• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 FSRE network organizes, charges...
 Course information wanted for FSRE...
 1987 farming systems research/extension...
 1988 farming systems research/extension...
 A sketch of the evolution...
 Miscellaneous news and notes
 Outline and notes for reporting...
 An approach to FSR evaluation
 A network for methods of farmer-led...






Title: Farming Systems Support Project newsletter
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00071908/00019
 Material Information
Title: Farming Systems Support Project newsletter
Alternate Title: FSSP newsletter
Physical Description: v. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Farming Systems Support Project
University of Florida -- Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Publisher: The Project
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1983-
Frequency: quarterly
regular
 Subjects
Subject: Agriculture -- Periodicals -- Developing countries   ( lcsh )
Agriculture -- International cooperation -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
periodical   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Dates or Sequential Designation: Vol. 1, no. 1 (spring 1983)-
Issuing Body: Issued by: Farming Systems Support Project, which is administered by: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
General Note: Title from caption.
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00071908
Volume ID: VID00019
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 10387162
lccn - sn 84011294

Table of Contents
    FSRE network organizes, charges steering committee
        Page 1
    Course information wanted for FSRE training inventory
        Page 2
    1987 farming systems research/extension symposium begins new three-year cycle in Fayetteville
        Page 3
    1988 farming systems research/extension symposium
        Page 4
        Page 5-6
        Page 7
    A sketch of the evolution of FSSP
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Miscellaneous news and notes
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Outline and notes for reporting the results of an on-farm experiment
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    An approach to FSR evaluation
        Page 17
    A network for methods of farmer-led systems experimentation
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
Full Text







Volume Five, Number Four
Fourth Ouarter, 1987


Farming Systems Support Project Newsletter


FSRE Network organizes,

charges Steering Committee


Support for Farming Systems Research and Exten-
sion (FSRE) is in a transitional phase. This report
summarizes recent developments in this transition
which demonstrate the continued interest in and
viability of farming systems as one approach to agri-
cultural development.
On October 22-23, 1987, an Open Network Forum
was held at the Continuing Education Center, Fayette-
ville, Arkansas, following the Farming Systems Research
Symposium and the Farming Systems Support Project
Annual Meetings. The purpose of the Forum was to
consider networking, technical issues, communications
and other concerns related to the future of the farming
systems research and extension, and the future of the
FSRE Network. There were 62 participants represent-
ing 35 organizations.
The FSRE Network was formed and legitimized
through consensus of the Forum. A Steering Committee
was selected to assume leadership for the Network in
an organizational capacity for one year. The committee
was charged with the responsibility for developing
short-term and long-term plans for farming systems
efforts. Steering Committee Members are listed at the
end of this report.
The Steering Committee met in Washington, D.C.
on November 9-10, 1987. It was decided that a secre-
tariate would be maintained at the University of
Florida on an interim basis. Steve Kearl will act as
coordinator. The following actions were taken:
a Plans were made to develop a brochure and a
series of video tapes highlighting FSRE successes
A concept paper for the 1988 Farming Systems
Symposium was reviewed and supported
A concept paper for continuation of the Kansas
State FSRE documentation center was reviewed
and supported
A proposal for continuation of the Farming Sys-
tems Newsletter and a series of peer reviewed
networking papers was discussed and supported


Plans for a short-term results inventory were dis-
cussed. This inventory will be conceptualized and
implemented.
After completion of budgets, proposals will be sub-
mitted for funding support of the above efforts. The
need for continued funding of these efforts will be
addressed in the long-term concept paper.
Other short-term actions included discussion of
training needs, capabilities and materials. The Univer-
sity of Florida will continue to make the Farming
Systems Training Manuals available. Training courses
are available on a buy-in basis. The committee recom-
mended that an inventory of existing training capabil-
ities be developed.
The committee worked on identifying key points
to be included in a long-term concept paper addressing
the future of farming systems as an approach to agri-
cultural development. The concept paper will be
presented at next year's farming systems symposium,
October 9-13, 1988 at the University of Arkansas.
The following points will be addressed in the concept
paper:
Micro-macro policy links
Strengthening FSRE linkages to commodity
research
Participation of farmers and farmer organizations
in FSRE
Advances in methodology for design and analysis
of on-farm trials
Advances in evaluation methodology
Refinement of rapid rural appraisal techniques
Definition of diffusion domains
Integration of intra-household components into
diagnosis, design, implementation and policy
Role of U.S. research and extension institutions
in farming systems projects and project support
efforts
Relationships of farming systems to CRSPs and
IARCs






Technology implementation
Natural resources
Regional coordination
Mechanisms for mobilization of human resources
in farming systems research and extension efforts
Orientation for USAID personnel and debriefing
of project personnel to facilitate information
transfer and institutional memory
Continuation of assessment of farming systems
impact
The committee supports the need for integrating
training and development of training materials into
all of the above key elements.
For more information, contact:
Steve Kearl
International Programs
University of Florida
3028 McCarty Hall
Gainesville, Florida 32611
Phone (904) 392-1965
or Steering Committee members:
Kathy Alison
ITD/OICD/USDA
Washington, D.C. 20250-4300
Jerry B. Eckert
Department of Agricultural Econ.
Colorado State University
Ft. Collins, CO 80523
Phone (303) 491-5549
Cornelia Flora
Department of Soc., Anth. & Soc. WK.
Waters Hall, Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas 66506
Phone (913) 532-6865
Tim Frankenberger
845 North Park, University of Arizona
Office of Arid Land Studies
Tucson, Arizona 85719
Phone (602) 621-1955
Peter E. Hildebrand
FRE Department, University of Florida
2126 McCarty Hall
Gainesville, Florida 32611
Phone (904) 392-5830
Michael S. Joshua
Bureau of Econ. Res. & Dev.
Box W, VA State University
Ames, IA 50011
Phone (804) 520-5621
Rosalie Norem
166 LeBaron Hall
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011
Phone (515) 294-8608
Tom Westing
Int'l. Ag. Programs
300 Hotz Hall, University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Phone (501) 575-6857
2


Course information wanted

for FSRE training inventory

The Steering Committee of the new Farming Sys-
tems Network is concerned about continuing the
training efforts which were initiated under the FSSP.
Because the network will operate on the basis of
communication, the steering committee is attempting
to create an inventory of all farming systems courses
which are or can be offered by network members.
With this information, any network member will be
able to counsel potential course clients and facilitate
future training efforts.
Accordingly, we are requesting network members
(potentially all readers of this Newsletter) to provide
the relevant information. Relevant courses would
cover (1) Farming systems research and extension
methods, (2) Case study methods, (3) Research and
extension management and administration, and (4)
Gender issues in development.
Please provide the following information:
Name of person providing information.
Institutional affiliation of this person.
Address, phone number and telex where this person
can be reached.
For each course or type of course, whether regularly
scheduled or occasional, and whether a short course or
university level course, please provide the following
information:
Title of course
Language(s) in which course is (can be) offered
When scheduled-beginning and ending dates or time
required including hours per day
Nature of participants
Is the course offered for university level credit? If
so, how many?
Nature and objectives of the course (include a recent
course outline, if available)
Who offers this course? Please indicate language
capability of each person involved.
A statement concerning the nature of the training
program at the institution offering the courses for
which information is provided would be useful.
A compilation of the above information will be
provided to all persons who respond to this survey and
to all who request the information. Please send informa-
tion or requests to:
Peter E. Hildebrand
Food and Resource Economics Department
2126 McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
USA









1987 Farming Systems Research/Extension Symposium
begins new three-year cycle in Fayetteville


The annual Farming Systems Re-
search/Extension Symposium, which
was initiated by Kansas State Univer-
sity and held in Manhattan, Kansas,
for six years, has just completed its
seventh year with a Symposium
held in Fayetteville, Arkansas, host-
ed by the University of Arkansas
(UAF) in collaboration with Win-
rock International Institute for
Agricultural Development (WI). The
Symposium will remain in Fayette-
ville for the next two years (1988,
1989) before rotating to a new host
institution.
The Symposium explored the
theme "How Systems Work" within
the structure of five sub-themes:
Agroforestry Systems, Crop Systems,
Crop/Livestock Systems, Informa-
tion/Communication and Macro Sys-
tems. The characteristics and oper-
tions of systems were considered with
a view towards enhancing intra-project
communication (between discipline
based agricultural researchers, exten-
sion personnel, and policy makers
and the FSR/E practitioners charged
with implementation), as well as
communication across disciplines,
projects, countries, and regions.
A volume of 1987 Symposium
abstracts was published and distri-
buted to participants at the time of
the Symposium. Work continues on
editing for publication of the 1987
Symposium proceedings, scheduled
for January or early February of
1988.


FSR/E videotapes wanted

In an effort to help document
accomplishments of FSR/E projects
and programs, the Steering Com-
mittee of the newly formed FSR/E
Network is inviting contributions of
videotapes describing your work.
Edited on unedited footage is wel-


Some changes were initiated in the
Symposium's seventh year, including
(1) re-instatement of peer review, (2)
greater emphasis upon the quality of
published output, (3) an effort to
incorporate more of U.S.-based
farming systems activities and more
of the francophonee perspective"
into the program (4) special training
opportunities associated with the
Symposium, and (5) the addition of
a special, all-day session on U.S.
Applications of Farming Systems
Research.
The attendance (over 335 people
from more than 45 countries) and
evaluations received from the Sym-
posium indicate that this year's
conference was highly successful.
Participants attended plenary ses-
sions, workshops, discussion groups
and poster sessions extending over
two and one-half days, along with
special pre-Symposium training op-
portunities such as a short course in
microcumpter applications.
Immediately following the Sym-
posium, a forum discussion concern-
ing the future of activities no longer
funded through the Farming Systems
Support Project led to the formation
the FSR/E Network to maintain the
linkages which now exist. Symposium
participation, the professional reputa-
tion and commitment of those in
attendance, and the formation of the
FSR/E Network all indicate a strong
interest in the continuation of activ-
ities using the, Farming Systems


come, and will be used in two ways.
First it will be catalogued by Noel
Young, Librarian, and made avail-
able generally through Farrell Library
at Kansas State University. Second,
provided support is forthcoming,
submitted videotapes will be used
in the production of an overview of
many different project activities.
Steering Committee members co-


Research approach, with a desire to
extend and strengthen their benefits,
even in the face of the inevitable
shifts of emphasis, and fads, that
occur within the international agri-
cultural development community.
University of Arkansas and Win-
rock staffs have assessed the 1987
Symposium, and developed plans
which will incorporate the sugges-
tions received for 1988. Assessing the
gains made by the FSR/E approach
to agricultural development with a
view towards their sustainability,
together with a more concrete
regional focus for a portion of the
program, will be the key ideas built
into the coming year. An announce-
ment of next year's program along
with a Call for Papers is included in
this issue.
At a time when other avenues for
networking farming systems research
scientists and practitioners are being
threatened, the Symposium has pro-
vided a critical link to the preservation
of the network established through
the efforts of Kansas State University
and the Farming Systems Support
Project. The University of Arkansas
and Winrock International therefore
invite and urge farming systems
researchers and practitioners to par-
ticipate in the 1988 Symposium by
submitting a paper or poster session,
and encourage the incorporation of
the Symposium into training budgets
being prepared for 1988. E


ordinating this effort are Cornelia
Flora (Kansas State University),
Jerry Eckert (Colorado State
University) and Kathy Alison
(USDA/OICD).
Send FSR/E videotapes to:
Noel Young, Librarian
Farrell Library
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506







Program announcement and call for papers


Farming Systems


Research/Extension Symposium


October 9-12, 1988
The University of Arkansas
in collaboration with
Winrock International Institute
for Agricultural Development

The eighth annual Farming Systems Research/
Extension Symposium, hosted by the University of
Arkansas in collaboration with Winrock International
Institute for Agricultural Development, will be held at
the Center for Continuing Education at the University
of Arkansas in Fayetteville, October 9-12, 1988.
1988 Themes and Structure
The 1988 Symposium will examine "Contributions
of FSR/E Towards Sustainable Agricultural Systems,"
first regionally and then globally across the following
sub-themes:
* FSR/E Accomplishment in the Field
* Methodologies for Assessing the Impact of FSR/E
* Gender and Intra-Household issues in FSR/E
* The Role of Information/Communication Systems
in FSR/E
Special Topics
Special training courses, such as the 1987 "Micro-
computer Applications," will once again be offered
prior to and following the Symposium, both at the
University of Arkansas and at other institutions, and


will be advertised as they are developed. The Sympos-
ium itself will officially open with a reception Sunday
night, October 9, and adjourn Wednesday evening,
October 12, 1988.
Feedback from the 1987 Symposium indicated a
strong desire to focus upon FSR/E from a regional
perspective, allowing more attention to the details of
concrete system environments. On Monday, October
10, 1988, therefore, there will be four concurrent
programs, each focusing upon the sub-themes above
within one of the following regions:
* Africa *Latin America
* Asia/Near East mUnited States
Tuesday and Wednesday, October 11-12, the sub-
themes will be addressed from a broader global per-
spective. Emphasis will be placed on presentations
which offer a synthesis or overview of issues within
a given sub-theme, cutting across regional differences.
Call for Papers
All papers submitted for consideration are requested
to address the main theme of the sustainability of
FSR/E gains in the area being discussed. Were planned
improvements fully adopted and implemented? Will the
system introduced continue to function successfully
on its own, with little or no additional inputs? What
are the critical factors at both the micro and macro
level which will ensure its ongoing success? What
general recommendations and conclusions concerning





Pages
5-6
Missing
From
Original







small farm development have emerged from FSR/E?
How can these recommendations be communicated
effectively to project designers, implementors, and
policy makers?
A small number of commissioned papers will be
presented for each sub-theme within the regional and
global sections of the program. The remainder of the
program will be organized around brief presentations
of contributed papers followed by an open facilitator-
led discussion of a given sub-theme in which paper
authors will act as panel discussants. Contributed
papers to be included in the program will be selected
based on abstracts received.
Papers are invited which will address the content of
each of the sub-theme as follows:
* FSR/E Accomplishments in the Field: the work of
collecting a results inventory of projects and proj-
ect components which have met with outstanding
success will begin in 1988 and continue into 1989.
The accomplishments of FSR/E locally, regionally
and then globally will be examined in an effort to
extract broader recommendations for the design
implementation of future FSR/E projects, and to
assist in policy formulation related to FSR/E
issues.
Methodologies for Assessing the Impact of FSR/E:
the methods and criteria for evaluating FSR/E
projects, the collection of "hard" and "soft" data
reflecting project accomplishments, results inventory
methods, periodic rapid appraisal techniques, and
cost/benefit analysis as it might apply to FSR/E
projects are some of the areas to be considered
within this sub-theme. Methodologies for analyzing
project gains for sustainability will be given special
attention.
Gender and Intra-Household Issues in FSR/E: the
identification of gender and intra-household factors
influencing agricultural development, farmer parti-
cipation, links with extension, consumption effects,
and the presentation of research design, results, and
adoption which have positively affected the incor-
poration of gender/intra-household factors will be
considered within this sub-theme. Consideration of
gender issues in other sub-themes is also encouraged.
The Role of Information/Communication Systems:
this sub-theme will address issues such as effective
processing and analysis of research information in
FSR/E, research/extension linkages, technology
transfer, networking, bottom-up communications,
multi-disciplinary channels of communication,
policy formulation/linkage, institutionalization of
communication systems, and telecommunications.
Special Topics: this sub-theme will provide an
opportunity for the presentation of valuable and
timely information which does not fall within the


scope of the other sub-themes outlined but merits
inclusion in the 1988 program. Special considera-
tion will be given to issues related to sustainable
agricultural development which are not included
as individual sub-themes, such as natural resource
management.
Poster Presentations
The presentation of research results and projects
and the opportunity to talk informally with project
personnel in attendance will be accomplished by
organizing poster sessions in the late afternoon and
evening of Tuesday and Wednesday, October 11 and
12. No competing programs or sessions will be sched-
uled during that time. Posters will all be presented at
the same location, with authors/presenters present at
designated times during the poster session period for
discussion of their project. A poster competition is
also planned. Individuals or groups are invited to make
more than one presentation (e.g., a contributed paper
and a poster presentation).
Publication of Abstracts/Proceedings
All abstracts submitted by the deadline and selec-
ted for presentation will be published for distribu-
tion at the Symposium. Selection of papers for pub-
lication in the 1988 Symposium proceedings will be
based strictly upon post-symposium peer review. All
papers must be received in final form at the time of
the Symposium to be considered. Only a limited
number of papers will be published, thus acceptance
for presentation does not assure publication in the
proceedings.
Deadlines and Procedures
All abstracts must be submitted on the attached
form no later than May 15. Please pay special attention
to the type of presentation, indicating whether it is
regional or global and into which sub-theme it falls. If
it is regional, please indicate the region on the Abstract
Return Form accompanying this announcement.
Authors/presenters will be notified by June 30 of
their selection for participation in the 1988 Symposium.
A preliminary program and Symposium pre-registra-
tion information will be mailed in July. Registration
fees will be $150 for non-students and $75 for stu-
dents. Late registration will begin September 15. After
that, fees will increase to $165 and $85 respectively.
All papers to be considered for publication must be
received in final form at the time of the Symposium.
All Symposium papers, whether presented or not, will
be available to the extent possible at a local copying
service indexed by key words for individual purchase.
For Further Information
Contact Ms. Pam Styles, Symposium Coordinator,
International Agricultural Programs Office, 300 Hotz
Hall, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas
72701 (Tel. 501-575-6857). E









A sketch


of the


evolution


of FSSP

by Chris Andrew2

Adapted from a paper presented at the Farming
Systems Research Symposium, October 18-21,
1987, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville,
Arkansas, U.S.A.
Director, Farming Systems Support Project,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida,
U.S.A.
























The FSSP newsletter, published quarterly by
the Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP),
has been funded by AID Contract No. DAN-
4099-A-002083-00 and produced through the
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
(IFAS), University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
32611. IFAS is an Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity Affirmative Action Employer.


In July of 1982, the University of
Florida was selected to organize a
support network to assist the United
States Agency for International
Development (USAID) with farming
systems research and extension
(FSR/E). Formulation of a support
network was left to the lead entity
and its ability to collaborate with
other institutions. FSSP support
entities became 25 in number: 4
private firms and 21 universities,
which provided the basis for a unique
network among U.S. universities and
institutions for international work,
different than any previously devel-
oped. This support entity network
emerged with a memorandum of
agreement, an advisory council, a
technical committee and numerous
support functions. Each participating
institution identified a program leader,
an administrative coordinator and
program associates to facilitate insti-
tutional affiliation with FSSP and to
coalesce their own respective pro-
grams. Resources through depart-
ments, centers and programs at these
institutions were committed to
strengthening the U.S. domestic
capacity to provide support to AID
farming systems activities through
the FSSP.
While the purpose of the project
has been to deliver technical assis-
tance, training and network develop-
ment to the third world, particularly
in Africa, one of the important
results of its organization and colla-
borative activity is the established
network support capability-the FSSP
Network within the United States-
as a support system for USAID.
It is impossible to say what the
absolute dollar match by USAID
missions, other donors, support
entities, IARCs and national pro-
grams has been to FSSP activity.
The project has stimulated the
mobilization of many human and
information resources at minimal
cost to the project but often at
substantial cost to collaborating


entities. The project has been man-
aged so that administrative and
bureaucratic maneuvers were min-
imized, including exchange of funds.
In many cases this has removed the
need for handling funds through extra
contract offices and agents as well as
with international money exchanges
and transfers. The goal has been to
manage the funds as close to the
client activity as possible.
Careful study of the overall
record indicates that not only
mission funds have been extended
at the point of delivery of mission-
demanded activity, but that funding
matches have come from bilaterial
contractors both in the field and at
the home institution. While it is
impossible to identify the extent
to which these matches have aug-
mented the resource base of the
FSSP, the multiplier effects have
been considerable. Numerous hours
have been "freely" contributed to
activities such as work groups, task
forces, training unit development
teams, symposia, councils and tech-
nical committees-where no federal
monies have been expended. The
States, their universities, their offices
of International Agricultural Pro-
grams, their departments and their
faculties have viewed FSSP as a
worthwhile investment.
While interaction and collaboration
provide for information and experi-
ence exchanges in a network, des-
criptive data of activities and actors
is another measure of networking
success. For FSSP, the important
facilitative activities have included
newsletters, network papers, bibli-
ographies, document holdings, sym-
posia, workshops/shortcourses, con-
sultancies, biodata searches, cables/
telexes, information requests and
training materials. The inventory
does not account for the many
activities held in response to FSR/E
needs by the support entities. A
summary of the FSSP baseline data
covering 1982-1987 follows.






Newsletters-20 issues in English,
20 issues in French, 20 issues in
Spanish (Each language carried dis-
tinct material for the regional
orientation); readership was about
20,000 per mailing of 5,000 includ-
ing all three languages; thus over 5
years more than 20,000 people read
20 different letters for a total of
more than 400,000 interactions. In
these letters, articles on varied
FSR/E topics evolved from more
than 75 authors. Practitioner partici-
pation in the newsletter provided
content on the cutting edge of
FSR/E methodology, as well as
ongoing discussion of issues related
to diagnosis, design and analysis of
on-farm experimentation.
Support Entity News-FSSP helped
support the worldwide Farming Sys-
tems Symposium at Kansas State
University and the University of
Arkansas, as well as a Gender Issues
Conference at the University of
Florida. More than 1,500 people
attended these meetings, which not
only facilitated an information ex-
change but also resulted in proceed-
ings, published for broad distribution.
In five years more than 40 countries
were represented at these meetings.
Network Papers-Various network
publications have been prepared from
practitioner research, network meet-
ings and workshops with distribution
to a practitioner audience targeted
from the FSSP mailing list, short-
course and workshop participants
and others who have requested
them. Before the series was discon-
tinued, 15 Networking Papers were
issued. Four Networkshop Reports,
proceedings from major workshop
activities, were also published and
distributed, primarily in Africa.
Farming Systems Bibliographies
-Two major efforts went forward
in documentation. The first was a
bibliographical listing published by
Kansas State University including
1950 items, accompanied by an
Africa-specific bibliography of 485
items selected from the main volume.
Efforts on the bibliography continue
today with the addition of another
major collection of works. The


second effort was coordinated
through the Technical Committee
of the FSSP, encompassing review
and selection of items for inclusion
in FSSP's Bibliography of Readings
in Farming Systems. Three volumes
were issued in Spanish and French
and four volumes were issued in
English to the entire FSSP mailing
list of more than 5000. More than
850 documents were reviewed in this
process including hundreds contri-
buted by farming systems practit-
ioners worldwide and the balance
selected from the Kansas State Bibli-
ography. In the four resulting English
volumes 419 documents were selected
for annotation. The AID Document
Information and Handling Facility
(DIHF) will continue to handle
requests for the FSSP Bibliographies
and their contents beyond FSSP
Phase I and into the future. (Similar-
ly, Kansas State University will con-
tinue to distribute and harbor pro-
ceedings of the Annual Symposium
through an agreement with the
University of Arkansas).
Document Holdings-All of the
above bibliographic listings are avail-
able in the Kansas State University
FSR/E documentation center. From
that holding 1550 articles are in
microfiche for "at cost" purchase
by individuals or libraries desiring
to establish an FSR/E reference
facility of both published and
ephemeral materials.
Workshops/Shortcourses-Courses
.and workshops have varied greatly in
length, topic, location and numbers
of participants. FSSP has led or made
major contributions to workshops
and short courses in 22 countries
with a total of 676 participants.
Training Materials-Fifteen slide-
tape modules (in English, Spanish
and French) were produced as sup-
plemental training materials, the basis
for further discussion of specific
topics. Methodological steps of the
FSR/E approach were the basis for
contents of these modules. More
than 600 sets were produced for
distribution, involving more than
40,000 slides.
The primary training materials


developed by FSSP were sets of
training units including 3 volumes
with a supplemental trainers guide.
Development and testing of these
units was an intensive effort on the
part of FSSP program associates,
core staff, technical committee
members, and scores of practitioners
throughout the world. The systhesis/
analysis that has gone into the train-
ing units truly represents FSR/E
state-of-the-art. The units have under-
gone extensive testing and revision
which has resulted in the integration
of livestock and economic analysis
concerns into the unit. A fourth
volume remains to be completed
before year's end.
Technical Assistance-Project de-
sign and evaluation teams, as well as
training needs assessments and pro-
gram development consultancies,
have involved 66 teams and 124
team members in assignments in 14
countries where FSSP was the leader
or major contributor to the activity.
Visitors-Short term visits to FSSP
headquarters were managed as short
term training activities lasting from
one hour to several days. These
were non-formal (not shortcourses)
but tailored training encounters that
involved more than 1500 visitor days
over the first four years of the project.
Visitors came to the FSSP from 40
countries.
Biodata Searches-Biodata on
FSR/E practitioners processed and
available through FSSP included 798
individuals, and 143 searches pro-
vided information to various users,
USAID being the heaviest.
Telex/Cable Communication-
Without telex and cable service the
FSSP would not have responded in
a timely manner to various requests
and delivery activities. The files
show that more than 700 communi-
cations resulted in five years.
Information Requests-General in-
formation requests by telephone and
letter have averaged over seven per
day or more than 10,000 since fall of
1982.
It would be incorrect to say that
the FSSP has institutionalized FSR/E
within the 25 cooperating support







entities. Yet the essence of the FSSP
goes well beyond the input data
given above. The FSSP has provided
a mechanism for faculty members
with interests in farming systems to
collaborate as well as communicate
with practitioners from around the
world. It is not an institutional
network per se, but it is a network
of faculty belonging to an important
institutional resource base. FSR/E, it
must be remembered, is methodol-
ogy, not an institutional construct.
The institutional dimensions enjoy-
ed by FSSP result from the strength
of the participating institutions and
the various parent entities affiliated
with those institutions, (such as the
Land Grant Association and AUSU-
DIAP, the professional societies such
as those of agronomy, agricultural
economics, and others), along with
a host of other inter-institutional
mechanisms. Somehow the right
ingredients formed within the FSSP
to provide for a unique congruity of
thoughts and practices in the support
network to achieve support for
FSR/E-based USAID programs and
FSR/E programs of other donors.
The United States Agency for Inter-
national Development can take con-
siderable credit for initiating a proj-
ect that has stimulated this unprece-
dented collaboration.
With considerable care a relation-
ship that focuses on multidisciplin-
ary involvements in FSR/E has been
established which will definitely
outlive FSSP regardless of the fund-
ing horizon. This unique resource, if
nurtured, can provide a support base
to USAID and others over a long
period of time. To maintain interest
within this support base only minor
financial investments are necessary.
To ignore the base, however, will
send a signal to those who have given
unselfishly of their institutional and
personal resources to the program.
On behalf of the core staff of the
FSSP at the University of Florida,
let me say it has been a pleasure
working with you and for you. We
look forward to a continued associ-
ation through the newly formed
FSR/E Network.E


Miscellaneous news and notes


International Conference on Women,
Development, and Health
The Women In International De-
velopment Office, Michigan State
University has announced The 1988
International Conference on Women,
Development and Health, scheduled
for October 21-23, 1988. An exam-
ination of the connection between
socio-economic change and women's
health in the third world, the con-
ference will include topics related to:
rural production, migration, interna-
tional division of labor, the informal
sector, transfer of technology, child
survival, reproduction and sexuality,
women as health care providers,
health care and the community, and
public policy.
Deadline for submission of ab-
stracts for conference papers is
March 15, 1988.
Send abstracts and requests for
conference information to:
Rita S. Gatlin, Director
The WID Office
202 Center for International
Programs
East Lansing, MI 48824-1035
USA Telephone (517) 353-5040
or TELEX 650-277-3148 ISP


International Workshop on Women,
Households and Development:
Building a Database
The University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign announces this
July 11-12, 1988 workshop, sched-
uled as a pre-meeting event of the
XVI Congress of the International
Federation for Home Economics.
The Workshop will address the need
to expand knowledge and statistical
data on all aspects of women's roles.
Topics include household and family
organization, formal and non-formal
communication networks, household
consumption and income patterns,
household production, women in
agriculture, household food systems,
nutrition, health maintenance, hous-


ing, clothing practices, building hu-
man resources: children, and sources
for research funding.
The program fee is $400.00 (US).
Lodging and meals are additional,
offered at reasonable rates. Academic
credit for participation in this Work-
shop can be arranged, and there is a
limited number of partial fellowships
available, with preference given to
participants from developing
countries.
Additional information and regis-
tration materials are available from:
Edna Unfer
Conferences and Institutes
University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign
302 E. John Street, Suite 202
Champaign, Illinois 61820
Telephone (217) 333-2881


GENDER TRAINING INSTITUTE
The Women in Agricultural Devel-
opment (WIAD) Program at the
University of Florida plans to sponsor
a two-week training institute dealing
with approaches, methods, and ma-
terials for gender issues analysis. The
training session is planned for May
9-20, 1988. Tuition will be approxi-
mately $500 for the two-week
session. Participants will be respon-
sible for their own travel, lodging,
and maintenance costs. Sponsorship
of the institute depends on interest.
Therefore, we need to know if you
would be interested in attending such
an institute. Please contact Dr. M. E.
Swisher, WIAD Director, Interna-
tional Programs, 3028 McCarty Hall,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
32611. Telephone (904) 392-1965.


FLORIDA ASSISTANTSHIPS
The Women in Agricultural Devel-
opment (WIAD) Program at the
University of Florida is pleased to










announce the availability of four
graduate assistantships for the
1988-89 academic year. The WIAD
Program is a non-degree program
which supports research, technical
assistance, and academic endeavors
that increase knowledge about
women's roles in agriculture both
in the United States and interna-
tionally. Assistantship recipients can
major in any of the University of
Florida's departments. Both women
and men in either the biological or
social sciences are encouraged to
apply. Both domestic and interna-
tional research interests are support-
ed. Applicants should be able to
demonstrate an ongoing interest in
the area of women in agricultural
development. For information about
the assistantships, contact Dr. M. E.
Swisher, WIAD Director, Interna-
tional Programs, 3028 McCarty Hall,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
32611. For telephone inquiries, call
(904) 392-1965. Applications must
be submitted by February 15, 1988.



DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
MICROFICHE COLLECTION
AVAILABLE
Between 1981 and 1985, the Adap-
tive Agricultural Research Project
was carried out in the Dominican
Republic by the Agricultural Uni-
versity of Wageningen, sponsored by
the Netherlands Ministry for Devel-
opment Cooperation. The objective
of the project was to develop a
methodology for the incorporation
of sociological factors into agricul-
tural research and to apply that
methodology as a way of contri-
buting to agricultural development
in the Dominican Republic. The
main emphasis was put on a survey'
to inventory farmers' knowledge,
practices, production conditions,
and constraints, with respect to two
crops, cassava and rice. Standard
sociological methods were used (e.g.


case studies and surveys), and great
attention was paid to the design and
performance of adaptive trials, i.e.,
trials taking small-farmer production
conditions into account and carried
out in close collaboration with
farmers. Additional studies concerned
the role of women and the function-
ing of extension services.
Over the years, a series of 64
reports and papers prepared by
project researchers and participating
students have appeared in both
Spanish and English. These reports
were published on microfiche to
make them easy and cheap to
acquire. The subjects treated in the
various research reports are covered
by the following headings:
Farming systems research-Crop-
ping systems research-Social scien-
tists in agricultural research-Re-
search-extension-farmer linkages-
Cassava cultivation-Variety use-
Erosion control-Socio-economic
aspects of cassava cultivation-Rice
cultivation/farmer technology-Socio-
economic aspects of rice cultivation
-Late transplantation of rice-Adap-
ted technology: small rice threshers
-Role of women in cassava proces-
sing and rice cultivation.
The complete set, consisting of
37 microfiches is available for the
price of Sfr 200, order number
KD-3420/1. Please address your
order to: IDC AG, Industriestrasse
7, 6300 Zug, Switzerland.



AGRICULTURAL ADMINISTRA-
TION AND EXTENSION
Over the years, the growth in
interest and effectiveness of rural
extension work has been reflected
by an increase in the number of
papers published in the journal
Agricultural Administration relating
to extension research and practice.
Furthermore, recent moves toward
the international coordination and
collaboration of extension workers


have highlighted the need for a truly
international journal to serve their
needs. In response to these develop-
ments, this activity has been identi-
fied as a key topic for the coverage
of this journal and it has been de-
cided to revise its title and scope.
Agricultural Administration and
Extension is a journal which is
international in its coverage and
approach. It focuses on the insti-
tutions, organizations and people
which affect agricultural and rural
development with particular em-
phasis on issues concerning the
generation, dissemination and use
of new knowledge and technology.
The journal provides a forum for
the discussion of differing agricul-
tural and rural policies in various
countries and the consequential ad-
ministrative approaches to their
implementation. It is of special
interest to administrative, manager-
ial and extension personnel in
relevant government departments,
in various local, national and inter-
national projects, programs and
services, in international agencies
and to all those concerned with the
complex interactions between agri-
cultural research, extension and
education.
Attention is given not only to
agriculture, but also to other related
rural land uses and social activities,
such as forestry, recreation, fisheries,
processing, marketing and human
nutrition.
For a free specimen copy of
Agricultural Administration and
Extension, write to:
Elsevier Applied Science Publishers
Crown House
Linton Road
Barking
Essex IG11 87U United Kingdom
or, for North American correspon-
dents:
Journal Information Center
Elsevier Science Publishers
52 Vanderbilt Avenue
New York, NY 10017 USA






Miscellaneous news and notes


READER RESPONSE:
FSSP Newsletter, Vol. 4, No. 2
Second Quarter 1986
Article: "Animal Traction in
Farming Systems Perspective"
Dear Editor,
I have found the article "Pre-con-
ditions for Successful Animal Trac-
tion Adoption" published on p. 8-12
of the subject newsletter quite
interesting. I would, however, like
to make the following comments
about the pre-conditions listed.
The prerequisites for successful
animal traction, as listed in the
article, do cover a range of factors.
However, it seems that the intrinsic
nature of the soil does not seem to
have been given sufficient emphasis.
Everything else remaining the same,
the physical properties of soil may
or may not permit the use of animal
traction for soil working. In the heavy
cracking clays, for example, the
hardness of soils before the rainy
season may not permit animal trac-
tion at all. At the same time, the
movement of animals after the rains
in these soils may be very difficult,
if not impossible (animals' as well as
operators' feet are likely to get
stuck in such soils when wet). It
would be a serious mistake if the
physical properties of soil were not
given enough attention before recom-
mending animal traction.
Animal traction has been practiced
in various parts of the world for a
long time and the practice has
usually "evolved from within" rather
than being "introduced". It may be
worthwhile finding out why animal
traction has not been practiced in
various parts of Africa and whether
physical properties of soil have
influenced it. If that happens to be
the case, the researchers might then
look at various modifications of the
system and work with indigenous
populations to "evolve" the appro-
priate forms of the technology,
particularly in terms of appropriate
implements and animals.


I hope you find these comments
appropriate and useful.
Sincerely,
S. Tahir Qadri
Forestry and Natural
Resources Advisor
USAID Mission Sudan
U.S. Embassy, P.O. Box 699
Khartoum, Sudan


NIGERIAN INSTITUTE PLANS
WORKSHOP ON PASTORALISM
The National Animal Production
Research Institute (NAPRI) is plan-
ning a Workshop on Pastoralism in
Nigeria, for the early part of 1988, in
Zaria, Nigeria.
The Workshop specifically intends
to:
1. provide a forum of dialogue be-
tween practitioners of pastoral
development in Nigeria
2. provide scholarly exchange of
information on all aspects of
pastoralism and
3. encourage research and develop-
ment of Nigerian pastoral pro-
duction systems.
PASTORALISM IN TRANSITION,
includes several sub-themes: nature
and scope of pastoral production
systems; future directions; livestock-
crop linkages; institutional factors in
pastoral production; theoretical and
methodological approaches to the
study of pastoralism; utilization/
integration of indigenous and non-
indigenous technologies in pastoral
production; and pastoral develop-
ment programs and projects; policies,
experiences and new directions.
The Workshop will bring together
policy makers, prominent scholars,
individuals and institutions work-
ing on and/or interested in various
aspects of pastoral production in
Nigeria and from other countries.
Please send conference inquiries to:
PASTORALISM 88
National Animal Production
Research Institute
Ahmadu Bello University
P.M.B. 1096
Shika, Zaria-Nigeria
Attention: Dr. J. O. Gefu.


ENVIRON: an information service
on the environmental impact of
pesticides
The Pesticide Impact Section,
Overseas Development Natural Re-
sources Institute, has compiled a
bibliographic computer database of
books and scientific articles about
the environmental side-effects of
pesticides (including herbicides and
fungicides) in the tropics. This data-
base, called ENVIRON, has been
designed to provide a rapid and
comprehensive information service,
free to scientists, farmers and agri-
cultural administrators living in de-
veloping countries and working for
international development organi-
zations.
Information previously scattered
throughout the scientific literature
has been gathered and sorted within
ENVIRON, allowing staff at the
Pesticide Impact Section to provide
rapid response to requests for in-
formation about pesticides. Sample
topics covered in ENVIRON include:
pesticide toxicity to non-targets, per-
sistence and residues, and ecological
impact on non-target organisms.
ENVIRON can handle inquiries
about the effect of pesticides on non-
target organisms (including soils),
when the request specifies the pesti-
cide (or pesticides), target pest(s),
non-target organisms, or a combina-
tion of these. Output consists of a
list of references, each of which is
followed by an indication of the
contents of each paper, and in some
cases a relevant abstract. Depending
on the request, an attempt is also
made to synthesize available infor-
mation.
Information available in ENVIRON
can be obtained from:
Pesticide Impact Section
Tropical Development and
Research Institute
College House
Wrights Lane
London W85SJ England





Outline and notes for reporting

the results of an on-farm experiment

Steve Franzel and Ann Stroud2


I. Introduction and Objectives
A. Farmer problem you are addressing. Discuss
cause of problem, interactions with other problems,
and relative importance of the problem in the farming
system. Comment on farmer recognition of problem,
the priority they give it and their assessment of the
causes. Briefly describe pertinent facts about the
farming system which help to explain the problem
and causes. Refer to any survey reports that have
been done in the experimental area.
B. Farmer target group and/or agro-ecological zone
this trial is aimed at. The trial may be aimed at other
groups as well, e.g., policy makers (e.g., yield loss
assessment trial due to aphids) or station researchers
(e.g., comparing farmer and recommended weeding
practices).
C. Objective(s) of experiment, including hypoth-
esis(es) being tested. These should directly address the
problem stated above.
D. Background information.
1. Past and present work on this problem.
a. In the research organization you are working
in. Include present recommendations related
to the operation under study in the experi-
ment. For variety trials, give present status
of the varieties being tested.
b. At other institutions in your country, e.g.,
state farms, private companies, extension
trials, university trials, etc.
c. Outside of your country, in other national
programs, at International Agricultural Re-
search Centers, etc. This is only necessary
for technologies which are being tested in
your country for the first time.


' In many countries, the format for reporting on-farm experiments is the
same as that used for reporting on-station experiments. Thus much
important information concerning farmer assessment, levels of non-
experimental variables, and circumstances influencing the results is not
reported. The primary objective of this outline is to give researchers a
format for reporting the most important information required for inter-
preting the results of an on-farm experiment. A secondary object is to
assist in planning experiments; during planning researchers can review
this outline to ensure that they will be collecting the data required for
properly interpreting and reporting experimental results. The outline is
to be used for reports of a season's results and can also be adapted for
use in a final report covering more than one season.
2Steven Franzel is an agricultural economist and Farming Systems Research
Advisor to the Institute of Agricultural Research, Ethiopia, on second-
ment from the Agricultural Development Service, World Bank.
Ann Stroud is a weed management consultant for the Food and Agri-
cultural Organization (FAO) working in the Crop Protection and
Regulatory Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Ethiopia.


2. Number of seasons this trial has been conducted.
3. Rainfall and/or other circumstances (pests,
diseases, control measures applied, etc.) which
affected trial performance this season.
4. In some cases, a single trial is only one of
several related trials which are being done to
answer the stated problem. If this is the case,
explain how this trial fits into the larger exper-
imental program.


II. Materials and Methods
A. Proposed duration
B. Location
1. Individual farmer, common holding, producer
cooperative, or other.
2. Explain. how and why sites were selected.
3. Number of sites.
a. Number of sites planted.
b. Number of sites for which data is available.
Reasons for data not being available at some
sites.
4. Description of sites, including cropping history,
fertility status, soil type and texture, altitude,
slope, rainfall.
C. Plot size (including length and width of plots).
Indicate for main plots and sub plots if'using a split
plot type design. If plot size was changed at any of the
sites because of layout constraints, indicate this infor-
mation.
D. Experimental design used.
E. Number of replications per site.
F. Treatments (those factors which you are varying).
1. Briefly explain the rationale behind the choice
of treatments/levels. Describe the control or
check treatmentss. If the farmer's practice is
one of the treatments, describe what this is. If
the farmer's practice in the trial varies from
one site to another, describe the variability.
2. Include dates, timing and methods for the
various activities related to treatment applica-
tion. For expression of timing of treatments,
do not use days after planting, use interna-
tionally recognized stages of growth for the
crop you are dealing with wherever possible.
3. Make a table and list the treatments. For
treatments that are continuous variables, e.g.,
fertilizer rates, list the treatments from lowest
to highest and maintain the same order of
treatments in all tables, e.g., yield response,
economic analysis, etc.






4. Express rates of pesticides and fertilizers in
the following manner:
a. Pesticides should be listed using their chemi-
cal name followed by their trade name in
parentheses, e.g., atrazine + metolachlor
(Primagram 500). All rates should be given
in kilograms of active ingredient/hectare and
stated as such rather than kilogram product/
hectare. All formulations used should also be
stated, e.g., 500 flowable (FW).
b. Fertilizer rates should be stated in kilograms
of N, P205, or K20/hectare. Also list the
actual material and quantity used, e.g., 200
kilograms diammonium phosphate (DAO) at
a rate of 36-92-0 per hectare.
G. Non-experimental variables. Here, the reader needs
to know which of four ways each non-experimental
variable has been treated:
1. Set by the researcher at a recommended level.
2. Set by the researcher at average farmer level.
3. Set by the researcher at some other level, e.g.,
fertilizer rate set at an intermediate level be-
tween recommended and farmer rates; or trial


planted later than farmer and recommended
planting time. In these cases, an explanation
for why the particular level was used should be
given.
4. Determined by each farmer according to his/her
own will. This is the approach used in "super-
imposed" trials.
A table, such as the one that follows, showing what
was done in the trial, is useful for explaining exactly
how and at what levels non-experimental variables
were set.
For example, this table shows that for a maize
variety trial, time of land preparation, number of
plowings, time of planting, weeding frequency and
time of weeding were determined individually by the
farmers involved. Each of these farmer practices was
at or near the recommended practice. The researcher
determined the method of planting (row), spacing
and seed rate at the recommended level, even though
most farmers broadcast and use a higher seed rate.
The researcher also selected the fertilizer rate, which
is intermediate between the recommended rate and
the rate farmers use.


Table: Non-experimental variables for a maize variety trial

Surveyed Non-experimental
Cultural farmers Recommended variable fixed by
practice practice practice Researcher Farmers Remarks
Time of land
preparation Jan.-Apr. Jan.-Apr. -- Jan.-Apr.
Method of
land preparation Oxen -- Oxen
Number of
plowings 3 to 4 4 --- 3.2 (2-4)
Time of Early to Early -- Early to
planting late May May late May
Method of Brdcst (65%) Row Row -Maize
planting Row pl (35%) plant plant dribbled
behind plow
Seed rate
(kg/ha) 40-45 25 25
Row spacing (cm) 54 (48-60) 75 75
Plant population 48 44 -- 53 Farmers
(thousand per ha) (43 to 61) do not thin
Fertilizer (kg/ha)
(DAP) 40(0-75) 150 50
(N/P205) 7/19 27/69 9/23
(0/0-14/35)
Fertilizer method Bdcst. Bdcst. Bdcst. One farmer
of application topdressed
Weeding 2 times 2 times --- 2 times 1st is ox cult.
frequency 2nd is hoe
Time of first 30 days 20 days -28 days
weeding (22 to 35)







The table also shows that farmer practices for the
first three cultural practices were approximately the
same as those of surveyed farmers. Further, the table
describes variability in practices among farmers at
different sites. For example, the range of number of
plowings among farmers hosting the experiment is
shown in parentheses following the average number
of plowings.
The table should include the important cultural
practices involved in the trial. Management practices
to consider for all experiments include: time, method,
and number of land preparations; planting time and
method including seed rate; fertilization rate and
method of application; time and method of weeding;
thinning; pest control; and lodging prevention prac-
tices. Those practices for which there is a significant
difference between trial farmers' practice, recom-
mended practice or surveyed farmers' practices need
to be included in the table.
H. Data collected. List all types of data collected
during the trial. For each type, tell when it was col-
lected, that is, with respect to other operations and
stage of growth. For example, it is important to
know whether you took a crop injury rating before
or after thinning. This sort of information can be
presented in a list or table form.
I. Evaluation criteria. State criteria by which trial
results will be evaluated, including those criteria
important to farmers.
III.Results and Discussion of Physical Response
A. Results should be presented by farmer target
group, i.e., recommendation domain. Using the
Analysis of Variance (AOV) you can analyze for
significant differences between target groups.
You may use the data in making modifications
in your recommendation domains. For example,
you may find varieties behaving differently within
a recommendation domain by looking at the data
before analysis. You note that variety response is
correlated with rainfall and decide to group the data
accordingly. You may find that there are two or
more recommendation domains instead of the original
one. Conversely, it is conceivable that varieties may
respond the same in different target groups. If you
find out that the target groups or recommendation
domains are not significantly different, and that there
is no reason to believe that the varieties should per-
form differently, then target groups/recommendations
can be omitted from the AOV analysis. Note that in
the above examples, data were never grouped on the
basis of response alone; that is, there has to be some
objective reason for grouping the data based on the
differences in natural or socio-economic circum-
stances in the two target groups.
B. If there was lost or missing data, describe how
it was handled.
C. Tables presenting physical response should
include:


1. Average yield for each treatment.
2. Average yield at each site.
3. For intercropping trials present not only
yield data but also land equivalent ratio (LER),
or an economic or nutritional analysis, in order
to relate the various combinations to a common
point of analysis.
D. You may decide to present other data, depending
on the objectives and type of trial you conduct, such as:
1. Coefficient of variation for each site.
2. Analysis of variance table.
3. Appropriate mean separation tests, if needed, to
explain significant variation in the AOV table.
4. Weed weights removed from treatments.
5. Weed, disease or pest ratings.
6. Crop injury ratings.
7. Soil sample nutrient analysis.
8. Labor data.
9. Date of first rain or of crop emergence, if trial
is dry planted.
10. Observations or ratings of Unexpected events,
e.g., attacks by pests, and how these influ-
enced the results.
Tables and figures should be self-explanatory. Each
table should have its own title so that it can stand on
its own. The most important points in the table should
be highlighted in the text.
E. Expression of data:
1. Use only those number of decimal places that
make sense and correspond to the level of
accuracy you can expect from your data. For
example, if yield weights from 50 square meter
plots were taken to the nearest 100 grams and
an extrapolation was made to kilogram/ha, it
is not correct to express the data in tenths or
hundredths of a kilogram; rather they should
be rounded to the nearest kilogram. Labor
data should never be expressed in fractions of
a person-hour but rounded off to the nearest
person-hour.
2. Data transformation. All data which have been
expressed as percentages or as counts, e.g., crop
damage by an insect or number of plants in a
harvested area, should be transformed before
analysis. Check your statistics book for this
method. Then present the original data (the
counts or percentages) with the statistics you
have from the transformed data.
3. If a scoring scale was used, present the defini-
tion of the scores with the data or tables. Do
not assume that someone will remember the
European Weed Research Society scoring
system, for example.
4. A zero in a table means that the yield or score
was zero (0). A dash (-) means that the data
were not collected or were missing. Never leave
blank spaces in a table.
F. Text discussing physical response table.
1. How do the various treatments perform in






comparison to the control plot?
2. Do control plot yields represent typical farmer
yields in the recommendation domain? If not,
why not?
3. Is the response at each site as expected? For
example, in a fertilizer trial, do the data at each
site appear to fit a production function pattern?
If not, why not?
4. Is there much variation in yield across sites? If
so, can you explain the sources of variation?
Should all the sites still be included in one
recommendation domain? If not, you should
analyze the data separately for the two recom-
mendation domains.
5. Do treatments respond differently at different
sites? For example, in a variety trial, does one
variety do better than others at some sites but
worse at other sites? Can you identify the
reasons?
G. How does this season's results compare with those
of past seasonss? If they are different can you explain
the reasons for the differences (rainfall, disease, site
changes, etc.)?
H. Discuss any problems which were encountered in
planning or implementation.

IV. Farmer Assessment
A.What the farmer says:
1. Discuss which treatments) the farmer prefers
and why. Discuss whether his/her assessment
differs from your expectations and/or from
the yield data.
2. In addition to this overall assessment, report
the farmer's detailed assessment of all the
developments and cultural practices involved in
the trial. For example, in a variety trial, farmer
assessment at each stage of growth of the dif-
ferent varieties is important. We also need to
monitor varietal performance after the trial has
been harvested-what is the farmer's assessment
of the storage, taste, preparation characteristics,
and marketability of the different varieties?
Women will likely give more accurate and de-
tailed responses to some of these questions.
B. What the farmer does: How has the farmers' man-
agement of his own fields been affected by the trial?
1. It is not always necessary to wait until the
second season to evaluate farmer management
changes. For example in an early maturing
variety trial in Bako, farmers insisted on
transplanting thinnings from the experimental
plots; this indicates their strong interest in and
tentative acceptance of early varieties.
2. For a variety trial beginning the second season,
what did the farmer do with the harvested
varieties from the previous seasons? Is he/she
planting any this year? For a herbicide trial,
does the farmer use herbicide in the second
season of the trial? Why or why not?


3. Did the farmer use the introduced technology
in a different way than you had thought it
should be used? For example, the use of a new
tool, time of planting of a variety, an inter-
cropping pattern for a new variety, change of
planting density, etc. Why did he/she use the
technology differently, how was it used dif-
ferently and what were the results according
to the farmer and yourself?
V. Economic Analysis
A. Economic analysis should be considered for any
trial designed to determine or verify recommendations
for farmers.
B. Four analyses should be conducted for each trial;
Partial budget, Dominance analyses, Marginal rate of
return, and Minimum return analyses. Sensitivity
analyses can also be conducted to show the sensitivity
of net benefits and rankings of treatments to changes
in prices, yields, etc.
C. You must briefly explain to the reader, in lay-
man's terms, what these analyses are and what the
results signify.
D. Below the partial budget table, include a section
entitled notes which provides details on how the data
in the partial budget were collected or estimated. Notes
should include:
1. Prices of inputs and outputs and how you
arrived at them, e.g., how did you estimate
the output price? Is the fertilizer price the cash
price or the credit price?
2. Labor inputs for each operation measured or
estimated and how you measured or estimated
them. Were data adjusted after measurement?
If so, how?
E. In areas where farmers provide a quota of the
crop you are studying to the Agricultural Marketing
Commission (AMC) and also sell some produce in
the local market you need to conduct two analyses,
one at the AMC price and one at the local price.
VI. Conclusion
A. Present an integrated interpretation of the results
as discussed in section IV. and V. above. Make some
conclusions concerning the economics, farmer assess-
ment and statistical data presented. For example, it
may be that the new variety you tested does not yield
significantly higher than the farmer's local variety.
However, the farmer liked it because of the seed
color and its earliness as well as the price it fetched
in the market. Therefore, your overall conclusion
might be to recommend the variety for economic
and preference reasons rather than solely based on
yield parameters. Use this section to summarize and
integrate all important results.
B. Based on the conclusions, state (1) changes in
trial management for the coming season, (2) recom-
mendations for future trials (location and types), and
(3) specific recommendations and/or modifications
of recommendations emanating from trial results. E









An approach to FSR evaluation

Robert W. Werge*


While carrying out farming systems
research related to post harvest tech-
nology at the International Potato
Center (CIP) in Peru, researchers
developed a three step approach to
evaluating on-farm trials. Each step
corresponds to a particular question
requiring the researcher and farmer
to examine a set of data related to
agronomic, economic, or social vari-
ables involved in the trial. The
assumption underlying this evalua-
tion process is that answers to all
three questions are critical for pre-
dicting potential adoption rates.
The following short description of
this evaluation process is written for
other researchers who may find it a
convenient tool for conceptualizing
evaluation of on-farm trials in a
broad socioeconomic context.
Step 1: Are there physical differ-
ences in the results of the trials?
Answers to this question utilize
measures for evaluating and report-
ing results of almost any agricultural
experiment, that is, measures of yield,
quality, storability, fertility, and
other physical properties. In CIP's
on-farm trials with seed potato
storage techniques, measures were
taken on weight loss, rate of sprout-
ing, yield, and other indicators of
storage quality. Results among treat-
ments were then compared statis-
tically to determine if significant
differences had occurred.
In addition, however, farmers were
involved during the various phases of
the trials and their evaluation of these
indicators were perceived by growers
as being valid or important and
whether the results, however statis-
tically significant, were meaningful
to them. For example, weight loss
was less important to farmers than to
*Robert W. Werge is Chief of Planning and Eval-
uation, Office of International Cooperation and
Development, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
He was formerly employed as an anthropologist
working primarily on post harvest technology at
the International Potato Center in Lima, Peru.


researchers since farmers did not
weigh their own seed before planting.
The condition of the seed potatoes
in terms of sprouts, specifically the
absence of long sprouts on seed
stored under diffuse sunlight, was a
clearer indicator of quality differen-
ces for farmers. These differences
could be seen clearly and casually
without quantitative measurement
and, as such, were more convincing
of differences between treatments.
The selection of indicators which
are "real" to farmers is an important
element in this first step of the
evaluation process. Choosing indica-
tors also is part of the initial trial
design and may provide clues for
determining modifications in treat-
ments. For example, researchers
working on solar dehydration units
for potato processing initially used
internal temperature of the unit as
an indicator of operating efficiency.
The assumption was that heat gen-
erated by the sun and intensified by
the solar dehydrator's design was an
indicator of drying efficiency. For
farmers, however, temperature was
not a meaningful indicator since
their interest was principally in pro-
cessing, and primarily in terms of
convenience and drying time. When
convenience and drying time were
used as indicators, treatments using
traditional methods, such as spread-
ing a moist processed product on
bags or sheets on the open ground,
were found to be as efficient as the
solar dehydration units.

Question 2: Do the results make
economic sense? Some form of
cost-benefit analysis is required in
the second step of evaluating on-farm
experiments. Application of prices to
inputs and outputs, acknowledge-
ments of hidden subsidies used in
research, depreciation, and review
of both direct and indirect costs is
essential for predicting adoption


rates. For example, plastic sheets
were utilized as part of the initial
on-farm trials for potato storage
units. In order to answer this second
evaluation question, it was necessary
to obtain data or estimates on the
price of sheets at the nearest market,
the cost of time required for a
farmer to purchase such sheets, ease
of availability, cost of transport,
and other factors.
In addition, utilization rates are
an important part of cost-benefit
analysis, especially when making
comparisons to farmers' practices
which stress multipurpose and multi-
function technologies. For example,
the direct cost for Andean farmers
to store potatoes in the rooms and
attics of their houses is practically
nil because the cost of construction
has been fully depreciated. By con-
trast, construction of specially de-
signed outdoor potato storage units
requires some significant outlay of
capital and dedication of materials
and space to a single purpose. Cost-
benefit analysis of comparative
storage treatments, therefore, high-
lighted the difficulty that most
farmers would encounter in adopting
some of the freestanding storage
designs being tested. This led re-
searchers to develop new designs for
seed potato storage which could be
incorporated into existing household
structures.

Question 3: Does change actually
occur? This is the essential evaluation
question concerning on-farm trials,
that is, do they result in a change in
farmer practices or, conversely, do
they result in a change in proposed
technology? The posing of this
question forces the evaluation pro-
cess to look at the broader context
in which decisions regarding change
are made. It also requires researchers
and farmers to be willing to be en-
gaged in a longer-term research







process than that required for single
season experiments.
This exploration of the wider
cultural context of farming decisions
in the evaluation process may reveal
a broader range of factors favoring
adoption beyond agronomic and
economic benefits. For example,
initial on-farm trials consisted of
comparing traditional potato seed
storage, generally dark rooms within
the farm house, with storage units
which kept the seeds under condi-
tions of diffuse sunlight.
Adoption of diffuse sunlight stor-
age techniques, however, requires
farmers to select out seed potatoes
from their consumption stock at the
time of harvest. This selection is
necessary because potatoes stored
under diffuse light turn green and
become unfit for eating. Farmers
who might have been tempted to
consume their seed stock for home
consumption with traditional storage
systems are now forced to maintain
a seed stock until planting. This im-
pact upon farmer decision-making
is one of the factors which emerged
as influencing adoption rates when
the broader context of the impact
of the trials is examined. In addition,
it became clear that investigators'
designs for diffuse light storage
needed to develop increased flexi-
bility to maximize the utilization
of existing house construction at a
wide range of socioeconomic and
architectural variation.
Summary: It is useful to think of
evaluation of on-farm trials as going
beyond the agronomic differences
among various treatments which
include the farmer's own methods.
Three evaluation steps are proposed
for a more complete analysis of trials,
stressing agronomic, economic, and
impact data. The potential economic
benefits, as measured with "real"
costs to the farmer, and the inclusion
of change through adoption or tech-
nology modification need to be taken
into account. By conceptualizing
these factors in terms of three key
questions, a framework is created
for dealing with key elements influ-
encing potential adoption rates for
new technologies. E
18


A network for methods

John S. Caldwell1
and
Clive Lightfoot2

The Difficulty of On-farm Trials in FSR/E
Farming systems research/extension (FSR/E) uses
on-farm trials as its primary method for developing
solutions to farmer problems. However, other types
of agricultural research and extension activities may
also use on-farm trials. For example, multi-locational
testing of breeding lines and new varieties may place
trials on farmers' fields. Extension demonstrations are
also done on farmers' fields.
The way three key characteristics are combined
differentiates FSR/E on-farm trials from on-farm
multi-locational testing and extension demonstrations
(Table 1):
1. Farm household-led design:
Farm household members lead in developing the
trial design in FSR/E. This means the choice of
what is compared in the trial, how the compari-
sons are done, and the criteria for evaluation of
results, are established primarily by the farm
households, rather than by research or extension
personnel. The role of farm household members
is not limited to cooperation in implementing
designs made by research and extension personnel.
2 & 3. Evaluation based on systems compatibility using
statistical inference:
On-farm trials in FSR/E often introduce change
in only one component of the farming system.
However, evaluation of the change is based on its
effects on the whole system, not just on the com-
ponent (maize yield or economic returns, for
example) in which the change is made. In this
respect, on-farm trials in FSR/E are like extension
demonstrations. However, unlike extension
demonstrations, FSR/E on-farm trials are not
normative. Also, they do not assess compatibility
just on an individual, farm-by-farm basis. Rather,
like multi-locational testing, FSR/E on-farm trials
use statistical inference, to extend conclusions
across many farms. To use statistical inference
(rather than merely subjective judgment) to
assess systems compatibility, requires biological
and social-economic data on many components,
and on linkages among components.
In essence, then, on-farm trials in FSR/E use meth-
ods of multi-locational testing (statistical inference) to














of farmer-led systems experimentation


Table 1: Comparison of design method, evaluation
criteria, and evaluation methods used in
multi-locational testing, FSR/E, and ex-
tension demonstrations.
Multi-locational Extension
Characteristic testing FSR/E demonstrations
Design Made by Led by farm Made by ex-
method researchers households, tension
with re- personnel,
searcher with farmer
input input
Evaluation Single com- Systems com- Systems corn-
criteria ponent (growth, patibility patibility
returns) (acceptability) (adoption)
Evaluation Statistical Statistical Subjective
method inference for inference for judgement on
many farms many farms farm-by-farm
basis



assess the variable that extension demonstrations seek
to affect normatively (acceptability or adoption). This
combination, however, presents a methodological
difficulty inherent in FSR/E: methods using statistical
inference have not been developed for farm household-
led designs, or to assess systems compatibility. The
result is that on-farm trials in FSR/E have often
instead tended towards one or the other of the two
alternatives that FSR/E lies between: either reverting
to a type of multi-locational testing (usually of man-
agement practices rather than varieties), or becoming
extension demonstrations.

Previous Efforts to Identify Farmer-led Systems
Experimentation
Pioneering efforts in FSR/E date back to the 1970s
(Plucknett 1980). In the early 1980s, the results of
those pioneering efforts were synthesized in a book by
Shaner et al. (1982). Also in the early 1980s, many

1Department of Horticulture, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0327, U.S.A.
2 International Agriculture Program, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
24853, U.S.A.


new FSR/E projects were established around the
world. The annual farming systems symposium (begin-
ning with Sheppard 1982, annually thereafter through
Flora and Tomacek 1986) became the focus of report-
ing from these new efforts.
In the 1985 symposium, Barker and Lightfoot
(1986) first posed some of the questions outlined
above in this paper. They also reported on results of
a survey of methods of on-farm experimentation used
in more than 40 projects. Their paper highlighted the
needs for and advantages of methods of on-farm
experimentation in FSR/E that maximized farmer
participation.
A follow-up workshop at the 1986 symposium
brought together participants from various countries
to exchange experiences with "non-traditional"
methods of on-farm experimentation (Lightfoot et
al. 1986). "Non-traditional" referred to designs that
were based on farmer experimentation, flexible to
meet farmer initiatives, assessed systems interactions,
and collected concurrent biological and socio-economic
data. However, may of the designs reported on in the
workshop only partially met these criteria. All partici-
pants, however, recognized the need for continuing to
exchange information on new methods for on-farm
experimentation in FSR/E. Hence, a call was put
forward for information from other projects, to com-
plement the information from the workshop, and to
create a network of FSR/E practitioners interested
in these issues.
In 1987, another workshop was held in Sussex,
England, which also looked at farmer participation
in on-farm experimentation. Results of that workshop
will be forthcoming in Experimental Agriculture This
will add additional names to the network.

Results of the 1987 Survey
Table 2 gives a summary of the information on non-
traditional designs provided by persons who responded
to the newsletter survey (Lightfoot et al. 1986). The
information is classified first by four regions: Africa,
Asia, Latin America and developed countries. These
headings are placed in the center of the table. Within
each region, classification is by country and project/
institution, as shown in the left-hand column. The
19









Table 2. Summary of information on non-traditional designs provided by survey respondents,
classified by region and country


Focus of Type of
Country Intervention Intervention


Contact
Name


Focus of Type of
Country Intervention Intervention


AFRICA


Botswana Goats


Botswana


Kenya Dryland crops


Nigeria


Milk Production
Mineral mix
Harnesses and
hitches
Forage and crop
residues
Farmers select
one or more
interventions of
interest
Double plowing
Row planting
equipment
Long and short
season crop
mixes
Varieties
Fertilizer
Animal traction
Labor measure-
ments in trials
Varieties
Fertilizer


R. Gray





G.M. Heinrich,
F.D. Norman,
R. Gray


Indonesia ?
Indonesia Cattle







Nepal Wheat,
potato,
peach






Pakistan ?


M. Lutta


Farmers estab- A.N. Atta-
lishing their Krah,
own alley farms P. A. Francis
Innovations made
by farmers tested
in other farmer
situations


Nigeria Yam, sweet
potato, maize
cowpea


Nigeria


Rwanda Gliricidia,
yam, maize
Tanzania Wheat


Zaire Fallow, peanut,
maize, cassava


Zambia Wheat


Women's farm
Spillover effect
from women
to men
Voluntary pool-
ing together of
individual small
plots
Alley cropping

Variations in
cropping
practices
Mucuna and
Leucaena
Crop varieties
Animal traction
Soil moisture


N.D. Hahn



S. Ingawa



C.F. Yamoah

Jean
Luc Paul

K. Kazumba


B. Smith


Papua Taro
New Guinea
Phillippines ?


ASIA


? A.M. Fagi
Feed-mix from I. Eriyatno
indigenous plants
and grass
Land tillage
Inputs based on
farmers' needs
Monitoring and
evaluation system
Samuhik M. P. Panth
Bhraman D. Gait
interdisciplinary
trek
Fodder
Firewood availability
Labor used per
household to fetch
firewood
Cropping systems M. Nasir
Soil moisture Anees-u
effects Rehman
Herbicides
Crop cuts
Formal surveys
Leaf blight G. A. King
control
Marketing G.G. de


Guzman

LATIN AMERICA
Brazil ? Fit design to E. Zaffaroni
farmer
initiatives

DEVELOPED COUNTRIES


Australia Wheat,
sheep,
cattle


Australia Forage


Forage


Adult learning P.
model
Determining extent
to which researchers
separated from
farmers
Identification
techniques
Modify plant- R.
ing procedure
Cultivation
practices


Establishment
techniques


Ampt


J. Petheram


M.Q. Patton


Ecosystem model M.S. Sontag
M.M. Bubolz


Moisture con-
serving
technologies


R. Ness


Contact
Name







countries are in alphabetical order within each region.
All together, responses were received from 10 proj-
ects or institutions in 7 countries in Africa, 6 projects
or institutions in 5 countries in Asia, 1 country in
Latin America, and 5 projects or institutions in 2
developed countries. A total of 22 responses were
received from 15 countries around the world.
Table 2 also shows in the center two columns the
focus (type of crop or animal) and the type of inter-
vention. The survey had originally sought responses
in three methodological categories: using farmers'
own independent experimentation; flexible designs
that respond to farmer initiatives; and designs that
assess systems interactions using concurrent socio-
economic case studies and biological observations.
However, many of the responses were given in terms
of the project, design, or interventions as a whole,
rather than in terms of the three categories. Rather
than attempt to fit the responses to these three cate-
gories, we have simply pulled out key words or phrases,
to summarizes the specifics of each project's approach.
The last column in Table 2 shows the contact name
of the persons who responded to the survey. The full
address for each contact name person can be found in
Table 4.
Table 3 summarizes the information on "non-tradi-
tional" designs provided by persons who participated
in the 1986 symposium. The information is classified
by region, country, and projects/institutions, as in
Table 2. All together, there were 6 participants in 5
countries in Africa; 9 participants in 3 countries in
Asia; 13 participants in 5 countries in the Caribbean
and Latin America, and 17 participants from 2 devel-
oped countries. This gave a total of 45 participants
from 13 countries.
Table 4 provides names, in alphabetical order, and
corresponding addresses of the 72 persons who re-
sponded in the survey or participated in the 1986
workshop. These names represent the beginning of
a network for methods in farmer-led systems experi-
mentation. The last column in Table 4 indicates the
source of additional information on each person
(survey: Table 2, or workshop: Table 3).
Tables 2 and 3 can readily be used by persons with
specific interests or new ideas on "non-traditional"
designs for on-farm trials in FSR/E, to identify other
persons in the network with whom they can exchange
information. In each case, they can then find the
addresses of the names so identified in Table 4.
1. By region and/or country:
Persons can look by the region headings and
country columns in Tables 2 and 3 to identify
other persons in their country or region with
similar interests and experience.
2. By focus and type of intervention:
Persons seeking to exchange information on
designs for a particular type of crop or animal
can search column 2 (focus on intervention) in


Table 3. Summary of information on interest in
non-traditional designs provided by
workshop participants, classified by
region and country.
Interest
Independent Flexible Systems
Country Name experiments designs interactions

AFRICA
Botswana D. Baker X X
Mali A. C. Verbeek X X X
Niger M. Kadi X
Nigeria M. Palada X
Zimbabwe C. Chiduza X X
E. Shumba X X

ASIA
Bangladesh A. Gupta X X X
N. Vignarajah X
India V. L. Prasad X
Philippines A. D. Calub X X
B. Clarke X X X
T. Cornick X X X
C. Lightfoot X X X
R. Repulda X X X
J. Timsina X

CARIBBEAN AND LATIN AMERICA
Haiti V. Jean X X X
Jamacia A. V. Chin X X
Mexico A. Aluja X
C. E. Alvarez X
R. Camacho X
J. C. Flores X
J. L. Gonzales X
E. Insunza X
F. M. Ramos X
R. Robles X X
S. Uribe X
Peru G. Prain X
St. Lucia V. Chase X X

DEVELOPED COUNTRIES
United States G. Axinn X
R. Brunk X
R. Butler X
J. Caldwell X X X
H. Feldstein X
C. Francis X X X
T. Kalb X
W. Kline X X
H. Knipscheer X
J. Logan X
H. McArthur X X
L. Mendes X
J. Pierre X
F. Poey X X
W. Schmehl X X
R. Swanson X X X
Canada N. Thomas X X X









Table 4. List of persons with experience and interest in non-traditional designs.

Source of Source of
Name Address Information Name Address Information


Amdres Aluja

C. E. Alvarez

Peter Ampt



A. N. Atta-Krah

George Axinn


Doyle Baker



R. Brunk

M. M. Bubolz



Robert Butler



John Caldwell



A. D. Calub



Rene Camacho

Vasantha Chase



Cornelius Chiduza


A. V. Chin


Barton Clarke


Tully Cornick



Dr. Ir. Eriyatno


Achmad M. Fagi


Colegio Postgraduados Workshop
Chapingo, Mexico
Colegio Postgraduados Workshop
Chapingo, Mexico
Dept. of Agronomy and Survey
Horticulture Science
University of Sydney
NSW, Australia 2006
PMB 5230 Survey
Ibadan, Nigeria
Michigan State University Workshop
2513 Bentley Court
East Lansing, MI 48823 USA
USAID/Botswana Workshop
Agency for International
Devleopment
Washington, D.C. 20523 USA
Iowa State University Workshop
Ames, Iowa 50011 USA
107 Human Ecology Survey
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1030
USA
Washington State University Workshop
411 Hulbert Hall
Pullman, WA 99164-6230
USA
Virginia Polytechnic Workshop
Institute
301 E. Saunders Hall
Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA
International Rice Research Workshop
Institute
P.O. Box 933
Manila, Philippines
Colegio Postgraduados Workshop
Chapingo, Mexico
CARDI Workshop
P.O. Box 971
Castries, St. Lucia
W. Indies
University of Zimbabwe Workshop
MP 167 Mt. Pleasant
Harare, Zimbabwe
P.O. Box 349 Workshop
Kingston 6
Jamaica
No. 12, 11th Avenue Workshop
Murphy, Quezon City
Philippines
International Agriculture Workshop
Program
348 Caldwell Hall
Ithaca, NY 14653 USA
P.O. Box 122 Survey
Fateta-IPA
Bogor, Indonesia
Jalan Hasanuddin 833 Survey
Salatiga-Central Jawa
Indonesia


Hilary Feldstein


Jose C. Flores

Chuck Francis



P. A. Francis

D. Gait



J. L. Gonzales

Richard Gray



Dr. Anil Gupta
Generoso G.
de Guzman

Natalie D. Hahn



G. M. Heinrich

Salisu Ingawa





Efrain Insunza

Valbrun Jean


Maliki Kadi


Thomas Kalb



Kassongo Kazumba


G. A. King



Wes Kline


FSSP Case Studies Project Workshop
RFD 1 Box 821
Hancock, NH 03449 USA
Colegio Postgraduados Workshop
Chapingo, Mexico
University of Nebraska Workshop
Room 210, Ag. Hall
Lincoln, NE 68583-0706
USA
PMB 5230 Survey
Ibadan, Nigeria
Dept. of Agriculture Survey
ARPP
P.O. Box 1336
Kathmandu, Nepal
Colegio Postgraduados Workshop
Chapingo, Mexico
Kansas State University Survey
ATIP
P.O. Box 10275-Tatitown
Francistown, Botswana
Joydebpur, Bangladesh Workshop
Ben-Lor Building Survey
1184 Quezon Avenue
Quezon City, Philippines
International Institute of Survey
Tropical Agriculture (IITA)
Oyo Road, PMB 5320
Nigeria
P.O. Box 10275 Survey
Francistown, Botswana
Dept. of Agricultural Survey
Economics & Rural
Sociology
Ahmadu Bello University
PMB 1044
Zaria, Nigeria
Colegio Postgraduados Workshop
Chapingo, Mexico
Agricultural Devleopment Workshop
Support No. 2
Port-Au-Prince, Haiti
Purdue University Workshop
IPIA, AGAD29b
W. Lafayett, IN 47907 USA
Virginia Polytechnic Workshop
Institute
301 E. Saunders Hall
Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA
B.P.11635 Survey
Kinshasa 1
Republique du'Zaire
Bubia A. R. C. Survey
P.O. Box 1639
LAE
Papua, New Guinea
Cornell University Workshop
International Programs
Ithaca, NY 14853 USA











Source of Source of
Name Address Information Name Address Information


Hendrik Knipscheer


Clive Lightfoot



Joan Logan



Muhammad Lutta



Harold McArthur



Lloyd Mendes


Mohammad Nasir


Richard Ness



F. D. Norman



Manuel Palada



M. P. Panth



Michael Q. Patton





Jean Luc Paul

R. J. Petheram




Joseph Pierre


Federico Poey


Winrock International Workshop
Route 3
Morrilton, AR 72110 USA
Cornell University Workshop
P.O. Box 16
Roberts Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853 USA
University of Nebraska Workshop
Room 210, Ag. Hall
Lincoln, NE 68583-Q706
USA
National Dryland Research Survey
Station
P.O. Box 340
Machakos, Kenya
University of Hawaii- Workshop
HITAHR
3050 Maile Way, Gilmore 214
Honolulu, HI 96822 USA
Utah State University Workshop
Range Sci. Dept., UMC 52
Logan, UT 84319 USA
Scientific Officer Survey
BARD
NARC, Islamabad Pakistan
Small Farm Resources Survey
Project
Box 736
Hartington, NE 68739 USA
Kansas State University Survey
ATIP
P.O. Box 10275-Tatitown
Francis, Botswana
International Institute of Workshop
Tropical Agriculture
PMB 5320, Oyo Road
Ibadan, Nigeria
Dept. of Agriculture Survey
ARPP
P.O. Box 1336
Kathmandu, Nepal
Carribbean Extension Survey
Project
64 Classroom Office Bldg.
1994 Buford Avenue
University of Minnesota
Saint Paul, MN 55103 USA
P.O. Bxo 3094 Survey
Morogoro, Tanzania
Grad. School of Tropical Survey
Vet. Science
James Cook University
Townsville, Queensland
Australia
University of Arkansas Workshop
207 Ag. Building
Fayetteville, AR 72701 USA
President, AGRIDEC Workshop
1414 Ferdinand Street
Coral Gables, FL 33134 USA


Gordon Prain


V. L. Prasad
F. M. Ramos

Anees-u Rehman


Raul Repulda



R. Robles

Willard Schmehl


Enos Shumba



Bruce Smith





M. Suzanne Sontag



Richard Swanson


Neal Thomas



Jagadish Timsina

Sergio Uribe

A. C. Verbeek


Nadarajah
Vignarajah


Charles R. Yamoah



Eduordo Zaffaroni


International Potato Center Workshop
P.O. Box 5969
Lima, Peru
Hyderabad, India Workshop
Colegio Postgraduados Workshop
Chapingo, Mexico
Scientific Officer Survey
BARD
NARC, Islamabad Pakistan
Cornell University Workshop
P.O. Box 16
Roberts Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853 USA
Colegio Postgraduados Workshop
Chapingo, Mexico
Colorado State University Workshop
Department of Agronomy
Ft. Collins, CO 80523 USA
Michigan State University Workshop
Institute of International
Agricultural, Room 118
East Lansing, MI 48824
P.O. Box 32379 Survey
Department of Rural
Economy
School of Agriculture
University of Zambia
Lusaka, Zambia
107 Human Ecology Survey
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824-1030
USA
University of Arkansas Workshop
207 Ag. Building
Fayetteville, AR 72701 USA
Box 58 RRI Workshop
Mallory Town, Ont.
KOE 1RO
Canada
IRRI Workshop
Philippines
Colegio Postgraduados Workshop
Chapingo, Mexico
Royal Tropical Inst-Amste Workshop
B.P. 186
Sikasso, Mali
Winrock Internatiojal Workshop
Regional Agricultural
Research Station
Jamalpur, Bangladesh
University of Arkansas/ Survey
SAID
USAID/FSIP, BP G25
Kigali, Rwanda
Universidade Federal Survey
Paraiba
CCA/DF
58397-AREIA-PARAIBA
Brazil









Table 2 to identify other persons working on the
same crop or animal. Likewise, one can scan
column 3 (type of intervention) in Table 2 to
identify persons with whom to exchange infor-
mation on specific types of interventions, such as
animal traction, moisture conservation, etc.
3. By area of methodological interest:
Persons seeking to exchange information on
one of the three areas of interest summarized in
Table 3 (independent farmer experiments, flexible
designs, or assessment of systems interactions)
can read the appropriate column corresponding
to their area of methodological interest, to find
other persons with the same interest.
Future directions for the network
We hope to continue to update this network direc-
tory. For this purpose, we would appreciate receiving
on a continuing basis information on methods of
farmer-led systems experimentation. This information
could help in meeting two future objectives for this
network.
The first objective would be development of a more
complete network database that could be accessed by
network members. The current network directory, as
organized in Tables 2, 3, and 4, will be kept on a word
processor diskette at Virginia Polytechnic Institute.
The existing information on the network did not allow
cross-listing of the same sources of information in
Table 2 (focus and type of intervention) and Table 3
(area of methodological interest). However, additional
information in the future could make such cross-listing
possible. This could lead to a more complete network
directory capable of being accessed by key words for
either region, country, focus of intervention, type of
intervention, area of metholological interest, or name.
Key worlds could also be used in combination (for
example, Africa and animal traction; moisture conser-
vation and independent farmer experimentation, etc.),
as well as singly (Africa; animal traction; etc.).
A second objective for the network would be dev-
elopment of the "state-of-the-arts" of methods for
farmer-led systems experimentation. This could be
done through a workshop to which persons could
bring "problem" data sets, to work with in a setting
with a statistical consultant and other facilitators.
Obviously, such a workshop would require funding
support. Such funding might be more likely to be forth-
coming if interest, need, and potential benefits to
national programs and training materials development
could be documented through information provided
by network members.
Documentation of interest, need, and potential
benefits of a "state-of-the-arts" workshop could be
made easier by using the matrix format of Tables la
and lb of the 1986 report on "non-traditional"
experiments (Lightfoot et al. 1986). This matrix,
based on an example of an experiment in the Philip-


pines, examined experimental objectives, design,
implementation, and analysis in terms of the role
of the farm household in the trial and assessment
of systems interactions.
Hence, to facilitate addition of new information
into the directory with the above two objectives in
mind, we would suggest that additional information
include the following:
1. Name, institutional affiliation, and project title
(including country) of correspondent;
2. Complete mailing address of correspondent;
3. Focus of experiment (type of crop or animal);
4. Brief descriptions of the type of experiment
being done, using the matrix format of Tables
la and lb of the 1986 report on "non-traditional"
experiments described above (Lightfoot et al.
1986).
5. Area of methodological interest (using the three
categories of Table 3).
6. Description of problems in design and analysis of
"non-traditional" on-farm experiments, and indi-
cation of potential benefits to project and national
program if improved methods of design and anal-
ysis could be identified or developed.
We hope to be able to make additional updates on
the network available to network members as suffici-
ent new information accumulates, either through the
annual farming systems symposium, future newsletters,
and/or direct correspondence, as appropriate.
Finally, we wish to thank all readers of the newsletter
who have contributed to the formation of this network
as reported here, through their responses to the survey
and their participation in the 1986 workshop. E

Literature cited
1. Barker, R., and C. Lightfoot. 1986. Farm Experiments on
trial, pp. 300-321. In: C. B. Flora and M. Tomacek (eds.).
Farming Systems Research and Extension: Management
and Methodology. Paper No. 11, Kansas State University,
Manhattan, Kansas.
2. Flora, C. B., and M. Tomacek (eds.). 1986. Selected pro-
ceedings of Kansas State University's 1986 farming sys-
tems research symposium-Farming systems research and
extension: food and feed. Paper No. 13, Kansas State
University, Manhattan, Kansas.
3. Lightfoot, C., J. S. Caldwell, W. Kline, and N. Thomas.
1986. Report of a workshop on non-traditional experi-
mental designs for on-farm systems experiments. FSSP
Newsletter 4 (4): 15-18.
4. Plucknett, D. L. 1980. An overview of farming systems
research (FSR). Paper presented at AID-USDA sponsored
workshop on farming systems research, Washington, D.C.,
December 8-10, 1980 (mimeo).
5. Shaner, W. W., P. F. Philipp, and W. R. Schmehl. 1983.
Farming systems research and development: guidelines
for developing countries. Westview Press, Boulder,
Colorado.
6. Sheppard, W. J. (ed.). 1982. Proceedings of Kansas State
University's 1981 farming systems research symposium-
Small farms in a changing world: prospects for the eighties.
Paper No. 2, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs