By Lukie Pieterse, Editor/Publisher Potato News Today

Growers will trial new ideas – but only when the design fits commercial constraints, and measures what matters.

I recently received a thoughtful set of questions from Prof. Huong Nguyen, Assistant Professor in Weed Biology and Integrated Weed Management at McGill University. Her focus is practical: understanding what makes Quebec potato growers adopt new technologies or sustainable practices – and what keeps promising ideas stuck on the shelf.

What follows is an editorial perspective on Prof. Nguyen’s questions, and drawn from my own three decades of covering the potato industry online, and listening to growers, agronomists, processors, packers, and suppliers.

This is not the result of a formal survey. It is a field-level reading of how decisions actually get made when the crop is expensive, the calendar is unforgiving, and quality penalties are real. I believe – and hope – this humble article might be of value to potato producers outside of Canada’s Quebec province as well.

What truly shapes adoption decisions in Quebec

When Quebec potato growers consider a new technology or sustainable practice, the decision is rarely philosophical. It’s usually structural and economic.

A few forces consistently rise to the top:

• Clear return on investment – or measurable cost avoidance: yield stability, fewer rejects, fewer passes, fuel and labour savings, improved storability, and fewer quality claims at delivery.
• Buyer and contract signals: processor specifications, packer expectations, food safety frameworks, traceability, and the steady rise of sustainability reporting in the supply chain.
• Operational fit during peak season: planting, hilling, spraying, harvest, and storage filling are not flexible. If something complicates those windows, it faces immediate resistance.
• Rotation and land-base realities: potato ground is precious. Practices must work within tight rotations and persistent disease and weed pressure.
• Labour availability: solutions that reduce bottlenecks – or let existing crews do more with fewer people – tend to move faster.
• Local proof and trusted advisors: adoption accelerates when a neighbour proves it first, or a trusted agronomist is confident enough to recommend it.
• De-risking through cost-share programs: growers notice when government programs, clubs-conseils, or applied research networks help absorb trial costs or reduce downside risk.

The key point: growers aren’t looking for perfect ideas. They’re looking for ideas that survive contact with reality.

Why even strong agronomic ideas still don’t get adopted

In potatoes, “agronomically sound” and “adoptable” are not the same thing.

Common barriers show up again and again:

• Added complexity at the worst possible time: even a small extra step can become unworkable under weather pressure.
• Upfront cost with uncertain payback: results are rarely uniform across fields and seasons – and growers live in the variability.
• Learning curve and service dependence: calibration, maintenance, troubleshooting, and technical support gaps can kill momentum quickly.
• Compatibility friction: equipment integration, data formats, and vendor lock-in issues can make a promising tool feel like a long-term trap.
• Fear of unintended consequences: practices that look excellent on paper can create new headaches – compaction risk, harvest flow problems, storage challenges, or disease dynamics that were not fully anticipated.
• Cash flow and volatility: when markets tighten or production risk spikes, experimentation becomes a luxury.

Potato farms are not research stations. They are businesses running on narrow margins, tight windows, and high exposure.

Which technologies tend to spread fastest in Quebec

The technologies that gain traction most quickly are usually incremental, measurable, and low-regret.

These types have tended to move faster:

• Precision guidance and section control: fewer overlaps, better field efficiency, reduced input waste.
• Decision-support that reduces risk: tools that help with irrigation timing, spray timing, disease-risk awareness, or storage management – especially when they fit into routines farmers already trust.
• Storage and quality protection technologies: anything that reduces shrink, protects quality, or improves delivery outcomes tends to earn attention because value can be measured at the pile and at the receiving dock.
• Soil and nutrient efficiency practices that can be trialed simply: practices that can be tested on limited acreage without redesigning the entire farm tend to get a fairer trial.

What separates a “pilot” from real adoption is usually the same trio: simplicity, strong support, and clear measurement.

Sustainability and regulation: engagement is rising, but so is frustration

Grower perspectives around sustainability are evolving, but not in a neat straight line.

Two realities are happening at the same time:

• Pragmatic engagement is increasing. More growers will adopt sustainable practices when they clearly align with productivity, soil resilience, and market expectations.
• Skepticism remains stubborn. When policy feels detached from agronomic and operational constraints – short weather windows, uneven enforcement, limited alternatives – resistance hardens.

This is why sustainability messaging lands best when framed as risk management and resilience rather than branding or moral pressure. The most persuasive argument is simple: protect the soil, protect the business.

What makes growers willing to trial new approaches on their land

Growers generally will invest time and land in trials when several boxes are ticked:

• The problem is painful and recurring (resistant weeds, soil structure decline, erosion, quality penalties, rising input costs).
• The protocol is realistic – not a burden disguised as collaboration.
• The risk is bounded: clear trial size, clear decision points, and a reasonable exit strategy if something goes sideways.
• The technical support is credible and responsive: troubleshooting matters as much as the idea itself.
• The results are measured in grower language: operational time, number of passes, fuel use, labour, storage loss, quality grades, and net return.

If the outcomes don’t connect directly to how money is made or lost, the practice will struggle to scale.

What researchers too often miss about growers’ realities

This is where I think the gap can be most productive – if we’re honest about it.

A few recurring misunderstandings show up in many research-to-farm conversations:

• Time is not a preference – it’s a hard constraint. One extra measurement can mean missing a spray window or delaying harvest.
• Farm logistics can override agronomy. Equipment width, harvest flow, storage capacity, and staffing limitations shape what is even testable.
• Variability is the baseline. One-year results rarely persuade. Growers think across multiple seasons and multiple fields.
• Adoption is not just technical. It depends on parts availability, training, service response, and whether the system fits the farm’s decision rhythm.

If research is designed in a way that ignores these constraints, the results may still be scientifically valid – but they won’t be adopted.

What “good” research partnerships look like in potatoes

The partnerships that tend to lead to meaningful change share one core feature: farmers are involved early, not just recruited late.

Co-designed, on-farm, real-conditions research tends to work better because it:

• respects operational constraints,
• builds trust in the protocol and interpretation,
• produces results that are legible to growers and buyers, and
• creates a clearer pathway from trial to scale.

The model matters as much as the science.

Where to find growers and groups receptive to on-farm partnerships in Quebec and Eastern Canada

For researchers looking to build on-farm research partnerships – including integrated weed management trials – the best starting point is often through established grower organizations and applied research networks that already connect growers, agronomists, and trial infrastructure.

Entry points typically include:

• Quebec’s potato grower community through its provincial grower representation and regional agronomy networks
• Established potato-sector organizations and applied research collaborators in Atlantic Canada, where on-farm trial culture is well developed in many areas

The most important practical step is targeting the right type of partner – fresh vs processing, irrigated vs non-irrigated, region, scale, and appetite for trial complexity. When that match is right, growers are often more open than outsiders assume.

Closing thought

If there is one message I keep coming back to, it’s this: Quebec potato growers are not anti-innovation. They are anti-risk – because they have to be.

The opportunity for researchers is not just to invent better solutions, but to design trials and partnerships that respect the lived constraints of producing one of agriculture’s highest-risk field crops. When that happens, adoption stops being a “communication problem” and becomes what it should be: a practical business decision backed by credible proof.

Author: Lukie Pieterse, Editor/Publisher Potato News Today