• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Executive summary
 Introduction
 The farming systems research and...
 Suggestions for implementing an...
 Reorientation at the regional and...
 Timetable






Title: Trip report : : farming systems research and extension (FSRE) team
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080633/00001
 Material Information
Title: Trip report : : farming systems research and extension (FSRE) team
Alternate Title: Farming systems research and extension (FSR/E) team
Physical Description: 13, 8 leaves ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Hildebrand, Peter E.
Harris, Ruth.
Clough, George H.
Publisher: s.n.,
Publication Date: 1981
 Subjects
Subject: Agricultural extension work -- Portugal.
Agricultural systems -- Research -- Portugal.
Spatial Coverage: Portugal.
 Notes
General Note: "Lisbon, Portugal ; December 11, 1981."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00080633
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 154725958

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Executive summary
        Page i
        Page ii
        Page iii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    The farming systems research and extension (FSR/E) approach
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Suggestions for implementing an FSR/E approach in Portugal - Reorientation at the sub-regional level
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Reorientation at the regional and national levels - Required training program
        Page 10
        Page 11
    Timetable
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
Full Text

December 11, 1981


TRIP REPORT

FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND EXTENSION (FSR/E) TEAM














Peter E. Hildebrand

Ruth Harris

George H. Clough


Lisbon, Portugal










EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TRIP REPORT, FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND EXTENSION (FSR/E) TEAM


Interviews conducted by the FSR/E team in Portugal indicate a need to

orient both extension and research activities so programs are derived from

the needs of the farm population, especially small farmers. Currently, re-

search activities originate at the national level, with little input from

regional personnel. The extension service is outside the research system,

with generally weak regional organization and little appreciation of farmers'

needs by national level personnel. The result is a research product inap-

propriate to the small farmer and an extension service with little useful

product to disseminate.

A new approach is needed. Its core must be an in-depth understanding

of the farmer -- his resource situation, social and cultural environment,

motivational. factors, and other influencing conditions. Because of Portu-

gal's impending entry into the EEC, it is also important that any approach

be effective in a relatively short period of time. One that requires several

years to become functional is not appropriate.

The Farming Systems Research and Extension method (more fully described

in the full Trip Report) meets these requirements, and it is recommended that

the FSR/E procedure be adopted by the research and extension organizations in

Portugal. The approach is designed to meet the challenge of developing tech-

nologies for use by small farmers. It is being used by such international

institutions as IRRI (International Rice Research Institute), CIMMYT (Inter-

national Center for the Improvement of Maize and Wheat), and CATIE (Tropical

Agricultural Center for Research and Education), and by various universities

in the United States, including the University of Florida.









Several steps can be taken in the next few months which would begin to

provide results for extension and research personnel as well as a means

of evaluating the usefulness of the approach in Portugal. These steps in-

clude: (1) a rapid, comprehensive survey (called a Sondeo) of one produc-

tion zone in Northern Portugal, (2) a short course in the use of the FSR/E

method for regional extension and research personnel, and (3) a seminar in

the use of the method for national and regional management personnel.

In addition to providing a means of evaluation of the approach, itself,

initial activities make several types of information available. Participa-

tion in the Sondeo will permit personnel to understand how to complete such

a survey and analyze the results that are obtained. The results themselves

will be used to decide which types of farm enterprises are critical to the

farming system in the zone surveyed, and what type of technology needs to be

generated and/or disseminated in the area. Thus, new directions for research

will be defined, permitting farmer-oriented research and extension activities

to begin.

As a result of the experience gained in the Sondeo, the short course

and the seminar, other Sondeos can be undertaken so that these types of

information become available in other areas as well, Finally, because of

their practical experience with the Sondeo and because of the understanding

of the overall methodology gained in the short course and seminar, regional

and national administrative personnel can begin to orient institutional ac-

tivities to accommodate the new approach at whatever level they deem critical.

This initial utilization of the FSR/E method, then, provides both an

actual case where the full method can be applied immediately, and, in conjunc-

tion with the seminar and short course, permits a new orientation of research

and extension activities at the regional and national levels. At that time,






3


if a commitment is made to adopt the approach on a widescale basis, on-

going technical assistance would probably be needed.









TRIP REPORT

FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND EXTENSION (FSR/E) TEAM


Peter E. Hildebrand-/
Ruth D. Harris
George H. Clough


"One of the most serious shortcomings of Portugal's
agricultural sector lies in the lack of interaction between
the research and extension services. Moreover, major re-
search programs carried out in MAP's research services have
little to do with the actual needs of farmers and center on
highly sophisticated fields which do not generate any inter-
est from the average Portuguese farmer."2/


Interviews conducted by the FSR/E team confirm the existence of serious

problems in research and extension. Most research orientation and directives

originate at the national level with little opportunity for feedback nor

flexibility for initiative at the regional level. The extension service,

with generally weak regional organization and little farmer contact at the

national level, is outside the research system. Extension, therefore, has

little influence on orientation of research activities. The result is a

research product inappropriate to the farmer and an extension service with

little useful product to disseminate.

Large scale, commercial farmers are able to utilize even such an inef-

fective system by going directly to the research and selecting those results

which seem appropriate. On the other side of the picture, the small farmer,

because of his/her more isolated location, lower level of education, lower


1/ Professor, Food and Resource Economics, University of Florida;
Associate Professor, International Extension, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University;
Assistant in Farming Systems, Vegetable Crops Department, University of
Florida.

2/ Preliminary Work Plan for Agricultural Production (Sept. 15, 1981).






2


social status and smaller resource base in unable to avail himself of this

source of information. If the small scale farmer in Portugal is to benefit

from research and extension activities, it is imperative that these two

arms of the government change their approach.

Average farm size in the northern regions visited is between 2 and 3 ha.

and 87% are smaller than 4 ha. In the sub-region of Viseu, an average of

only 1.3 ha is in crop or pasture production and 1.2 is in-forest. On many

farms, the men migrate to northern Europe or to cities in Portugal where they

work and send home part of their wages. On these farms, which account for

60-70% of all farms in the Viseu sub-region, women are the effective operators

and managers. Further exacerbating the situation is the fact that these

women usually are more than 50 years in age. Many of these women are not able

to count on their children for help on the farm as the young are moving in in-

creasing numbers to the cities.

Even though these farms are small, they represent a significant proportion

of land in the northern areas. In the Porto region, farms smaller than 4 ha

represent 47% of the total area in farms and in the Viseu sub-region they re-

present 83% of the area in farms.

The importance of small farms to increased production is obvious. How-

ever, the characteristics of these farms may imply that strictly economic in-

centives would not be adequate as a motivating force to increase production.

A woman working alone on a farm with an outside source of income for cash

needs has little incentive to produce beyond the amount needed for home con-

sumption regardless of the price incentives associated with the product. The

lack of response to subsidies as an economic incentive to increase maize pro-

duction has already been demonstrated in Portugal. A lack of input or product









market infrastructure provides even more barriers to increasing production.

A research project to increase maize production through the use of hybrids

is reportedly ineffective in one northern area because the grain is not the

type desired by the farmers. All maize production is consumed on the farm --

human consumption accounts for 70% and the remainder is used as livestock

feed. An ineffective research and extension system is obviously incapable

of achieving desired policy responses at the farm level.

These brief comments demonstrate the need for a new approach in attempts

to increase agricultural productivity in Portugal. The core of this approach

must be an in-depth understanding of the farmer -- his resource situation,

social and cultural environment, motivational factors and other influencing

conditions. It is not sufficient only to understand the bio-climatic and

economic status of the production system. Because of the pending entrance

of the country into the EEC, it is also imperative that any approach be ef-

fective in a relatively short period of time. A new approach that requires

several years to become functional is not appropriate.

An approach that meets these requiremetns is known as the Farming Systems

Research and Extension Method. It is recommended that the FSR/E program be

incorporated within the existing Research and Extension organizations. The

approach may entail undertaking a restructuring of staff responsibilities and

attitudes in both organizations. This may require that some new organizational

components be added. A comprehensive and integrated approach should be taken.

Sufficient top-level support for FSR/E should be obtained if the program is to

be successful.

Careful attention needs to be given to adequate governmental support for

the FSR/E activities. This is essential for obtaining the cooperation of all

organizations whose services are needed for the success of the program. The









government should provide assistance by encouraging other organizations to

provide the services of selected staff for limited periods and by giving

access to their data reports, and facilities. The Portugal Government

should provide incentives for such cooperation through budget allotments

and recognition for contribution to FSR/E Activities.


THE FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND EXTENSION (FSR/E) APPROACH


This approach commences from the premise originally proposed by

Theodore Schultz, and is widely, though not universally, accepted: small

farmers are efficient in the utilization and allocation of available re-

sources among known technologies if they have been farming under stable con-

ditions for some time. As we are, by design and purpose in this effort, con-

cerned with farmers who are not changing their production methods, this premise

should include most of those farmers. This implies that small farmers will and

do accept change when the available resource base changes or new and appro-

priate technology becomes known. Otherwise, they could not be efficiently

adjusted to alternatives they now have. But it is important to understand

that this efficient adjustment is in terms of the farmers' own understanding

and interpretation of their situations, and it is not necessarily efficient

according to the perceptions of well meaning, but imcompletely informed

third persons. Since it is not third persons, in a free society, who make

choice of technology and resource allocation decisions, it is evident that

farmers' actions need not reflect third person solutions, unless they are

based on a near perfect conception of the farmers' situations.

A second characteristic of small farmers, gradually being recognized,

is the high degree of location specificity of their agro-socioeconomic con-

ditions. In commercial agriculture, the tractor and a strong capital base









are effective homogenizers of what is otherwise a complex milieu. To

persons who are trained or accustomed to being able to produce widely

acceptable tractor based technologies, this characteristic represents a

strong barrier which hinders their effectiveness in producing usable and

acceptable results for small farmers. But it is also a characteristic

that must be considered explicitly in any technology developing system if

it is to produce technologies which small farmers will be motivated to accept.

If small farmers are not changing their production methods because

they are not being offered appropriate technology when so many people are

working to produce it for them, what is the problem? If it is agreed that

small farmers are efficient in the allocation of their resources to known

and appropriate traditional technologies, it means they have been motivated

in the past to accept change. Hence, the problem is not one of motivation,

as such. Rather it is one of offering "changes" which are not appropriate

as perceived by the farmers themselves. It makes no difference to a farmer

how a third person views any specific technology. If he, himself, does not

feel it to be appropriate, he is not going to be motivated to accept it.

To meet the challenges of developing technologies for small farmers,

a new technology development system has evolved. This system has been de-

veloping over the last decade and is still changing as needed modifications

are visualized. It is not perfect, but it has been found to have some

valuable characteristics and is being used as a model in several countries,

including the United States. Its most critical characteristics are briefly

sketched below.

A work zone is defined, in so far as possible, on the basis of an area

in which the majority of small farmers follow a similar traditional agricul-

tural system. A team comprised of social and agricultural technicians









assigned to the zone surveys the area to determine what the farmers do, how

they do it, and why they do it that way (that is, define agro-socioeconomic

conditions of the area). This team jointly analyzes the results of the sur-

vey and makes recommendations concerning the technology to be developed.

Technology validation and generation is carried out both on experiment stations

(about 20% of the work) and on the small farmer's own farms (about 80%).

This work is divided into three general levels. The commodity programs

(those identified with a commodity such as maize, wine, pigs, etc.) conduct

highly controlled trials on the stations and a few farms in the area. A

technology testing team (the technicians assigned to the zone) conducts

technical trails under the supervision of the commodity programs on a much

larger number of farms, and acts as a means of extending the exposure of

the materials and practices throughout the zone. The most promising tech-

nologies are then submitted to agroeconomic trials to help the team evaluate

them further.

Ideally, the trials and evaluations through this state are based on

the technicians' understanding of the farmers' needs and criteria as ob-

tained from the survey and from farm records which are initiated immediately

following the survey. But, even though the technicians live in the area and

work on the farmer's own land, they cannot make the final decisions as to

the "appropriateness" of the technology even after passing it through this

exhaustive system. Therefore the most promising technologies are passed

on to farmers for their own evaluation. Here the farmers pay for inputs and

furnish labor, and the product is theirs. The technicians obtain what in-

formation they can from these farmers' tests, but the farmers do the evalua-

tion. The year following these tests by the farmers, the technicians make

a follow-up survey of the same farmers to determine whether they have adopted









the technology, to what degree, and if not, why. If a sufficient number of

the collaborators from the year before have adopted it of their own accord

over a significant part of their own land, it is considered "acceptable" and

is then ready for dissemination as "appropriate technology" for those farmers

who use the same traditional agricultural system.

One of the strengths of this technology generating system is the use of

multidisciplinary teams to make the agro-socioeconomic studies of each new

zone of work and to aid in the evaluation and interpretation of results.

For the sondeo (rapid survey), social scientists (among them can be anthro-

pologists, sociologists, economists or agricultural economists) are paired

with agricultural scientists (among whom may be found both plant and animal

technicians in entomology, breeding, pathology, physiology, etc.). Besides

changing interviewing partners every day to reduce interviewer bias and in-

crease cross-disciplinary interchange, the group meets each night to dis-

cuss the day's findings and make preliminary interpretations. In order to

be able to understand and interpret the small farmers' agro-socioeconomic

conditions, it is necessary to consider all the factors which have an in-

fluence on what they do and can do. Hence it requires a multidsciplinary

team each contributing his or her own specialty, but all subordinating to

the common objective: to understand what the farmers are doing, why they

are doing it that way (how they have adjusted historically to their agro-

socioeconomic conditions), and what is required in any new technology

(proposed change) if it is to be accepted on a large scale.

The integrated multidisciplinary concept continues beyond the Sondeo.

The agricultural technicians on the team help the social scientist in the

collection of farm record data and they, in turn, help in the field trial

work. Because this team lives and works in the zone, and because the work

is almost exclusively on farms, the technicians have a great deal of









contact with the farmers in the area and continue to learn about their con-

ditions both because of dialogue with them and because they are planting

under farm conditions. Hence, they are able to obtain a very good under-

standing of the agro-socioeconomic conditions of the farmers in the area

and serve as a valuable feedback source for policy orientation.


SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING AN FSR/E APPROACH IN PORTUGAL


In the regions, some of the mechanism and resources for implementing

an FSR/E approach exist within the present research and extension structures.

A shift in source of orientation is required so that the farmer and his needs

become the primary point of focus. To accomplish this will require:

1) a reallocation of some research resources from experiment stations to the

zones and the land of small farmers;

2) an integration of research and extension resources at the regional and

farm level;

3) modification of work plans and evaluation procedures to reflect new kinds

of activities;

4) a redefinition of the traditional roles of experiment station and field

personnel;

5) availability of transportation for all personnel working at the farm

level; and

6) initiation of a training program for both field level and support per-

sonnel.


REORIENTATION AT THE SUB-REGIONAL LEVEL


The Viseu sub-region will be used as an example because some figures are

available for that area and because it would serve as one excellent location

to initiate the program. This sub-region consists of 15 zonal teams in 3








supervisory areas. There are at present, 28 zonal technicians supported by

3 supervisors. The zonal technicians live in their respective villages

and are identified with specific community development activities as well

as agricultural projects. For the most part, they should be allowed to re-

main in the same locations and carry on with the essential parts of their

on-going community activities. However, the zones in which they work on

agricultural technology development and promotion would be redefined on

the basis of areas with homogeneous farming systems. Technicians in the

same village would not necessarily be working in the same homogeneous farm-

ing system.

In each supervisory area there would be approximately two teams of

3 to 5 technicians each. Some recombinations may become necessary as

homogeneous farming systems are defined by the Sondeos. Each team of

technicians would require one-half of the supervisor's time and would also

require direct inputs from research personnel from the sub-regional and

regional or national levels. In this manner the zonal teams expand the ca-

pabilites of the research personnel and the research personnel augment

the resources of the extension staff. The zonal supervisors become the first

level of scientific support for the zonal technicians and the sub-regional,

regional and national scientists provide additional support for research

planning, design and evaluation. In this way, at the sub-regional level,

extension and research activities are conducted jointly by the same persons.

The sub-regional and regional experiment stations provide more basic

back-up research for the zonal, sub-regional and regional teams and screen

technology that is still not far enough advanced to be placed into trials

on farmers' fields.









REORIENTATION AT THE REGIONAL AND NATIONAL LEVELS


Aside from role change of regional and national level scientists from

that of directing, to that of support for sub-regional activities, the

utilization of zonal and sub-regional personnel for important feedback to

help formulate and interpret policy at the higher levels is a critical change.

Research and extension programming and planning must be a two-way effort

with a significant budget which would be controlled at the regional and sub-

regional levels instead of at the national level.

Research planning is based upon annual reporting of research results

at the sub-regional level. Scientists from all levels must participate

in these sessions where all aspects of the research and extension efforts

are discussed and analyzed in detail. The purpose of these meetings is a

critical evaluation of problem identification, project and experimental

design, research and extension techniques and recommendations for dissemina-

tion of further research. Budgeting is the final phase of these sessions

and benefits from the participation of personnel from all levels. Once the

budget is approved, it should be managed at the regional level to facilitate

execution.


REQUIRED TRAINING PROGRAM


Training intensity will vary with the level of participation of the

personnel. Administrative personnel should have a short course of a few

days which would include some field time in the interior. Some administrative

personnel would benefit from trips to other countries where the FSR/E

approach is in operation in order to study the management adaptations that









have been made to adjust to this approach. Both regional and national level

administrators should be included in this type of training.

A few national level scientists will continue working on highly special-

ized research and will not function in the mainstream of the FSR/E effort.

These may not need to participate in the training program. All other sci-

entists, at the national, regional and sub-regional levels and especially

the zonal supervisors should receive a minimum of a one-month intensive

course in Farming Systems Research and Extension Methods. This course

should include, 1) modifications in biologic, social and economic research

methodologies to make them amenable to the FSR/E approach, 2) Sondeo survey

technique and practice, 3) on-farm experimental design and evaluation pro-

cedures, and 4) transition from research to extension.

Personnel at the zonal supervisory level would benefit greatly from

a formal, advanced degree program in their own areas of specialization

with a minor in Farming Systems Research and Extension.

Zonal personnel will predominately receive training from zonal super-

visors and regional and national scientists who support them on a daily

basis. However, some of them should participate in on-site, in-service,

Sondeo training which will involve outside technical assistance initially.









Timetable


A realistic timetable would see a fully implemented project by spring

planting time in 1983. It is essential that administrators and scientists

(both research and extension) receive some training before implementation

begins. An administrative short course should be completed before initiating

budgeting for fiscal year 1983. It would be possible to enroll one or more

scientists in the regularly scheduled FSR/E Methods course at the University

of Florida in January, 1982, to be completed in May of that year. This

course, plus others that the scientists might elect to take would be entered

officially on a transcript even though the students were not officially ad-

mitted to the University.. At such a time that the student gains official

admittance to the University, the course or courses would be on the official

record for future use in a degree program. The same course is tentatively to

be offered on an intensive one-month basis in the summer of 1982. Depending

on demand, the course may be offered in both English and Spanish in the sum-

mer session..

A production Sondeo which would serve as an in-service training course

for up to 12 Portuguese, will be accomplished in January 1982 in cooperation

with the policy group from Arizona. At this time, 15 candidates for a one-

week course dealing with administrative actions necessary for implementation

of an FSR/E approach on a national basis will be identified. This short course

to be taught by P. Hildebrand with M. Engles, R. Harris, and M. Swisher will be

held in-country, most likely the last week in February. Participants in this

training primarily will be top-level management and administrative personnel

from national and regional offices. The one week course for management and ad-

ministrative personnel will be followed by a four-week course, also in-country,










to teach Farming Systems Research and Extension methodology. Attendees of

this training course will originate from regional and zonal levels, and

will be the principal scientists who will be responsible for the implementa-

tion of the FSR/E program at those levels and below. These personnel will

have primary responsibility for training and indoctrination of the individuals

whom they supervise. In late summer 1982 (probably August/September), an

additional practical training exercise on application of the FSR/E approach

at a zonal level will be conducted. This will include, in addition to a

Sondeo, analysis of date and generation of appropriate research projects and

farm trials in accordance with the results of the Sondeo.

After the zonal application exercise, an evaluation of the progress made

to date in FSR/E implementation will be made. If deemed necessary, addition-

al formal training sessions similar to those conducted in Feb/March will be

set up. These will be offered in the late fall of 1982. Additional short-

term consultation trips may be necessary as the implementation of the FSR/E

program progresses.


Time

Jan.13-26

Jan 26-Feb 2

Feb 22-26


Mar 1-16


April-Aug.


Aug-Sept.


Event

Production Sondeo

Identify training candidates

Administrative, Management
short course

Technical training (FSR/E
methodology)

Training of zonal personnel by
attendees of methodology course

Application of FSR/E in zonal
situation


Participants

Clough, Harris, Swisher

Clough, Harris

Hildebrand, Ingle,
Swisher

Harris, Swisher





Clough, Harris










Budget Estimate, 1982, Phase I, University of Florida


Component


Item

Salaries &
benefits


Travel
International
Local
Per diem
Miscellaneous

Other
Materials
Translation
(in U.So)

Indirect cost on
salaries and
benefits

TOTALS


Sondeo


500


Short Course


9,535


1,000
1,000
2,680
500


1,000

1,500


1,430

18,645


500


Admin. Course


3,798


1,000
200
1,800
200


250

350


570

8,168


Total


13,333


2,000
1,700
4,480
700


1,250

1,850


2,000

27,313











Budget Estimate, 1982, Phase I, VPI-SU


Component

Item Sondeo Short Course Admin, Course Total

Salaries &
benefits -6,231 -- 6,231

Travel
International --- 1,000 -- 1,000
Local --- --- --- ---
Per diem --- 2,680 -- 2,680
Miscellaneous --- 100 --- 100

Other
Materials -
Translation
(in US) ---

Indirect cost on
salaries and
benefits -- 934 -- 934

TOTALS -- 10,945 --- 10,945











Budget Estimate, 1982, Phase II


Item

Salaries &
benefits

Travel
International
Local
Per diem
Miscellaneous

Other
Materials
Translation
(in U.S.)

Indirect costs on
salaries and
benefits

TOTALS


VPI-SU


Total


13,876


6,938


1,200
7--
2,653
350


UF


6,938


1,200
1,500
2,653
350


1,040

13,681


2,400
1,500
5,306
700


1,040

12,181


2,080

25,682




* 1.


Chronogram of Program and Advisory Actions
Based on Report of Mr.
.Date
Year 198
Fev. March April May June July Aug.


Sept.


- t I I 1- 1


PRoccLended Action/
':,'ho is Pesponsible


'yRi ACTIONS



*1 AC-TIO


4~,e,

/d. .*.r,
(,. t
I, ,,,*
,-: '!


/LS ~


.1~


_________ __ __ __ _ _ _ __ _____ _ _


I I I I -- I I I L-


Jan.


C



7
~1


Ji~ix/ iS


1--


i


--


G ''
I


I



I


Oct. Nov.










EXTENSION/FARMING PRACTICES/FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND EXTENSION


Project Sub-Activity No. 2


A. Purpose


B. Output


1) To help Portugal's farmers solve their emerging
problems as the country moves into the EEC; by improving the
linkage between the research and extension apparatus and
the farmers; 2) provide a means for policy makers to under-
stand responses of farmers to various stimuli created as part
of the changing economic environment in the country; and 3)
to support PROCALFER's Coordinating Group and MAP's central
regional extension services in modifying farming practices,
especially in those areas where PROCALFER activities are more
intense.

1) Orientation of central and regional extension organiza-
tions;

a) At the regional and subregional levels, existing
research and extension personnel and future tech-
nical personnel combined into a common working unit
to provide,both types of activities simultaneously
following the FSR/E approach;

b) At the central level, increased capacity of the Ex-
tension Service to provide technical support to the
regions in the form of written and graphic literature
and mass: media materials and methods prepared .for
dissemination to farmers;

2) Training of regional technical personnel to carry out
research and extension within the scope of the Farming Sys-
tems Research and Extension (FSR/E) methodology;

3) Training regional and national administrative and tech-
nical backstop personnel to provide support for the region-
al and subregional Farming Systems teams.






Reasonable future output if a commitment is made to the FSR/E
approach and additional technical assistance is available in-
clude:


1) 43 new agrarian zone
as follows:


offices in Regions I-IV established


1982


1983


Region I 3 4

Region II 2 4

Region III 15 10

Region IV 3 2

New Agents 163 72
Hired

2) Farm trials installed in four Northern Regions as follows:


1981


1982


1983


1984


1985


Region I 75 110 240

Region II 100 260 440

Region III 300 550 675

Region IV 30 80 150

3) 1982 Sondeo surveys in portions of Regions I, II, III
and IV completed; to emphasize those practices and agro-socio-
economic conditions that constitute major constraints to in-
creased production; to propose research/extension action pro-
grams to develop and extend appropriate technologies;

4) 1983 Initiation of farmer testing of appropriate tech-
nologies as a direct result of the FSR/E program initiated in
1982. Sondeo survey of farming practices and agro-socio-
economic conditions in Regions V, VI, VII.

















C. Inputs

1. U.S. Institutions


2. Host Country Institutions


3. Training


5) Beginning in 1984, zonal teams providing diffusion of
new technologies. Farmer "field days" and visits to farm
trials organized; short courses given through cooperatives
on improved farming practices and new technology generated,
e.g., fertilization and liming.

6) 1984/85 Farming Systems Research/Extension programs
initiated by MAP's central, regional and subregional ser-
vices in response to 1983 surveys.



USDA/Development Project Management Center, University of
Florida, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

PROCALFER's Coordinating group, National Agrarian Research
Institute, General Directorate of Rural Extension (DGER),
Regional Directors and regional research and extension per-
sonnel.

Both in-country and foreign training are envisioned. Short
course and degree program training are available from the
University of Florida and should be utilized to the extent
possible by both technical and administrative personnel.
In-country training will involve short courses in rapid
survey (Sondeo) techniques and in FSR/E methods. The latter
will be offered spearately for technicians and administra-
tors. The schedule for in-country training is proposed as
follows for 1982.


February 14-21


March



April


Sondeo training and production sondeo
in one zonal area in the north.

Short course (4 weeks) in FSR/E methods
for regional and subregional technical
personnel.

Short course (1 week) in FSR/E methods
and administrative support requirements
for administrators and technical support
personnel.








September/October Application of FSR/E methodology to a
specific zone (Applied Case Study).

Commodities: During the courses and sondeos vehicles will
be needed as follows:


Date


Vehicles


February 14-23
March 8-12or 15-19
March 9-April 2
September/October


6
6
5
6 vehicles during 4
weeks of this period
and one vehicle during
the entire 2 months.


The courses will be held in the regions and arrangements should
be made for slide projectors, audio visual equipment, etc.




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