechanistic coherence between the mode of production (following the rules of organic farming) and the values and ideas and organic way of thinking, described as an internal conversion following a the external conversion. If one first start to follow the organic rules one will soon start to think in a very different way as a farmer (Noe, 1999 and Østergaard, 1998). 
If this is the case, the Danish dissemination strategy makes sense, if only actors are involved in organic food production they will also be mobilised into the ideas, values and thinking of organic farming. Michelsen finds evidence that this so in his questionnaire in 1998. The newly converted organic farmers hold almost the same degree of affiliation towards the organic values, formulated by the Danish organic organisation, as the old ones.  Empirical studies exploring the dissemination of organic agriculture in a European context from a local network strategy perspective (Assouline and Just, 2000) gives a somewhat other picture of this dissemination process. So despite the positive picture of the Danish case given above, there may be reasons to review the instrumental point view on organic agriculture. 
In this paper I will present a case study, based on the farmers narratives, of farmers network strategy to disseminate organic farming in a local area with many farmers converted to organic farming through the 1990’ties. This study is conducted as a part of larger EU-project (Assouline and Just, 2000). Through the farmers’ and local advisors’ narratives it is explored how they were mobilised into the organic mode of farming, how it has influenced their way of thinking, and involvement in the organic network, the role of other actors, and whether the dogma of symmetry between the external and internal conversion can be sustained or not. 
Development and dissemination of organic farming in the Lemvig area 
History and description of the local organic network
During the 90s, a growing number of dairy farmers in the western area of the municipality of Lemvig converted to organic farming. In 1991, three farmers converted to organic farming. In 1995, 12 dairy farmers had converted. At that period the MD dairy coop (now Arla) was offering 15% extra pay for the milk delivered in the conversion period to stimulate the conversion process due to a growing market demand of organic milk (Michelsen, 1996). A joint mechanisation coop was established within the group of organic farmers. In the beginning, growing of potatoes was the main objective, but soon other machines for organic growing were included in the joint mechanisation project. This network was enlarged with two farmers in 1997. In 1999, another three farmers converted, but they are not likely to integrate in the local organic network. 
All the organic farmers of the area have their main income from milk production. The age of the farmers varies from 34 to 60 years. The farm sizes vary from 40 to 140 dairy cows. Three of the farmers are organised in the Danish Family Farmers’ Association while the others are organised in the Danish Farmers’ Union. They are all using the local advisory service office for dairy farming, which is operated in a co-operation between the two unions. Five of the farmers are delivering the milk to Thise Dairy - a small organic co-op dairy with 44 suppliers. The other farmers deliver their milk to the national (now multinational) dairy coop MD Foods. 
Interviews
In 1996, one of the early converted organic farmers; two of the newly converted farmers and three advisors from the cattle advisory office were interviewed in a pilot study of the network group. Two of the farmers and two of the advisors were re-interviewed in 1999 together with six other farmers from the group. Furthermore, three farmers about to convert were interviewed. All interviews were conducted on the farmer's place as qualitative, semi-structured interviews. The interviews lasted from 1½ to 2½ hours and were tape-recorded for further collation. Based on information from advisors and initially interviewed farmers the farmers chosen for the interviews were selected to represent the different views and perspectives of the network group. 
The farmers' strategies in relation to the organic network
The first three farmers did not know each other before they converted to organic farming in 1991, but after their conversion, their network relation was enhanced, primarily through the engagement in the Thise Dairy. Two of the farmers became active in the board of the Thise Dairy coop, and one of them a chairman in the period from 1992 to 1999. 
The pioneer spirit was characteristic to both of the farmers interviewed; they claimed not to be afraid to differ from other farmers and that they liked the image of being a pioneer.
“It [organic farming] was something new and exiting and it has never bothered me to be a little different from other farmers. Among other things, we have been milking three times a day… Therefore, what people say and think when I try something new has never bothered me. In a way I like it”. (K_T)
Both farmers expressed their wish to prove to conventional colleagues that it was technically and economically possible to run the farm organically, to disseminate the organic mode of farming, and through this to spread the values and ideas of organic agriculture. Their strategy was to stay in their socio-technical network relations, except for what concerned the dairy. They continued to use the same advisors, although knowledge of these advisors about organic farming was very limited at that moment. As they argue, to demonstrate to them that it is possible to farm organically. They both stayed within the same farmers study groups (cow clubs), although many of the subjects of their meetings were less relevant for organic farming. In co-operation with the local advisory centre, open farm visits for farmers in the area were organised.
This strategy was successful. In the interview with farmers converted in 1995, the 1992 organic farmers are time and again referred to as good examples and ambassadors for organic farming. Firstly, they have demonstrated that it is technically possible and profitable to run a dairy farm organically and thereby reduced the other farmers’ perception of risk related to the conversion process. Secondly, they have demythologized organic agriculture as a flower power organisation, connected with long hair, woollen sweaters and dirty, messy farms. The 1992 organic farmers had become respected for their skills as dairy farmers and were easy and attractive to identify with. The demythologization had made it more socially acceptable among conventional farmers to convert to organic farming. 
“Already when A_N and K_T started to convert in1991… already at that time I began to consider it. They have been very good ambassadors... I did not know them very well, but I knew where they lived and I could come his way. (P_B)
… Then we have been a bit impressed by the organic farmers who were here beforehand; their farms look as nice as the others do… “ (J_C)
Another important general initiating factor identified through the interviews with the 1995 organic farmers was a rising questioning of the conventional way of farming, especially to the use of pesticides. One farmer had been poisoned during his work on a farm in Canada 20 years ago and had had problems with headaches ever since. Other farmers explained that they found it increasingly unpleasant to use pesticides. They felt that they were not very good at it, that the wind was often blowing too strongly close to the West Coast making it very difficult to hit the right weather-conditions. Moreover, they felt that the rest of the society looked down upon them and they felt lousy sitting on the tractor with a sprayer. As one farmer expressed this feeling: 
Honestly, if MD [Foods] had not offered 15% extra in the conversion period, we would not have had the courage to do it. But I have always felt very bad about using the sprayer. I am sick and tired of it, probably because I have never been too good at it (J_C)
The local advisory office ”Kvægbrug Nordvest” catalyzed the network building. After MD’s offer in 1994, many farmers asked the advisors to estimate the technical and economic consequences of a conversion to organic farming. This rising interest made the advisors at the “Kvægbrug Nordvest” organize an introduction course to organic farming. At the course, the technical and economic aspect of organic farming was discussed and the old organic farmers were invited to tell about their experiences. The organizer of the course explained that he had a clear feeling afterwards that either almost all or a very few of the farmers indeed would convert. Several farmers stressed the importance of being one of a group and the fact that among the farmers there were highly respected and skilful ones. As one of the farmers explained this factor:
“…Then the neighbour effect has played a major role. When more people dare and one can support each other it makes it much easier… 
And later in the interview:
… It is a group of ordinary farmers; a very broad group of both trend setter and some not so, hem... – like the rest of the agriculture… But there may well be six trend setters within the group, where you can say, when they dare we do as well - farmers we do look a bit up to.” (J_C) 
The farmers recognise themselves as a group of normal and skilful farmers like their conventional colleagues. This links to an important aspect of the network strategy of the farmers, that they strive to keep the social and technical relationship with their conventional colleagues. This strategy seems to go both ways, the local farmers' unions make a great effort to include the organic farming in the conventional organisations. No one seems to wish a splitting within the local farmers’ organisation. As one organic farmer expressed it:
“I am a member of a cow club and we are three organic farmers now. At the time when we converted, we were asked if we would not join the club any more. The very fact that we still care about each other as dairy farmers is important. It has become so that pig farming is one thing and dairy farming something different. Now we are not going to split so that organic farming and conventional farming is something different. We must be careful to keep the things we have in common. I do respect my colleagues fully as I always did.” (J_C)
In 1997, two additional dairy farmers converted to organic farming. These farmers both became integrated in the local socio-technical organic network, although one of them more loosely. The two farmers linked the situation between the 1995 and the 1999 converters. One of the farmers holds the same attitude as the 1995 converters. He is very satisfied to have converted. He felt like a criminal, when he was spraying, and that the rest of the society looked down on him. Like the organic farmers from 1995, he also explained that he is getting more and more orientated towards the organic ideas and values after the conversion. On the other hand, he also explained that he does not want to be in the front, he likes others to do the first experiences. When he saw how well they managed technically and economically around him, he was not afraid to make the decision of converting. He is now an active member of the joint mechanisation coop and is especially interested in the new equipment for maize growing. 
“In 1997, we converted when we had seen that the other farmers had managed for two years. I had been thinking about it, but I did not really trust the consumers in 1995, even if the dairy offered the 15%. … I wanted the other farmers to make some experiences first – try it out before I made the decision. … It has given me a better sense of self-esteem. All the time, I got the feeling that people looked down on me when I drove out with the sprayer. It is a great relief to get rid of the sprayer…. In the beginning, the money made us convert. But gradually, as we see it is practicable, we become more and more organic in our hearts.” (E_K)
The other farmer (at an age of about 60) states that the decision of the conversion was linked to the economic aspects only and not to any criticism of conventional farming. He, too, had made some calculations in 1995, but at that moment he did not find it profitable. The decision was linked to the building of a new loose-housing stable and the possibility to get subsidies (objective 5b area). In his opinion, the biggest risk of growing organically is the risk of not being able to control the weeds with pesticides. He admits that he becomes more and more organic as time goes by. He is a member of the joint mechanisation but only for a very limited number of machines. He subscribes for a weed harrow, but due to his crop rotation it is only for a very limited usage. 
“I did some calculations already in 1995, when MD came up with the offer of 15% already in the conversion period. At that time, there were no calculations that could show that it was profitable. Then in 1997 it proved that there was really some money in it. At that time we were trapped in a treadmill. It was difficult to get anyone to take care of the cows in a tie-up cowshed, and we could get objective 5b means to build a new stable if we converted to organic farming.” (A_L)
This strong economical attitude to organic farming was also general for the three farmers who were converting in 1999. In the local discourse among the dairy farmers, the attitude towards organic agriculture seems to have changed over the period. Profit and market demands have become valid arguments for conversion among conventional and the latest converted organic farmers, who claim that they find no problems with the conventional way of farming and thus do not se any other reason for growing organically than the extra profit. 
“What made you convert to organic farming?
Krone and øre (pounds and pence). I don’t believe we use too much fertilizer or pesticides, at least not within dairy farming. It is expensive and we do not use more than we are allowed to. 
Have you had any connection with the organic farmers? 
Not directly, but we have been talking to them like everybody else.” (N_L)
According to the newly converted farmers themselves, they are not likely to be enrolled in the local organic network. It is also difficult to see any motivation for these farmers for doing it. The necessary knowledge about organic dairy farming is disseminated to the other farmers through the cow clubs and the advisory centre. They are managing large farms of more that 100 dairy cows and prefer to have their own equipment. Due to the strategy of the earlier converted organic farmers they meet each other through the existing networks and they find no other arguments for joining the network. 
The strategies of the surrounding actors in relation to the project
The Thise Dairy coop seems to play two roles in relation to the dissemination of organic agriculture and the development of the network. Firstly, Thise Dairy was the only possible market outlet for organic milk for these farmers in 1992. Secondly, Thise Dairy strengthened the pioneer spirit and commitment of the involved farmers. The Government supported organic farming economically, but the market was difficult (Oldrup and Just, 2000). In the beginning, Thise Dairy coop was thus struggling to find a lucrative market and thereby pay the farmer a competitive price for the milk. For a period, the farmers were not paid more for the organic milk than MD paid for conventional milk. According to the farmers, that created a fighter spirit among the members. They proved willing to sacrifice economically for a period to sustain their ideas and values.
Thise Dairy did also indirectly play a role in the network building. The initiation of the joint mechanisation coop came from the members of Thise. The commitment and idealism of the dairy has a strong affect on the farmers’ commitment in the network building. As one of the farmers explains it:
“I did want to join Thise because there was an idealism I could not resist - an idealism I still meet there. Because there your are burning for the ideas. I am still pleased to belong to a small dairy. It is something with the ideas of the co-operative movement.” (P_B)
MD Food coop did undoubtedly play a central role in the initiation of the conversion wave by offering the 15% extra for the milk in the conversion period. In 1994, one of the large supermarket chains started a campaign to sell more organic products and the organic market demand suddenly exploded (Michelsen, 1996). MD’s offer was both a short-term economic motivation for a conversion and a long-term signal that MD Foods believed in a future market for organic products.
The strategy of MD Foods had also played an important role for the network and the dissemination processes after 1996. In 1999, the conflicts between organic and conventional farmers changed character from an ideological to an economic conflict, and this conflict is enhanced by the strategy of MD. There is no transparency in the accounting of organic and conventional milk, at least to the local farmers, and due to an overproduction of organic milk at present, farmers may experience that conventional and organic milk is mixed in the milk tank of the lorry right at the farm. Knowing that the organic farmers are paid 20% more, it is easy for the conventional farmers to figure out who is paying to whom. And when the price of the conventional milk goes down it is a basis of conflict between the conventional and organic farmers. At the same time, it is a strong signal to the farmers that the organic market for milk products is saturated. 
Due to their positive attitude towards the organic way of farming the advisors at the “Kvægbrug Nordvest” played an important role in the second phase of the dissemination of organic farming, but initially they were not minded for organic farming. As one of the advisors explained it: 
“They [the 1992 organic farmers] have been good pioneers; they did not missionize, but were good advocates of the organic farming. Through their farming results, they have proved to me that it is possible to run a dairy farm organically.” P_E
From the achieved production results the advisors of the office have realised that the most skilful dairy farmers of areas with harmony between herd and farmland could easily and profitable convert to organic farming. Therefore, they have started to study the rules and ideas of organic farming and to increase their knowledge about the organic production form. 
The explicit strategy of the advisors towards the farmers was to focus on the technical and economic aspect of organic farming only and leave the discussion of the ideas and values of organic farming to the farmers. Because of this strategy, they have managed to keep the confidence of both the organic and conventional farmers.
“My point of departure has been the technical and economic aspect, but the mental conversion will come, too; the ideology will come gradually. I call them pragmatic. They go into it with a professional, pragmatic attitude”. (P_E)
The farmers were recommended to convert to organic farming from a pure economic reasoning. The model presented by the office was to combine the conversion with the building of a new loose stable for about 110-120 cows, financed by the support of the objective 5b means, to which the conversion gives access, a model that fits in on three of the five farms that have converted after 1997. As one of the farmers said about the leading advisor of the office: 
He tells us every time: Convert now! There is money to get there! (A_L)
Finally organic advising has become a competitive factor between the two unions. 
“So much has happened now that the farmers unions have become interested in organic farming, too. They are standing on each other’s necks to hire an organic advisor and I think they will hire one at all places in the end.” (P_B)
This competition among the farmers unions about the potential service market of organic agriculture does show how conventional agriculture is coping with organic farming within its own network strategy. The discourse of organic agriculture has been reformulated to be a niche production and a question of consumers' demands, and thereby possible to include in the existing discourse of the unions.
Risk, conversion and cohesion 
From the farmers’ narratives we can identify that they are preserving tree different types of risk that they are facing in the situation of converting, which can be labelled as technical, economical and social risk. The technical risk is about knowledge and control, by giving up the possibility to spray and fertilise. The economical risk was primary about whether they would be able to sell their organic products to a necessary higher prise, and what would happens to the organic marked in the longer run.  The social risk is about social exclusion of the social network, with neighbours and colleagues, with the children in the school etc.
The social risk of conversion was an important element of the networking strategy of the farmers during the conversion process in 1994. The technical risk of conversion was somewhat eliminated by the examples of the old organic farmers and by the commitment of the advisory centre. The economic risk was minimised by MD’s offer of 15% extra pay in the conversion period, which, at the same time, was a clear signal to the farmers that MD-Food believed in the future of the organic market. However, the social risk remained. Contrary to the 1992-organic farmers, who claim that they were not afraid to be regarded as different, many of the 1995-converters identified themselves very strongly with the other conventional dairy farmers, and they identified themselves as belonging to the local socio-technical network of dairy farmers. Several farmers stressed the importance of being a group of farmers who took the decision simultaneously. One of the farmers gave a very clear description of the significance of the social risk – the strength of the social group and the fear of social control, mobbing and exclusion:
“But it took a while before I could convince my wife about it, it is somewhat opposite to what I have heard from others. I have been considering it for a long time, and it took some time before I involved her. She definitely did not like it because she was afraid that friends and neighbours should ostracize us. And our neighbours and friends have disappointed us once in a while. Our children were bullied for it in the school. I find that difficult to think about, because those children did not make that up themselves. The worst thing is that some people are so keen on slating organic agriculture that their children shall know it to tease our children. And they are people we know very well. I am in the cow club with the man, and we are invited to each other’s parties.” (P_B) 
In 1999, the social risk had been diminished. The organic mode of farming had become widely accepted among the conventional farmers. This elimination of risk made it easier to make the decision to convert to the organic mode of farming, but was, on the other hand, weakening the cohesive forces of the organic networking. A general impression, when speaking with farmers, is that the local organic network has come to a critical point as an innovative network. From the beginning, some farmers got the idea that the network could be the foundation of a more formalised learning group, but the motivation for that is very limited now. For most farmers the conversion has been much easier than expected, and technically and economically they have managed quite well. 
“We are not good at joining the arrangements, especially not the 95-organic farmers. We have now been organic farmers for a long time. They [the farms] are running incredibly well and many of the farmers stay too much at home, I think. The enthusiasm from the first years is not so strong anymore, probably because you do not meet the adversity anymore. You know action begets reaction. If we meet some resistance from the conventional farmers, it is easier for us to stick together. But you can say that is a luxury problem”. (P_B)
From an analytical point of view, new ideas and goals seems to be needed to sustain the network. The network was formed around the project of converting to organic farming in order to reduce the technical, economic, and social risks. Later, the network was consolidated by the enthusiasm of the new converters and a their exploration of the organic values and ideas. The joint mechanisation coop is a visible outcome of this networking strategy. However, the actors of the network are not linked by initial social or cultural factors, and there are no problems or outside pressure to keep the group together anymore. Furthermore, the individual strategy of the farmers is to maintain their old network relationships. Nothing will automatically stick the group together except for new ideas and projects. 
Three phases
The narratives of the network give the outlines to three phases in the network building (figure 1). The first phase, the pioneer phase, is characterised by a non-local and not mainstreams agricultural network building. This phase culminated in the early 90s. Farmers converting in this phase were facing both a great technical, economic, and social risk, and they all sought a strong connection to the organic networks for marketing, knowledge exchange, and social relation. Typical for the group was the pioneer spirit, not afraid of being different from the others.
The second phase was characterised by the enrolment of local conventional actors within the organic network. The local pioneers have demonstrated the technical and economic competitiveness of the organic mode of producing and the local advisors had been enrolled into the advising of organic farming. In 1994-95, the technical and economic risk had been reduced considerably due to the technical experiences of the pioneer farmers and to the growing market demand expressed in a favourable contract with a big dairy coop. What still remained was the perception of a social risk due to their disconnection from the socio-technical networks of conventional farming. In both cases new intermediaries were involved in the networking process as e.g. joint mechanisation and co-operative processing, in the first case, and marketing in the other. 
The third phase can be characterised as the non-connection phase. Newly converted farmers were no longer necessarily enrolled in any organic network. The conventional agricultural networks had fully adopted the notion of organic farming into the narratives of conventional farming in terms of ‘niche production’ and ‘food quality’. Accepted by conventional farmers, the social risk from a conversion had been delimited and the decision of converting argued purely for economic reasons by some of the farmers. Furthermore, the translation of the notion of organic farming into the narratives of the conventional agricultural networks meant that all the necessary network relation of the organic mode of farming, such as marketing, processing, knowledge, purchasing, control, etc. could be obtained through conventional agricultural networks and institutions. This meant that the newly converted farmers were not attracted or forced to being involved with the group of earlier converted organic farmers to the same degree as earlier. 
[Figure one about here]

The farmers’ narratives on one hand confirm the dogma of coherence between external and internal conversion process, but on the other hand the case also reject the dogma of a mechanistic connection between the two processes, and add to a much more complex sociological under standing of these conversion processes. Due to the different kind of risk the early converting farmers was facing in the pioneer phases there have been a strong pull and push of the farmers into the social and technical network relations of organic farming, forces that all disappears in the non-connection phase. The push and pull into organic networks, due to the facing of social and technical risk, may be an even stronger explanation of the internal conversion process than the technical changes in the farming practice. 
Discussion  
The conducted case study reveals that we, at the local level, can find the same strategy to disseminate organic farming through mobilisation of and cooperation with non-organic actors, that Lynggaard describes as the creative conflict strategy at the institutional level. The instrumentalization approach is not exclusive for the external actors but also shared among the organic actors. Due to their desire to disseminate the organic mode of farming, the key actors of the organic network have contributed to the translation and acceptance of the idea of organic farming into the conventional networks. Similar translation processes are also described in a case study from the Southern Jutland (Oldrup, 2000). This translation process created a bridge between the organic and conventional farmers and facilitated the process of conventional farmers converting to organic farming. 
There is no doubt that this strategy had been crucial for the success of the dissemination process of the organic mode of farming in Denmark, both at local and institutional level. In the case study explored, the number of farmers converted to organic farming would probably have been limited if the non-organic actors and networks had not been enrolled and had not enrolled organic farming into their strategies. We also find this pragmatic strategy of the organic networks in the Dutch cases (Wiskerke, 1997; Wiskerke and Oerlemans, 2000). Other scenarios can be described in countries such as Belgium (Lynggaard, 2001), France (Assouline et. al. 2000), and Latvia (Tisenkopf and Sumane, 2000), where the organic and conventional networks remain more in opposition to each other, both at a local and at an institutional level, mirroring a much smaller share of organic farming (Michelsen, 2001). 
The case study reveals also the other side of the coin that the internal conversion process will not automatically follows the involvement in the organic mode of food production/consumption, and that, in the end of the day, this instrumentalization strategy may lead to a devaluation of organic farming as an instrument. 
The case study leads to an understanding that the connection between organic farming, dissemination and instrumentalization has to be understood as a very complex matter, including technical, biological, economical and social aspects. An understanding that needs to build on a more comprehensive idea of what makes organic farming an interesting instrument in e.g. policy and marketing. 
This raises a deeper epistemological question of how to understand and observe this complexity. There are numerous ways of observing organic farming, reflecting the range of disciplines like biology, agronomy, economy, sociology, and political science. But within the single disciplines there are also different ways to view organic farming, e.g. as a social movement, alternative food networks, rules and values, a certain practice, a discourse, an alternative paradigm. The perspectives are numerous and each perspective observes some aspects of organic farming, and operates with its own notion of organic agriculture as an entity. The different perspectives are often more competitive than additional to one another towards a holistic picture.
 Whether these perspectives are right or wrong is an impossible discussion, because each perspective has its own right. To get a wider grip of what makes organic farming interesting from a dissemination perspective we need to include many of these views in a transdisciplinary framework (Alrøe and Kristensen, 2002). A first condition for such transdisciplinary framework is a shared understanding of ‘organic farming’ as phenomenon that goes beyond the definition by each discipline. Our suggestion is to combine Luhmann’s theory of social systems as self-referential and self-organising with Actor-Network theory (ANT) to grasp the very heterogeneous character of organic farming produced and reproduced through numerous heterogeneous operations (Noe and Alrøe, forthcoming a and b).  
In this context organic farming is a case of special interest, because it holds a polyocular and decentralised view on itself as an entity. There are no central organisation, key person(s) or key documents which hold the ultimate legitimacy to define the entity organic farming, like Rudolf Steiner is the authority of Biodynamic farming. Organic farming is object for a continuous negotiation process within the network. Although many have tried to make a definition they are always only one in a row of definitions and redefinitions.  
The self-organisation framework (Noe and Alrøe, forthcoming a and b) gives an understanding of networks that are produced and reproduced through their own operations. Like living organisms, organic farming as a self-organising actor-network can only be maintained through it own operation. The coherency of the organic network can only be maintained through processes of communication and interaction within the organic network, dealing with the reproduction of the values, ideas, and meaningfulness of organic agriculture. If this process stops, the entire concept of organic farming may become an empty shell without any possibility to change and develop. The encompassing actor-networks (research, governments, food industries supermarkets, etc.) will always produce a surplus of meaning and possibilities to the concept of organic farming that are unlikely to be coherent with each other. Enrolled actor-networks, like Arla, the Plant Directory, supermarkets chains, will not and cannot be expected to reproduce the values and core ideas of organic agriculture. They will, as also the Lemvig-case study exposes, instrumentalize the organic mode of farming and mobilise the artefacts of organic farming, like the Ø-label, into their network strategy from other positions of meaningfulness, goals and logics, like market shares, membership, political goodwill, etc.
The presented case-study shows that when the mode of organic farming was translated and mobilised into another meaningfulness in the strategy of conventional farming, these actors are not involved in the negotiation processes of organic farming, which again may explain why the internal conversion process does not automatically occur. The latest converted farm-enterprises are not mobilised as ‘actors’ in the network of organic farming, contributing to the processes of producing and reproducing organic farming, but are translating the organic mode of farming into their own conventional farming network strategy without involving any actors from the organic actor-network, in relation with knowledge, marketing, regulation, control, etc. 
Now, the interesting question is whether if this development is a problem or not. Non-organic actors (such as agribusiness, supermarket chains, research institutions, and the state) are regarded as necessary resources to mobilise into the strategy of the organic network, to start a greening process from the inside and to disseminate the organic mode of production (Noe and Stoye, 2000). 
A rapid quantitative assessment leads to the conclusion that the organic movement in Denmark has been successful in its strategy, not only in terms of numbers but also in influence on legislation, research, and conventional farming, even though, as Michelsen (2001, p 80) expressed it: “.. It seems to be a paradox that organic farming must give up its self-rule and identity in order to obtain importance in agriculture”.
Evaluated from the perspective developed in this paper, the instrumentalization of the organic mode of farming is not a problem per se, but it’s a problem when the processes of self-organizing are left over to other actor-networks. This is the case in Denmark where regulation and certification that gradually has been left over to the state, EU (Michelsen, 2001) and in USA (Goodman, 1999) in the name of instrumentalization, a legislation process influenced by a whole rage of non-organic actor-networks, acting from various interests (Tovey, 1997; Goodman, 1999). 
Instrumentalization is only interesting to the other actor-networks as long as the organic farming actor-network produces and reproduces the coherence of and between values and dynamic of the organic mode of farming (Goodman, 1999). This coherence can only be maintained as an internal process within the actor-network. In the Danish case the problem is not as much the marginalization of the small scale alternative agriculture by the capitalist agriculture as Coombes and Campbell (1998) discusses, but the marginalization of the alternative vision of agriculture by the organic network itself due to its strong dissemination strategy.  
Conclusion 
The instrumentalization approach is a challenge to the future development and reproduction of organic farming. Not only is the organic network dependent on the commercial network to disseminate the idea and modes of organic farming. Equally important the other actor-networks involved in this instrumentalization realise that they are strongly dependent on the organic network. If the organic mode of farming becomes only an instrument of the other network/institutions, it will loose the coherence and driving force of meaningfulness and become just one concept among many others.
But what seems to happen at the moment in Denmark and other places is that the instrumentalization approach has taken control of the organic mode of farming, due to a too strong belief in the dogma of the internal conversion. Both the actors involved in the network and actors from other actor networks that mobilise the organic mode of producing into their own strategy ignore the complexity of organic farming as a heterogeneous self-referential and self-organising phenomenon. 
References
Alrøe, H. F. and E. S. Kristensen. 2002. Towards a systemic research methodology in agriculture: Rethinking the role of values in science. Agriculture and Human Values 19(1):3-23.
Assouline, G., B. Cecile, C. David and O. Roque. 2000. Making Agriculture Sustainable: Farmers’ networking and Institutional Strategies in France. National Report with Case Studies, Conclusion and Recommendations. European Research Project DGXII. Contract No. ENV 4-97-0443 and IC20 CT-97-0035 http://esb.sdu.dk/~hkr/MAS/Reports/NationalReportFr.pdf
Assouline, G. and F. Just. 2000. Making Agriculture Sustainable – The role of farmers’ networking and institutional strategies. Final report. European Research Project DGXII. Contract No. ENV 4-97-0443 and IC20 CT-97-0035 http://esb.sdu.dk/~hkr/MAS/Reports/MASReport2.pdf 
Coombes, B. and H. Campbell. 1998. Dependent Reproduction of Alternative Modes of Agriculture: Organic Farming in New Zealand. Sociologia Ruralis 38 (2):127-145
Danish Plant Directorate. 2001. Statistik om økologiske bedrifter 2000]  - autorisation og produktion, April 2001 (pdf-format) [Statistic’s on organic farming in Denmark – Authorisation and production2000] [http://www.pdir.dk/]
Goodman, D. 1999. Agro-Food Studies in the ‘Age of Ecology’: Nature, Corporeality, Bio-politics. Sociologia Ruralis, 39 (1):17-38
Lynggaard, K.S.C. 2001. The Farmer Within an Institutional Environment. Comparing Danish and Belgian Organic Farming. Sociologia Ruralis 41 (1):85-111
MacRae, R.J., J. Henning and S.B. Hill. 1993. Strategies to overcome barriers to the development of sustainable agriculture in Canada: The role of agribusiness. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6 (1):21-51
Michelsen, J. 1996. Organic farmers and conventional distribution systems: The recent expansion of the organic food market in Denmark. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 11 (1):18-24
Michelsen, J. 2001. Organic Farming in a Regulatory Perspective. The Danish Case. Sociologia Ruralis 41 (1):62-84
Noe, E. 1999. Værdier, Rationalitet og Landbrugsproduktion. Belyst ved en microsociologisk undersøgelse blandt danske økologiske og konventionelle kvægbrugere. [Values, Rationality and Farming – Examined in a micro sociological study of organic and conventional dairy farmers] Ph.D. thesis. Department of Economic and Natural Resources at the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University (English abstract: http://www.agrsci.dk/jbs/eno/index.shtml)
Noe, E. & H.F. Alrøe, forthcoming (a). Farm enterprises as self-organizing systems: A new framework for studying farm enterprises? Accepted by International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food [Preprint online at <http://orgprints.org/00000325>]
Noe, Egon and Alrøe, Hugo Fjelsted. Forthcoming (b). Combining Luhmann and Actor-Network Theory to see Farm Enterprises as Self-organizing Systems. Accepted by Cybernetic and Human Knowing.  [Earlier version presented at the Opening of systems theory conference, Copenhagen, 23 - 25 May 2003, available online http://orgprints.org/00000778/]
Noe, E. and M. Stoye. 2000. Conclusion and integrated analysis of the cases. Pp.104-113 in F. Just ed. Making Agriculture Sustainable: Farmers Networking and Institutional Strategies in Denmark. National Report with Case Studies, Conclusions and Recommendations. European Research Project DGXII. Contract No. ENV 4-97-0443 and IC20 CT-97-0035  [http://adm-websrv3a.sdu.dk/mas/Reports/NationalReportDK.pdf .] 
Oldrup, H. 2000. The organic fresh food terminal in Sønderjylland transforming marketing networks. Pp.41-63 in F. Just ed. Making Agriculture Sustainable: Farmers Networking and Institutional Strategies in Denmark. National Report with Case Studies, Conclusions and Recommendations. European Research Project DGXII. Contract No. ENV 4-97-0443 and IC20 CT-97-0035. [http://adm-websrv3a.sdu.dk/mas/Reports/NationalReportDK.pdf ] 
Oldrup, H. and F. Just. 2000. Description and comparison of current implementation of sustainable agriculture in Europe: The case of Denmark. Pp. 34-73 in David, C., C. Bernard and F. Just. Sustainable Agriculture in Europe: State of the Art and Policies in five European countries: Denmark, France Latvia, Netherlands, and Spain. European Research Project DGXII. Contract No. ENV 4-97-0443 and IC20   CT-97-0035  [http://adm-websrv3a.sdu.dk/mas/Reports/MASReport1.pdf]  
Pugliese, P. 2001. Organic farming and sustainable rural development. A multifaceted and promising convergence Sociologia Ruralis 41, (1):112-130 
Tisenkopfs, T. and S. Sumane. 2000. Making Agriculture Sustainable: Farmers Networking and Institutional Strategies in Latvia. National Report with Case Studies, Conclusions and Recommendations. European Research Project DGXII. Contract No. ENV 4-97-0443 and IC20 CT-97-0035.  [http://adm-websrv3a.sdu.dk/mas/Reports/NationalReportLatvia.pdf] 
Tovey, H. 1997. Food, Environmentalism and Rural Sociology: On the Organic Farming Movement in Ireland. Sociologia Ruralis 37 (1):21-37
Wiskerke, H. 1997. Zeeuwse akkerbouw tussen verandering en continuiteit (Ph.D. thesis at Wagningen: Circle for Rural European Studies. The agricultural university Wageningen)
Wiskerke, H. and N. Oerlemans. 2000.  Making Agriculture Sustainable: Farmers Networking and Institutional Strategies in The Netherlands. National Report with Case Studies, Conclusions and Recommendations. European Research Project DGXII. Contract No. ENV 4-97-0443 and IC20 CT-97-0035. [http://adm-websrv3a.sdu.dk/mas/Reports/NationalReportNL.pdf] 
Østergaard, E. 1998. Ett skritt tilbake og to frem [One step back and two step forwards] Ph.D. thesis at The Agricultural University Norway. Department of Horticulture and Crop Sciences

	
Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the three phases of the organic network building, in the case of organic farming in the Lemvig area.