Evolution and Advocacy of Farming Systems Research-Extension
Meeting the challenge in the highly diverse small farm sector.
Peter E. Hildebrand'
The ntunber of smallholder farmers is still increasing on a global scale. These limited resource households that represent nearly a billion people struggle to survive on a daily basis. Yet the development community has mostly failed to provide means to help them improve their livelihoods. Fanning Systems Research and Extension, FSRE, practitioners have been working with and advocating for these marginalized people and their heterogeneous livelihood systems for about 40 years. This paper relates a personal history of this approach as it relates to participation and advocacy.
Key Words: smallholder, diversity, advocacy, Sondeo, ethnographic linear programming, farming systems
For many years I have been identified with smallholder
farmers. But it was not always this way.
How did I get into this smallholder business?
Growing up on the plains of eastern Colorado in the 1940s, I experienced the U.S. agricultural revolution in which power changed on family farms from the use of horses to tractors and farm size began to grow accordingly. These larger farms became more specialized as farmers converted pastures, no longer needed, into crops. In the 1950s most of my college education in agriculture was based on the "get big or get out" philosophy prevalent at that time. Larger farms produced more per person so were considered more efficient. Simultaneously during this time in the U.S., industry and services were expanding so there was a ready market to those people who were leaving agriculture. I was firmly entrenched in this philosophy during my first two professional jobs in agricultural economics and farm management at Texas A & M and Colorado State universities.
In 1964 1 took a two-year absence from Colorado State to work in West Pakistan (now Pakistan) with an engineering firm on irrigation and reclamation projects covering roughly one million acres each. Although I did not work directly with the smallholders
1 Peter E. Hildebrand is Professor Emeritus of Food and Resource Economics, and of Interdisciplinary Ecology as well as Director Emeritus of International Programs in Agriculture and Natural Resources, at the University of Florida.
of the Punjab, I began to appreciate their livelihood struggles, and that these were different from families on commercial farms.
The beginning of the perspective
Having been bitten by the "development bug" I went to Colombia in 1967, first for one year with USAID and then four years with the University of Nebraska program. During the second and third years while working for the national agricultural research and extension organization, ICA, I began to appreciate why small farmers were unable to adopt "improved" technology. I realized that smallholders were not the "social problem" I had earlier thought. Rather, we were the problem. The technologies we were creating (the research arm) with the anticipation of transferring it (the extension arm) to the smallholders (the potential adopters) were mostly not something the smallholders wanted or could use (Hildebrand and Luna, 1974). Over the last two years of a fiveyear stay in the country I began to conduct agronomic and animal trials on the ICA experiment station in Palmira (Gallo and Hildebrand 1971), and on-farm research and extension directly with smallholders, looking for something they could use and would want. My first on-farm trial was in southern Colombia with egglaying Khaki Campbell ducks (Gallo et al. 1971) to improve nutrition of smallholders and their children.
In 1972 the University of Florida asked me to go to El Salvador with their program there. My task was to create an agricultural economics department in CENTA, the agricultural research and extension organization of that country. This was a similar task I had while with the University of Nebraska in Colombia. Because most of the smallholders in El Salvador planted crops in association with other crops, rather than as sole crops conventionally used by mechanized farmers, we began looking at what we called intensive multiple cropping technologies specifically for smallholders (Hildebrand and French 1974; Hildebrand 1976). This was a very successful program that interested both smallholders and large land holders. The larger farmers liked what we were doing because they could see that if the smallholders could do it, there would not be so much demand for their land in land reform programs. The smallholders liked it because they could see they would not need more land. At the end of the two years we had 600 multiple cropping, on-farm trials on smallholder farms scattered throughout the country.
Maize, beans and radishes in a multiple cropping trial in El Salvador, 1973
Focusing on smallholders
The Rockefeller Foundation became interested in what we were doing in El Salvador and in 1974 they hired me as a member of their field staff to go to Guatemala to work with the Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agricola (ICTA), the agricultural research (and promotion) organization in that country that had been created with support of the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations and USAID to develop and promote2 technology specifically for smallholders. There I was charged with creating the Rural Socioeconomic Department. Most of the time I was the lone economist in the group, but I did have agronomists, sociologists and anthropologists. To my knowledge, this was the first time three social sciences had been integrated into an agricultural research and extension organization in a developing country organization (Hildebrand and Ruano 1978; Hildebrand 1979a, Gladwin 1981).
In large part because of the influence of the anthropologists in the group in ICTA we created the Sondeo (a Spanish term meaning sounding out) methodology (Hildebrand 1981 a). This was one of the first forms of rapid rural appraisal, RRA. The Sondeo in its many mutations is still widely used (see e.g. Barham et al. 2004). It is a conversational form of survey that does not have statistical requirements. Not only were social scientists involved in the Sondeos, but we also incorporated agronomists and plant breeders from other ICTA programs.
2 Guatemala had a separate extension organization, DIGESA.
To provide additional economic information, we also initiated record keeping with smallholders (Ortiz et al., 1977, Busto Brol et al. 1977, Godinez and Chinchilla 1978, among others, and Hildebrand 1979b) so we had excellent information on how they were producing their crops. Even though most of the smallholders did not write or keep records themselves, by visiting them every two weeks, we were able to obtain very accurate information.
ICTA technician getting farm records from a collaborating farmer.
Based in large part on the work we had done in El
Salvador, we also were able to achieve institute-wide, on-farm research with smallholders (Hildebrand and Cardona 1977, Hildebrand et al. 1977, Hildebrand 1979c).
On-farm sorghum trial in eastern Guatemala, 1977.
By 1977 we were working with women farmers, having
realized that not all farmers were men! This occurred, not because the agronomists, anthropologists nor I recognized this fact, but because Maria E. Chinchilla, the female sociologist on the team did. She and a Rockefeller Foundation Post-doc anthropologist (Christina Gladwin) even organized field days specifically for the women farmers. We also began to look at the livestock on these farms instead of just the crops so we were looking at the whole farm instead of just the men and the crops (McDowell and Hildebrand 1980).
Field day for women at the ICTA Labor Ovalle station, 1978.
By 1979 we had created what we called an index of acceptability to evaluate the acceptability of a technology as assessed by the small farmers on whose land and with whom we were conducting on-farm trials (Chinchilla and Hildebrand 1979, Hildebrand and Chinchilla 1979). This index measured an additional quality of the technologies ICTA was testing in on-farm trials specifically and actively evaluated by the smallholders, themselves (besides yield per ha, the traditional agronomic measure of quality). We used the percent of farmers who used the technology on their farms the year following the year it was in a trial on their farm and the percent of the relevant crop on which they used it. With experience, we calculated that if at least half of the farmers used it and the index was at least 25(00 area x 0% farmers x 100), the technology was acceptable for the smallholders with whom we were working. If only, say 10o of the farmers used it the following year, even if they used it on large part of their
crop, then that was a subset of farmers for whom it was acceptable, but for most of the smallholders it was not. We searched for the differences between these groups to help us identify what later would be called a recommendation domain (Wotowiec et al. 1988). If a large proportion of farmers used it the following year, but on only a small part of their crop, we felt they were interested, but not yet convinced so continued to test it on their own.
On-farm trial, Santa Rita, San Marcos, 1979
It was during this time that the term 'Farming Systems' began to be applied to what we were doing and ICTA and its methodology was being evaluated by several agencies, including USAID (McDermott and Bathrick 1981). Besides looking at farms as systems, the term implied working with and for sinallholders. I guess this was what is being called advocacy. At the same time, 'farming systems' projects began to proliferate around the world (Shaner et al 1982) because it was a relatively easy means to obtain donor funding heavily based on our work in Guatemala.
Globalizing advocacy for smallholders
In 1980, following a seven-month Rockefeller Foundation study leave at the University of Florida (to which I had been contracted while in El Salvador, but never before in residence) I accepted the challenge of the vice president for agriculture and natural resources to create what he called a world class farming systems program. I have been at UF now for three decades and early on, because of my continuing interaction with
anthropologists, I was admitted to the Society for Applied Anthropology!
That first spring semester, while I was still on the Rockefeller study leave, a group of us organized a 4-credit, graduate level course in which all of this group participated to see if it was possible "to teach farming systems to others," a challenge that Ken McDermott (USAID/Washington) had made to me on one of his trips to Guatemala while I was there. We started with discussions of farms as systems, and then, based on the ICTA experience, conducted a Sondeo in north Florida, and carried out a simulated on-farm trial on campus using radishes (that would produce within five weeks during the time frame of the semester). The course, offered jointly by the Horticulture and the Food and Resource Economics departments, was quite successful and had an enrollment of 18 graduate students from a number of departments. This course was offered (in the Food and Resource Economics Department) every year until 2008 (five years after I had officially "retired" and as a three-credit course to fit better with student loads) and enrollment varied from six to 36 graduate students each spring. It formed the basis of the farming systems minor offered to both PhD and Master's students from any major at the university.
One of the first activities we initiated was the North Florida Smallholder Farming Systems Project (Schmidt 1984) that was based on the methodology developed in Guatemala. That is, we conducted a Sondeo (Amerling et al. 1981) and initiated on-farm, as well as on-station research (I had been doing agronomic and animal research on experiment stations since my days in Colombia and was not about to stop just because I was in an agricultural economics department in a U. S. university). In this program we had anthropologists, economists, geographers, agronomists and soil scientists. Our personnel included research and extension faculty and graduate students. This project was funded both by UF/IFAS and by the Office of International Cooperation and Development of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to see if the methodology we had developed overseas could be used in the United States .3 Of course, the scale of the so-called 'small' farms was vastly different, but many of the problems the Florida small farmers faced were similar to those we had found in Guatemala and El Salvador.
Similarly to what was being found overseas, the technology being produced by the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) at the university was not appropriate for many of the
'~ The OICD also had a project in Portugal and in October, 1981 asked me to head a delegation to go there to assess their potential for changing their agricultural research and extension organization to better adapt to the needs of their small farmers (Hildebrand et al. 198 1).
smallholders, because it required large capital investments, and the small farmers had problems accessing credit and both input and product markets as well (Dehm 1984). One of the first projects was researching means of establishing perennial peanut forage under dry spring conditions (Swisher and French 1985, Rice 1993) because of the scarcity of high quality, mid summer forage for animals. We also looked at grazing potential for a winter wheat variety recently released by the university but for which no grazing trials had been released (Schmidt 1984). The fact that the north Florida farming systems project was creating broad attention and being an advocate for smallholders can be attested to by the visitors in 1982 (from Purdue University; OJCD/USDA; CONACYT, Ecuador; FONAJAP, Venezuela; JICA, Costa Rica; INIAP, Ecuador; The Rockefeller Foundation; Virginia Polytechnic University; and various persons from the Philippines, Figi, Portugal, Malawi and three other countries in Africa).
As part of the North Florida FSRE project, one of my graduate students completed his thesis in 1984 and prepared a poster to present at the annual farming systems symposium at Kansas State University on the "Cost of learning new technology." We hypothesized that small farms where resources were very limited could not afford to invest in high cost new technology that was difficult to learn to use because if it were not effective the first year, it was difficult for the farm to recover the costs in future years. The research in north Florida supported this hypothesis (Wake, J.L., C.F. Kiker and P.E. Hildebrand. 1988). Larger farms with more resources could afford early losses because they were organized more as businesses and would have larger enterprises in the future to recover any early losses.
In 1982, USAID funded (originally for $10 million) the Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP) that had a global training, networking and technical assistance mandate for farming systems projects that were becoming widespread in developing countries. The FSSP was headquartered at the University of Florida, but it included 19 U.S. universities and five consulting firms that were actively involved (Andrew 1987, FSSP 1988). The FSSP supported the annual farming systems symposia that had been initiated at Kansas State University in 1981 and after six years continued at the University of Arkansas (3 years) and Michigan State University (3 years). These symposia evolved into the Association for Farming Systems Research-Extension (AFSRE) in 1989 and then became the International Farming Systems Association (IFSA). Global IFSA symposia are held on different continents every other year and regional meetings are held in alternate years. In 2002 UIF hosted the global IFSA Symposium in Orlando.
David Norman (1), me and Mike Collinson (r) at the Orlando
symposium. David and Mike were also very active in advocating for the farming systems approach and were considered co-fathers of FSRE.
During and following the life of the FSSP, and partly based on the on-farm research we had done in Guatemala, we developed a method for designing and analyzing on-farm research. This method was based on that long used by plant breeders (several of whom I worked closely with in Guatemala) to assess the stability of a technology across environments and therefore, was supposed to have broad adoptability. Those technologies included the use of mechanization, fertilizers, pesticides, etc., to modify the natural environment on the farms. But smallholders were unable to adjust their environments to that required of the 'broadly adoptable technologies.' Our first attempt was to call the method 'Modified Stability Analysis' (Hildebrand and Poey 1985). We later modified this and now call it 'Adaptabiltiy Analysis' (Hildebrand and Russell 1996) to reflect the need to adapt technologies to the diversity found in different biophysical and socioeconomic environments.
Adaptability Analysis is a relatively easy method to account for both the biophysical and socioeconomic diversity found on smallholder farms. Rather than controlling for non-study variables as is usually done in agricultural research, thereby creating an artificially superior, and homogeneous environment for testing the factors under study, Adaptability Analysis is based on the highly variable environments found on smallholder farms. Results provide for multiple extension messages, related to both the biophysical environments of smallholders and their varied socioeconomic conditions.
During the 1980s and early 1990s, my advocacy of
smallholders and of methods of working with and for them took on
several other aspects as well. I served on the External Advisory Committees of both the USAID-funded Bean!Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP) headquartered at Michigan State, and the Tropical Soils (Tropsoils) CRSP, headquartered at North Carolina State, for several years. This put me in touch with some of the leading food legume breeders and soil scientists who were working on technologies for developing countries as well as the USAID and participating university officers who were frequently evaluating the CRSPs. See for example: Coulter et al., 1979; Gray et al, 1979. Official trips also introduced me to smallholder livelihood systems in parts of the world (for example, Botswana, Indonesia, Peru) I had not had previous opportunities to visit.
Another important aspect of advocacy for smallholders during the 1980s and 1990s was accomplished by offering short courses in farming systems methodology, both in other countries and in the U.S., most often on the University of Florida campus. Abroad these courses were taught in different languages in such places as the state of Acre in the western Amazon of Brazil, western Venezuela, the coastal region of Ecuador, in Nicaragua, and Morocco. In some cases we offered University of Florida credit for those taking the course if the participants had ambitions of obtaining an advanced degree at some time in the future. Participants were usually officials of government agencies working with smallholder agriculture or university professors. I was leader or consultant for most of them.
The first FSSP short course was offered in Gainesville on June 5-10, 1983, to 17 people coming from the following universities: Iowa State, Washington State, Florida, VPI, Michigan State and Illinois, as well as from CIMMYT. The second short course was on July 17-22 and was offered in Gainesville to 29 people from: LSU, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan State, Colorado State, Minnesota, VPI, Arkansas and Development Alternatives, Inc., PRECODEPA (Guatemala), USAID/El Salvador, CARDI in the eastern Caribbean, USAID/Mali, and one private consultant. After these two courses were offered, other courses, based on these and with previous participants becoming trainers, were offered at: VPI, August 29 to September 2; Michigan State, August 21 to 24; and Colorado State, September 26 to 30. Internationally, courses based on the Gainesville course were offered in Ouagadougou, Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso) September 25 to 30 in French; and Paraguay December 11 to 16 in Spanish.
Much of my work in 1983 was on the slide-tape modules we used in the FSSP for training and these short courses. During the year we produced a number of modules for which I was the principal author and source of slides. Most were also put out in
French and Spanish, and some in Portuguese. These modules introduced people to the approach and the methods we were advocating and were a powerful tool. They are described briefly below:
Introduction to Farming Systems Research and Extension.
Many people, including many from USAID, did not know what FSRE really was. Some had their own ideas, but they were very different from what we felt it was, so we needed to let people know what it was we were doing.
Economic Characteristics of small-scale, limited resource
family farms: Implications for technology development,
Part J. (Mainly for non-economists).
These kinds of farms had many special characteristics that were very different from the kinds of commercial farms most people were familiar with. One of the most important was that these farms were first homes rather than first a business.
Economic Characteristics of small-scale, limited resource
family farms: Implications for technology development,
Part II. (More technical than Part I)
Because many people who needed to understand the nature of these farms were not economists, we felt it necessary to make one non-technical set for them. Then for economists, the second could also be used. Based on Hildebrand and Luna, 1974.
The small-scale family farm as a system
Technologies generated in the FSRE approach were based on a sound knowledge of the systems aspect of the small farms. We used the work from a conference at the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio, Italy conference center (McDowell and Hildebrand 1980) as a basis. These figures have shown up in many publications since.
Defining recommendation domains: A case study of
Santiago Sacatepequez, Guatemala.
The term "Recommendation Domain" was just coming into use. This was a first attempt to describe how one was defined (Chinchilla 1979). It was based on the concept of a "homogeneous" farming system. This example was one of the most complete Sondeo reports written by ICTA. Among other things it had a pretty complete discussion of the women's role in the farming system of the area.
Designing alternative solutions: Case study of Jutiapa,
It was unclear to many people how to move from the
knowledge of a farming system and its constraints to deciding what kinds of solutions made sense. Too often, "low yields" translated into the need for "improved varieties" and complete packages of technology to increase production per unit of land area. The point
of this set was that land, while small in area, was not often the most limiting of the resources available to the farmers. In this case study, we showed that the amount of bean seed available at planting time (because beans were an important, but relatively scarce food) and labor at planting time right when the rains started, were the constraints on the system (Hildebrand and Cardona 1977). We also demonstrated some technologies designed to alleviate these constraints.
Designing alternative solutions: Case study from
Zapotitcm, El Salvador.
This was an irrigated area and very different from the
eastern Guatemala situation in Jutiapa. Here, labor was relatively abundant, inputs relatively available, market infrastructure was adequate, but land was very scarce. This case was based on the work that we were involved with in El Salvador where we designed a system of multicultivos that allowed a family to have a good income on only about one acre of land (Hildebrand 1976). By using the two alternative solution sets (Jutiapa and Zapotitin) together, it gave a good idea of the kinds of things that could be done.
Designing alternative solutions: Case study of the North
Florida FSRE Project.
The question was always asked if FSRE could be used in the U.S. We developed this set to demonstrate that it could.
Design and analysis of on-farm trials.
At the time the FSSP began, most people felt strongly that "good" research could not be done on farms because of the "lack of control" they faced. Others, who were willing to try, had little or no idea how to go about designing and analyzing on-farm research. This module responded to both concerns (Hildebrand and Poey 1985).
During 1983 alone, these slide-tape modules were distributed, at the request of the institutions to the following: MD/Manila, MD/Upper Volta, CIMMYT/Turkey, IITAiNigeria, MD Senegal, MD/Washington, CIP/Peru, OICD/USDA, and the following universities: Arizona, Colorado State, Hawaii, Southern Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, California/Davis, Illinois, Iowa State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Washington State, Oregon, and VPI. I also used them in my classes and continue to use some of them in modified form yet today.
My graduate student load increased to 24 in 1986, of which five had Farming Systems assistantships and were from the Food and Resource Economics Department (FRED), Agronomy, and Soil Science. All but one of the 24 had a farming systems minor and were majoring in: FRED, Latin American Studies, Agronomy, Soils, Sociology, Agricultural Engineering,
Poultry Science, Anthropology, Agricultural Extension Education, and Human Nutrition. Eleven of the 24 were Americans. Foreign students were from El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Bangladesh, Honduras, Guatemala, Nepal, and Zaire. Enrollment in the farming systems course was 18. It was quite obvious that there was tremendous interest in farming systems and smallholders among graduate students, both foreign and American, and that the program (including my farming systems course, the farming systems minor, the farming systems assistantships, and the FSSP) was having a strong effect on campus.
I had been editing a set of readings I used in the farming
systems course and that was being used in many of the FSSP short courses. In 1986 it was published as a book (Hildebrand 1986). Also during 1986 we had an historic conference on the campus. Organized by anthropologists Susan Poats, Associate Director of the FSSP; Marianne Schmink, Associate Professor of Latin American Studies and Co-Director of the Women in Agricultural Development Program (WIAD); and Anita Spring, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Associate Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. The conference treated gender issues in farming systems research and extension. It was historic for a number of reasons, but mostly because it was the first time that a gender conference did not involve militaristic confrontations of feminists with the establishment, but rather treated how gender issues could better be incorporated into development work. The term gender analysis, and its use in development began to displace the term gender issues. The term issues connotes confrontation while analysis connotes understanding and utilization (Poats et al. 1988).
For this conference I contributed to a paper on research,
recommendation and diffusion domains (Wotowiec et al. 1988). In earlier work we had argued that recommendation domains were homogeneous groups of farmers or farmers with homogeneous systems (Chinchilla 1979). We had thought that one could identify these homogeneous systems during a Sondeo and that they would be convenient means for developing "location- specific" technologies. "The premise on which the selection of a homogeneous cropping or farming system was based was that all the farmers who presently use it have made similar adjustments to a set of restrictions which they all face and that, since they made the same adjustments, they must all be facing the same set of agrosocioeconomic conditions" (Hildebrand, 1981 a). This idea recognized the diversity of farming systems within a single geographic area, but was still based pretty much on the idea that the homogeneous systems (and therefore, recommendation domains) could be recognized during a Sondeo, even though
refined from time to time. In the gender issues paper, we carried the concept of diversity further. We argued that different fields on a single farm could be in different recommendation domains, or that women's fields could be in separate domains from their husbands' fields. We also tried to clear up some confusion by defining three different kinds of domains. Research domains were areas in which institutes or teams focused their research and consisted of a relatively wide range of environments and farming systems. Their delineation was based mostly on biophysical (and sometimes political) characteristics. Recommendation domains were based on "the response of a specific technology to the agrosocioeconomic conditions found on farms." The third kind of domain was the diffusion domain, or "interpersonal communication networks through which newly acquired knowledge of agricultural technologies naturally flows." The definition of recommendation domains was to undergo yet another redefinition in a few more years.
In part because the farms and technologies with which
farming systems practitioners work were low input, I was asked to serve on a National Research Council (NRC), Board on Agriculture Committee on "The Role of Alternative Farming Methods in Modern Production Agriculture." This committee was looking into alternatives to the high-input kind of technology that was then pretty much the accepted (or conventional) technology used in the United States, but was being recognized as a contributor to the declining quality of our own environment. The deliberations resulted in a book (National Research Council 1989).
Indicating that farming systems was receiving attention from many levels, the Office of Technology Assessment of the U. S. Congress asked the F SSP to prepare a paper for them on "Farming Systems Research and Extension: Status and Potential for Low Resource Agriculture." (Poats et al. 1986).
In 1987, in all its wisdom, USAID decided that they had to shift their focus from "farming systems" to "sustainable agriculture." It did not occur to the bureaucrats who made these kinds of decisions that sustainability was a concept and that the best way to generate sustainable agriculture was through the use of farming systems methodology. Thus, just at the time there was a tremendous momentum built up around the world for smallholder development programs using farming systems participatory methodology, and after USAID had invested about $8 million of the original $10 million estimate, the FSSP was terminated in 1987 after five years of effort.
One of the legacies of the FSSP was a four volume set of readings (FSSP) that would continue to be used and requested for at least another decade as people began to realize that farming
systems methodology was, in fact, very useful if not critical for efforts at creating sustainable agriculture in very diverse situations around the world. The other legacy was an active training unit, the International Training Division, in WFAS at the University of Florida. I was named director and Lisette Staal was the assistant director. The institutions affiliated with the FSSP agreed that Florida should continue to be the center of farming systems training activity and to call upon others as demand required.
My graduate student load increased in 1987 to 31 of which nine graduated during the year. Again, all but one of the 31 had a farming systems minor and seven of them were on farming systems assistantships. By 1988 the farming systems minor had become the largest among graduate students in the College of Agriculture. In 1988 there were 28 graduate students currently enrolled with a farming systems minor and 34 graduate students had already graduated with the minor. I served on many, if not most of their supervisory committees. Also, in the 1988-89 academic year, 1800 of the graduates in the College ofAgriculture receiving advanced degrees had taken my farming systems methods course.
At the ninth annual International Farming Systems
Symposium, held for the third year at the University of Arkansas, the Association for Farming Systems Research-Extension (AFSRE) was created and I was elected the founding president. This was the same group that had been associated with the FSSP, augmented by new participants who were attending the symposium. The association, global in scope, was
... organized to promote the development and
dissemination of methods and results of participatory on-farm
systems research and extension. The objective of such research
is the development and adoption through the participation by farm household members (male and female) of improved and appropriate technologies to meet the socioeconomic needs of
farm families; adequately supply global food, feed and fiber
requirements; and utilize resources in a sustainable and efficient
The AFSRE also took over responsibility for organizing the annual symposia; continuing publication of the FSSP Newsletter, which in the interim we had called the FSRE Newsletter, and became the AFSRE Newsletter; and creating and publishing a journal, the Journal for Farming Systems Research -Extension (JFSRE).
The emerging concern with sustainability was evidenced by three papers I presented in 1989. Two were at the farming systems symposium ("Farming systems research/extension and the concepts of sustainability" with Chuck Francis from the University of Nebraska (Francis and Hildebrand 1989), and "Agricultural
sustainability as an operational criterion" with Malik Ashraf from JITA), and one at the Agronomy meetings (Hildebrand 1990a).
Professor C.R.W. Spedding of Reading University in
England was considered one of the founders of systems modeling in agriculture and held the Chair of Agricultural Systems at Reading. He was also a founder of the journal Agricultural Systems on whose Editorial Board I sat. I was honored to be one of 13 "eminent colleagues" invited to contribute a paper (Hildebrand 1990b) to an international symposium to mark his retirement in September. Two other "colleagues" were Barry Dent of Edinburgh University and co-Editor of Agricultural Systems and Gordon Conway of the Ford Foundation, New Delhi and who would be made President of The Rockefeller Foundation in 1998.
During this period, Van Crowder, later the FAG
representative in Nicaragua, and I worked with the Agricultural Education and Communication Department (AEC) to create a new M.S. degree with a concentration in farming systems. IFAS communication people had recently been merged into the former Agricultural Education and Extension (AEE) Department and Van was one of the persons who was shifted. Prior to this time there was no one in the old AEE department who was qualified in farming systems (except that the Chair of the department had been on the Advisory Committee of the North Florida Farming Systems Project). Van being in the department made a natural fit for a new farming systems degree. We proposed both thesis and non-thesis M.S. degrees. First, we felt that it had to be a Master of Science degree to carry appropriate weight in other countries (the Master of Agriculture non-thesis degree was not appreciated). We argued that we needed both kinds of M. S. degree because some foreign students were on a firm, fixed two year limit to obtain a Master's degree and we could not guarantee one if the student were to do a thesis. For the non-thesis degree, the student would have to do at least three credits of supervised research, but this could be in any field and under the supervision of only one faculty member, not the whole supervisory committee. The report, not being a thesis, would not have to go through the graduate school approval process, also saving time. But for those students who had the time, the thesis, which was also valued in most countries, could be done. The department already had a thesis and non-thesis Master's degree, so we requested a "concentration" in farming systems. This meant that it could be approved by the Graduate Council of the University of Florida and not need to go to the Board of Regents as would have been the case for a new Master's degree program (i.e., a farming systems major). In getting approval of the new concentration, we had the support of the Dean of the Graduate School who had told me earlier that the farming systems minor
was one of only two in the whole university that warranted the honor of being called a minor!
In 1991, the new UF vice president and head of IFAS had authorized me to make a world-wide announcement of the farming systems assistantship program, soliciting qualified candidates. In 1991 alone we (I still had a secretary in those days!) responded to 167 letters from 35 countries from interested persons. Even
though we were able to provide assistantships only to a very limited number of students, this provided a tremendous amount of exposure to our farming systems program. As late as 1998 we were still receiving letters requesting information on the farming systems assistantships for which we had not had funds for a number of years.
During a short course in Morocco in 1990 I met a
biometrician from the University of Nebraska who understood and supported Modified Stability Analysis. He agreed to provide documentation (that eventually turned out to be both a paper and a video) to support the procedure. Later we would write a paper for a book chapter, which supported Modified Stability Analysis (Stroup et al. 1993). This was presented as one of three papers I co-authored for the 1991 American Society of Agronomy meetings to which I had belonged for about 15 years.
In February I traveled for two weeks to South Africa where I presented a keynote address at the inaugural Southern Africa Farming Systems Conference and to consult with the Southern Africa Development Bank on needed shifts in agricultural research and extension programs under the envisioned new governmental arrangements coming with the end of apartheid. I was also invited to present a paper in Chapingo, Mexico at the Autonomous University. They had a conference on "Agroforestry for sustainable development." (Hildebrand et al. 1993). In this paper we argued that knowledge of farmers' evaluation criteria plays an important role in the analysis of on-farm research data and in the dissemination of the resulting technology. Results of research conducted by my students and co-authors in Brazil, Costa Rica, Haiti and Kenya were used as examples. We had been having discussions as a group for a number months in which we discussed the commonalities emerging from their apparently very different research situations.
During 1994 I was working with 41 graduate students (6 of whom graduated during the year). These students were majoring in 12 different departments (Ag Education and Communication, Ag Engineering, Agronomy, Anthropology, Mass Communication, Dairy Science, Forestry, FRE, Geography, Latin American Studies, Soil Science, and Wildlife). All told, they were working on research in 12 countries: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica,
Cuba, Ecuador, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Korea, Peru and St. Lucia. Eighteen of them were working for a farming systems minor (another 71 graduate students had graduated with the minor). In 1994 the first students graduated with an M.S. degree in Agricultural Education and Communication with the Concentration in Farming Systems. Seven others were enrolled in the program.
I also created a farming systems email net for campus use, the FSNET. This was not a list server but rather just a mailing list on my computer. I forwarded announcements on seminars, classes, jobs, etc. to both graduate students and faculty who were interested in the topic of farming systems. This has proven to be very popular and useful and as of 20 10 is still in full operation with many professionals on the list now scattered throughout the world.
As a reflection of the interest by graduate students in
farming systems, my graduate student load swelled to 46 in 1996 and a new major (Political Science) was among them. Of these, 19 graduated during the year.
In Spring semester, Marianne Schmink and I set up a
seminar-type "non-course" on gender analysis and had about 15 students involved. The non-course generated a great deal of interest among students, both those involved and others who were not in it. In Fall semester, I agreed to continue the idea, but with a theme based on food security, that had come up repeatedly during the previous semester. Again, there were about 15 students involved, not all the same from the previous course. From this non-course we generated a number of papers around the theme of food security among small holders based on the research experience of the students (and some faculty) who were participating. Many of these were using linear programming analysis and had taken, or were taking concurrently my economic analysis class in which I taught linear programming.
We decided we ought to do two things with the papers we were working on. First, we submitted a proposal to the Southern Africa Farming Systems Association who were going to host the 1998 global AFSRE symposium. We suggested that we put on a half or whole day special session on food security. Also, we thought we should be able to end up with a book on the topic. We were seeing a lot of similarities among a highly diverse set of small farm livelihood systems. All were extremely diverse and depended on this diversity for sustainability andfood security. The similarities we saw were that seasonal needs for cash andfood drove the systems and household composition dictated the relative capabilities to meet them.
In Spring Semester, 1998, I continued working on the idea of a food security book with the group of graduate students and faculty. We met about twice a month to continue discussing ideas
and improving our comprehension of the topic. Around the world, these smallholder systems are very diverse and there is great diversity within each system. The most important strategy appears to be diversity. This is important because it reduces the risk of depending on a single source in any particular season for food or cash and it is necessary so that seasonal demands can be met. But the capability of any household to meet these demands depends to a large extent on the composition of the household (Sullivan 2000). For example, in households with only two adults and one to several small children, it is very hard for the adults to adequately feed the many mouths while at the same time caring for the children at home. When children are older, households become relatively well off with several persons able to work in production activities or help with household reproduction activities. In particular, if a person is away from the hearthhold (not living in the household at the moment) but sending money back to the household, it provides an opportunity for the household to begin to accumulate wealth such as more land or oxen, or engage in such activities as soil conservation that produce longer term gains at the expense of short term expenses. This also makes it more feasible for a household to begin exploring and learning to use new technology, a topic we explored nearly 20 years before in John Wake's thesis.
In May 1998, 1 attended the 25 th anniversary celebration of ICTA in Guatemala where I had worked in the 1970s. This was a major, three-day celebration with lunches, banquets, a dance and many talks. I had been invited to give the keynote address on the first morning following the opening address by the Minister of Agriculture. Although my title was grandiose, "The Political and Economic Situation over the Last 25 Years," I talked mostly about what the impact of ICTA had been on agricultural research and extension methods in the world since ICTA was established 25 years before (Hildebrand, 1998).
There was a great difference between the Minister's talk and mine. His reflected the current development line of competition, efficiency, comparative advantage, export and commercialization. It also was in line with ICTA's new direction of privatizing by 'responding to research needs' of companies or organizations that could pay for it. The Minister simply wrote off the 'campesino' population which in 1998 probably numbered more than the total population of the country in the 1970s when we were working there. He indicated that the small holders who were too small to commercialize were not part of his portfolio. Rather
they were a problem for social services or some other Ministry. This, of course, was similar to my thinking 30 years before when I started working internationally. The Minister was just going to
ignore half of Guatemala's population-those who produced at least half of thefood the country consumed.
I argued that ICTA had to continue working for the small holders to help them increase the production of their basic foods. The kind of technology they need is very different from that needed by the commercial producers of export products and there was no other entity in the country that could or would produce it.
Thinking only in terms of productivity per unit of land as the Minister had iterated, was not appropriate for the small holder producing food for the family and a little to sell. Their most scarce resources often are cash and their own labor particularly in critical times of the year such as planting and weeding. ICTA 's methodology had been developed to help this kind ofproducer.
Most small farmers were not able to attend meetings to organize themselves to request funds because they were already fully employed just trying to feed their families.
On a trip to Monterrey Tech in Monterrey, Mexico, I traveled with Jim Jones of the UIF Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department. One result of the trip was my agreement to work with him on a National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) research project he had with the University of Miami and Florida State. They were modeling the 'ENSO' phenomenon known as El Nifio and La Nifia and also modeling the effect on crops from these climatic deviations. Jim was working on the possibility of making recommendations to farmers on how to change their cropping practices when these variations are forecasted. NOAA decided they should get the farmers involved by 1) finding out what they thought, and 2) trying out some of the recommendations in on-farm trials. He agreed to fund an assistantship. I agreed to have my farming systems class use this topic for the class Sondeo exercise in the farming systems course in Spring semester. As a result of the class Sondeo, I agreed to field a team of students in the two-week break between summer and fall semesters (August 8-21). Eight students were involved (from anthropology, agronomy, agricultural extension, natural resource management, forestry, geography and community development), all having taken the farming systems course before. The field conversations with Extension personnel state wide were conducted between August 9 and 18. The report was very well received by the consortium of universities working on the NOAA project (Hale et al. 1999) and because of it, more work of a similar nature was included in the following proposal submitted to NOAA in 2000.
During a family vacation in 2000, 1 was finishing the A.
Scott Berg biography of Charles A. Lindbergh. Following the end of World War 11, Lindbergh was becoming concerned about the
misuse of the power of science and technology. Airplanes, with which he had been a leading figure and contributor for many years, not only had the advantage of bringing people closer together, but also allowed a much more rapid and widespread destruction in war. He was particularly alarmed when he viewed the destruction of the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With the advent of rockets, the dangers were even more significant. He was concerned that, "in worshiping science man gains power but loses the quality of life" (p. 484). Later, Lindbergh wrote an essay "aimed at breaking that grip of a scientific materialism whose values and standards 'will lead to the end of our civilization."' (p. 484). This man, who had devoted his life to science and technology, began to believe that "an overemphasis on science weakens human character and upsets life's essential balance" (p. 520).
Reading these thoughts made me reflect on some of the frustrations I have had over the years regarding the 'worship' of science by many of the scientists I have worked with. How often when referring to Sondeos or on-farm research have I heard the phrase "but it has to be good science" meaning that if it is not statistically significant, it has no value? Dependence on this credo leads to the highly controlled experiments that have little value on farmers' fields. It also leads to the use of scientists' criteria to judge the value of a technology rather than the criteria of the users orfarmers. "If it leads to a statistically significant increase in yield, it is a good technology" to some of these scientists, regardless of whether or not farmers are able to use the technology or whether the technology is sustainable. The fact that farmers cannot use this 'good technology' is not the fault of these scientists in their minds, but of others (Extension personnel, infrastructure developers, policy makers, etc.) who are not providing the farmers with the conditions needed to benefit from the yield increasing technology.
By concentrating international (as well as national) research resources on "broadly adoptable" technologies that depend on modifying the environment to satisfy the requirements of the technologies, rather than modifying technologies to meet the diverse contingencies and constraints of the biophysical and socioeconomic environments of small holders, the process is similar. Arguing that little response can be achieved under the difficult conditions of small holders (as was originally done by ICTA in Guatemala) or that "good technology" is a technology that increases yields whether or not it can be used by the multitude of small holders (as had been done almost universally by researchers and research organizations) is also tantamount to a distribution of wealth upward, making the poor relatively poorer. We must learn
to work with the great diversity under which small holders struggle and upon which they depend for the livelihoods.
In 2001 we were able to get farming systems as an official concentration in the new College of Natural Resources and Environment graduate curriculum. This was a milestone for two reasons. First, it already existed in Ag Education and Communication at the Master's level, but the department had not incorporated it in their new PhD program. Secondly, all other concentrations in the CNRE were based on departments. For example, there was a Food and Resource Economics concentration and an Anthropology concentration. Because the CNRE degrees (both M. S. and PhD) were already multidisciplinary, this was a natural. It also usually occurred because of the departmental affiliation of the graduate student's major professor. So it was a milestone to get the farming systems concentration approved.
In 2002 after several months of not traveling, only partially related to September 11, all of a sudden it started again. My first trip, in February, was to Ohio State University to participate in a "Workshop on No-till Farming in South Asia's Rice-Wheat System: Experiences from the Rice-Wheat Consortium and the USA." I was invited to present a paper because of my interests in small farms and not, obviously, because of my knowledge of what the Rice-Wheat Consortium was doing in South Asia. After reading the material sent to me I called my paper (and PowerPoint presentation) "Technology for Small Farms: The Challenge of Diversity." Two things stood out in my mind. One was that the no-till aspects essentially required power that small farms normally did not have (although I understand that animal traction is increasing even in Bangladesh). But the no-till aspects largely required mechanized power. Secondly, there was the tendency to try to homogenize or de-diversify the farming systems they were working with. This, of course, was particularly true in the U.S. systems, mostly in Arkansas and Louisiana (Hildebrand, 2001; Hildebrand, 2004).
The following week I participated in the 1st Henry A. Wallace Inter-American Scientific Conference on Globalization of Agricultural Research, in CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica, giving a keynote address. I titled my paper "Global Research Challenges: Including Small Holders in Rural Development." I stressed that the number of people living in rural areas in many countries of the world was still increasing at the turn of the century even though the percent of the total population of those countries living in rural areas was declining. People had been lured to sleep by the percentage figures and had not considered that the total number of small farmers was still increasing. Thus, I considered that the global research challenge was including the small holders in rural
development. Interestingly, Norman Borlaug was also an invited speaker at these last two events.
In 2003 I received a nice surprise and honor early in the year. The InterAmerican Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture, JICA, headquartered in San Jos6, Costa Rica, was celebrating its 60 th anniversary. As part of the celebration in Washington, D.C. they selected 60 Americans (from the U.S.) who "have made outstanding U.S. contributions to agriculture." I was one of those chosen. Also honored were such well-known people as Henry Wallace, Norman Borlaug and George Washington Carver. I was asked to make the acceptance speech for all the honorees.
Making the acceptance speech at the 11CA award ceremony.
By the end of 2004, my former students and I had 16 articles that had either been submitted to professional journals or were in final stages of preparation. Several had already been rejected by one journal or had been asked for revision. At that time it was frustratingly difficult for us to publish much of what we had done. Journals wanted statistical significance or stochastic estimates from models based on generated or other kinds of synthetic data, and wanted literature review of the theoretic basis for the work. Did Newton have a theoretic literature review for the theory of gravity? Or Einstein for the theory of relativity? Not that what we were doing was in that class, but when something was new it was not being accepted. On the other hand, repeating the same kind of experiment with fertilizer, just changing the crop or cultivar was always accepted because the experiments were designed to have statistical significance whether or not the results had any practical application. The frustration continued!
Modeling smallholder livelihood systems
In 1984, 1 agreed to take over responsibility for a Food and Resource Economics course called Managing Farms in Tropical Areas. It had been taught as an alternative to the regular farm management course, using tropical types of farms as examples. It was still oriented toward commercial farming. I agreed to teach the course, but to modify it to treat limited resource, family farms. Part of the course included an introduction to linear programming, an optimizing procedure long used by farm managers.
In 1995 a visiting senior scientist from the Dairy Research Institute in India came to LIF funded by Wageningen University in the Netherlands by way of Winrock International to take my regular farming systems course and to work with me on data analysis using some of his former research data. As part of the data analysis he wanted to do linear programming. In working with him we set up a dairy goat situation as an example, based on his data. Over the years I have modified that original set of exercises and continued to use the "goats" in the economic analysis class and in short courses. Various versions have been coauthored with some of my graduate students (Hildebrand and Cabrera 2003).
In the course, because of closely working with some
anthropologists, I incorporated gender analysis as well as food security considerations. I was beginning to concentrate more and more on linear programming in the course and many students began using it as the basis for the analysis of their Master's thesis and PhD dissertation research. I was convinced that with the increasingly common availability of desk top or even laptop computers in remote areas, linear programming with spreadsheet software was becoming very feasible. A few students in the class were able to use data already collected, but many more used it as a means to help them determine what data they needed when they went to the field.
Over the years as a result of working closely with the anthropologists and my graduate students we developed a methodology based on linear programming that has helped anthropologists quantify much of their qualitative data. The same methodology helps reduce the quantity of data needed and in this way makes the research process more efficient. This methodology, which includes the use of "Ethnographic Linear Programming," has run into some opposition from many of the FRE professors with whom I work at UF. Some of them said we should not create a new term (LP is in the literature, but not ELP). Others questioned whether it represents "good science." The arguments were that if it is not already in the literature, and/or it is not statistically significant, it is not real. In many ways this was the
same argument used against farming systems methodology: Incorporating the human factor reduces the legitimacy of the science, making it unacceptable. I recall again the statement I heard when biological scientists visited the early on-farm trials in Guatemala on farmers' rocky and steep hillside fields in La Barranca: "This looks just like something social scientists would do." That is, incorporating the farmers' real conditions and the human factor reduced the 'scientific' value of the research in their minds. Over the years, this feeling has been moderated somewhat, but it is still evident.
Staking out the first on-farm trial in La Barranca.
Not only is it necessary to account for the human element, but it is critical to account for socioeconomic as well as biophysical diversity, especially at the small farm level. During the last years of the 20t Century, it was becoming clear in our work with food security, household diversity and sustainable livelihoods that one of the most important factors leading to failed programs and projects in the developing world was the failure of those creating the programs to account for the socio-economic diversity found in limited-resource, farm-family households and the impact household composition has on the capabilities of these families to accept or respond to proposed changes, whether technology, infrastructure or policies. The tendency to use averages and measures of statistical significance based on massive statistical surveys (required because of the diversity in the population) masked this diversity found not only among villages, but also among households within seemingly homogeneous villages. An "average" household inevitably has adolescents as
well as young children and the parents are approaching middle age. It is a period in the lives of many families when they can begin to obtain a little wealth, impossible in newer families when all children are younger requiring the near full-time attention of the mother and who are not yet able to help much with production. This prevents the mother from helping in the food production activities in the fields so the male is overly burdened just providing
for a young family. Adolescent females can relieve the mother of some of these household burdens freeing her to work in the fields while adolescent males can help the father in the fields, forests and bush. Young unmarried men and women in the family also can earn cash from off-farm activities that make significant contributions to the well being of the family. Probably only 4060% of thefamilies in any village have the capabilities of the average amily. This means that the other 40-60% of the families will not be able to take advantage of a project whose changes are based on the capabilities of the average village family. Because they cannot, they are made relatively worse off than before. Often "successful" project evaluations are based on what one or a few of the families with more household resources were able to do to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the project.
One of the problems in working with all the diversity that exists is that it is difficult to generalize from it. Averages give the impression ofgeneralizing, but simply mask diversity. Diversity can be incorporated in the methodological process by using ELP to model a number of differ types of household composition based on a single base model that reflects the commonalities that exist in a community or livelihood system. For instance, people who farm by hand all use essentially the same kinds of practices in their fields. Those who use animal traction do the same. It is not necessary to model each individual household. Types of households can be modeled, or a sample of real households can be modeled using the same base model (see Cabrera et al., 2005).
Working with a large number of graduate students has
helped us to comprehend much better these sources of the diversity that exist among small farms around the world. There is the obvious diversity across regions and among communities within regions. But often ignored in the past is the diversity among households even within seemingly homogeneous communities. This results from the differences in soil quality, access to irrigation, and nearness to transportation, etc., but perhaps more importantly results from the diversities in household composition even when those other factors are similar. Many students have
4 It is recognized that in some ethnic groups or when a household is female headed that females may well do most of the production labor.
now used Ethnographic Linear Programming (Hildebrand et al.
2003) to model the livelihood systems available to the smallholders in these communities and the various sets of
livelihood strategies of the diverse households within the communities. These models, particularly combined with Adaptability Analysis of on-farm trials, help us understand the diverse responses of individual smallholder households to policies, infrastructure and technologies and are effective in predicting which households can and which cannot benefit from proposed alternatives with an ex ante evaluation (Hildebrand, 2010).
In some minds, mathematically modeling these livelihood systems may seem like it has left smallholder advocacy behind. This is not the case. We have found that the process of trying to simulate what a smallholder household does (what livelihood strategies the members select from among the activities available in the livelihood system) helps us to understand the sources of diversity resulting from the constraints imposed on the different kinds of households. Besides amount and kind of land available, access or not to irrigation water and availability of infrastructure, these constraints include seasonal household food security, necessary seasonal household cash needs, and the amount and kinds of labor available for production and reproduction activities. The last three constraints depend on household composition. By adequately simulating diverse households, we are able to make ex ante predictions of diverse responses to potential changes in the livelihood system (Figure 1). This allows us to understand the differential response of different smallholder households to changes that get masked when basing analyses on averages taken from statistical surveys.
Note: Theses, dissertations, articles and papers using ELP through 2010 can be seen at the link to my digital collection: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/I/IROOO00256/00001
5 A livelihood system includes all the various activities reasonably available to smallholders from which to choose to cam their livelihood.
6 Livelihood strategies are those activities from among the livelihood system that an individual household chooses.
aend Diverse Mdtagtheig
with ELP Caibrationo
Based on Bastidas 2001
Figure 1. Using ethnographic methods to understand and model smallholder livelihood systems and diverse household livelihood strategies.
Amerling, C., G. Clough, J. Dean, B. Dehm, E.C. French, P.E. Hildebrand, D. Schmidt, and M. Swisher. 1981. Sondeo report. North Florida farming systems research and extension program. Suwannee and Columbia counties. University of Florida, Gainesville. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/uf00082711
Andrew, C.O. 1987. A sketch of the evolution of FSSP. Farming systems Research Symposium, University of Arkansas, Fayeteville, Arkansas. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00080965/00001
Barham, J.; Y. Gichon, S Humphries, F. Rossi, D. Alvira, A. Rios, P. Hildebrand, V. Cabrera and N. Breuer. 2004. Assessment of the Format, Content and Potential Uses of the AgClimate Website and Crop Yield Risk Assessment Tool by Extension Agents in North Florida. Southeas Climate Consortium Technical Report Series SECC-04-001. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00000216/00001
Bastidas, E.P. 2001. Assessing potential response to changes in the livelihood system of diverse, limited research farm households in Carchi, Ecuador: modeling livelihood strategies using participatory methods and linear programming. PhD dissertation, University of Florida.
Busto Brol, B., O.A. Calderon and P.E. Hildebrand. 1977. Registros econ6micos de producci6n en maiz con agricultores colaboradores parcelamiento La Miquina. Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologias Agricolas (ICTA), Guatemala. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00081574/00001
Cabrera, V.E., P.E. Hildebrand and J.W. Jones. 2005. Modeling the effect of household composition on the welfare of limited-resource farmers in Cafiete, Peru. Ag Syst 86:207-222.
Chinchilla, M.E. 1979. Condiciones agro-socioecon6micas de una zona maicera-horticola de Guatemala. XXV Reuni6n Anual del PCCMCA, Tegucigalpa, Honduras. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/uf00072171
Chinchilla, M.E. and P.E. Hildebrand.
1979a. Evaluaci6n de la aceptabilidad de la tecnologia generada
por el ICTA para los cultivos de maiz y ajonjoli en el
parcelamiento La Miquina, 1977-1978. Instituto de Ciencia y
Tecnologias Agricolas (ICTA), Guatemala.
1979b. Evaluaci6n de la aceptabilidad de la tecnologia generada para el
cultivo de maiz en Quezaltenango. Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologias
Agricolas (ICTA), Guatemala. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00081576/00001
Coulter, John K.; P.E. Hildebrand; M.A. Islam; F.R. Moormann; M.D. Thorne and C. Valverde. 1979. Report of the first meeting of the Extenal Panel of the Soil Management CRSP Planning Process. North Carolina State University. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00080631/00001?td=CRSP
Dehm, B.A. 1984. Constraints to technology adoption on small farms in north Florida. M.S. thesis, Food and Resource Economics, University of Florida. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00055223/00001
Francis, C.A. and P.E. Hildebrand. 1989. Farming systems research and exstension (FSRE) in support of sustainable agriculture. Farming systems research-extension newsletter 2:4-5. University of Florida. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFO080876/00001/1J
FSSP. 1981, 1985, 1986, 1987. Bibliography of readings in farming systems. University of Florida. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00053818?td=FSSP
FSSP. 1988. Training, networking and technical assistance. The product and process of the Farming System Support Project 1982-1987. A final report of the Farming Systems Support Project. FSSP, University of Florida. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00055280/00001/1J
Gallo, A.C. and P.E. Hildebrand. 1971. Analisis econ6mico de la ceba de novillos en pastoreo rotacional. Informe No. 5. Departamento de Economia Agricola. Regional No. 5, Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario, Palmira, Colombia. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00054658/00001
Gallo, A.C., P.E. Hildebrand and A. Warren. 1971. El cuidado de patos khaki campbell para huevos. Hoja informativa No.8. Departamento de Economia Agricola. Regional No. 5. Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario, Palmira, Colombia.
Gladwin, C.H. 1981. The role of a cognitive anthropologist in a farming systems program that has everything. IRRI Los Bafios, Philippines.
Godinez, L. and M.E. Chinchilla. 1978. Registros econ6micos de producci6n. Totonicapan, Regi6n I. Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologias Agricolas (ICTA), Guatemala. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00081559
Gray III, C.C.; M. Blase; L.H. Camacho; A.M. Pinchinat; A.H. Bunting; P. E.
Hildebrand and C.E. Roderuck. 1986. Report of the External Evaluation Panel, Bean/Cowpea CRSP Five-year Review. Michigan State University. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00054561/00001/1J
Hale, J. B. Heberling, E. Jovicich, A. Mugisha, L. Ortega, C. Pomeroy, D. Sano, A. Snyder, S. Stone, G.B. Maiah, P.Hildebrand and A.Caudle. 1999. Farmers' use of weather and climate forecasts and effects on farmers of changes in climate. Staff Paper SP 04-3, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00054657/00001
1976. Multiple cropping systems are dollars and "sense" agronomy.
Chapter 18. \IN\ American Society of Agronomy. ASA Special
Publication No. 27. Madison, Wisconsin. pp 347-371.
1979a. Incorporating the social sciences into agricultural research: the formation of a national farm systems research institute. Report of a five year tour of duty. ICTA, Guatemala and the Rockefeller Foundation, New York. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00073328
1979b. The ICTA farm record project with small farmers--four years of experience. ICTA, Guatemala.
1979c. Ensayo de sistemas de cultivos en ladera para pequefios y medianos agricultores. La Barranca, Jutiapa Region VI. Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologias Agricolas (ICTA), Guatemala. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00081575
198 la. Combining disciplines in rapid appraisal: the sondeo approach. Agricultural Administration, Vol 8, No. 6, pp 423-432.
198 lb. Toward an agrosocioeconomic methodology. Invited paper presented at the didactic seminar on "the role of sociologists in the field among other professions" at the 76th annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. Toronto, Canada. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00073337
1986. Perspectives in Farming Systems Research and Extension. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. Boulder. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00072280
1990a. Agronomy's role in sustainable agriculture: integrated farming systems. Journal of Production Agriculture. 3:285-288.
1990b. Farming systems research-extension. Chapter 6, In: Jones/Street. Systems theory applied to agriculture and the food chain. Elsevier Science Publishers, Ltd. England, United Kingdom. pp 131-143.
1990c. Modified stability analysis and on-farm research to breed specific adaptability for ecological diversity. p. 169-180. In Manjit S. Kang (ed.) Genotype-by-environment interaction and plant breeding. Louisana State University, Baton Rough, LA.
1998. The economic and political impact of ICTA. Keynote address at the 25th anniversary celebration of ICTA in Guatemala. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/1/IR00000237/00001
2001. Technology for small farms. (PowerPoint presentation). http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/1/IR00000208/00001
2004. Technology for small farms: the challenge of diversity. Chap. 26 In: Lal, R., P. R. Hobbs, N. Uphoff and D.O. Hansen (Eds.) Sustainable agriculture and the international rice-wheat system. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York.
2010. An efficient interdisciplinary methodology for designing and testing
technology, infrastructure and policy to benefit poor and diverse
smallholders in variable conditions in developing countries.
Hildebrand, P.E.; R. Harris and G.H. Clough. 1981. Trip report, Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR/E) team. Lisbon, Portugal. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080633/00001
Hildebrand, P.E., N.E. Breuer, V.E. Cabrera and A.J. Sullivan. 2003. Modeling diverse livelihood strategies in rural livelihood systems using ethnographic linear programming. Food and Resource Economics Staff Paper 03-5. University of Florida. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00053828
Hildebrand, P.E. and V.E. Cabrera. 2003. Modeling and analyzing small farm livelihood systems with linear programming: exercises. AEB 5167, Food and Resource Ecnomics, Universitiy of Florida.
Hildebrand, P.E. and D. Cardona. 1977. Sistemas de cultivos de ladera para pequefios y medianos agricultores. La Barranca, Jutiapa, 1976. Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologias Agricolas (ICTA), Guatemala. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00055937/00001/2J
Hildebrand, P.E. and E.C. French. 1974. Un sistema salvadorefio de multicultivos. Departamento de Economia Agricola. Centro Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria (CENTA). Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia. San Salvador, El Salvador. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00075670/00001
Hildebrand, P.E. and E.G. Luna. 1974. Unforeseen consequences of introducing new technologies in traditional agriculture. The future of agriculture: technology, policies and adjustment. XV international conference of agricultural economists. Oxford Agricultural Economics Institute. Oxford. pp 508-509. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00075671/00001
Hildebrand, P.E. and F. Poey. 1985. On-farm agronomic trials in farming systems research/extension. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. Boulder, CO. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00080557/00001
Hildebrand, P.E., S. Ruano, T. L6pez, E. Samayoa and R. Duarte. 1977. Sistemas de cultivos para los agricultores tradicionales del Occidente de Chimaltenago. Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologias Agricolas (ICTA), Guatemala. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00075294
Hildebrand, P.E. and S. Ruano. Integrated multidisciplinary technology generation for small, traditional farmers of Guatemala. Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology. Merida, Mexico. April 2-9. ICTA, Guatemala. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00055925/00001/2J
Hildebrand, P.E., B.K. Singh, B.C. Bellows, E.P. Campbell and B.A. Jama. 1993.
Farming systems research for agroforestry extension. Agroforestry Systems 23:219-237.
Hildebrand, P.E. and J.T. Russell. 1996. Adaptability analysis: A method for the design, analysis and interpretation of on-farm research-extension. Iowa State University Press, Ames. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00072042/00001/1J
JFSRE Available at:
http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00071921 ?td=Journal%20foro%20farming%20 systems %20research-extension
McDermott, J.K. and D. Bathrick. 1981. Guatemala: development of the Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology (ICTA) and its impact on agricultural research and farm productivity. USAID, Washington, D.C. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00071936/00001
McDowell, R.E. and P.E. Hildebrand. 1980. Integrated crop and animal production: making the most of resources available to small farms in developing countries. A Bellagio Conference. The Rockefeller Foundation. New York. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00053812
http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00054669/00001 (Spanish version.)
National Research Council. 1989. Alternative agriculture. Committee on the role of alternative farming methods in modern production agriculture. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.
Ortiz, L., P.E. Hildebrand and L.M. Pando. 1977. Registros econ6micos de producci6n en: maiz-frijol-sorgo; maiz-sorgo; maiz-frijol; y maiz solo en ladera. Area piloto ICTA, region VI. Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologias Agricolas (ICTA), Guatemala. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00071845
Poats, Susan, D. Galt, C.O. Andrew, L.Walecka, P.E. Hildebrand and J.K. McDermott. 1986. Farming systems research and extension: status and potential in low-resource agriculture. Report submitted to the Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States. Farming Systems Support Project, University of Florida, Gainesville. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00056190/00001
Poats, S.V., M. Schmink and A. Spring. 1988. Gender issues in farming systems research and extension. Westview Press, Boulder. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00076562/00001
Schmidt, D.L. 1984. Synthesis of the North Florida farming systems project, University of Florida 1981-1984. University of Florida. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00056159/00001/2J
Shaner W.W., P.F. Philipp and W.R. Schmehl. 1980. Farming systems research and development: guidelines for developing countries. Westview Press, Boulder. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00097355/00001
Stroup, W.W., P.E. Hildebrand and C.A. Francis. 1993. Farmer participation for more effective research in sustainable agriculture. Chapter 12 In: Ragland, J. and R. Lal. Technologies for sustainable agriculture in the tropics. American Society of Agronomy, ASA Special Publication No. 56. Madison. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00053919/00001/2J
Sullivan, A.J. 2000. Decoding diversity: strategies to mitigate household stress. M.S. thesis, Agricultural Education and Communication, University of Florida.
Swisher, M.B. and E.C. French. 1985. Perennial peanut: a high quality, low cost forage. University of Florida, Gainesville. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00066189/00001/2J
van Haeften, R., R.K.Waugh, J.K.McDermott, and D.D. Harpstead. 1983. Report of the team for the evaluation of the North Florida farming systems research and extension project. University of Florida, Gainesville. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00096327
Wake, J.L., C.F. Kiker and P.E. Hildebrand. 1988. Systematic learning of agricultural technologies. Agricultural Systems 27:179-193.
Wotowiec, Jr., P.; S.V. Poats, and P.E. Hildebrand. 1988. Research, recommendation and diffusion domains: a farming systems approach to targeting. Chapter 6 In: Poats, S.V., M. Schmink and A. Spring. Gender issues in farming systems research and extension. Westview Press, Boulder. http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/UF00081675/00001