Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Josephine Lauterbach
 -- 1399 2022-04-21 08:17:38 |
2 format correct
Vivi Li
+ 63 word(s) 1462 2022-04-21 10:17:26 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Lauterbach, J.; , . Organic Consumers' Purchasing Motives for Heirloom Vegetable Varieties. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/22071 (accessed on 23 April 2024).
Lauterbach J,  . Organic Consumers' Purchasing Motives for Heirloom Vegetable Varieties. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/22071. Accessed April 23, 2024.
Lauterbach, Josephine, . "Organic Consumers' Purchasing Motives for Heirloom Vegetable Varieties" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/22071 (accessed April 23, 2024).
Lauterbach, J., & , . (2022, April 21). Organic Consumers' Purchasing Motives for Heirloom Vegetable Varieties. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/22071
Lauterbach, Josephine and . "Organic Consumers' Purchasing Motives for Heirloom Vegetable Varieties." Encyclopedia. Web. 21 April, 2022.
Organic Consumers' Purchasing Motives for Heirloom Vegetable Varieties
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su14074068

Agrobiodiversity is the foundation of our ecosystems and food supply. However, agrobiodiversity is declining rapidly. A prominent strategy to safeguard endangered varieties, an important component of agrobiodiversity, is their cultivation and preservation in their natural environments. In order to make the cultivation of these varieties attractive to farmers, a functioning value chain and communication concepts for these goods have to be developed. Plant genetic resources comprise the genetic variety between and within species. This includes land-races, which are also known as farmers’ varieties or underutilized crops. Heirloom vegetable varieties are a vital part of those resources. They are currently not in commercial use, as they have been forgotten, lost their commercial importance, or have been replaced by modern varieties. Consumers generally show a positive attitude towards heirloom varieties. They are associated with “nature/natural”, “native/from here”, “regional”, “traditional”, and an intensive taste.

communication agrobiodiversity heirloom vegetable varieties red list focus groups

1. Introduction

According to the Convention on Biological Diversity, agrobiodiversity can be defined as a “broad term that includes all components of biological diversity of relevance to food and agriculture […] the variety and variability of animals, plants and micro-organisms, at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels, which are necessary to sustain key functions of the agro-ecosystem, its structure and processes” [1] (COP decision V/5, appendix). Thus, agrobiodiversity is the foundation for the resilience of our agro-food systems [2]. One crucial component of agrobiodiversity is plant genetic resources.
Plant genetic resources are “the foundation of food production, and the biological basis for food security, livelihoods and economic development” [3]. Their current loss poses a threat to food security, local livelihoods, and the adaptability of ecosystems to changing environmental conditions [4][5].
To preserve the genetic potential of plant genetic resources, they need to be protected. One prominent strategy to protect plant genetic resources is the on-farm conservation of endangered crops and varieties, meaning the active cultivation of endangered plants in their natural environments.
Yet, this strategy is not attractive for farmers because the cultivation of endangered crops is often labour intensive, and those plants are often not adapted to a modern agricultural system [6]. To make the cultivation of endangered crops attractive for horticulturists, a valorisation strategy must be established. This includes creating a sufficient demand and a functioning value chain for these products [7][8].
On a large scale, such a valorisation strategy is lacking in Germany. Biodiversity-enhancing products, such as landraces, heirloom varieties, and underutilized crops, are currently almost exclusively sold via direct marketing, e.g., in farm shops or at market stalls [9][10][11]. Although organic supermarkets have gained a considerable market share in Germany over the last 10 years [12], experiences from indirect marketing channels, especially organic supermarkets, are rare. Consequently, their potential for the sale and thus conservation of heirloom varieties has not yet been utilised.
A major challenge for indirect marketing channels lies in the lack of personal communication between the producer and consumer [13]. Biodiversity-enhancing products are often in need of further explanation. They can be classified as ‘credence good,’ as their added value, such as the conservation of agrobiodiversity, cannot be assessed by consumers directly [14]. Therefore, effective and target-group-oriented communication tools for retailers are necessary [11][15].

2. Importance of Plant Genetic Resources

Diversity of plant genetic resources is a crucial component to help the agricultural system adapt to future challenges, such as climate change or pests. It increases genetic potential with which breeders can react to new social and ecological challenges. Agrobiodiversity thus makes an important contribution to food security, the resilience of ecosystems, the absorption of abiotic stress factors, and the adaptation of agricultural systems to climate change. It provides a pool of genetic resources needed to adapt to changes in natural systems [11][16][17][18].
Consumers also benefit from a wide variety of species and varieties used. New products can be developed, e.g., with more valuable ingredients or more diverse sensory properties (e.g., appearance, taste) [11].
Despite these advantages, there is currently a significant loss of plant genetic resources used in agricultural systems. This is due to the standardisation of cultivation systems, the use of a few high-performance varieties, and consolidation in the breeding sector [2][18][19].

3. Heirloom Varieties

Plant genetic resources comprise the genetic variety between and within species. This includes land-races, which are also known as farmers’ varieties or underutilized crops [20][21]. Heirloom vegetable varieties are a vital part of those resources. They are currently not in commercial use, as they have been forgotten, lost their commercial importance, or have been replaced by modern varieties. However, they possess a potential to strengthen the resilience of agricultural systems and to diversify and improve the existing value chain in terms of sustainability and resilience [21][22].
The German Ministry for Agriculture categorizes heirloom varieties as follows:
  • Lost varieties: mentioned in historic sources, but not available in seed banks anymore and without variety approval within the EU;
  • Traditional varieties: mentioned in historic sources and currently with variety approval;
  • ‘Red List’ varieties: mentioned in historic sources and available in seed banks, but without variety approval within the EU [23].
The “Red List of Endangered Local Crops”, which was last updated in 2018, contains over 2600 crop traits and varieties. They can be classified as indigenous (e.g., old German land variety), endangered (low to no current occurrence in situ/on-farm) or significant (e.g., potential for use by consumers or breeders). However, they no longer have variety protection or variety approval within the EU. Similar to the “Red List of Endangered Species” in nature conservation, the “Red List of Endangered Local Crops” is used to draw attention to the endangered status of useful plants and provides a higher incentive to conserve these species [24][25]. Hence, researchers include the “Red List” as a potential communication approach in this entry.
Plant diversity can be protected and preserved either in situ/on-farm or ex-situ.
In ex-situ conservation, plant genetic resources are stored in collections (gene banks) for conservation purposes. The genetic material is documented and characterised. The material is kept in its current status quo and is not further developed.
In-situ conservation is defined as the conservation of ecosystems and cultivated plants in their natural surroundings. On-farm conservation, as a special form of in situ conservation, is defined as the preservation of locally adopted regional varieties in the surroundings in which they have been developed. Hence, in on-farm conservation, the material is not merely stored but can be used to diversify the variety of cultivated species, human nutrition, or to generate additional income for farmers [26].

4. Consumer Attitudes towards Heirloom Varieties

As this entry investigates consumer attitudes towards heirloom vegetable varieties, in the following section researchers provide a brief overview on the existing literature on this topic, mainly focusing on Germany.
Several studies [9][27][28] provide a general overview of consumer attitudes towards heirloom varieties. In a qualitative survey, Bantle und Hamm [28] found a low level of knowledge about the loss of agrobiodiversity and its preservation through the use of heirloom varieties. This finding is supported by a study published in 2006 by Kleinhückelkotten et al. [9], who had not found an awareness of this topic in consumers’ everyday lives either. In addition, there is a cognitive dissonance among consumers when they are confronted with the topic of agrobiodiversity loss, since in the subjective perception of consumers, the diversity in food retailing is increasing [9].
Knowledge about old varieties is often based on personal experience, e.g., whether an old variety has already been eaten by oneself. Gastronomy, media, and direct marketers can also serve as sources of information [28].
Consumers generally show a positive attitude towards heirloom varieties. They are associated with “nature/natural”, “native/from here”, “regional”, “traditional”, and an intensive taste. Modern varieties, on the other hand, are often rated negatively [28][29].
Consumers see the purchase of old varieties and their own cultivation, e.g., of fruit trees, as possible options for action to preserve old varieties [30]. Availability and price are seen as possible obstacles for their preservation [31].
Studies in other European countries have shown similar results. Notari and Ferencz [31] show a high interest in taste and regionality for traditional food in Hungary (especially tomatoes). A study on traditional maize carried out in Portugal shows a high level of interest in taste and quality among consumers surveyed [32]. Meier and Öhen [15] show that, although the labeling as a traditional/old variety is not an important purchasing criterion, consumers do generally accept the idea of more diverse varieties (here farmers’ varieties) and are (hypothetically) willing to pay more for them.
In the US, heirloom vegetables have a longer tradition than in many European countries and can be classified as a status symbol for conscious consumers [33]. Shoppers often declare taste as an important factor when buying heirlooms. However, a study by Joseph et al. shows that consumers value visual appeal and a greater selection variety over taste when buying heirloom varieties [34].

References

  1. UN. Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro. 1992. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/agro/whatis.shtml (accessed on 16 August 2018).
  2. Lin, B.B. Resilience in Agriculture through Crop Diversification: Adaptive Management for Environmental Change. BioScience 2011, 61, 183–193.
  3. FAO. The Second Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Synthetic Account, Rome. 2010. Available online: http://www.fao.org/agriculture/seed/sow2/ (accessed on 29 May 2018).
  4. BMU. National Strategy on Biological Diversity; Environmental Policy Series: Bonn, Germany, 2007; Available online: https://biologischevielfalt.bfn.de/fileadmin/NBS/documents/Veroeffentlichungen/BMU_Natio_Strategie_en_bf.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2022).
  5. Bullock, J.M.; Pywell, R.F.; Burke, M.J.W.; Walker, K.J. Restoration of biodiversity enhances agricultural production. Ecol. Lett. 2001, 4, 185–189.
  6. Ozores-Hampton, M.; Coelho Frasca, A. Growing Heirloom Tomato Varieties in Southwest Florida. 2003. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272166234_Growing_Heirloom_Tomato_Varieties_in_Southwest_Florida (accessed on 1 February 2022).
  7. Padel, S.; Rossi, A.; D’Amico, S.; Sellars, A.; Oehen, B. Diversifood-Embedding Crop Diversity and Networking for Local High-Quality Food Systems: Case Studies of the Marketing of Products from Newly Bred Lines and Underutilized Crops Deliverable No. 5.1. 2018. Available online: https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/34456/1/Diversifood%20D5.1.pdf (accessed on 26 November 2018).
  8. Bairagi, S.; Custodio, M.C.; Durand-Morat, A.; Demont, M. Preserving cultural heritage through the valorization of Cordillera heirloom rice in the Philippines. Agric. Hum. Values 2021, 38, 257–270.
  9. Kleinhückelkotten, S.; Wippermann, C.; Behrendt, D.; Schürzer de Magalhaes, I.; Klär, K.; Wippermann, K.; Fiedrich, G. Kommunikation zur Agro-Biodiversität: Voraussetzungen für und Anforderungen an Eine Integrierte Kommunikationsstrategie zu Biologischer Vielfalt und Genetischen Ressourcen in der Land-, Forst-, Fischerei- und Ernährungswirtschaft (Einschließlich Gartenbau), Hannover/Heidelberg. 2006. Available online: https://docplayer.org/38382805-Kommunikation-zur-agro-biodiversitaet.html (accessed on 22 January 2018).
  10. Lehmann, C.; Lissek-Wolf, G.; Vögel, R.; Huyskens-Keil, S. Development of a network for the on-farm conservation of crop genetic resources: First results of a pilot project for the re-introduction of old Lactuca varieties to the market. J. Appl. Bot. Food Qual. 2009, 82, 170–178.
  11. Hamm, U.; Feindt, P.; Wätzold, F.; Wolters, V.; Backes, G.; Bahrs, E.; Brandt, H.; Dempllfe, L.; Engels, E.M.; Engels, J.; et al. Verbraucher für die Erhaltung der Biologischen Vielfalt in der Landwirtschaft Aktivieren!: Stellungnahme des Wissenschaftlichen Beirats für Biodiversität und Genetische Ressourcen Beim Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft. 2016. Available online: https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/_Ministerium/Beiraete/biodiversitaet/stellungnahme-verbraucher-aktivieren.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 (accessed on 15 January 2018).
  12. Rehder, L.E.; Stange, K. Gemany: Organic Food Retail 2016; GAIN Report. 2016. Available online: https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Organic%20Food%20Retail%202016_Berlin_Germany_1-6-2016.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2020).
  13. Mount, P. Growing local food: Scale and local food systems governance. Agric. Hum. Values 2012, 29, 107–121.
  14. Daugbjerg, C.; Smed, S.; Andersen, L.M.; Schvartzman, Y. Improving Eco-labelling as an Environmental Policy Instrument: Knowledge, Trust and Organic Consumption. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2013, 16, 559–575.
  15. Meier, C.; Oehen, B. Consumers’ Valuation of Farmers’ Varieties for Food System Diversity. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7134.
  16. Timmermann, C.; Robaey, Z. Agrobiodiversität, das Gemeinschaftserbe-Prinzip und Marktanreize. In Biopatente: Saatgut als Ware und als Öffentliches Gut, 1st ed.; Brandl, B., Schleissing, S., Eds.; Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG: Baden-Baden, Germany, 2016; pp. 109–132. ISBN 978-3-8452-7524-6.
  17. Jackson, L.E.; Pascual, U.; Hodgkin, T. Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 121, 196–210.
  18. Ebert, A. Potential of Underutilized Traditional Vegetables and Legume Crops to Contribute to Food and Nutritional Security, Income and More Sustainable Production Systems. Sustainability 2014, 6, 319–335.
  19. Messmer, M.; Wilbis, K.-P. Was ist uns gute Züchtung wert? Ökologie Landbau 2015, 174, 21–23.
  20. Pacicco, L.; Bodesmo, M.; Torricelli, R.; Negri, V. A methodological approach to identify agro-biodiversity hotspots for priority in situ conservation of plant genetic resources. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0197709.
  21. Diversifood. Underutilised Crops; Diversifood Innovation Factsheet No. 4. 2017. Available online: http://www.diversifood.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Diversifood_IF4_UPR-definition-1.pdf (accessed on 26 January 2018).
  22. IBV. Pflanzengenetische Ressourcen in Deutschland. 2018. Available online: https://pgrdeu.genres.de/rlist (accessed on 15 February 2019).
  23. IBV. Rote Liste der gefährdeten einheimischen Nutzpflanzen in Deutschland. In Pflanzengenetische Ressourcen in Deutschland; Bundesministerium für Landwirtschaft: Ernährung, Germany, 2018.
  24. Padulosi, S.; Bala Ravi, P.; Rojas, W.; Sthapit, S.; Subedi, A.; Dulloo, E.; Hammer, K.; Voegel, R.; ANTOFIE, M.-M.; Negri, V.; et al. Red Lists for Cultivated Species: Why We Need It and Suggestions for the Way Forward. 2012. Available online: https://www.bioversityinternational.org/fileadmin/user_upload/online_library/publications/pdfs/Red_Lists_for_cultivated_species_1943.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2022).
  25. IBV. Red List of Endangered Local Crops in Germany. Available online: https://pgrdeu.genres.de/rlist?lang=en (accessed on 23 April 2018).
  26. BMELV. National Programme: For the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic Resources of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops. 2012. Available online: https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/FachprogrammPflanzenRessourcen.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (accessed on 29 May 2018).
  27. Hyskens-Keil, D.S.; Lehmann, C.; Lissek-Wolf, G.; Lohner, H.; Vögel, R. Wiedereinführung alter Salatsorten zur Regionalen Vermarktung: Abschlussbericht Modell- und Demonstrationsvorhaben im Bereich der Biologischen Vielfalt. 2009. Available online: https://www.ble.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Projektfoerderung/MuD-Vorhaben/BiologischeVielfalt/AlteSalatsorten.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4 (accessed on 5 March 2018).
  28. Bantle, C.; Hamm, U. Der Bezug von Verbrauchern zu Agrobiodiversität-Grundladen für eine zielgruppengerechte Kommunikation. Ber. Landwirtsch. -Z. Agrarpolit. Landwirtsch. 2014, 3, 1–24.
  29. Guerrero, L.; Claret, A.; Verbeke, W.; Enderli, G.; Zakowska-Biemans, S.; Vanhonacker, F.; Issanchou, S.; Sajdakowska, M.; Granli, B.S.; Scalvedi, L.; et al. Perception of traditional food products in six European regions using free word association. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 225–233.
  30. Bantle, C.; Hamm, U. Vielfalt durch Nutzung erhalten: Entwicklung von Kommunikationsstrategien zur Agro-Biodiversität in der Gastronomie. 2014. Available online: www.orgprints.org/28070/ (accessed on 15 January 2018).
  31. Notari, M.; Ferencz, A. Scientific Assessment of the Importance of Traditional Hungarian Products. Lucr. Ştiinţifice 2013, 16, 37–40.
  32. Dinis, I.; Mendes-moreira, P.; Padel, S. Developing Marketing Strategies For Food Diversity: A Case-Study In Northern Portugal. In Proceedings of the 8th International Scientific Conference Rural Development, Jelgava, Latvia, 23–24 November 2017; Available online: http://conf.rd.asu.lt/index.php/rd/article/view/473 (accessed on 23 April 2018).
  33. Jordan, J.A. The Heirloom Tomato as Cultural Object: Investigating Taste and Space. Sociol. Rural. 2007, 47, 20–41.
  34. Joseph, H.; Nink, E.; McCarthy, A.; Messer, E.; Cash, S.B. The Heirloom Tomato is ‘In’. Does It Matter How It Tastes? Food Cult. Soc. 2017, 20, 257–280.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Agricultural Economics & Policy
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Josephine Lauterbach
,
View Times: 486
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 21 Apr 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback