Article

Outlook on Agriculture
2017, Vol. 46(3) 178–184
Importance of variety choice: ª The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:

Adapting to climate change in sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0030727017722420
journals.sagepub.com/home/oag
organic and conventional farming
systems in Germany

Janna Macholdt and Bernd Honermeier

Abstract
The objective of this study was to examine the importance of farmers’ variety choice in organic and conventional cereal
production and to understand which particular crop varieties are required by farmers for climate change adaptation. A
broad-based survey was conducted which included data from 119 organic and 305 conventional farmers in Germany. Most
of the farmers surveyed recognized the existence of climatic changes and their negative impacts on cereal production.
Given this context, the choice of climate-adapted varieties was very important to the majority of respondents. The
farmers ranked eco-stability, grain yield performance and steadiness as the most crucial varietal requirements. For cereals,
farmers perceived that a higher eco-stability was most important compared to other variety types. The selection of
varieties with high and eco-stable yields levels should be given increased consideration, with their use likely to improve
overall cereal yields and reduced plant production risks due to climate change.

Keywords
Questionnaire, cereal, variety capacity, variety type, hybrid variety

Introduction Germany or which examine the factors that influence varie-

tal choice. However, variety choice is an important strategy
Climate change plays a major role in shaping future cereal
with great adaptation potential due to the possibility for
production (Wheeler and Kay, 2010). Farmers must increas-
specific and rapid implementation in cereal production. This
ingly make appropriate management decisions with respect to
study therefore examined how organic and conventional
these changing climatic conditions, particularly at vulnerable
farmers are adapting to current climatic variations, concen-
locations such as those with sandy soils and early summer
trating on varietal choice. The main objective was to under-
drought risk. Sustainable cereal production with high and
stand which special varietal requirements farmers have with
stable yields under a changing climate presents a major chal- respect to climate change. The study focussed on the follow-
lenge in the 21st century. Climatic variation and its potential
ing hypotheses:
for negative consequences on cereal production cause con-
cern among farmers (Dinar and Mendelsohn, 2011). For
1. Farmers are aware of the effects of climatic changes
example, a shift in precipitation distribution, rising average
on their cereal production and use variety choice to
air temperatures and increased biotic stress factors can nega-
adapt to these changes.
tively influence grain yield and yield stability (Wiebe et al.,
2. Farmers attach differing levels of importance to
2015). Hence, examining agricultural risk perception is
various special varietal capacities relevant to
essential for understanding how farmers might adapt to a
climate change adaptation.
changing climate. Gathering information about risk percep-
3. Farmers show great demand for eco-stable varieties
tion among farmers can also be useful to support decision-
and eco-stable variety types to reduce the risks asso-
making by policymakers, plant breeders, advisors and local
ciated with climate change.
authorities. Farmers can adapt their cereal production to cli-
mate change in a number of ways, for example, by changing
planting and harvesting times, increasing use of irrigation, Institute of Agronomy and Plant Breeding I, Biomedical Research Center
reducing soil tillage or no-till systems and especially by Seltersberg, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany
choosing stress-tolerant cultivars (Eitzinger et al., 2009).
Numerous studies have focussed on analysing farmers’ Corresponding author:
Janna Macholdt, Institute of Agronomy and Plant Breeding I, Biomedical
views of climate change adaptation (Menapace et al., 2015), Research Center Seltersberg, Justus Liebig University Giessen,
but there remain very few empirical studies which investi- Schuberstraße 81, D-35392 Giessen, Germany.
gate farmer adaptation strategies for cereal production in Email: janna.c.macholdt@agrar.uni-giessen.de
Macholdt and Honermeier
In a recent study (Macholdt and Honermeier, 2016), the
variety choice of farmers in terms of climate change adap-
tation was evaluated, but this study did not fully consider
variety choice in accordance with the farming type. This is
despite the fact that farming type, organic or conventional,
has a significant influence on agronomic practices and pre-
sumably also on variety choice. Organic farming is defined
as a farming system without the use of pesticides, mineral
fertilizers or genetically modified (GM) varieties in plant
production – as well as the assumption of responsibility for
the cycle of nature and agricultural sustainability
(Mzoughi, 2014). Thus, organic farming places greater and
more complex demands on farmers for successful agron-
omy compared to conventional farming systems. For exam-
ple, plant production without reliance on chemical plant
protection or mineral fertilization requires focussing on
favourable crop rotations and adequate applications of
straw and green manure. But do differences between farm-
ing systems have consequences for variety choice, and if
so, what are they? In order to answer this question, this
study focussed on a comparison between organic and con-
ventional farms. The three hypotheses above were vali-
dated in accordance with the farming type and its
corresponding influence on farmer attitudes towards cli-
mate change adaptation and variety choice evaluated. The
purpose of the study was not only to gather information
regarding perceptions of climate change among farmers but
also to examine farms in organic and conventional cereal
production with respect to major climate change–related
adapted variety choice and requirements for special varietal
capacities – in particular, eco-stability. The study findings
serve as a basis for developing supportive strategies for
practical farming and may also provide insights for consid-
eration in agricultural advisory services and research. The
aim was to reduce the negative consequences of predicted
climatic changes for current and future cereal production.
Materials and methods
Study area
In the European Union, approximately 10 million hectares
are now farmed organically. Austria has the largest propor-
tion with 20% of its total agricultural area, followed by
Spain and Italy, Germany and France (German Farmers’
Association, 2016). As such, the study area of Germany is a
major centre of organic production in the European Union.
A total of 8.2% of German farmers practice organic farm-
ing on 1.05 million hectares – equivalent to 6.3% of its total
agricultural area. In contrast, 81.8% of the nation’s farms
(287,000) employ conventional farming systems. These are
mostly focussed on cultivating cereals, such as barley,
wheat, rye and triticale (German Farmers’ Association,
2016).
Data collection and analysis
The broad-based study was conducted online (via www.q-
set.de) with a standardized computer-based questionnaire
that allowed comparative and statistical analysis of the
179
results (Atteslander, 2010). The target region was nation-
wide and farmers from nearly all federal states in Germany
included. The target group consisted of farmers with prac-
tical experience in cereal production. Organic and conven-
tional farmers were encouraged to take part in the survey
via emails distributed by cooperative regional farmers’
associations, regional agricultural authorities and personal
invitations. In addition, farmers were alerted to the study
using adverts in digital newsletters, agronomic magazines
(German: Bauernblatt, Agrarmagazin, Hessischer Land-
bote), on agronomic information websites (www.proplan
ta.de; www.agrarheute.com; www.pflanzenbau-giessen.de)
as well as via posts on social media groups (German: Land-
treff, Landlive, Moderne Landwirtschaft). All these media
channels issued an invitation to participate in the study and
provided a link to the online survey.
The questionnaire was initially tested several times with
10 sample farmers. Their feedback regarding the format,
formulation of questions and clarity was considered in the
final questionnaire. The survey was launched in December
2015 and open for 3 months. A sample of 424 completed
and verified questionnaires formed the database for the
study. With regard to the farming systems used, a total of
119 farmers were practising organic farmers and 305 were
engaged in conventional farming. The average area under
cereal cultivation was 73 ha per farm (range 10–461 ha),
with a total area of 64,000 ha included in the survey. This
equates to approximately 1% of the total cereal production
area in Germany (6.5 m ha; German Farmers’ Association,
2016). Two-thirds (67%) of the participants involved in
organic farming systems were cultivating cereals with less
than 100 ha (33% of the farmers cultivated >100 ha), while
nearly three quarters (72%) of all farmers with conven-
tional farming systems were cultivating cereals on less than
100 ha (28% cultivating >100 ha). The quality of farmed
soils had a median value of 50 (German ‘Ackerzahl’ ¼
AZ), with the full sample ranging from poor (AZ 21) to
very good (AZ 90) soil quality. With regard to farming
systems, 24% of organic farming was practiced on poor
sandy soil (<35 AZ), 50% on medium soil (36–55 AZ) and
26% on loamy or silk soil (>56 AZ), while 17% of conven-
tional farming was practiced on poor soil (<35 AZ), 45% on
medium soil and 38% on soil characterized by high a soil
value (>56 AZ). Overall, the participants had between 5
years and 51 years experience in cereal production, with an
average of 21 years.
The online survey was designed as follows: The ques-
tionnaire initially focussed on the general characteristics of
the farmers (work experience) and their farms (system, site
conditions, area, soil quality). The next section asked farm-
ers about their perceptions of climate change and its impact
on their farming practices. In this way, their awareness of
adapted variety choice was evaluated. In the third section,
farmers were asked about their varietal requirements and
preferred variety types. At the end of the form, one question
asked farmers’ about their desire for further information
on the ‘eco-stability of varieties’. The respondents’ per-
ceptions were derived using a total of nine questions in
the form of closed multiple-choice, dichotomous and
180 Outlook on Agriculture 46(3)

Table 1. Farmer perceptions of climate change with effects on Table 2. Farmer perceptions of arising climatic variations in
cereal production. farming practices.

Farming system Frequency Yes (%) No (%) w2 Organic Conventional

Rank Response option farminga (%) farmingb (%) w2
Organic farming 119 83 17 0.632 (ns)
Conventional farming 305 86 14 1 Mild winter 88 92 1.592 (ns)
2 Drought 88 90 0.231 (ns)
ns: non-significant at the 5% level. 3 Torrential rain 76 70 2.035 (ns)
4 Hot spells 68 73 1.075 (ns)
open-ended questions. A Likert scale was used for expres- 5 Thunderstorm 51 42 2.782 (ns)
6 UV stress 38 38 0.011 (ns)
sing the degree of agreement with statements.
7 Growing season 34 31 1.217 (ns)
The software IBM SPSS Statistics 23 was used for sta- (prolonged)
tistical analysis. Quantitative data were analysed using 8 Late frost 29 24 0.837 (ns)
descriptive statistics such as medians, frequency distribu- 9 Soil erosion 26 22 0.944 (ns)
tions and percentages. The differences between groups were
ns: ¼ T-test non-significant at the 5% level; multiple answers allowed.
determined using t-tests, U-tests for Likert scales and w2 for a
n ¼ 119.
dichotomous questions. The calculations of Pearson correla- b
n ¼ 305.
tion coefficients (PCCs) were used to examine relationships
between different thematic groups and questions. Only fully
completed questionnaires were considered within this study, Table 3. Farmer perceptions of negative effects of climatic
and each questionnaire was verified individually with regard changes on cereal production.
to coherence, quality and duplication.
Organic Conventional
Response farminga farmingb
Results and discussion Rank Consequence option (%) (%) w2

Perception of climate variations in cereal production 1 Yield Yes 66 69 0.521 (ns)

variability No 34 31
Climate change is one of the key drivers of agricultural 2 Incidence of Yes 56 52 0.696 (ns)
change and will continue to be in the near future (Wiebe illness No 44 48
et al., 2015). In particular, crop production is directly con- 3 Loss of yield Yes 45 46 0.037 (ns)
fronted with the impacts caused by these climatic varia- No 55 54
tions. In this study, farmers reported being aware that 4 Loss of quality Yes 45 39 1.082 (ns)
climatic variation had an effect on their cereal production. No 55 61
Thus, the majority of respondents’ perceptions matched 5 Frost damage Yes 19 18 0.053 (ns)
No 81 82
previous research (Part and Takeuchi, 2014). The results 6 Lodging Yes 5 11 3.735 (c)
from this study showed that 83% of organic and 86% of No 95 89
conventional farmers (Table 1) recognized that climatic
variations have effects on their cereal production. The two ns: non-significant at the 5% level.
a
n ¼ 119.
groups of farmers exhibited no significant differences in b
n ¼ 305.
recognizing these changes. The number of respondents who c
Significant at the 5% level.
observed no effects on cereal production due to climate
change amounted to only 17% and 14%, respectively.
The farmers in the sample assessed the impact of cli- incidence of plant disease was ranked second, followed by
matic changes on farming practices as follows: Both yield loss. For all three potential consequences, opinions
organic and conventional farmers attached major relevance among organic and conventional farmers were similar and
to the increased frequency of drought, mild winters, torren- consistent with results from the literature: The results of a
tial rain and periods of extremely high temperatures multi-model analysis indicates strong negative effects from
(Table 2). In contrast, soil erosion and late frost were climatic changes on cereal production and a decrease in
viewed as being less important by both farmer groups. yield, especially in conjunction with vulnerable site condi-
Relevant literature confirms the farmers’ impressions of tions (Rosenzweig et al., 2014). Moreover, rising tempera-
increasing weather variations in Germany (Pompe et al., tures will lead to an increase in potential evaporation. In
2008; Wiebe et al., 2015). For example, various climate combination with possible declines in precipitation, the yield
models predict that Germany will face rising temperatures, variability for both summer and winter crops is likely to be
more frequent mild winters and significant changes in rain- adversely affected (Eitzinger et al., 2009), highlighting agri-
fall patterns (Rannow et al., 2010). culture’s high degree of vulnerability to a changing climate.
Understanding farmer perceptions of the consequences
of climate change in practice is necessary for selecting
adapted varieties. The respondents assumed that yield
Importance of variety choice
variability would be the most serious consequence for cer- One of the main questions in this study was whether farm-
eal production due to climate change (Table 3). The ers believed adaption to the negative consequences of
Macholdt and Honermeier
Table 4. Farmer adaptation by variety choice to climate change
according to farming system.
Farming system Frequency Yes (%) No (%) w2
Organic farming 119 80 20 0.378 (ns)
Conventional farming 305 83 17
ns: T-test non-significant at the 5% level.
climate change could be achieved by, among a number of
options, variety choice (Table 4). The results from both
farmer groups showed that the majority of respondents
believed this to be possible. Selection of an appropriate
variety is one important strategy for farmers adapting to
climate change. Farmers who predominantly perceived
frost damage (w2 ¼ 9.024), yield losses (w2 ¼ 5.564) and
incidence of illness (w2 ¼ 8.557) as impacts of climate
change (Table 3) confirmed that, above all, variety choice
was one possible adaptation strategy (Table 4). These three
relationships (w2 analysis) were significant at p < 0.001.
But no significant differences between the two groups of
farmers could be verified. Furthermore, it can be demon-
strated that farmer perceptions of climate change (Table 1)
are significantly (p < 0.001) correlated with their assertion
that variety choice is an adaptation strategy in cereal pro-
duction (Table 4). For organic farmers, the PCC was
approximately 0.315, and for farmers practising conven-
tional farming, the PCC was approximately 0.324. This
implies that farmers who recognized the effects of climate
change on their farming practices have also progressively
adjusted their variety selection in response to these
changes. Accordingly, other studies have also shown that
farmers are very willing to implement appropriate mea-
sures for climate change adaptation (Menapace et al.,
2015; Turhan, 2016) such as changing crop rotation, crop
protection, fertilization, crop choice (Seo and Mendelsohn,
2008) and, in particular, variety selection (Eitzinger et al.,
2009; Macholdt and Honermeier, 2016).
The importance of different varietal requirements of
cereals with regard to climatic changes was assessed by
farmers with organic or conventional practices (Table 5).
The eco-stability of a variety was deemed to be the most
important trait by both groups. This was followed by the
characteristics steadiness (lodging resistance), grain yield
potential and tolerance to aridity. Once again, there were no
discernible differences between the two farming systems
for all variety options. Farmers often choose the combina-
tion of heat and drought tolerance (PCC: 0.758 conven-
tional farming; PCC: 0.772 organic farming), the
combination of eco-stability and resistance to lodging
(PCC: 0.734 conventional farming; PCC: 0.740 organic
farming) and the combination of eco-stability and yield
potential (PCC: 0.769 conventional farming; PCC: 0.812
organic farming). All correlations above were significant at
p < 0.01. Corresponding research has shown similar results,
with eco-stability ranked by farmers as the key criterion for
variety choice in crop production and with yield potential
as being only a secondary concern (Asrat et al., 2010;
Macholdt and Honermeier, 2016). Moreover, farmers
181
showed a willingness to forego potentially higher yields
to achieve a more eco-stable variety performance (Asrat
et al., 2010). Finally, farmers’ high demand for varieties
with resistance to lodging might be associated with the
increase in severe weather and torrential rain as the two
main effects of climate change – but in this study, no sig-
nificant correlation between these variable could be
ascertained.
Use of transgenic varieties
Genetic engineering could improve grain yield, quality
parameters as well as abiotic and biotic stress tolerance
of cereals (Fedoroff et al., 2010; Tester and Landgridge,
2010) – especially as an adaptation to drought, heat and
ultraviolet radiation. Especially with regard to climate
change, genetic engineering could help to improve the effi-
ciency and stability of cereal production systems too. In
2014, soybean, corn, cotton and canola were grown as
GM crops worldwide on around 1.8 billion hectares (James,
2014). But the role of GM crops is the subject of public
controversy (Pray and Ledermann, 2016). In Germany,
growing GM varieties in farming practice is currently ille-
gal (German Genetic Engineering Act, Federal Ministry for
the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and
Nuclear Safety, 2016). At present, 76% of Germans support
the official ban (Federal Office for Nature Conservation,
2015). Furthermore, 67% of German consumers believe the
cultivation of transgenic crops leads to many negative eco-
logical consequences and that their consumption poses
health risks (Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, 2015).
This underlies farmers’ concerns in cultivating transgenic
varieties (Pray and Ledermann, 2016).
Farmers were also asked if they would grow legal GM
varieties if advantages in improved climatic stress toler-
ance could be expected (Table 6). The hypothetical legal
use of GM varieties was reported to be acceptable for only a
third (30%) of conventional farmers; in contrast, all (100%)
of farmers with organic farming systems were against this
option. This indicated an ingrained aversion among the
majority of the respondents towards green genetic engi-
neering – in particular among those in organic farming.
The results corroborate with investigations conducted by
German authorities and with previous research (Macholdt
and Honermeier, 2016), in which most of the respondents
also rejected the cultivation of transgenic varieties.
Demand for eco-stability
Farmers with organic farming systems perceived that
hybrid varieties have a higher eco-stability in comparison
to other variety types, and in particular for wheat and rye
(Table 7). They made similar assessments for barley and
triticale. For all four crops, the conventional farmers per-
ceived a higher eco-stability in comparison to other variety
types. Therefore, significant differences between the
assessments of farmers with organic and conventional
farming systems could be seen for barley and triticale. A
higher eco-stability of hybrid crop varieties was also
182 Outlook on Agriculture 46(3)

Table 5. Farmer evaluations of relevance of varietal characteristics in terms of climatic changes.

Rank Response option Farming system Frequency 1a (%) 2 (%) 3 (%) 4 (%) 5b (%) U-Test

1 Eco-stability Organic 119 5 5 8 29 52 0.590 (ns)

Conventional 305 6 5 5 29 56
2 Resistance to lodging Organic 119 6 9 3 32 50 0.977 (ns)
Conventional 305 5 6 14 36 39
3 Yield potential Organic 119 5 4 12 39 39 0.060 (ns)
Conventional 305 5 5 12 38 40
4 Drought tolerance Organic 119 8 7 14 33 39 0.388 (ns)
Conventional 305 7 9 10 34 41
5 Winter hardiness Organic 119 5 13 21 29 32 0.492 (ns)
Conventional 305 4 10 15 47 24
6 Heat tolerance Organic 119 3 17 17 41 23 0.369 (ns)
Convention 305 7 12 15 37 29
7 Biotic stress tolerance Organic 119 5 8 21 48 18 0.837 (ns)
Conventional 305 2 9 21 44 23
8 Earliness Organic 119 13 13 33 23 18 0.657 (ns)
Conventional 305 11 11 30 31 17
ns: U-Test non-significant at the 5% level (df ¼ 422).
a
1: very low degree of relevance.
b
5: very high degree of relevance.

Table 6. Farmer perceptions if they would grow legal GM Table 8. Farmer demand for official appraisal of eco-stability of
varieties if advantages in improved climatic stress tolerance could varieties.
be expected.
Organic Conventional
Farming system Frequency Yes (%) No (%) w2 Response farminga farmingb
Rank Cereal option (%) (%) w2
Organic farming 119 0 100 32.712 (a)
Conventional farming 305 30 70 1 Wheat Yes 76 78 0.120 (ns)
No 24 22
GM: genetically modified. 2 Barley Yes 80 75 0.935 (ns)
a
Significant at the 5% level. No 20 25
3 Rye Yes 87 78 3.427 (c)
No 13 22
Table 7. Farmer assessment if hybrid varieties provide better
4 Triticale Yes 82 80 0.227 (ns)
eco-stability in comparison to line or population varieties.
No 18 20
Organic Conventional 5 Oat Yes 82 79 0.595 (ns)
Response farminga farmingb No 18 21
Rank Cereal option (%) (%) w2 6 Spelt Yes 85 80 1.513 (ns)
No 15 20
1 Wheat Yes 66 62 0.724 (ns)
ns: non-significant at the 5% level.
No 34 38 a
c n ¼ 119.
2 Barley Yes 53 64 5.893 ( ) b
n ¼ 305.
No 47 36 c
Significant at the 5% level.
3 Rye Yes 64 73 3.761 (ns)
No 36 27
4 Triticale Yes 51 61 6.896 (c)
No 49 39 Consequently, farmers should consider cultivating a greater
proportion of hybrids with expected higher eco-stability as
ns: non-significant at the 5% level. part of their variety choice strategy.
a
n ¼ 119.
b
n ¼ 305. At present, there is only very limited public information
c
Significant at the 5% level. regarding the eco-stability of varieties provided by German
authorities. However, more than 75% of farmers inter-
viewed in this study confirmed a high interest in such vari-
reported in other research. For wheat, barley and triticale, a ety assessments of eco-stability (Table 8). The requests of
significantly higher eco-stability of hybrids has been organic and conventional farmers were very similar; only
observed compared to lines (Mühleisen et al., 2014), as for rye was there a significantly lower interest among
well as for hybrid rye varieties on sandy sites in northeast- respondents with conventional farming practices (78%)
ern Germany (Macholdt et al., 2013). Hybrids often show compared to organic farming (87%). This demand for an
an enhanced eco-stability in comparison to other variety official appraisal of eco-stable varieties should be taken
types, which offers a significant breeding advance in vari- into account, especially by relevant authorities, agricultural
ety selection with regard to climate change adaptation. consulting institutions and breeding companies, such as the
Macholdt and Honermeier
initial approaches demonstrated by Macholdt et al. (2013)
and Michel and Zenk (2010). However, the evaluation of
eco-stabilities for crop varieties requires substantial effort
and represents a challenge. Despite the fact that there are
various biometric methods available for analysing eco-
stability, precise calculation using a secure orthogonal
database with results from multi-environmental variety
field trials is necessary. The practical implementation of
various variety field trials would be resource intensive and
costly. If the resulting database was limited and/or showed
a high experimental error, it could lead to flawed conclu-
sions, and the estimation of the eco-stability of varieties
might not be sufficiently robust (Mühleisen et al., 2014).
Broader implications
This and comparable studies highlight that cereal producers
are already being directly affected by climatic changes
(Menapace et al., 2015), underlining the importance of
improved variety adaptation strategies. Although official
variety assessments contain detailed information on yield
potential and resistance to lodging, they contain limited
information on eco-stability and drought tolerance. The
existing nationwide ‘planning, information and evaluation
system for field research’ (PIAF) provides data differen-
tiated according to cropped areas on variety performance
and locations from variety trials of the integrated test sys-
tem for the areas of breeding, approval and regional coun-
selling (German Federal Plant Variety Office, 2000). One
way to complement the variety assessment would be the
extension of the PIAF system to include parameters for
eco-stability and drought tolerance, as shown in the con-
cepts by Macholdt et al. (2013) and Michel and Zenk
(2010). These should be developed further and incorpo-
rated into regional official variety recommendations in
order to provide a sound basis for informing practical deci-
sions on variety choice. The creation of a database combin-
ing weather data, site information and variety results from
breeders, official value evaluations, state plant variety eva-
luations and other institutions would be desirable. This
would enable a comprehensive and regional evaluation of
eco-stability and drought tolerance at the variety level.
Since exchanges between colleagues and the recommen-
dations of State Plant Varieties Offices are both of high
significance to farmers (in addition to their personal experi-
ence), an appropriate approach to the collection of data and
its publication should be considered. One approach that
could be beneficial is regional cooperation among institu-
tional partnerships and special farmer networks with a focus
on developing locally adapted breeding programmes.
Thereby, relevant approaches for applied research could be
provided due to an improved transfer of knowledge and data
between farmers, plant breeders, authorities and advisors.
Methodological limitations
Overall, it must be recognized that the results presented
here should be viewed within the context of the study and
cannot be generalized because of the relatively low
183
statistical certainty of web-based surveys (representative-
ness: 1% of the total cereal production area in Germany).
Broader implications are therefore difficult to derive and
must be interpreted with caution. One reason for the rela-
tively low representation could be that the study was con-
ducted online and farmers were mostly invited using digital
methods (email, internet) – this excluded farmers who do
not routinely work with computers, internet and email.
Unfortunately, a survey based on additional postal delivery
was not possible, because the postal address lists for farm-
ers are not disclosed to third parties by federal offices and
farmers’ associations due to legal and data protection
restrictions. Direct face-to-face interviews might be a use-
ful alternative, but conducting 400 interviews with farmers
is not feasible in a short timeframe, and the usage of dif-
ferent methods might have a distorting effect on the results
(Atteslander, 2010). However, contacting farmers via
email and internet was possible and a significant number
of completed questionnaires was attained. The benefits of
web-based designs, for example, a high response rate and
reaching a wide target group, have to be offset against their
disadvantages, such as non-transparent testing environ-
ments and increased termination rates (Gosling et al.,
2004).
Conclusions
The hypotheses in this study – the awareness of farmers
regarding climatic variation, its potentially negative effect
on growing cereals and, against this background, adapted
variety choice – were all confirmed. With regard to climate
change adaptation, the farmers surveyed attached great
importance to special varietal capacities – above all, eco-
stability, grain yield performance, drought tolerance and
steadiness. Furthermore, the respondents showed that they
require variety types with high eco-stability, such as
hybrids, to reduce climate change risks. Overall, very sim-
ilar assessments were made by both organic and conven-
tional farmers. Crop improvement through variety breeding
offers immense value relative to investment and brings an
effective approach to improving sustainable cereal produc-
tion. Through the breeding and clear designation of eco-
stable and drought tolerant cereal varieties, the variety
choice of farmers practising organic or conventional farm-
ing could be considerably improved. This could make a
significant contribution to securing crop yields within the
framework of sustainable agriculture, thereby reducing the
negative effects of climatic changes on cereal production.
Acknowledgement
We extend our sincere gratitude to the farmers who offered their
time and knowledge for this research.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
184
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Asrat S, Yesuf M, Carlsson F, et al. (2010) Farmers’ preferences
for crop variety traits: lessons for on-farm conservation and
technology adoption. Ecological Economics 69(12):
2394–2401.
Atteslander P (2010) Methoden Der Empirischen Sozialforschung
[Methods of Empirical Social Research], 13th ed. Berlin:
Erich Schmidt Verlag.
Dinar A and Mendelssohn R (2011) Handbook on Climate
Change and Agriculture. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Eitzinger J, Kersebaum KC and Formayer H (2009) Land-
wirtschaft im Klimawandel: Auswirkungen und Anpassungs-
strategien Für Die Land- Und Forstwirtschaftlichen Betriebe
in Mitteleuropa [Adaption to Climate Change: Farmers’ Stra-
tegies in Central Europe]. Clenze: AgriMedia.
Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (2015) Consumer Monitor,
Berlin, p. 20. Available at: http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/350/
bfr-verbrauchermonitor-2015.pdf (accessed 1 June 2016).
Federal Ministry for the Environment; Nature Conservation;
Building and Nuclear Safety (2016) Gene Technology Law.
Available at: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/
gentg/gesamt.pdf (accessed 4 May 2016).
Federal Office for Nature Conservation (2015) Natural awareness sur-
vey, Berlin, p. 10. Available at: http://www.bmub.bund.de/filead
min/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Naturschutz/naturbewusst
seinsstudie_2015_infopapier_bf.pdf (accessed 1 June 2016).
Fedoroff NV, Battisti DS, Beachy RN, et al. (2010) Radically
rethinking agriculture for the 21st century. Science (New York,
NY) 327(5967): 833–834.
German Farmers’ Association (2016) Situation report 2015/2016.
Available at: http://www.bauernverband.de/situationsbericht-
2015-16 (accessed 4 May 2016).
German Federal Plant Variety Office (2000) Guidelines for the
Implementation of Official Field Trial Research for Variety
Testing. Report. German Federal Plant Variety Office. Avail-
able at: www.bundessortenamt.de/internet30/fileadmin/Files/
PDF/Richtlinie_LW2000.pdf (accessed 17 February 2016).
Gosling SD, Vazire S, Srivastava S, et al. (2004) Should we trust web-
based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about
internet questionnaires. American Psychologis 59: 93–104.
James C (2014) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM
Crops: 2014: SAAA Brief No. 49, Ithaca, NY. Available at:
http://isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/49/default.asp
(accessed 1 June 2016).
Macholdt J, Ellmer F, Barthelmes G, et al. (2013) Eco-stability of
winter rye varieties under site conditions of Brandenburg.
Journal of Cultivated Plants 65(6): 217–226.
Macholdt J and Honermeier B (2016) Variety choice in crop
production for climate change adaptation: farmer evidence
from Germany. Outlook on Agriculture 45(2): 117–123.
Outlook on Agriculture 46(3)
Menapace L, Colson G and Raffaelli R (2015) Climate change
beliefs and perceptions of agricultural risks: an application of
the exchangeability method. Global Environmental Change
35: 70–81.
Michel V and Zenk A (2010) Suitability of winter wheat varieties
under specific growing conditions and introduction of new
parameters for evaluation of varieties with special consider-
ation of climatic changes. Report. Gülzow: State Research
Institute for Agriculture and Fisheries Mecklenburg-Vorpom-
mern. Available at: www.landwirtschaft-mv.de/cms2/LFA_
prod/LFA/content/de/Fachinformationen/Sorten/index.jsp
(accessed 17 Feb 2016).
Mühleisen J, Piepho HP, Maurer HP, et al. (2014) Yield stability of
hybrids versus lines in wheat, barley, and triticale. TAG. The-
oretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte
Genetik 127(2): 309–316.
Mzoughi N (2014) Do organic farmers feel happier than conven-
tional ones?: an exploratory analysis. Ecological Economics
103: 38–43.
Part A and Takeuchi K (2014) IPCC: Final Draft Report. Con-
tributions of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR5).
Cambridge: IPCC.
Pompe S, Hanspach J, Badeck F, et al. (2008) Climate and land
use change impacts on plant distributions in Germany. Biology
Letters 4(5): 564–567.
Pray C and Ledermann S (2016) Genetically engineered crops and
certified organic agriculture for improving nutrition security in
Africa and South Asia. World Review of Nutrition and
Dietetics 115: 175–183.
Rannow S, Loibl W, Greiving S, et al. (2010) Potential impacts of
climate change in Germany—Identifying regional priorities
for adaptation activities in spatial planning. Landscape and
Urban Planning 98(3–4): 160–171.
Rosenzweig C, Elliott J, Deryng D, et al. (2014) Assessing agri-
cultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global
gridded crop model intercomparison. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
111(9): 3268–3273.
Seo SN and Mendelsohn R (2008) An analysis of crop choice:
adapting to climate change in South American farms. Ecolo-
gical Economics 67(1): 109–116.
Tester M and Langridge P (2010) Breeding technologies to
increase crop production in a changing world. Science (New
York, N.Y.) 327(5967): 818–822.
Turhan E (2016) Value-based adaptation to climate change and
divergent developmentalisms in Turkish agriculture. Ecologi-
cal Economics 121: 140–148.
Wheeler T and Kay M (2010) Food crop production, water and
climate change in the developing world. Outlook on Agricul-
ture 39(4): 239–243.
Wiebe K, Lotze-Campen H, Sands R, et al. (2015) Climate change
impacts on agriculture in 2050 under a range of plausible
socioeconomic and emissions scenarios. Environmental
Research Letter 10(8): 85010.