How do dairy farmers wish their future farm?

Dairy farming systems are evolving. This study presents dairy producers’ perceptions of their ideal future farm (IFF) to ensure revenue and attempts to determine the reasons for this choice, the environmental aspects related to this choice, the proximity between the current farm and the IFF and the requirements for reaching this IFF. Just before the end of the European milk quota, a total of 245 dairy producers answered a survey about the characteristics of their IFF and other socio-environmental-economic information. A multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) was carried out using seven characteristics of IFF (intensive vs. extensive, specialised vs. diversified, strongly vs. weakly based on new technologies, managed by a group of managers vs. an independent farmer, employed vs. familial workforce, local vs. global market, standard vs. quality-differentiated production). Based on the main contributors to the second dimension of MCA, this axis was defined as an IFF gradient between the local-based extensive (LBE) producers (26%) and the global-based intensive (GBI) producers (46%). The differences of IFF gradient between modalities of qualitative variables were estimated using generalised linear models. Pearson correlations were calculated between the scores on the IFF gradient and quantitative variables. Finally, frequencies for IFF characteristic and the corresponding characteristic for the current situation were calculated to determine the percentages of “unhappy” producers. Some reasons for the choice of IFF by the producers have been highlighted in this study. Environmental initiatives were more valued by LBE than GBI producers. Low similarity was observed between the current farm situation of the respondents and their IFF choice. LBE and GBI producers differed significantly regarding domains of formation (technical and bureaucratic vs transformation and diversification respectively) and paths of formation (non-market vs. market respectively). Two kinds of farming systems were considered by dairy producers and some socioeconomic and environmental components differed between them.


Introduction
Food is a basic need. Working to provide food for themselves and their family 61 was the task of everyone at the dawn of humanity. The progressive organisation of 62 society has led to the appearance of "producers" who are responsible for producing 63 food for more than just themselves and their family. Since World War II, public policies 64 have been set up to increase food production [1]. These policies impacted the 65 development of producers and their farms in the European Union. In the southern part 66 of Belgium, the mean number of cows and the mean agricultural area per producer 67 increased between 1980 and 2017 from 20 to 66 heads and from 25 to 71 hectares, 68 respectively [2].

69
Producers are now facing great challenges to stay profitable. The price of the 70 inputs (e.g., buildings, agricultural machinery, installations, feeding, veterinary care) of 71 dairy production (DP) are increasing while the milk price shows great variability and its 72 inflation is not similar to that observed for the inputs [3,4]. Moreover, the European 73 Union has decreased financial support to farmers [5]. On 1 st April 2015, the European 74 Union removed the quota system which had managed the supply of DP [6]. This led to 75 greater milk price volatility. Additionally, sanitary crises such as mad cow disease 76 (bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)) and the dioxine crisis, among others, have 77 shocked consumers and led to new rules and regulations at European level and led to 78 the creation of food security agencies in its countries. Moreover, these episodes 79 modified consumers' behaviours regarding their food purchases, they asked for more 80 transparency and directed themselves towards organic food or local chains [7].
81 Besides the economic view, the impacts of farming on the environment have been 82 noted and policies have been set up in the Common Agricultural Policy to solve these 83 problems [4,8].

84
In this context, the question often asked is what the future of dairy farming 85 entails, how to remain profitable and more generally sustainable. Several authors have 86 studied the evolution of dairy farming and the present dairy systems, finding trends that 87 exist in the sector [3,4,9]. For instance, the project Mouve, funded by the French 88 National Research Agency, studied the evolution of dairy farming systems in 6 dairy 89 basins around the world. Their results gathered the publications of Napoleone et al.
90 (2014) [9] and Havet et al. (2015) [3]. Moreover, authors have studied the future paths 91 of development considered by dairy producers [10][11][12][13]. These studies were realised 92 on the basis of data from 2001 to the beginning of 2013. These studies explored some 93 reasons for these choices [10][11][12][13][14].   (Table 1). Moreover, the percentage of "unhappy" producers was calculated 178 as the ratio between the producers not currently in the situation that they consider as 179 ideal and the total number of producers.
10 181 Table 1. Absolute frequency of producers as a function of their answer to the ideal future farm characteristic and the 182 corresponding characteristic for the current situation and percentage of "unhappy" producers (i.e., percentage of producers 183 not currently in the situation that they consider as ideal) 184 1 Frequency in grey box corresponds to producers not currently in the situation that they consider as ideal regarding this characteristic Corresponding characteristic for the current situation % of "unhappy" producers >2 cows per hectare of grass <2 cows per hectare of grass

Results and discussion
Contrasted opinions of Walloon dairy farmers about the ideal future farm As mentioned previously, the first aim of this study was to highlight the perceptions of Walloon dairy producers about their ideal farm, just before the end of the milk quota.
This was done through the answers to 7 questions. Table 2 shows the frequency for each modality of those questions. Contrasted opinions of dairy farmers were observed for almost all questions except for the type of management and the kind of workforce: 71.84% of the respondents wanted an independent farmer management, and 86.53% focused on a family workforce (Table 2). These results highlight a will in the southern part of Belgium to maintain the traditional form of work organisation in the future, with family workforce and one director of operations. More globally in the world, dairy farms are still mostly owned and managed by a family structure, whatever the degree of development of the country [18,19]. The choice of producers to work by themselves and not to deal with workers (i.e., an external person to the family employed on the farm) was noted in other studies.
For example, in Spain Gonzalez and Gomez (2001) [20] observed, when asking 3,370 farmers for their definition of a farmer, that more than half of them chose labourer and 12% chose businessman.
From Table 2, it is remarkable to note that the highest percentages of abstention were observed for the questions about intensive vs. extensive, strongly vs. weakly based on new technologies, and providing DP for local vs. global markets. These results showed that a quite significant proportion of the respondents did not take a position on these directions for the evolution of dairy farms.

Dualisation of ideal future farm aspirations
To study the relationships between the answers given by the respondents to all questions about IFF, a MCA was performed as the related variables were qualitative ( Table 2). The percentage of principal inertia of the dimensions 1 and 2 of MCA were 16.75% and 12.38%, respectively (Fig 1). The value of corrected inertia for the two first dimensions reached 72.7% and 21.5% respectively, gathering almost 95% of the information. The first dimension permitted differentiation between the producers who did not give their opinion concerning characteristics of IFF and the producers who did (Fig 1). This represented 15% and 85% of the dataset respectively. The "no opinion" producers group (N = 38) were removed from the analysis to avoid potential bias coming from as well as the wish of consumers to have structures that gather all the food supplies in one place (i.e., a supermarket) led to the concentration of dairy processing in some big firms [9]. These firms were better placed to develop because they could control their collection costs, benefit from scale economies and were able to deliver to supermarkets with regularity in quantity and with a standard quality [7]. This state and the world market have conditioned a milk price for the producers. Increasing the production, thanks to more cows or higher productivity, is a possible way to stay profitable, considering the undergone milk price [3,9]. To achieve profitability, an elevated production of milk per cow and an increase of cows on the farm are reached [9]. Moreover, this increase in milk production at farm level was also forced by the orientated production Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) primes, although CAP has limited help to the dairy sector. Therefore, all of these characteristics intensify the dairy farming system. Intensification was defined by Garcia-Martinez et al. (2009) [23] as the maximisation of the rarest factor, traditionally the agricultural area. The increase in DP per unit of agricultural area was possible thanks to intensive production of forage and purchase of inputs, produced where production costs were the lowest, to balance the ration, to increase the production per cow, or the number of cows reared on a hectare of agricultural area and therefore DP per unit of agricultural area at the level of the farm [7,9]. This intensification led to more specialised farms with more dairy cows and their entire workforce directed to this specialisation [7]. The enlargement of farms required a higher work rate; this was surmounted thanks to equipment and new technologies and thanks to more human workforce: collective organization, subcontracting to private firms and also employment of workers [7].
The second tendency, contradictory to the first tendency, was characterised by high negative scores on the second MCA dimension. This axis was represented by the following modalities: weakly based on new technologies, diversified, differentiated quality milk, local market and extensive system (Fig 1). This reflects another form of dairy farming. This form is favoured by a constant increase in input prices, combined with a growing demand of consumers to have high quality and local based products [7]. Dairy producers choose to work with greater self-sufficiency to be less dependent on the undergone input prices [7]. The "localisation" of the production demanded by consumers was executed thanks to this more local-produced forage and fewer inputs from outside [3]. This return to self-sufficiency led to more extensive farming [3]. The production induced was also often quality-differentiated and dedicated to local markets [7]. Cournut et al. (2012) [7] showed in their study that this kind of dairy farming is chosen by a minority of farms, which are still diversified.
This gradation with two kinds of models at the extremities of the second MCA dimension was also described in other studies [3,4,7,9,[24][25][26]. They were named also highlighted a major tendency towards the enlargement, professionalisation and specialisation of farms, but those authors also mentioned that other farms wanted to develop diversified structures, orientated towards the requests of society, processing and farm accommodation. The present study showed this dualisation but also quantified these two tendencies: 46% vs. 26% of producers having high positive and high negative scores respectively on the second dimension. Verhees et al. (2018) [13] quantified producers as a function of their strategies of development, but solely regarding specialisation vs. diversification of their activity, 54.3% vs 15.1% respectively.

Relationships between ideal future farms and reasons, environmental considerations and formations
To study the relationships between the different IFF and other interesting technicoeconomic information, the second dimension was considered as a gradient (IFFg) interpreted at the extremities as global-based intensive producers (GBI: high positive scores) and local-based extensive producers (LBE: high negative scores). The choice to work with a gradient rather than a clear separation of the two tendencies was motivated by the will to represent all the intermediaries of the IFF of dairy producers.
The mean of the scores of the second MCA dimension was -0.012 with a SD of 0.053.
Minimal and maximal values were -1.09 and 0.92, respectively.
Based on the interpretation of IFFg, a significant negative correlation indicates a higher relationship with the dairy producers desiring a LBE model. By opposition, a significant positive correlation means a higher link with the dairy producers desiring a GBI model. Tables 3, 5 and 6 give the results of generalised linear models where the qualitative variables were introduced separately as a fixed effect in the model. Significantly lower estimates of IFFg for a specific modality of the considered qualitative variable depicts a tendency of producers desiring a LBE model to choose this modality, while significantly higher estimates of IFFg means a tendency of producers wanting a GBI model to choose this modality. The following paragraphs will summarise the potential reasons driving the choice of IFF made by the Walloon dairy farmers.

Effect of past crisis on perceptions of the ideal future farm
The producers that were impacted by past crises wished more for a LBE model (estimate = -0.17, Table   3). This could be related to the suffering involved in the crisis and the wish to apply solutions in order to not repeat this situation: revenue from diversified activities, other outlets for the milk production sold (i.e., local market characteristic) and/or selfsufficiency to be less dependent on purchased feed (i.e., extensive farm characteristic). This is in agreement with a past finding [27]. We observed a decrease in intensification in 2012 which was the year of a dairy economic crisis mainly related to an increase in the price of inputs. Workload Workload seems to be less bearable for producers desiring a GBI model (estimate = 0.15, Table 3; R constraint workforce = 0.22, P = 0.002). Producers wishing for a GBI model were also nearly significantly more likely to be members of an agricultural replacement service (estimate = 0.058, Table 3) and showed a tendency to be more interested in employment of workers (estimate = 0.13, P worker engagement to implement vs. not interested = 0.11, Table 3). The choice of GBI model could be explained by this current workload, involving the need for an increase of revenue. So, the solution considered could be higher milk production and the breeding of more cows rather than diversification of activities and self-valorisation activity, the development of which requires a lot of time. Samson et al. (2016) [14] confirmed this in the Netherlands by highlighting a nearly significant effect of labour productivity on the DP increase strategy.  [13] showed that land was the most important factor in developing a specific farming strategy. In France, Hostiou et al. (2015) [21] observed that intensified farms with higher technology equipment sometimes employed more workers, and were the farms with significantly higher agricultural area, percentage of corn silage, number of cows and milk quota. In the Netherlands, Samson et al. (2016) [14] showed that production intensity, number of cows, modernity of technology and availability of land were important factors in DP increase strategies.

Production factors
In contrast, producers with lower production factors can consider more hardly enlargement and therefore think differently about the enhancement of their revenue: better valorisation of quality differentiated milk, other activities on the farm, self valorisation, the LBE model. Samson et al. (2016) [14] showed that lower stable capacity varies inversely to a DP increase strategy, which is rather a GBI tendency.
The findings of the current study, as confirmed by previous researchers, showed that producers work within a tightly constrained and regulated environment limiting their ability to determine the future of their farm according to their personal desires. This   [31] showed that bigger farms are more likely to increase than other farms. However, based on the quite low values of the correlations obtained between the agricultural area and the number of cows, we can consider that this situation must be nuanced and that the IFF chosen also depends on the ways of thinking of the dairy producer, not taking into account the current situation of his farm. This statement is reinforced by the fact that the correlation of percentage of meadow with IFFg was not significantly different to 0 (R = -0.097, P > 0.1). Also, the impact of the provinces of the Walloon Region, which present different geographical and soil characteristics, on IFFg were not significantly different (P = 0.51, Table 3).
Moreover the significant relations between IFFg and milk production evolution for five years ( Table 3; R quantity of milk variation = 0.30, P < 0.001), investment for and in five years (Table 3) support the assumption that the IFF chosen depends greatly on the mentality of the producers.
In their study, Methorst et al. (2017a) [11] proved the heterogeneity of farm developments of producers facing the same socio-material context, showing the importance of the mentality of the producers in their decisions. Authors speak about shared values, norms, ways they see themselves or would like to be seen by producers, views, capacities and their perceptions of opportunities and any room for manoeuvre, skills, motives, entrepreneurship, goals and strategies [10,11,14,29,32] as factors which influence the farm development. Samson et al. (2016) [14] discussed experimental economics, which are economics where psychology and biology, which explain human behaviours, are added to better explain the development of enterprises.
The consideration of more than just economic aspects permits them to reduce the error of their model for predicting DP increase strategies [14].
Age Age of the producer seems not to condition the desired IFF (Table 3). An IFF could be chosen because of either the new ideas of young producers or the experience of older producers. If mentality seems to influence IFF choice, it is not linked to age.
The two kinds of IFF could be an answer to both innovation and problems encountered during a long career. Samson et al. (2016) [14] also studied age as a reflection of the farmers' values, goals and strategies, and showed no relationship with DP increase, which is rather a GBI characteristic. On the contrary, on the basis of data from 11 countries of the European Union, Weltin et al. (2017) [12] observed an effect of age on the tendency towards diversification, which is rather a LBE tendency.

Diversification and alternative valorisation
The results obtained in this study showed a link between the diversification mentality and the choice of LBE model.
Significant negative estimates or correlations were observed for the following variables related to diversification: the presence of other animal production (estimate = -0.093, Table 3); the direct selling milk quota (R = -0.17, P = 0.016); dairy or no dairy processing and direct sales (estimates = -0.33 and -0.39, Table 3); the development of HORECA activities, tourism and teaching (estimate = -0.18, Table 3); the concern for diversification (estimate = -0.23, Table 3); alternative chain for milk and other than milk production valorisation (estimates = -0.49 and -0.56, Table 3) and the increase of "other than dairy" activity without investment (estimate = -0.42, Table 3).
Conversely, producers desiring a GBI model were more likely to choose the item "no activity to develop if supported", suggesting the unique principal activity way of thinking of producers aiming for a GBI model (estimate = 0.27, Table 3). Samson et al. (2016) [14] confirmed this tendency and showed that the presence of diversified activities evolved inversely to the increase of milk production. In this study, we observed potential explanations to support to this fact. Producers wishing for a LBE model considered self-valorisation and diversification as solutions to the current situation to enhance revenue due to the creation of added value (estimate = -0.097, Table 3).
They thought that diversification and transformation allowed financial, decisional and technical autonomy (estimate = -0.27, Table 3) and were confident in consumer loyalty (estimate = -0.047, Table 3). They considered relations with consumers as an opportunity and not a threat, unlike producers desiring a GBI model (estimate = 0.17, Table 3). One reason GBI model producers gave against self-valorisation and diversification seemed to be the lack of trust in consumers and therefore the outlets.
They frequently saw no advantage to self-valorisation and diversification (estimate = 0.27, Table 3). The relation to the consumer was also studied by Verhees et al. (2018) [13]. They observed that consumer orientation was more often declared as an opportunity to the profiles of producers considering strategies similar to LBE. The positive impact of diversified activities on autonomy was also shown by Bergevoet et al. (2004) [10]. They mentioned that proponents of the "extra source of income" model (closest to the LBE model) were more able to declare that they can increase the salesprice of their milk. Producers wishing for a LBE model were also likely to find no constraints to transformation and diversification (estimate = -0.093, Table 3). The only limits to diversification and transformation highlighted by producers wanting a LBE model were regulatory constraints (estimate = -0.080, Table 3) and the size of investments (estimate = -0.14, Table 3). As a consequence of these considerations, producers wanting a LBE model felt that they were more able to meet society's expectations regarding local and artisanal products (R = -0.22, P = 0.0016) and the desire for a familial structure (R = -0.12; P = 0.084).

Breed to produce milk
Producers wanting a LBE model are more open to breeding a dual-purpose herd (estimate = -0.19, Table 3), which permits them to diversify their production: milk and meat. Producers wishing for a GBI model target a single, more specialised breed (estimate = 0.18, Table 3) which could offer more homogeneous management of the herd. The link between mentality, observed through the choice of breed(s), and the choice of IFF is once more highlighted.
Regrouping Producers tending towards the LBE model were more likely to promote regrouping for its advantages regarding fiscal and administrative aspects, the development of a joint project and the marketing of the products (estimates = -0.16; -0.15; -0.38, Table 3). The importance of mentality for the choice of IFF has been shown. A mentality of cooperation, as a solution to enhance their quality of life and revenue, tends to be shared between producers desiring a LBE model.

Mechanisation and robotisation
A "pro-technology" mentality of the producers tending towards the GBI model was observed (estimate = 0.12, Table 3). It can be assumed that the solution considered by them is to keep the same activity or increase it with help from machines. In southern France, Dufour et al. (2007) [33] observed the propensity of farmers with workers, close to the GBI model, to prioritise investment in equipment. Verhees et al. (2018) [13] observed that better management, including new technologies, was more cited as an objective for strategy profiles of producers that were more similar to the GBI than LBE models.

Reaction to external factors
Reactions of dairy producers to factors external to their decision-making power tend to be different as a function of their choice of IFF, showing once more a different mentality of the producers. Producers wanting a LBE model tend to show themselves to be more independent from the external economic actors: from the input producing companies (estimate = -0.19, Table 3) and from the market and the factories, rejecting contracts which would link them to it (R = -0.13, Table 4). When their opinion about dairy factories was surveyed, producers desiring a LBE model preferred small or medium units with production limits (estimates = -0.52; -0.11; -0.23, Table 3), as before, which means regulation of the dairy offerings on the market.
Producers wishing for a GBI model direct themselves to big units of processing without production limits (estimates = 0.42; 0.25, Table 3) and so more turned towards world markets. They recognise the freedom in regarding DP as an asset of quota removal (R = 0.23, Table 4). Table 4 Correlations (R) between the ideal future farm gradient and quantitative variables *producers declaring no calling replacement services were removed from this analysis The reaction regarding the quantity of production was not similar during a crisis, producers wanting a LBE model tended to maintain or decrease their production (estimates = -0.17; -0.092, Table 3), whereas producers desiring a GBI model tended to increase production (estimate = 0.21, Table 3). The latter wanted to keep revenues constant with more litres produced when the price decreased, while the others controlled or decreased production when the gross margin per litre decreased. It can  [11] reported that decisions of producers cannot be reduced to only economic aspects: this includes policies and market conditions but also their way of thinking about them.

Consideration of environmental aspects
The environmental aspects related to the desired IFF is now studied as awareness of the environmental impact of breeding has become an important issue of our time.
Producers tending toward the GBI model seemed to work with a higher livestock manure application pressure (R = 0.16, Table 4) and therefore are already more to work in an intensified dairy system, which can impact the environment. Samson et al.
(2016) [14] showed a tendency toward manure production surplus by producers with increasing DP, which is rather a GBI characteristic.
Results of practices that are in accordance with the environment: measurement of the grass height, forage mixture with leguminous plants, use of a field notebook (estimates = -0.27; -0.11; -0.074, Table 5) showed a stronger interest from producers wanting a LBE model. Besides these, all the significant negative correlations between IFFg and the levels of agreement with an agricultural area are important for the rurality of villages (R = -0.23, Table 4), for conservation of permanent grasslands (R = -0.27, Table 4), for biodiversity (R = -0.18, Table 4) and for hedges (R = -0.28, Table 4) showed the importance of the environment in the dairy activity of producers wanting a LBE model.
It can be assumed that both LBE producers and GBI producers have concern for the environment but in a different way. These results showed that LBE producers are more willing to employ the benefits of ecosystem services, which is observable by these results. Moreover, they found it easy to realise environmentally friendly agricultural practices, as asked for by society (R = -0.15, Table 4) and which are important to answer to society's expectations to guarantee their revenue (R = -0.11, Table 4). Bergevoet et al. (2004) [10] had a considerably more consistent opinion. The "extrasource of income" profile producers (showing similarities with the LBE model) were more likely to declare that in their decision-making they take the environment into consideration, even if it lowers profit. The "large and modern farm" profile producers do not mention their will to adopt these initiatives.
Climatic hazard Facing feed shortages due to unfavourable climatic conditions, producers tending toward GBI and LBE seem not to have the same way of thinking; GBI producers intend to buy high nutritional feed to balance the shortages (estimate = 0.22, Table 5) and LBE producers are going to decrease the number of cows (estimate = -0.25, Table 5) and ensure their feed autonomy (estimate = -0.17, Table 5).

Current situation vs. ideal future farm
The current situation of dairy producers was compared to their preferred IFF (Table 1).
Except for the type of workforce, quite high percentages of "unhappy" producers were observed for the farm characteristics, between 37 to 50%. This suggested that not all producers work as they would like to. The same comparison was not found in the literature, to our knowledge.
As dairy producers do not work in a way that they consider to be ideal, it is interesting to study the gaps to fill in order to reach their ideal system and so, amongst others, their needs. The study of the requirements to reach the IFF, including ways to meet these needs and the area of the needs, can inform the stakeholders of the dairy sector about what must be developed to evolve into IFF.

Needs
Paths to formation As way to improve their skills, producers wanting GBI tended to favour consultancy (estimate = 0.17, Table 6) and commercial companies (estimate = 0.16, Table 6) and not days of study on other farms (estimate = 0.082, Table 6), meanwhile producers wanting LBE supported this latter possibility (estimate = -0.088, Table 6), a network of pilot farms (estimate = -0.13, Table 6) and the associate, not market sector (estimate = -0.21, Table 6). Moreover, for help in technical choices, producers desiring LBE chose formation and study days (estimate = -0.15, Table 6) and producers' technical groups to implement in the future (estimate = -0.20, Table 6).
The choices presented confirm the will for a non-market way to learn for producers wanting LBE, contrary to producers wishing for GBI.
As an information source, the agricultural press was commonly cited (N = 161, i.e., 78% of respondents), but producers desiring LBE tend to not want to inform themselves in this conventional way (estimate =-0.14, Table 6).
Producers wanting a GBI model tend to need more help to free them from their work in order to follow a formation (R = 0.21, Table 4 *producers declaring no will of formation were removed from this analysis ** producers declaring no agricultural press as an information source were removed from this analysis

Formation domains
The formation domains reflected the direction chosen by producers looking for LBE and the ways to reach it. They tend to want skills related to processing and diversification (estimate = -0.18, Table 6) and were likely to reject finance, management (estimate = -0.24, Table 6), administrative (estimate = -0.11, Table 6) and legal framework (estimate = -0.083, Table 6) skills. For financial aspects producers wanting LBE tend to favour requests for advice from experts rather than self-formation (estimate = -0.15, P to implement vs. not interested = 0.12, Table 6). They do not choose animal feeding (estimate = -0.14, Table 6) and selection formations (estimates = -0.053; -0.082, Table 6). This could suggest the will of the producers not to change their way of management and the level of quality of their herd but the method of valorisation of their production.
In contrast, producers desiring GBI tend to want to continue enhancement of their vegetal and animal production (estimates = 0.083; 0.08, Table 6), to become more efficient and enhance their revenue. Moreover they are more interested in legal aspects (estimate = 0.14, Table 6). Expansion and complexification of the GBI model of dairy farms wished for by these producers could be an explanation. Bergevoet et al.
(2004) [10] also observed a will to be well informed about the legislation for the "modern and large farm" profile. This is not noted in their profile, which is close to the LBE model.
Two kinds of formation were identified and preferred by producers wanting LBE or GBI models. Bergevoet et al. (2014) [10] observed the will to innovate for the two profiles closest to LBE and GBI profiles of this study. Verhees et al. (2018) [13] observed that formation was the most important resource for dairy producers. The present research differentiated the formation desired as a function of IFF. Dufour et al. (2007) [33] defined, through a survey of 15 dairy farmers, three conceptions of the work: difficult, organisational and passionate. The passionate approach was accompanied by the desire for new knowledge which was, as observed here, either to learn about genetic selection or about processing and marketing of products.

Conclusions
In conclusion, the GBI tendency is two times more represented than the LBE tendency.
Many reasons explain this choice of ideal farm. Past crises seem to cause farmers to desire the LBE model. A high workload seems to orientate respondents to the GBI model. The wish for the IFF is influenced by the current framework but is also a question of mentality. Production factors reached, breeds chosen for the herd, ways to react to factors external to the farm, consideration of diversification and alternative valorisation, regrouping, and mechanisation and robotisation describe the producers' mentality and showed different relations with the IFF chosen. Moreover LBE and GBI producers may both have concern for environment, but the approach to act for the environment by LBE producers, through concern for ecosystem services, is clearly highlighted in this study. These producers found it important to answer to society's expectations. Finally, as the current situation of farming is quite different to the ideal one, the needs for learning were studied and two types of customer appeared within dairy producers in relation to their formation. We conclude that two kinds of producers seem to appear, for different reasons, with different relations to the environment and asking for different formations.