All farmers interviewed mentioned direct experience as being one of the most important modes for understanding their landscape, their farming system, and management practices essential to their farm operation. The farmers described this accumulation of experience as “learning by doing,” being “self-taught,” or learning by “trial and error” . These farmers added that in learning by experience, they made “a lot of mistakes” and/or faced “many failures” but also learned from these mistakes and failures – and importantly, that this cycle was crucial to their chosen learning process. More than half of the farmers interviewed maintained that no guidebook or manual for farming exists; while reading books was viewed as valuable and worked to enhance learning for individual farmers, to farm required knowledge that could only be gained through experience. Moreover, nearly all the farmers also explicitly commented on the fact that they have never stopped learning to farm . Overall, farmers in this study learned primarily through personal experience and over time, making connections and larger conclusions from these experiences. On-farm experimentation was a critical component of knowledge building as well. Experimentation consisted of methodical trials that farmers implemented at small scales on their farms, and most often directly on a small portion of their fields. Experimentation was often incited by observation , a desire to learn or to increase alignment with their own values, or a need to pivot in order to adapt to external changes. The farmers experimented to test the feasibility of implementing specific incremental changes to their current farming practices before applying these changes across their entire farm. For example, cannabis indoor greenhouse one farmer relied exclusively on trucking in urban green waste compost as part of the farm’s fertility program when she first started farming.

However, one year, she decided to allow chickens to roam in a few of the fields; within a few years, those fields were outproducing any other field on her farm in terms of crop yield. She quickly transitioned the entire farm away from importing green waste compost to rotating chickens on a systematic schedule throughout all fields on her farm. This form of experimentation allowed this farmer to move from relying on external inputs for fertility to cycling existing resources within the farm and creating an internally regulated farming system . For this farmer, this small experiment was monumental and shifted her entire farm toward a management system that was more in alignment with her personal farming values. As she described, “When you look at everything on the farm from a communal perspective and apply that concept of community to everything on the farm . . . it literally applies to every aspect of your life too.”Though this farmer had initially used direct observation to implement raised beds on his farm, as he learned the purpose of raised beds through his own direct experience, he slowly realized – over the course of decades – that raised beds served no purpose for his application. One year, he decided not to shape some of his beds. At the end of the season, he evaluated no real impact on his ability to cultivate or irrigate the row crops on flat ground, and no impact on yield or crop health. In fact, he observed less soil compaction and more aeration due to fewer passes with heavy machinery; and, he saved time and fuel. The transition to farm on flat ground took several seasons for this farmer, but over time, his entire farm operation no longer used raised beds to grow row crops. This breakthrough in farming for this particular farmer was informed by personal experience and guided by careful experimentation.Second to experience, observation also influenced the farmer learning process.

Whereas direct experience is usually immersive, and embedded within a larger social context, observation is a detached, mechanical form of knowledge production, where a farmer registers what they perceive to transpire . For example, farmers cited observing other farmers in a multitude of ways: “By watching other farmers, I really mean I’d just drive around and look. I’d see what tools they were using;” or “If I saw someone working in the field, I would stop my car on the side of the road to see what people are doing;” or “I really would just observe my father farm,” as well as making observations about the status of their land . Several of the farmers summed up their cycle of learning as a cycle of observation, trial, feedback, observation, trial, feedback, etc . However, several of the farmers clarified that this type of learning did not necessarily involve talking to fellow farmers. One farmer shared that he learned certain farming practices from a neighbor farmer through distant observation and then borrowed ideas he subsequently applied on his farm; to achieve this, he admitted that he had never really talked to the other farmer directly. Another farmer noted that he would “go back at night if they [another farmer] left their equipment in the field and just study how it was set up, so I [he] could see what was going on.” Based on interviews with other farmers, farmer-to-farmer knowledge exchange often consisted of detached observation rather than personal conversation or direct contact with another farmer.During the initial field visit, the farmers shared their definitions of soil health. Across all farmers interviewed , responses appeared mechanical and resembled language disseminated by government entities such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service . As such, most responses emphasized building soil organic matter, promoting biological activity, maximizing diversity, and minimizing soil disturbance. During the in-depth interview, farmers shared specific indicators used to evaluate soil health on their farms. These responses were varied compared to definitions of soil health and were generally based on observation and personal experience.

Generally speaking, the farmers relied heavily on their crops and on the health of their crops to inform them about the basic health of their soil. In fact, the farmers cited using their crop as their foremost indicator for gauging optimum soil health. One farmer shared, “Mostly, I’m looking at the plants, if the color of green on a particular leaf goes from shiny to matte, or slightly gray undertone to it. These subtle cues, I pick up from just looking at my crops.” The growth habit of weeds within and around fields was also cited as an indicator of soil health. For example, one farmer explained, “I’m looking at how the weeds are growing at the edges of the field; in the middle of the field. Is there a difference between what’s happening around the edges and what’s happening in the field?” Some farmers also frequently relied on cover crops as indicators for determining soil health and soil behavior. When acquiring new fields, for example, the farmers tended to first grow cover crops to establish a baseline for soil health and also understand soil behavior and/or soil type. The farmers also used cover crop growth habits to gauge the status of soil health and soil fertility for a particular field before planting the next iteration of crops. As one farmer elaborated, “I’m judging a field based on how a cover crop grows. It’s one thing if you’re planting a nutrient-intensive crop in a field, but if you have a cover crop in the field and there’s a swath that’s this tall and another swatch that’s only this short, then you know there’s something seriously different about that section of field and the soil there.” The organic farmers in Yolo County that were interviewed for this study demonstrated wide and deep knowledge of their soil and farming systems. Results show that white, first- and second-generation farmers that farm alternatively accumulate substantive local knowledge of their farming systems – even within a decade or two of farming. These particular organic farmers demonstrated a complex understanding of their physical environments, soil ecosystems, and local contexts that expands and complements other knowledge bases that inform farming systems. While the content and application of farmer knowledge may be locally specific , below we consider aspects of this case study that may be more broadly applicable. First, we discuss emergent mechanisms for farmer knowledge formation using existing frameworks in the social-ecological systems literature, and also summarize key features of farmer knowledge that coalesced from the results of this study.To further examine how farmers in this study acquire and incorporate their knowledge within their farm operation, cannabis growing equipment we first explore emergent mechanisms that underpin farmer knowledge formation. Because farmer knowledge encompasses knowledge of both social and ecological systems – and the interactions thereof – it is useful to draw upon existing frameworks from the social-ecological systems literature in order to trace the process of farmer knowledge formation among farmers in our case study. Briefly, social-ecological systems recognize the importance of linking social and ecological processes to capture interactions between humans and the environment; importantly, existing literature within SES studies also emphasizes the interactive and adaptive feedback among social and ecological processes that link social and ecological system dynamics . Boons offers a conceptual guide for identifying social-ecological mechanisms, which adapted to our case study provides a starting point for tracing aspects of farmer knowledge formation. Here, social-ecological mechanisms for farmer knowledge formation refer to – on the one hand, social and cultural phenomena that influence farmer knowledge and their personal values – on the other, farmers’ observations of and experiences with environmental conditions and ecological processes on their farms that influence their knowledge and their values – and the interactions thereof . Drawing upon Bar-Tal , we further define farmer values as a farmer’s worldview on farming – a set of social values or belief system that a farmer aspires to institute on their farm .

In our study, examples of social-ecological mechanisms for farmer knowledge formation among these farmers included direct observation, personal experience, on-farm experimentation, and inherited wisdom from other local farmers. Similar to Boons’ conceptual guide, our results suggest that social-ecological mechanisms may play a central role in producing a farmer’s values and in integrating ecological knowledge into their farm operation. At the same time, results also highlight that social-ecological mechanisms may contribute to a farmer’s local ecological knowledge base, and importantly, place limits on the incorporation of social values in practice on farms. It is possible that social-ecological mechanisms may also provide the lens through which farmer values and ecological knowledge are reevaluated over time. Moreover, farmer values may also mutually inform ecological knowledge – and vice versa – in a dynamic, dialectical process as individual farmers apply their values or ecological knowledge in practice on their farm. Social-ecological mechanisms may also be key in translating abstract information into concrete knowledge among farmers interviewed. For example, experimentation may codify direct observations to generate farmer knowledge that is both concrete and transferable; or, to a lesser degree, personal experience may enhance farmer knowledge and may guide the process of experimentation. In general, we found that farmers interviewed tended to rely less on abstract, “basic” science and more on concrete, “applied” science that is based on their specific local contexts and environment . This finding underscores that for these farmers, their theory of farming is embedded in their practice of farming, and that these farmers tend to derive theoretical claims from their land.For example, the farmers who possessed a stewardship ethos viewed themselves as caretakers of their land; one farmer described his role as “a liaison between this piece of land and the human environment.” Farmers that self identified as stewards or caretakers of their land tended to rely most heavily on direct observation and personal experience to learn about their local ecosystems and develop their local ecological knowledge. This acquired ecological knowledge in turn directly informed how farmers approached management of their farms and the types of management practices and regimes they applied. That said, farmer values from this study did not always align with farming practices applied day-to-day due to both social and ecological limits of their environment. For example, one farmer, who considered himself a caretaker of his land expressed that cover crops were central to his management regime and that “we’ve underestimated how much benefit we can get from cover crops.” This same farmer admitted he had not been able to grow cover crops the last few seasons due to early rains, the heavy clay present in his soil, and the need to have crops ready for early summer markets.