Factors driving growers’ selection and implementation of an apple crop protection strategy at the farm level

Effects of Supplier’s Competitive Factors on Relationship Performance and Product Recommendation in Crop Protection Retail Sector

“…Agrawal et al (2022) identified product quality, supply price, brand awareness, flexibility, and promotion support as indicated suppliers' competitive factors in crop protection agent market structure and environment. Pissonnier et al (2016) also defined that the factors such as product quality, supply price, promotion support are important competitive factors of suppliers in the crop protection market. In other previous studies (Ferdows and Meyer 1990;Keller et al 1998;Boyer and Lewis 2002;Kannan and Tan 2002;Kaufmann and Gaeckler 2015;Demestihas et al 2019) quality, prices, delivery deadline, flexibility, brand asset, and support activities were presented as factors to evaluate suppliers' competitiveness.…”

“…When farmers, the end-users, buy products, retailers' recommendations take up more than half of their purchases (Fenn and Laycock 2017;Nishimoto 2019). Suppliers' marketing direction in a fiercely competitive environment needs to focus on retailers (Pissonnier et al 2016;Li and Zheng 2021;Pilkington 2022). As market competition deepens and retailers' product recommendation power increases, the relationships between retailers and suppliers can be crucial (Prado and Martinelli 2018).…”

The role of bioprotectants for disease control in integrated crop protection approaches

“…Apple fruits are produced in cropping systems with different integrated crop protection approaches (Caffi et al, 2017;Holb et al, 2017). Growers' choices depend on their economic and environmental concerns, their risk strategies concerning yield and quality losses and market prices for fruits produced under different systems (Pissonnier et al, 2016). Conventional systems mainly rely on regular applications of synthetic fungicides, whilst IPM systems use DSS before fungicides are applied and often integrate further measures to reduce apple scab risks, such as sanitation and resistant varieties -if marketing of such varieties is feasible.…”

Crop drivers in the shift from synthetic inputs to alternative practices in diversified farming systems

“…The choice of these farms aimed to cover a wide range of situations rather than a statistically representative sample of the island's farming population. The selection was based on three criteria identified by past studies as being potentially related to the adoption of alternative practices (Bellon et al, 2001;Pissonnier et al, 2016) and for which data could be obtained easily. The criteria were: the main marketing channel as a proxy for consumer demand regarding the characteristics of agricultural products and, consequently, the kind of practices requested to 5 produce them; organic certification as a proxy for strategic choices made by farmers that lead to the implementation of alternative practices; and farm size as a proxy for farm resources, especially labor and cash, which may hinder such implementation.…”

“…Numerous studies have sought to understand what drive farmers to adopt certain alternative practices to synthetic inputs such as conservation agriculture (Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007) and cover crops (Roesch-Mcnally et al, 2017). These studies have shown that adoption is affected by diverse drivers related to the characteristics of the farm, farmer, and farming practices studied (Pissonnier et al, 2016). However, these studies, which focused on one type of practice, do not consider all of the decisions that a farmer must make at the level of his or her farm and their underlying rationales.…”