@misc{orgprints6124,
           title = {Risiko og risikohandtering i {\o}kologisk jordbruksproduksjon},
        keywords = {risiko, risikohandtering, strategi, {\o}konomisk tilpassing, gardmodeller, risk, risk management, farm modelling, strategy, economic adjustment, {\O}KORISK},
             url = {https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/6124/},
        abstract = {Myndighetene har som m{\r a}lsetning at ti prosent av det totale jordbruksarealet skal v{\ae}re omlagt til {\o}kologisk areal innen 2009. Ved beslutninger p{\r a} bruksniv{\r a} om {\r a} legge om til og {\r a} opprettholde {\o}kologisk drift m{\r a} bl.a. l{\o}nnsomhet og risiko vurderes. Analyser av risiko i {\o}kologisk drift har v{\ae}rt frav{\ae}rende i Norge. Ogs{\r a} internasjonalt er f{\r a} studier utf{\o}rt, og det er et klart behov for mer forskning p{\r a} omr{\r a}det. M{\r a}let med dette samarbeidsprosjektet mellom NILF, NORS{\O}K og NVH er {\r a} {\o}ke kunnskapen om risiko og risikohandtering innenfor {\o}kologisk jordbruksproduksjon. Det vil v{\ae}re et omfattende internasjonalt samarbeid i prosjektet (bl.a. med Wageningen, Nederland og Danmarks JordbrugsForskning). B{\r a}de biologisk og {\o}konomisk risiko inng{\r a}r. Anerkjente teorier og metoder innen statistikk og risikoanalyse vil tilpasses problemstillinger i {\o}kologisk jordbruk. Prosjektet vil ta for seg omfang av risiko i {\o}kologisk jordbruksproduksjon, strategier som {\o}kologiske produsenter nytter for {\r a} handtere risiko og gardsmodeller for {\r a} analysere {\o}konomisk optimal tilpasning under usikkerhet i {\o}kologisk jordbruk. Prosjektet vil omfatte gardsbruk i omleggingsfasen og ferdig omlagte bruk. Resultatene av prosjektet vil komme direkte til nytte for r{\r a}dgivere og gardbrukere, og vil bidra med vesentlig informasjon for politiske og forvaltningsmessige tiltak/beslutninger.}
}

@misc{orgprints17782,
            year = {2009},
          number = {1},
       publisher = {Elsevier},
         journal = {Livestock Science},
           title = {Organic dairy farming in Norway under the 100\% organically produced feed requirement},
           month = {December},
          volume = {126},
           pages = {28--37},
          author = {Ola Flaten and Gudbrand Lien},
        keywords = {feed regulation; organic farming; milk production; mathematical programming; {\O}korisk},
        abstract = {The derogation to use a percentage of cheaper non-organic feeds in organic livestock diets for herbivores expired from January 2008. (In Norway, a maximum 15\% of conventional feedstuffs per year was allowed until 24 August 2005, 5\% in the interim.) This study aimed to assess changes in resource use and financial impacts for organic dairy herds of the 100\% organic feeding rule (compared with 85\% organic feeds) using a two-stage stochastic programming modelling framework. In this study, the objective function was to maximise expected net income. Two organic dairy farms in the lowlands of southern Norway, both having a milk quota of 100,000 litres but with varying farmland availability (37 hectares vs. 20 hectares), were examined. Furthermore, situations with and without possibilities to buy organic silage were studied. Milk production per cow was highest on the farm with the most strict land constraint. For farmers that fully utilise the non-organic feed allowance, the more expensive organic feeds determine the marginal feed cost. Hence, a removal of the non-organic feed allowance will not influence optimal farm practice (provided that marginal milk production still is profitable). A switch from conventional to organic concentrates as the only adjustment was found on the 37 ha farm and also on the 20 ha farm if there was no possibility to buy some organic silage. On the 20 ha farm with possibilities to buy organic silage, it turned out to be unprofitable to keep all the cows. Fewer cows resulted in several other changes in the model solution such as a lower milk yield per cow, less milk produced in total and more work off-farm. The financial gain from carrying out the optimal management changes was, however, very small. In all cases studied, the introduction of 100\% organic feeds resulted in an economic loss of NOK 19,200-23,600 (or 7-12\% of the expected net income with 85\% organic feeds). The economic losses were due to the price premium of organic concentrates.},
             url = {https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/17782/}
}

@misc{orgprints17785,
       publisher = {Elsevier},
           title = {Stochastic utility-efficient programming of organic dairy farms},
         journal = {European Journal of Operational Research},
          number = {3},
            year = {2007},
          volume = {181},
          author = {Ola Flaten and Gudbrand Lien},
           pages = {1574--1583},
             url = {https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/17785/},
        abstract = {Opportunities to make sequential decisions and adjust activities as a season progresses and more information becomes available characterise the farm management process. In this paper, we present a discrete stochastic two-stage utility efficient programming model of organic dairy farms, which includes risk aversion in the decision maker?s objective function as well as both embedded risk (stochastic programming with recourse) and non-embedded risk (stochastic programming without recourse). Historical farm accountancy data and subjective judgements were combined to assess the nature of the uncertainty that affects the possible consequences of the decisions. The programming model was used within a stochastic dominance framework to examine optimal strategies in organic dairy systems in Norway.},
        keywords = {Agriculture; Risk analysis; Stochastic programming; Stochastic dominance; Organic farming; {\O}korisk}
}

@misc{orgprints17786,
          volume = {21},
          author = {Ola Flaten and Gudbrand Lien and Martha Ebbesvik and Matthias Koesling and Paul Steinar Valle},
           pages = {174--182},
            year = {2006},
         journal = {Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems},
       publisher = {CAB International},
           title = {Do the new organic producers differ from the 'old guard'? Empirical results from Norwegian dairy farming},
          number = {3},
        keywords = {organic farming, milk production, year of conversion, farming goals, motives for conversion, attitudes, animal health, feeding, conventionalization; {\O}korisk},
        abstract = {Conventional farmers converting to organics have contributed to most of the rapid expansion of organic farming in recent years. The new organic farmers may differ from their more established colleagues, which may have implications for the development of the organic farming sector and its distinctiveness vis-a`-vis conventional production and marketing practices. The aim of this study was to explore Norwegian organic dairy farmers? personal and farm production characteristics, farming goals, conversion motives, and attitudes to organic farming,  grouped by year of conversion (three groups). A postal survey was undertaken among organic dairy farmers (n = 161). The results show that the newcomers (converted in 2000 or later) were less educated than the early entrants (the so-called ?old guard?) who converted in 1995 or earlier. The frequency of activities like vegetable growing and poultry farming among the old guard was high. The late-entry organic herds were fed with more concentrates and had a higher milk production intensity, showed a higher incidence of veterinary treatments and less frequent use of alternative medicine than the herds of the two earlier converting groups. For all groups of farmers, the highest ranked farming goals were sustainable and environment-friendly farming and the production of high-quality food. Late entrants more often mentioned goals related to profit and leisure time. On average, the most frequently mentioned motives for conversion were food quality and professional challenges. The old guard was more strongly motivated by food quality and soil fertility/pollution issues than the others, whereas financial reasons (organic payments included) were relatively more important among the newcomers. All groups held very favorable views about the environmental qualities of organic farming methods, albeit with different strengths of beliefs. Even though trends towards more pragmatic and business-oriented farming were found, the majority of the newcomers were fairly committed.},
             url = {https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/17786/}
}

@misc{orgprints6903,
            year = {2005},
          author = {Ola Flaten and Gudbrand Lien and Martha Ebbesvik and Matthias Koesling and Paul Steinar Valle},
           title = {Risiko og risikohandtering i {\o}kologisk jordbruksproduksjon},
           month = {December},
          series = {NILF-rapport},
        keywords = {Risk, sources of risk, risk management, risk perceptions, risk aversion, goals, motives, conversion, dairy farming, arable farming, animal health, health records, survey, multivariate analysis, simulation, stochastic dominance, mathematical programming, feed regulation, conventionalization, {\O}KORISK},
             url = {https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/6903/},
        abstract = {Ofte f{\r a}r gardbrukere erfare at produksjon og inntekt ikke blir som en hadde tenkt seg p{\r a} forh{\r a}nd. En gardbruker har aldri full kontroll over de tallrike faktorene som p{\r a}virker drifta, og usikre framtidige konsekvenser inneb{\ae}rer risiko. Mange tenker mest p{\r a} de ugunstige situasjonene en kan bli utsatt for, og som blant anna skyldes avlingssvikt, naturkatastrofer, prisfall og uheldige politikkendringer. I verste fall kan slike forhold rasere inntekter og formuesverdier til gardbrukere.
F{\r a} drifts{\o}konomiske studier innen {\o}kologisk jordbruk har tatt hensyn til risiko. Dette gjelder nasjonalt s{\r a} vel som internasjonalt. Hovedm{\r a}let med prosjektet har v{\ae}rt {\r a} {\o}ke kunnskapen om risiko og risikohandtering innenfor {\o}kologisk jordbruksproduksjon i Norge. 
Med utgangspunkt i hovedm{\r a}let ble f{\o}lgende delm{\r a}l opprinnelig formulert for prosjektet:	
1.	Belyse omfang av risiko, spesielt avlings-, avdr{\r a}tts-, dyrehelse-, pris- og inntektsrisiko knyttet til {\o}kologisk gardsdrift.
2.	Belyse hvilke strategier {\o}kologiske produsenter nytter for {\r a} handtere risiko.
3.	Utvikle gardsmodeller for {\r a} analysere {\o}konomisk optimal tilpassing ved usikkerhet i {\o}kologisk jordbruk.

I tillegg til {\r a} belyse disse delm{\r a}la, har prosjektet ogs{\r a} gitt informasjon om forskjeller i driftspraksis og holdninger hos tidlige og nye {\o}kologiske brukere, potensialet for omlegging til {\o}kologisk drift samt drift og risikooppfatninger hos heltids- og deltidsbrukere.
I denne rapporten er det gitt en oversikt over datakilder og metoder som er nyttet i prosjektet og viktige resultat som er oppn{\r a}dd. Flere detaljer fra unders{\o}kelsene finnes i de vitenskapelige utgivelsene fra prosjektet. En rekke av disse artiklene er vedlagt rapporten.
F{\o}rste halv{\r a}r 2003 ble det gjennomf{\o}rt en landsomfattende sp{\o}rreunders{\o}kelse blant gardbrukere om risiko i jordbruket. Utvalget ble avgrenset til mj{\o}lke- og planteprodusenter. Sp{\o}rreunders{\o}kelsen ble sendt representative utvalg av konvensjonelle brukergrupper samt alle kontrollerte og godkjente {\o}kologiske produsenter innen de to driftsgreinene. Nesten 1700 sp{\o}rreskjema ble sendt ut, og mer enn 1000 kom tilbake i utfylt stand. Opplysninger fra sp{\o}rreunders{\o}kelsen ble koplet med data fra produksjonstilskottsregisteret, husdyrkontrollen og helse?kortordninga. Dataene ble unders{\o}kt p{\r a} mange forskjellige m{\r a}ter, inkludert flere studier som sammenliknet grupper av {\o}kologiske og konvensjonelle brukere.
Sp{\o}rreunders{\o}kelsen viste at det viktigste m{\r a}let for {\o}kologiske brukere var {\r a} drive milj{\o}vennlig og b{\ae}rekraftig ({\r a} ta vare p{\r a} kulturlandskapet inkludert). P{\r a} andreplass kom produksjon av kvalitetsmat. Viktigst for de konvensjonelle brukerne var {\r a} ha en sikker og stabil inntekt, foran det {\r a} produsere kvalitetsmat. St{\o}rst mulig inntekt ble rangert l{\r a}gt, og l{\r a}gest hos de {\o}kologiske brukerne. 
Flere {\o}kologiske enn konvensjonelle brukere uttrykte vilje til {\r a} ta risiko. 
B{\r a}de {\o}kologiske og konvensjonelle brukere oppfattet politikk som alvorligste kilde til risiko. Politisk risiko handlet om mer enn usikre priser og tilskott. Skatte- og avgiftspolitikk, mj{\o}lkekvoteregelverk, dyrevelferdskrav, milj{\o}krav, osv. ble ogs{\r a} rangert h{\o}gt. {\O}kologiske brukere var sv{\ae}rt opptatt av risikokilder tilknyttet rammevilk{\r a}r for {\o}kologisk drift ({\o}kologiske tilskott, merpris og regelverk for {\o}kologisk drift). Flere konvensjonelle enn {\o}kologiske brukere var engstelige for usikkerhet om priser p{\r a} innkj{\o}pte drifts- og anleggsmidler og dyrevelferdskrav. For {\r a} moderere gardbrukernes frykt for politisk risiko synes det viktig at vilk{\r a}r for n{\ae}ringsdrift er langsiktige, stabile og forutsigbare.
God likviditet ble sett p{\r a} som viktigste tiltak for {\r a} handtere risiko. {\r A} forebygge sjukdommer og skadedyr hos dyr og planter kom p{\r a} andreplass. Andre viktige tiltak var kj{\o}p av landbruksforsikring samt {\r a} produsere til l{\r a}g kostnad. {\O}kologiske og konvensjonelle brukere hadde ganske like syn p{\r a} strategier for {\r a} styre risiko. De gardbrukerne som var mest bekymret for politisk risiko var mest opptatt av {\o}konomiske tiltak som {\r a} ha god likviditet, lite gjeld og {\r a} produsere til l{\r a}g kostnad.
F{\ae}rre {\o}kologiske enn konvensjonelle kyr ble registrert med sjukdomsbehandlinger. Sp{\o}rreunders{\o}kelsen viste at {\o}kologiske husdyrbrukere gjorde mer bruk av alternativ behandling og oftere utf{\o}rte egenbehandling enn de konvensjonelle. Ved {\r a} korrigere for forskjeller i egen helsehandtering, ble antall ?faktiske? sjukdomstilfeller til {\o}kologiske mj{\o}lkekyr om lag som i konvensjonelle buskaper. Mastitt forekom sjeldnere ved {\o}kologisk drift, men dette ble forklart av en l{\r a}gere mj{\o}lkeavdr{\r a}tt i {\o}kologiske besetninger. Det var derfor ingen klare tegn p{\r a} at {\o}kologisk drift utover et l{\r a}gere avdr{\r a}ttsniv{\r a}, ga helsegevinster. 
Forskjeller mellom {\o}kologiske mj{\o}lkeprodusenter gruppert etter omleggingstidspunkt ble unders{\o}kt. De nye {\o}kologiske mj{\o}lkeprodusentene (omlagt i 2000 eller senere) hadde et mer pragmatisk syn p{\r a} {\o}kologisk drift og filosofi enn de som var tidlig ute (omlagt i 1995 eller tidligere). De tidlige hadde gjerne ei allsidig gardsdrift, mens mange nykommere drev mer spesialisert og intensivt. De som var tidlig ute med {\r a} legge om la stor vekt p{\r a} milj{\o}hensyn samt {\o}kologisk ideologi og filosofi som motiv for {\o}kologisk drift. Hos nykommerne var bedre l{\o}nnsomhet og ekstra tilskott til {\o}kologisk drift ei mye viktigere drivkraft for {\r a} legge om, men ogs{\r a} hos disse var flertallet mest opptatt av milj{\o}hensyn, b{\ae}rekraft og kvalitetsmat.
Bare 4 \% av de konvensjonelle brukerne ga i sp{\o}rreunders{\o}kelsen uttrykk for at de hadde planer om {\r a} legge om hele eller deler av garden til {\o}kologisk drift innen 2009. Nesten 75 \% utelukket {\r a} legge om, mens 18 \% uttrykte at de var usikre. Bare 2 \% av de {\o}kologiske b{\o}ndene uttrykte et {\o}nske om g{\r a} tilbake til konvensjonell drift. For {\r a} n{\r a} landbrukspolitiske m{\r a}l om 10 \% {\o}kologisk jordbruksareal innen 2009 og 15 \% av matproduksjonen som {\o}kologisk i 2015, m{\r a} de som uttrykte at de vil legge om og mange av de usikre virkelig legge om.
Gardbrukerne rapporterte at de viktigste grunnene til {\r a} arbeide utenfor bruket var {\r a} {\o}ke og stabilisere husholdsinntekten. Sammenlikninga av deltids- og heltidsbrukere viste forskjellige m{\r a}l med gardsdrifta, risikooppfatninger og strategier for risikostyring. Arbeid utenfor bruket var viktigste risikostrategi for planteprodusenter p{\r a} deltid. Flere deltidsbrukere enn heltidsbrukere hadde planer om {\r a} produsere mindre p{\r a} garden.
En optimeringsmodell av typen diskret stokastisk programmering ble utviklet for {\r a} unders{\o}ke optimal tilpassing under usikkerhet p{\r a} {\o}kologiske mj{\o}lkebruk. Modellen er en {\r a}rsplan med start om v{\r a}ren, og den tar hensyn til avlings- og prisrisiko. Paneldata fra {\o}kologiske mj{\o}lkebruk i driftsgranskingene til NILF kombinert med subjektive ekspertanslag ble benyttet for {\r a} berekne historisk samvariasjon i de usikre variablene. Modellen maksimerer forventa nytte ved ulike holdninger til risiko hos gardbrukeren.
Optimeringsmodellen ble brukt for {\r a} unders{\o}ke hva som skjer n{\r a}r alt f{\^o}r m{\r a} v{\ae}re {\o}kologisk, og at det fra august 2005 ikke lenger kunne nyttes inntil 15 \% av f{\^o}ret som billigere ikke-{\o}kologisk f{\^o}r. To brukstyper under flatbygdvilk{\r a}r ble unders{\o}kt. Begge brukstypene hadde en mj{\o}lkekvote p{\r a} 100 000 liter, men arealgrunnlaget var forskjellig. Den ene brukstypen erstattet alt konvensjonelt kraftf{\^o}r med {\o}kologisk, den andre produserte mindre mj{\o}lk. Begge brukstypene fikk et inntektstap p{\r a} n{\ae}rmere 20 000 kr i {\r a}ret p{\r a} grunn av det nye f{\^o}rkravet.
En stokastisk simuleringsmodell ble spesifisert for {\r a} sammenlikne risiko ved {\o}kologiske, integrerte og konvensjonelle driftssystem i planteproduksjonen. Avlingsdata (1991-1999) fra systemfors{\o}ka med {\r a}kervekstene korn og potet ved Planteforsk Apelsvoll forskingssenter ble benyttet. Det ble supplert med priser og arbeidstall fra andre datakilder. Simuleringsmodellen tar hensyn til usikkerhet i avling og pris for vekster og til samvariasjon mellom usikre variable innen et dyrkingssystem. I modellen blir det bereknet sannsynlighetsfordelinger for gardbrukers inntekt.
Avlingene i det {\o}kologiske driftssystemet var 60-65 \% av det konvensjonelle. Men {\o}kologiske avlinger og inntekter varierte mer mellom {\r a}r. Med n{\r a}v{\ae}rende tilskottsordninger og {\o}kologiske pristillegg svarte det seg likevel best {\o}konomisk med {\o}kologisk dyrking, ogs{\r a} for gardbrukere med sterk motvilje mot {\r a} ta risiko. Sj{\o}l om tilskott til {\o}kologisk drift falt bort, kunne {\o}kologisk drift fortsatt v{\ae}re fordelaktig. Dersom pristillegga ogs{\r a} forsvant, ble {\o}kologisk drift klart minst gunstig i optimeringsmodellen. Integrert og konvensjonell dyrking kom omtrent likt ut {\o}konomisk.
Avslutningsvis blir det i rapporten pekt p{\r a} flere omr{\r a}der og vinklinger for videre forsking. Det aller mest interessante og utfordrende omr{\r a}det synes {\r a} v{\ae}re politisk (institusjonell) risiko. Gardbrukerne oppfattet politiske forhold som viktigste risikokilde, men det er forsket lite p{\r a} politisk risiko i jordbruket i Norge s{\r a} vel som andre land.
}
}

@inproceedings{orgprints3573,
            year = {2005},
          editor = {J. He{\ss} and G. Rahmann},
          author = {Matthias Koesling and Martha Ebbesvik and Gudbrand Lien and Ola Flaten and Paul Steinar Valle},
           title = {Das Potential umstellungsbereiter Betriebe in Norwegen
},
       publisher = {Kassel University Press GmbH, Kassel},
         journal = {Ende der Nische, Beitr{\"a}ge zur 8. Wissenschaftstagung {\"O}kologischer Landbau},
        abstract = {About eighteen percent of the conventional dairy and cash crop farmers in Norway are considering to, and four percent are planning to convert to organic farming during the next five years. These two farmer groups can be considered as the potential for conversion to organic farming in Norway. In a questionnaire survey, this group rated attitudes on organic and conventional farming more similar to organic farmers than other conventional farmers did. For farmers considering or planning to convert, additional organic farming payments, organic farming laws and regulations and price premiums for organic products were more important sources of risk than for other conventional farmers. Most of these mentioned factors are influenced by agricultural policies, which thus represent an important factor for farmers? decision regarding the conversion to organic farming.},
             url = {https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/3573/},
        keywords = {Richtlinien und Kontrolle, Entwicklung {\"O}kolandbau, Betriebswirtschaft, Agrarpolitik, Umstellung, {\O}KORISK}
}

@misc{orgprints6540,
           title = {Gardbrukernes valg av driftsform},
         journal = {Forskningsnytt om {\o}kologisk landbruk i Norden},
       publisher = {Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet (SLU)},
          number = {3},
          author = {Matthias Koesling and Martha Ebbesvik and Gudbrand Lien and Ola Flaten and Paul Steinar Valle},
           pages = {24--25},
            year = {2003},
        abstract = {Hva er motivene for {\r a} drive {\o}kologisk og hvilke faktorer har innflytelse p{\r a} valg av driftsform? En sp{\o}rreunders{\o}kelse gjennomf{\o}rt v{\r a}ren 2003 viser tydelige forskjeller i motiver for valg av driftsform mellom norske gardbrukere som driver henholdsvis konvensjonelt, {\o}kologisk, omleggingsbruk eller har parallelproduksjon.},
             url = {https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/6540/},
        keywords = {driftsform, omlegging, {\o}kologisk landbruk, motiv, risiko, Norge, {\O}KORISK}
}

@misc{orgprints6541,
            year = {2004},
         journal = {Acta Agricultur{\ae} Scandinavica Section C - Food Economics},
       publisher = {Taylor \& Francis},
           title = {Risk and Risk Management in Organic and Conventional Cash Crop Farming in Norway},
          number = {4},
          author = {Matthias Koesling and Martha Ebbesvik and Gudbrand Lien and Ola Flaten and Paul Steinar Valle and Halvard Arntzen},
           pages = {195--206},
          editor = {Mogens Lund},
          volume = {1},
        abstract = {This study presents empirical insight into organic and conventional cash crop farmers' perceptions of risk and risk management strategies, and identifies socio-economic variables linked to these perceptions. The data originate from a questionnaire survey of farmers in Norway. The results indicate that organic farmers perceived themselves to be less risk averse than conventional farmers. For both groups, crop prices and yield variability were the two top rated sources of risk, followed by institutional risks. The two groups evaluated risk management strategies quite similarly; favoured strategies were good liquidity and to prevent and reduce crop diseases and pests. The farmers' evaluation of sources of risk and choice of risk strategies depended on various socio-economic variables. The importance of institutional risks implies that policy makers should be cautious about changing policy capriciously and they should consider strategic policy initiatives that give farmers more long-term reliability. },
             url = {https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/6541/},
        keywords = {arable farming, farmers' goals, multivariate analysis, risk perception, risk responses, socio-economic variables, questionnaire survey, {\O}KORISK}
}

@misc{orgprints14870,
          number = {Vol. 7; Issue 1/2},
         journal = {International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology (IJARGE)},
       publisher = {Inderscience Publishers Ltd.},
           title = {Factors influencing the conversion to organic farming in Norway},
            year = {2008},
           pages = {78--95},
          author = {Matthias Koesling and Ola Flaten and Gudbrand Lien},
          volume = {Special Issue on: "Continuity and Change in Organic Farming - Philosophy, Practice and Policy"},
          editor = {Ika Darnhofer and Markus Schermer and Walter Schneeberger},
             url = {https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/14870/},
        abstract = {Determinants of the decision to convert to organic farming methods are examined by applying bivariate analyses and a multinomial logit model to a survey of 1018 Norwegian crop and dairy farmers. The results show that 4\% of the conventional respondents plan to convert by 2009, which may imply that the national goal of 10\% organically managed area will not be achieved. The analysis indicates that organic farmers, compared to their conventional counterparts, are more likely to have larger farms, more education, be located closer to urban areas, be crop farmers, have 'sustainable and environment-friendly farming' as a goal and hold favourable views about the values of organic farming methods. Even though the farmers who are planning to convert seem to be more business-minded and less organically oriented than the existing organic producers, policies for promoting organic farming which confine itself to financial considerations may miss important factors which prompt farmers to convert.},
        keywords = {adoption; motivation; survey; multinomial logit; Norway; organic farming; crop farmers; dairy farmers; values; agricultural policy, {\O}KORISK}
}

@misc{orgprints6348,
          author = {Gudbrand Lien and Ola Flaten and Matthias Koesling and Paul Steinar Valle and Martha Ebbesvik},
           pages = {11--25},
          volume = {95},
           month = {August},
         journal = {Livestock Production Science},
       publisher = {Elsevier},
           title = {Comparing risk perceptions and risk management in organic and conventional dairy farming: empirical results from Norway},
          number = {1-2},
            year = {2005},
        keywords = {Risk; Risk management; Dairy farming; Organic farming; Questionnaire; Multivariate analysis; {\O}KORISK},
             url = {https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/6348/},
        abstract = {This study was conducted to explore organic and conventional dairy farmers? perceptions of risk and risk management, and to examine relationships between farm and farmer characteristics, risk perceptions, and strategies. The data originate from a survey of conventional (n=363) and organic (n=162) dairy farmers in Norway. Organic farmers had the least risk averse perceptions. Institutional and production risks were perceived as primary sources of risk, with farm support payments at the top. Compared to their conventional colleagues, organic farmers gave more weight to institutional factors related to their production systems. Conventional farmers were more concerned about costs of purchased inputs and animal welfare policy. Organic and conventional farmers? management responses were more similar than their risk perceptions. Financial measures such as liquidity and costs of production, disease prevention, and insurance were perceived as important ways to handle risk. Even though perceptions were highly farmer-specific, a number of socio-economic variables were found to be related to risk and risk management. The primary role of institutional risks implies that policy makers should be cautious about changing policy capriciously and they should consider the scope for strategic policy initiatives that give farmers some greater confidence about the longer term. Further, researchers should pay more attention to institutional risks. }
}

@misc{orgprints7061,
          author = {Gudbrand Lien and Ola Flaten and Audun Korsaeth and Keith D Schumann and James D Richardson and Ragnar Eltun and J B Hardaker},
           pages = {385--401},
          volume = {12},
            year = {2006},
       publisher = {Institute of Agricultural Management},
           title = {Comparison of risk in organic, integrated and conventional cropping systems in eastern Norway},
         journal = {Journal of Farm Management},
          number = {7},
        keywords = {Risk analysis, crop farming, cropping systems, stochastic simulation, risk aversion, stochastic efficiency with respect to a function, farming systems, Apelsvoll; {\O}korisk},
        abstract = {The aim of this study was to compare risk of organic, integrated and conventional cropping systems. Experimental cropping system data (1991-1999) from eastern Norway were combined with farm budget data. Empirical distributions of net farm income for different cropping systems were estimated with a simulation model. The results show that the organic system had the greatest net farm income variability, but both the existing payment system and organic price premiums make it the most economically viable alternative.},
             url = {https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/7061/}
}

@misc{orgprints17784,
          author = {Gudbrand Lien and J. Brian Hardaker and Ola Flaten},
           pages = {541--552},
          volume = {94},
       publisher = {Elsevier},
           title = {Risk and economic sustainability of crop farming systems},
         journal = {Livestock Systems},
          number = {2},
            year = {2007},
        keywords = {Sustainability; Resilience; Risk assessment; Whole-farm stochastic simulation; Stochastic efficiency; {\O}korisk},
             url = {https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/17784/},
        abstract = {In economic terms, resilience in farming has to do with the capacity of a farm business to survive various risks and other shocks. Despite its importance, resilience has seldom been directly considered in evaluations of economic sustainability. A whole-farm stochastic simulation model over a 6-year planning horizon was used to analyse organic and conventional cropping systems using a model of a representative farm in Eastern Norway. The relative economic sustainability of alternative systems under  changing assumptions about future technology and price regimes was examined in terms of financial survival to the end of the planning period. The same alternatives were also compared in terms of stochastic efficiency. To model the risk of business failure adequately there is a need to deal with the risk of bankruptcy, and a modification of traditional analysis was used for that purpose. The organic farming system was found to be somewhat less economically sustainable than the conventional system, especially if the organic price premiums and the organic area payments were to be phased out. The results illustrate possible conflicts between pursuit of risk efficiency and economic sustainability. The model developed could be used to support farmers? choices between farming systems as well as to help policy makers develop more sharply targeted policies.}
}

@misc{orgprints17783,
           pages = {123--132},
          author = {Paul Steinar Valle and Gudbrand Lien and Ola Flaten and Matthias Koesling and Martha Ebbesvik},
          volume = {112},
            year = {2007},
          number = {1-2},
         journal = {Livestock Science},
           title = {Herd health and health management in organic versus
conventional dairy herds in Norway},
       publisher = {Elsevier},
        keywords = {Organic farming; Dairy cattle; Health; Management; Health records; {\O}korisk},
        abstract = {Earlier studies from Norway indicate that organic dairy farms enjoy better animal health than conventional dairy farms. However, these studies use veterinary treatment records and may not reflect the true health status since animal health may be handled differently, i.e. there might be different treatment schemes on organic versus in conventional farms. A study of animal health and health handling on both organic (n=149) and conventional (n=159) farms was performed based on information gathered from a mailed questionnaire merged with information from the Norwegian Cattle Health Services and the Norwegian Dairy Herd Recording System. Based on the original health records, there appeared to be many and large differences in herd health (veterinary) treatment parameters between the two production systems. However, after looking closer into the major diseases problems of mastitis, ketosis, and milk fever and converting from treatment to estimated case load based on questionnaire information about the observed
differences in health handling, all that remained was a lower level of acute mastitis in organic dairy herds relative to conventional. When controlling for production level {--} milk yield being lower in organic herds {--} no difference between the two groups remained. We conclude that, based on official health records, there is an apparent difference in animal health performance which is mainly related to an observed difference in health management. The remaining difference in acute mastitis which is not explained by disease handling appears, at least in part, to be associated with a lower intensity of milk production. The impact of these findings in relation to animal welfare as a central issue in organic farming needs further investigations. Finally, the study demonstrates the need for a critical assessment of routinely collected health-related data used in research, in order to make valid inferences regarding animal health performance.},
             url = {https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/17783/}
}