Title: Farming Systems Research Symposium, Washington, D.C., December 8 and 9, 1980
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00094275/00001
 Material Information
Title: Farming Systems Research Symposium, Washington, D.C., December 8 and 9, 1980 collected papers
Alternate Title: Collected papers from Farming Systems Research Symposium
AID-USDA Symposium on Farming Systems Research
Physical Description: 1 v. (various pagings) : ill., maps ; 30 cm.
Language: English
Creator: United States -- Agency for International Development
United States -- Dept. of Agriculture
Conference: Farming Systems Research Symposium, 1980
Publisher: United States Department of Agriculture
Place of Publication: Washington, D. C.
Publication Date: 1980
Copyright Date: 1980
 Subjects
Subject: Agricultural systems -- Congresses -- Developing countries   ( lcsh )
Farm management -- Congresses -- Developing countries   ( lcsh )
Cropping systems -- Congresses -- Developing countries   ( lcsh )
Agricultural assistance, American -- Congresses   ( lcsh )
Technical assistance, American -- Congresses   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
federal government publication   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
conference publication   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Title from intial letter page.
General Note: Mimeographed.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00094275
Volume ID: VID00001
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 - 232116307

Full Text




United States
Department of
Agriculture


Office of
International
Cooperation and
Development


January 21, 1981



Dear Colleague;

Here, at long last, are the collected papers from the December
8 and 9 Farming Systems Research symposium. The comments we
received from many of you indicate that the symposium achieved
the goals we had set for it. We thank all participants for the
contributions they made to its success,

The hope was expressed during the meetings that the information
exchange which the symposium initiated could be continued, We
will be considering ways in which that can be accomplished, and
we will be contacting you for your input of suggestions,

Sincerely,



ohn D. Hyslop
technical Assistance Officer
Technical Assistance Division


Washington,
D.C.
20250








FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM


Washington, D.C.

December 8 and 9, 1980


List of Papers

Introduction and Objectives, Quentin M. West
Overview of Farming Systems Research, Donald L. Plucknett
An Overview of Farming Systems Research Methodology, Richard R. Harwood
Overview of the Potential Applicability of Farming Systems Research to U.S.
Small Farms and U.S. Research and Extension, Art Hansen
The Allegheny Highlands Project, Barton Baker
Evaluation of Farm Systems Research in Relation to the South Central Small
Farm Research and Extension Center Program, J.R. Gifford
Applicability of the Farming Systems Research Approach to Less Developed and
Developed Countries Linkages and Constraints, Michael S. Joshua
Research-Extension Interface, Howard W. Kerr, Jr.
Initiating Applied Farming Systems Research in Developing Countries,
L.W. Harrington
Problems of Interdisciplinarity in Farming Systems Research, Randolph
Barker
Farming Systems Research Program Structure, Staffing and Funding,
Jerry McIntosh
FSR and National Agricultural Development, Peter E. Hildebrand
Issues of FSR Evaluation, Willis W. Shaner
The ICTA Case; Overview of ICTA Program, Astolfo Fumagalli C.
Farming Systems Research in Guatemala, Ramiro Ortiz Dardon
Staffing and Funding in the Instituto De Cienciay Tecnologia Agricola (ICTA)
Robert K. Waugh
The ICTA Case; The Linkages with Other National, International and
Regional Institutions, Porfirio Masaya
Discussion Group Reports: Summary
Lessons for the Future
Summary of Tony Babb's Closing Remarks
Farming Systems Research Symposium Participants









Washington, D.C.
December 8 & 9, 1980


SYMPOSIUM ON FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH:
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Quentin M. West*


INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

U.S. overseas technical assistance programs are grounded in methods and
expertise developed and applied here at home. This is an assumption underlying
all such work. It was explicit in the Point-Four days of the 1940's and 1950's
and, though not emphasized, remains as part of our philosophy today.

The notion is particularly strong in technical assistance in agriculture.
Variants of the U.S. model for agricultural research and extension have been
applied in dozens of developing countries during the past 30 years. Though
this application has contributed to significant increases in agricultural
productivity and rural incomes in a number of countries, the benefits have
often been unequally distributed toward larger farmers having access to
required services and inputs. For small farms in most countries the applica-
tion has failed. Research results have become laboratory shelf items, never
reaching the farmer or bearing little relevance to the constraints under which
he operates.

The applications have failed because they have been largely based on the
notion that technological progress in agriculture is a monotonic sequence
from the laboratory to the test plot to the extension agent to the farmer.
It is a highly over-simplified version of our research and extension system.
It does not take into account the economic, social, and institutional environ-
ment in which U.S. farmers operate.

The farming systems approach to agricultural research and extension has
arisen out of the realization that too many of the necessary elements of
the U.S. model, of which public research and extension services are only a
part, are missing in developing countries. Among the missing elements are
efficient factor and product markets in which the effect of resource constraints
is made explicit through movements in relative prices.

The farming systems approach is a product of the imagination and professional
skills of researchers and extension workers in these countries. It is an
attempt to compensate for the lack of an environment supporting technological
progress in agriculture. Though it is also identified with the work of a
number of the international research centers and is closely related to farm
management work as practiced in the United States and elsewhere, its full
development and application is thus far clearly and uniquely a developing
country phenomenon.


*Director, Office of International Cooperation and Development, U.S. Department
of Agriculture









We obviously have here an activity in which U.S. technical assistance would
not be grounded in methods and expertise developed and applied here at home.
The interest shown in this symposium and the agenda's list of participants
suggests that the flow of technical assistance should perhaps be in the
reverse direction.

This came home to us in OICD just over a year ago when we were asked to
field a USDA team to explore possible technical assistance and cooperative
relationships in agricultural research with one of the AID "graduate"
countries. The request specified that a USDA expert in farming systems research
be included in the team, and that he be prepared to identify U.S. universities
having a strong farming systems research program.

It didn't take too many phone calls to determine that there was no such
expert in USDA (certainly not in OICD) and there appeared to be no strong
farming systems research program in any U.S. university.

I know that the truth of that assertion depends partly upon one's definition
of farming systems work. I will not offer a definition now, since we are
going to be working together on one over the next two days.

With that caveat, it still seems that the situation remains true today,
though a number of the universities are beginning to establish farming systems
programs or are strengthening programs which were just beginning last year. In
USDA the seminal programs in small farm research in SEA's Northeast and
Southern Regions cannot yet be called an expertise in farming systems research.
They are a nucleus around which a USDA expertise may develop. This depends
largely on the extent to which the methods of the farming systems approach are
perceived to be applicable to the small farm programs.

Here we have both our initial motivation for, and a major objective of,
this symposium: The increasing interest in the farming systems approach in
developing countries makes it imperative that our USDA technicians on over-
seas assignment be knowledgeable about the concept. Further, this symposium
is a good starting point for USDA's exploring the applicability of the farming
systems approach to U.S. small farm research and extension. These programs
were started out of the belief that the main thrust of our research and extension
work is not adequately serving the small farm segment of our rural population.

There are, of course, other objectives. The Office of Agriculture in AID's
Development Support Bureau, our third co-sponsor, is planning a project of
support to farming systems research and extension programs in AID-assisted
countries.

There are still a number of gaps in the plan for such a project which this
symposium will help to fill:

1. Is the farming systems approach cost effective?

2. Are there general methodological or implementation issues
in the farming systems approach which must be resolved before a
broad-based assistance project is feasible?









3. What are the important resource constraints developing
countries are facing in attempting to implement farming
systems programs?

4. Does U.S. expertise to address these constraints exist
in sufficient quantity to give an assistance project
credibility?

5. What form of U.S. assistance is most appropriate to the
development of farming systems programs in developing
countries?

There are some of the questions you will be considering during these two
days.

Equally important, the Office of Agriculture is concerned that AID's
agriculturists be familiar with the concept of farming systems research and
extension. Though the general level of familiarity with the concept probably
is higher in AID than in USDA, due to contact with programs in the field, the
immediate need-to-know level is also higher. It is AID that is the point of
contact with the developing country programs.

Finally, USDA has the objective of looking to the future, so far as our
agricultural research and extension agencies are concerned. Requests for
assistance to farming systems research and extension programs are certain to
increase. What is the response the universities and USDA will and should
make? Should we be thinking in terms of some sort of co-ordination? What
sort? We'll have the opportunity later to discuss these questions directly.

I agree with the assertion that we do best in technical assistance overseas
those things which we do well at home. However, we must always remember
that the overseas conditions are not those existing here.

The farming systems approach may be the very device for making that assertion
true in research and extension. This symposium will help us make that
evaluation.










Overview of Farming Systems Research (FSR)


Donald L. Plucknett


Modern farming systems research (FSR) is becoming an accepted approach

to applied agricultural research. FSR was developed because of concerns

that farmers were not adopting research innovations being developed by ex-

periment stations. Also, in recent attempts to improve the lot of small

farmers, an awareness has developed that there is inadequate understanding

of small farmers and their problems.

In a real sense, FSR is not new. Some of the farm management research

in agricultural economics in the USA in the past did involve some aspects

of FSR. However, a truly multidisciplinary effort involving experimentation

in a systems mode on the farm and in focused research on systems problems

on experimental stations did not result until recently with the rise of

modern FSR.

History

Modern FSR can be traced to a group of individuals or institutions,

mostly working in isolation, who began to try to understand several things:

(1) how relevant information could be generated for small farm systems,

(2) multiple cropping principles and potentials, and (3) the potential pro-

ductivity of tropical areas. The following examples cited are meant to be

illustrative of the range of efforts that have led to modern FSR. Space does

not allow me to cover even briefly, all of the important programs. For

information on these, I recommend the FSR literature to the reader.

Most famous of the pioneers was Dr. Richard Bradfield at IRRI, who was

interested in devising rice-based systems to maximize year-round production








-2-


in the tropics. He popularized the study of multiple cropping and demon-

strated the enormous productive capability of the tropics with careful

management. Dr. Bradfield was succeeded by Dr. Dick Harwood and a group

of young co-workers who moved away from the intensive research station-

based productivity studies of Dr. Bradfield and began to examine more

closely the small farm itself. Their work led to innovative on-farm trials

and studies of the constraints and potentials of existing farming systems.

Later, as they began to become familiar with farm problems, they felt a need

to understand more of the climatic and land resources of their target farmers.

Dr. Hubert Zandstra succeeded Dr. Harwood about this time and has led a young

and vigorous team, including a very well organized and coordinated Asian

Cropping Systems Network, in designing and testing methodologies, training

and on-farm research.

Another pioneer was Dr. David Norman and a group of associates based

in northern Nigeria at Ahmadu Bello University. Their work centered on resource-

poor farmers growing millet and other dryland crops. This work was important

in dramatizing the benefits of FSR in Africa, in multidisciplinary research

team efforts, and in establishing a strong role for social scientists in FSR.

ICTA (The Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agricoles) in Guatemala, has

made a solid contribution to the problem of data collection and analysis on

the farm. Closely involved in the work was Dr. Peter Hildebrand who, along

with his ICTA co-workers, was responsible for devising and improving the

"Sondeo" or rapid analytical survey of the small farm and its problems. Many

other FSR programs are beginning to use or modify the Sondeo approach for

their own research.







-3-


A home-grown regional program that has generated much new thinking

on how FSR can be used to improve small farm systems is that of CATIE in

Central America, which is headquartered at Turrialba, Costa Rica. This

program has emphasized research and training approaches that are suitable

for the varied ecological situations and small.farm systems of Central

America. Most FSR programs vary to some degree, because they must adjust

to suit the local physical, social or political environment. For that

reason each program has or can contribute to FSR knowledge. Programs that

should or could have been listed and discussed in a history of FSR include

the ISRA program in Senegal, ICRISAT, IITA, and CIMMYT.

"Upstream" and "Downstream" FSR

FSR is generally seen as being important in helping to improve research

effectiveness and relevance. Often this is referred to as "upstream" or

"downstream" FSR. The most common definition of these terms is that upstream

FSR is seen as "FSR in the large", i.e., that generalized prototype solutions

are being sought that may have longer-term impact, while "downstream FSR"

is seen as being "FSR in the small" or research that is focused on more problems

that appear to have practical, immediate results and benefits.

There is another use for the terms upstream and downstream in FSR, re-

lating to research planning and the role of the farmer in that process. Here

downstream activities are seen to be a process of researcher decisions and

activities using professional training, skills, intuition and so on, but

without involvement of the farmer, in which research products are passed

"downstream" to an extension service that is charged with responsibility for

marketing the innovation at farm level. By contrast, upstream activities

are those where maximum intelligence, including the wishes, decisions and







-4-


concerns of the farmer, is used to focus research on real farm problems.

In this sense upstream FSR can be used to focus on problems facing farmers

now, or those which are most likely to face farmers in the future.

Characterizing different activities of FSR

Many people have had difficulty in understanding what FSR is and how

it differs or coincides with "conventional" agricultural research. In part,

this is because the terminology of FSR is not fixed nor agreed upon, and

new terms keep being coined. However, a greater problem, in my opinion, is

that there are different areas of activity in FSR that need explanation and

specification, if FSR is to be understood. The TAC Review of FSR at the

international agricultural research centers (IARCs) recognized this problem

and proposed a conceptual framework for understanding and conducting FSR.

The TAC Review suggested that there are three "Activity Areas" of FSRi Base

Data Analysis, On-Farm Studies and Research Station Studies. These activity

areas can be defined in part by where and for what purpose the research is

to be conducted. Also, the balance between the Activity Areas is usually

determined by the stage of development and needs of the individual FSR programs.

1. Base Data Analysis. This involves the collection,

collation and understanding of the many factors characterizing

the environment of a region. Much such analysis will entail

exercises in land resource mapping and evaluation, and in large

part can be done at research stations or in head offices, mostly

relying on secondary data. In addition to physical resource in-

formation, there is also a need for socioeconomic data on popula-

tion, farming systems used, production and income levels, and

various aspects of the infrastructure. The purpose of Base Data








- 5 -


Analysis is to learn as much as possible about the land and

water resources of a region, as well as socioeconomic factors,

and how these physical and social factors influence agricultural

production. The normal end product of the physical resource

analysis is a series of maps depicting agro-climatic zones,

land/soil units, and land use (farming/commodity systems).

Such information can then be used to assist identification of

potential target zones for on-site study and to determine the

Best locations for experimental stations or benchmark sites, as

well as providing a basis for later studies on research impact.

In general, Base Data Analysis will seldom involve detailed on-

site investigations except where larger non-farm units (for

example, villages) are the object of study.

On-Farm Studies

On-Farm Studies can be used both to improve research planning and focus,

as well as assist in finding uses for improved technology at farm level. Thus,

On-Farm Studies may be used to gather information on systems as they are; to

conduct research on new innovations on the farm, either under researcher con-

trol, joint researcher/farmer control, or farmer control; evaluate adoption

of new technology; monitor changes in farming systems; and assess impact of

new technology. It should be pointed out that On-Farm Studies includes ex-

perimentation on the farm, in addition to more conventional surveys; such

experimentation does raise some methodological problems. On-Farm Studies offer

a great opportunity for cooperation with local extension services or institu-

tions.








-6-


Research Station Studies are seen to involve a focused research program

to generate new technology, design components for new systems, or modify

existing systems. Such research differs from conventional, on-going dis-

ciplinary research in that it is designed to fulfill a need in the context

of a given farming system. Sometimes it may be useful to distinguish dif-

ferent classes of Research Station Studies, for example: (1) exploratory,

developmental research aimed at solving specific problems. Once the problem

is defined in an FSR context, its solution may have a largely disciplinary-

oriented basis (i.e., a reductionist framework); (2) integrative studies,

where component parts are assembled and tested in a holistic framework, i.e.,

the synthesis of research results into applicable systems and management

practices.

Subdivision of FSR into three activity areas can be useful in helping

persons to understand just where particular FSR programs are focused or

oriented.


December 29, 1980








AN OVERVIEW OF FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY I/


Richard R. Harwood
Rodale Press, Inc.



Historical Perspective

The person being newly exposed to the broad spectrum of farming
systems research (FSR) approaches used in third world agriculture will
immediately face a new vocabulary and a bewildering assortment of
approaches. Worse yet, in reading the literature (mostly in mimeo-
graph or annual report form) of the last five years, one finds rapid
changes or evolution in approaches if not philosophy. Because of
the newness of the approach, that change rate may even make what is
seen in a field visit seem at variance with the latest available reports
from those trials.

Modern day third-world FSR really began with the work of Dr.
Richard Bradfield in the late 1960's as related by Don Plucknett in
the preceding paper. During the early 1970's this approach was
"institutionalized" and adapted to the Asian network during the time
when I coordinated IRRI's program. Since 1975, there has been wide-
spread adoption and refinement of the basic principles of FSR through-
out much of the third world. It is fitting that this approach has now
"come home" in our attempt to address today's problems in the U.S.
The relationship of t6day's methods and approaches to the work of the
1930's and 1940's in the U.S. is in name and concept, but the methods
are not really very similar. I can say with certainty that the
methods used In FSR for third world systems, being very much adapted
to third world institutional, social and technological environments
cannot be adapted without major change to the U.S., but American
scientistsplanning to work in the third world or even those planning
FSR work in America can well profit from exposure to those methods.

Types of Farms where a Systems Approach has Benefit

Not all farming systems types afford equal payoff to holistic
studies. In single-enterprise agriculture such as in dryland, con-
tinuous wheat or in monoculture corn production, the single enterprise
has a particular fit to its environment. There are relatively few
variables which interact. Those interactions are continuous and can
be approximated nicely with relatively simple linear models. The
introduction of new technologies in production methods can be done




1/ Presented at the Symposium on Farming Systems Research,
Jefferson Auditorium, USDA South Building, Washington,
DC, December 8-9, 1980. Sponsored by the U. S. Department
of Agriculture, Office of International Cooperation and
Development.





-2-


empirically, as few options exist, and'changes are quantitative rather
than qualitative. Traditional, experiment station-based trials of
component technologies can meet many of the needs of such systems. But
where environmental 'gradients are sharp and where farming systems have
many component enterprises with strong interdependencies, the im-
provement of productivity requires not only better production com-
ponents, but an understanding of "what fits where." Impirical testing
here translates into a highly inefficient "hit and miss." Effective
technology development and targeting in such a complex environment where
integrated systems must optimize use of scarce production resources
requires either a method for progressive understanding of the systems
by a broad segment of development workers,or the availability of that
rare, widely-experienced and gifted scientist with keen insight and
intuitive understanding. We must therefore make use of a procedure
which will empower we lesser mortals to acquire and use, hopefully
early in our careers, similar insight in dealing with complex systems
and their environmental interactions.

The Spectrum of FSR Approaches

Modern day FSR for third world countries began under the sponsor-
ship of the larger, centralized research institutions. Their roles and
structure, being somewhat different from those of national programs,
encouraged an FSR approach peculiar to their own mission and capabilities.
In studying the various so-called FSR programs of today, one finds.varia-
tion due to many other factors as well:

1. The stage of development of the particular program. A
complex program does not all of a sudden appear in complete
form.

2. The degree to which the program has been thought through
conceptually. Some programs may be merely copied from a
different setting and environment.

3. The resources that have been committed (or not committed).

4. The degree to which an ongoing program has been renamed or
slightly modified and the FSR terminologies applied because
of "fashion,' "trend" or availability of funds.

Variation across programs generally can be traced to three categories
of differences in objectives or "mission" of the FSR program.

1. The overall purpose of the,research:

Is the program a study-and-learn program or is the program
ultimately to result in change through an extension process for a
sizeable geographical impact area? In the first instance a cross-
section or sample of "target" farms will be chosen based primarily
on type of farm. There will not be undue concern over the extent
or size of the geographical area that they represent. If an even-
tual extension program is the ultimate goal, the program will be
structured first according to parameters which define the target
area and secondly, according to representative farm types within
that area. Early FSR programs focused on the first approach, but




- 3-


by the mid-1970's the programs with a front-line development mission
and thorough conceptual base began to focus on definition of target
areas. The concepts of farming systems "determinants" and agro-
production complex came into being. Today's better programs first
identify target areas across which one or more identifiable farming
systems types are present, and then proceed to study and change
those characteristic types.

2. The change which is envisioned as resulting from a program.

Most programs are carried out on the premise that FSR studies
will encourage an understanding of the farming system, but that under-
standing will not, by itself, lead to improvement in the systems.
New and appropriate technology will have to be introduced,possibly
with some change in structure in the system, in order for impact
to be made. Where a single commodity is predominant such as in
many maize, wheat or rice-growing regions, the FSR may be truly
systems-oriented but will focus on change of the predominant enter-
prise in the systems of its target area. The change focus will
depend largely on the technologies available to the FSR institutions.
Those may be a single agronomic crop, a group of such crops, agro-
nomic crops associated with a major crop, horticultural crops, tree
crops or one or more animal components. Rarely will an organiza-
tion have sufficient expertise (or in fact mandate) to try to
change all of these components. The IRRI program, for instance,
worked on about one-half dozen agronomic crops which normally fit
around upland and-lowland rice. It occasionally worked with one
or more horticultural crops. No work was done to add animal tech-
nology. Indications were given when changes were needed in animal
types, numbers or feed availability. Some of these differences in
scope have been somewhat inappropriately labeled FSR "in the small"
vs. "in the large."

3. The extent to which the FSR is used as an overall institution-
building tool as opposed to a mere development tool.

On-farm FSR studies can be extremely useful in staff training,
in serving as a vehicle for cross-disciplinary studies, in bridging
the gaps between national institutions, in linking national and
regional programs, in fostering problem identification and feedback,
and in strengthening the research-extension linkages. With these
more broad goals, the methods and approach will be somewhat
different.

A fourth difference in methods can be traced to the level of
support a program received. The more complex methodologies and
the detail of systems documentation possible for large, well-staffed
programs is clearly not possible or even necessary in national pro-
grams whose success is measured in terms of development rather than
in terms of "learning" or publications.





-4-


The Goals of a Regionally-focused National Program

I will concentrate my discussion on the national FSR program and
in particular that part of the national program having area-specific
responsibility, as I assume that most interest and participation of
American scientists will be in these programs. The goals for FSR in
such programs are broad 1. The primary end goal, linked closely to
the research itself, is agricultural development of a particular geo-
graphical region or district. Success or failure of the program is
evaluated by various development indices. While the program may be
called a research program, it has a responsibility for extension link-
ages, outreach testing and verification,and successful implementation
of the recommended technology. The primary goal includes an element
of successful extension. Research responsibility is thus expanded
to include the region-wide verification testing or so-called "applied
research" phase.

A second goal is to arrive at an understanding of the composition
and function of key types of farming systems in the target area. With
present status of the better national programs, this goal is reached by
the immediate study team but there is a noted lack of effective con-
ceptualization and articulation of that overview of the systems'
structure and function. Transfer of systems information and of the
often intuitive understanding of the production systems is at present
very limited. The effectiveness of the present programs depends upon
the pinpointing by the immediate study team of specific technological
needs which can then be-delivered by traditional methods. The ultimate
methodology would be the effective relaying of an understanding of the
systems to enable a broader participation of the national development
team in analysis and decision-making.

Other goals have been previously mentioned. The need for prac-
tical, on-farm training of scientists at all levels has been overlooked
for the past decade or longer. Many if not most of today's scientists,
either in developed and third world countries, have had little or no
professional experience in a farm setting with immersion in its complex
patterns of management and environment. It seems incredible that we
scientists profess to employ the scientific method without a first-
hand knowledge of what we are supposed to be researching. I know few
crop production specialists (other than those of the present FSR gen-
eration) who have ever participated in farmer-collaborative trials.
FSR provides excellent staff training opportunities.

Linkages between development institutions, departments and even
ministries,or between national and district or regional divisions is
facilitated in on-farm research. The farmer's field is the common
ground that unites most development agencies. It is "neutral turf,"
belonging to no agency.

Finally, the research-extension linkages can be maximized in on-
farm research. Extension specialists should participate in the on-farm
research. Verification trials are then often used for extension demon-
stration purposes, with the research and extension functions being
intermingled.





- 5-


The Regional FSR Organization

Others have concentrated on this subject in the workshop, but
I would like to make clear the type of program I am referring to.
The methods that I will describe are used in FSR for a particular
regional target area. They may be for an area development program,
a district or provincial level program, or for any program having
specific area development responsibilities preferably within a single
political or administrative development unit. The FSR would be co-
ordinated by the agency with lead responsibility for providing
technology for the area. In other words, the FSR should not be con-
ducted by a separate team, with information relayed to a different
organization or ministry for the eventual providing of technology.
With information transfer currently being the weakest link, the need
for such transfer should be minimized. This regional, area-specific
orientation must be distinguished from the centralized, national pro-
gram which may have as its first goal the understanding of the major
systems and their technology needs in order to properly orient
centralized development of technology. Area-wide extension and
development is thus secondary in purpose.

Methods for Area Targeting

Target development areas are normally chosen from considerations
other than those based on agro-production complex definition. Effective
FSR depends on the ability to identify particular farming system types
which respond in similar fashion to their environment, which have rela-
tively similar internal interactions and which represent relatively
large production areas. Improved technology to fit those systems is
then verified across the target areas in systems of similar type. Such
types are limited in geographical area by combinations of environmental
determinants which may be socio-economic, physical or political. Com-
binations of determinates which give rise to similar types of farming
systems define the agro-production complexes across which FS informa-
tion can then be extrapolated. The two approaches to defining such
complexes are first, to simply survey the farming systems to identify
similar types. The geographical extent of those types then is assumed
to be the production complex. A second approach is to identify the
major determinants and to then define the production complex in terms
of determinates.

My own observations have found different methods to apply depending
on the nature of variation in the particular area. In upland, gently
rolling, subtropical areasthe physical parameters of rainfall and
elevation combined with distance from market are predominant. With
such patterns of variability on a macro-scale, simple identification
of farm type can serve as an indicator of production complex. In the
humid tropics with systems involving lowland rice, production complexes are
determined by similar macro-determinants, but also by "micro-determinants"
which change even within farms. Paddy size, shapeand elevation determine
the eventual cropping pattern. Technology is targeted on a district basis
by macro-determinant and then specified at the local level according to
type of paddy (which is easily classified by the research or extension
worker and farmer).





-6-


A third and somewhat more complex method is to define environmental
gradients and to determine how systems (or technology) change across
thosegradients. In actual field practice, however, the boundaries tend
to be rather discrete. Treating them as such, at least, simplifies the
process.

While precise determination of agro-production complexes is im-
possible and to the newcomer seems highly subjective at best, their
effective determination is crucial to FSR and to the extension phase
which must follow. FSR without prior targeting and identification of
the production complex is purely impirical and is neither efficient
nor cost-effective.

The Farmer Participant Approach

Much has been written about farmer collaborative research as it has
become popular in the past few years2. The key element is the farmer's
participation in the entire on-farm research process. The basic approach
was designed in the early 1970's as a combination of the Chinese "learn
from the masses" method and the western, top-down method that most of us
were trained in. The theory is that both farmer and scientist have
particular skills to contribute to the learning (research) process.
All too often, however, in actual practice the farmer is "used" in FSR
as a mere laborer rather than a full participant. The truly collaborative
relationship is an extremely sensitive one depending on human relation-
ships. It requires a very particular attitude, personality and training
on the part of both researcher and farmer. Effective farmer-researcher
interaction is both highly satisfying and profitable, but to those trained
exclusively in the top-down philosophy such relationships are difficult
to achieve. One may even hear the comment: ..."'we are wasting time
attempting to learn from farmers." Others may go overboard, losing
confidence in their ability to teach farmers anything. The proper
relationship and balance is essential.

Systems Description and Problem Identification

Once the target areas have been chosen, and the FSR team selected,
the initial research phase is that of description. The most effective
method to date for starting that process has been the rapid survey on
"Sondeo" method It has many advantages which will be covered in
later papers. Basically it consists of a rapid, reconnaissance-type
survey by an interdisciplinary team which will be eventually working in
the area. At the end of the 5-to 7-day survey, a final descriptive
report is written on the farming systems types of the area. The inter-
disciplinary makeup of the team, their commitment to the area and the
requirement for rapid conceptual analysis and summary are crucial to the
effectiveness of the process. All too often the surveys of different methods
are conducted by separate groups of specialists, with analysis being time-
consuming and eventually failing to provide a clear, conceptual understand-
ing of the systems the communications problem. The Hildebrand method
represents a tradeoff between objective measurement, quantification, and
intuitive understanding and perception. It is by far the most effective





-7-


approach. It may even be desirable to do the survey in two stages,
with the first stage being a reconnaissance survey across several villages
of the target area. This rapid once-over would give indication of the
variation in type of farm across the target area and may take as much
as two to three weeks. From that variation the specific types of farms
to be targeted by the FSR would be chosen. Farm size, types of enter-
prises and development level for FSR focus would be decided. A decision
would be made on villages for the FSR effort, based on predominance of
the desired farm type as well as cooperation from local village heads,
availability of housing, access and other criteria. The detailed, one-
week follow-up Sondeo would then be conducted. This study constitutes
the "benchmark" and focuses on systems description, productivity, problem
areas, and potential for change.

In a regionally-focused development program, the survey team should
be led by a member of the lead development agency who should probably be
a field-experienced social scientist. The team should include crop
production specialists, a plant protection person, a soils person, and
a member of the regional extension service. About six team members usual-
ly seems adequate. Many of these people should be destined for assignment
to the FSR teams that will work in the area. The other survey members can
be drawn from the central research organization and stations that will be
backstopping the FSR team. This experience is invaluable for staff train-
ing and for forming the personal relationships vital to communications
between locations and agencies. It is during these surveys also that the
tone is set for the "joint learning experience" between farmers and re-
searchers that characterizes FSR.

The detailed surveys should uncover serious problem areas. Many of
these are identified by farmers themselves, but the survey team, since it
includes production-trained scientists who are familiar with the best
available production technologies, has some knowledge of what might be
possible for the survey environment. Hopefully those standards for com-
parison would come from physical environments which at least are not
vastly different from that of the study area. If one of the team members
has international experience from similar areas in other countries, the
problem identification might be especially keen. At this point, however,
the process is highly subjective and dependent upon the skills and
training of the team, and on their ability to communicate effectively
with farmers.

The immediate product or output at the end of this 3- or 4-week
survey process should be a series of conceptual descriptions of farming
systems types and their prevalence for the agro-production complex. The
selected target types should be described in detail, with some quantifi-
cation of production levels, income, farm structure and other relevant
factors. Detailed lists of the more important production problems and
best estimates for improvement potential will be made.

Locating the Study Team

Once the surveys are completed, the study team is located in the
area. In most cultures it seems best if the team members are of the
same tribe or ethnic grouping, but whose homes are beyond easy travel




" 8 -


distance from the research site. It seems best if the study team can
be located within one of the study villages, removed from location in
a sponsoring institution. This maximizes contact with farmers. The
farmer linkage is usually more difficult than linkage back to the
research station or parent organization. A small, rented house in the
village is ideal,where team members can live and where a small office,
supply storage, and work area can be provided.

In many countries the two to five team members are supplemented by
"village assistants" who are usual lyteen-agers from the villages hired
to help in the project. They become team members and identify with the
research team. They are valuable in village level-research linkage and
with farmer-research linkages, since they are village members and are
well-known in the villages.

Systems Design

This is an often misunderstood phase. The "design phase" simply
is the overview and analysis of the systems, and the projection of possible
changes in the system based on available technology. Higher level re-
search scientists may well be used during this phase, but care should
be taken that they do not completely overshadow the study team. During
the design phase, the team never "redesigns" the entire system. They
simply program stepwise or single element changes in the system that
should lead to their improvement. Participant farmers should play a
major role in this process, and have a degree of (but not absolute) veto
power over it. Some.FSR people have been hesitant to introduce change
and may wait for a year or more before doing anything to alter the sys-
tem. The a a. veAy ,eAZou4 mistake. First of all, one learns much
faster by doing. Secondly, the farming system is much better understood
when you see how it can or cannot be changed. Most importantly, the FSR
team should neveA be allowed to remain in the village as merely
observers. They will develop a reputation for laziness or as observers,
not doers. The initial changes should be small, but they should be tried.
A variety trial is an ideal icebreaker and is noncommittal. Simple
changes in row spacing, weed control or a few rows of a well-tested new
variety across a field are all "safe" options for initial design changes.
An experienced team with good backstopping and technology from similar
environments may attempt changes in the crop rotation on small areas in
the first year.

The design should be upgraded year by year as test results come in.
As one or more adventuresome, high-management farmers are identified,
more adventuresome technologies can be tried. It is very important for
the FSR team to make an early contribution, to have "a winner." That
can be small, but it should come early. This lays the groundwork for
more adverturesome types of trials in subsequent years.

Testing Methods
4 5 6
Much as been written about on-farm study methods '5 I will only
briefly summarize them. As in all FSR, field testing goals must be clear-
ly defined. The approach to be used as well as the field design depend
upon those objectives.





-9-


There are three basic field methodologies: farmer-managed trial.
the "superimposed" trial, and the research-managed trial. In farmer-
managed trials, the farmer conducts all of the operations in crop or
animal production. The treatment units are usually large enough to
make them economic units. Researcher participation in such a trial
is limited to design, monitoring, perhaps some management advice and
at the end, recording of yield. This trial is used where the farmer's
management skill is either needed for successful completion of the trial
or is actually under test as a part of the new technology or where
economic data are needed on labor use.

The superimposed trial is one where the farmer manages the field
but the researcher imposes a particular treatment on subplots. Fertil-
izer, weed control, insect control or other variables may be superimposed,
with the farmer managing all other factors across the plots and the
entire field. This is done with minimal disruption of the farmer's system.
It measures the effect of incremental changes in technology as applied to
farmer management.

The final type, the research-managed trial is used where a completely
different management is needed, where small plots are required, where many
variables are involved or where high-risk or low-yield treatments are used.
Most statisticians favor this approach as it gives maximum statistical
precision. It has the disadvantages of requiring large amounts of staff
time and doesn't take advantage of farmer-management expertise.

In all arguments over method, the FSR person should always clearly
state his research goals for a particular trial. The goal determines
the method to be used, with the requirements for statistical precision
being secondary. The needed precision can usually be achieved with
any of the methods if proper design is used.

Analytical Methods

It is important that the field study team do the initial data
summaries, using simple hand calculators if necessary. It is crucial
that they have a feeling for research results soon after the data are
collected. At the beginning of the trials the summary methods should
be determined, with forms printed and available for all data summaries.
The staff must be trained and disciplined to accomplish this quickly.
If needed, a person from the headquarters station can come down to the
field to help with these summaries, but they should be done in the. ield.
Further, higher level analysis can then be accomplished by other staff
at a central location after initial summary reports are done by the staff.
It is important also that all staff in the field be familiar with results
from all trials. With division of responsibility among team members and
heavy work loads, there is a tendency for breakdown in communications.

Verification Testing

Following two or more years of successful research testing of new
technologies, (with participation of extension staff in the research)
the trials are then carried to similar farms in representative areas of




- 10 -


the agro-production complex. The role of extension becomes progres-
sively more dominant as this phase is entered, as these trials usually
will serve as demonstration trials prior to an all-out extension effort.
A regional extension person will usually have been assigned as a member
of the FSR team. He will have trained other extension workers in the
technology and its testing in the research villages. The extended veri-
fication testing may be done either under extension or research direction.
There will almost always be research participation by member of the FSR
team, whpse role has begun to change. In the verification stage, the
options are limited in number and the trials simple but in many locations.

Linkages Across Agencies

With village-level research,linkages are almost always easier.
Different research divisions representing different disciplines, or
even different ministries can be broughttogether on common ground.
While problems can still exist, my own experience has indicated that
communication is almost at&wct easier in the village or in the farmer's
field than it is at the institution level.

I find also that the discussions of problems of interdisciplary research
are more relevant to the U.S. than they are to third world situations.
Those difficulties are in direct proportion to "academic" level, being
greatest in an American university setting, intermediate in third world
academia where promotion is seldom based strongly on quality of published
documents, and minimal in the line development agencies with field re-
sponsibility. At the field level promotions and pay scale in a third
world situation almost never are influenced by publication. They are,
however, often influenced by distance from headquarters, so just being
assigned to a remote location may be detrimental. I find much of the
American-based discussion about interdiciplinary problems and the
problems of publication for promotion nonrelevant to regional field pro-
grams in the third world. The scientists assigned to village-level
programs are not highly specialized. They do "some of everything" as
is needed in the village which may include helping to fix the roof of
their participant farmer or to buy and administer vaccine for his sick
cow.

Linkage and communication problems are minimized within the village-
level team. Communications back up the institutional or bureaucratic
chain are more difficult, requiring good program leadership.

Production Programs

Tne ensuing region-wide production programs from such an approach
will have had broadly-based research input. Most of the concerned
agencies should have been involved during the various phases of the FSR
and verification testing program. All should have a conceptual under-
standing of the farming systems to be targeted.

The role of the FSR team has now changed to that of trouble-shooting
on the technology. They should be free to travel and to monior the new





- 11


technology as it is applied. The greatest danger in a production effort
is the attempt to apply new technologies beyond their area of adaptation.
Production programs must be first targeted to the specific production
complex defined by macro-determinants. The adjustment to micro-deter-
minants is dependent upon the clear identification of thosedeterminants
in the field by both farmers and extension workers. For example, in
the terrace agriculture of Nepal's hill rice areas, the extension of
the new wheat varieties for wheat-rice rotations is highly dependent on
proper identification of field or "paddy" types. The identification is
simple, but requires training of extension workers and farmers alike,
and labeling of the package of practices according to needed paddy con-
ditions. The FSR team should trouble-shoot this application process
during the production effort.

The Need for Strong Leadership

FSR programs have greater leadership requirements than do programs for
testing of simple component pieces. The demands for conceptual under-
standing and clear establishment of goals and priorities require a much
stronger and intensive management function of the project. Without this
leadership the field-level,middle-skill scientists will be lost in com-
plexity. I feel that this management area is a perfect application for
the talents of expatriate scientists iL they aAe highly t'wained and ex-
peA.enced in FSR methods.

Following goal-setting and conceptualization in importance to
the FSR team is the necessity of judging the scope and amount of work
to be attempted by the FSR team in the village. The tendency is aeoWy6
to attempt more than they can do well. Village-level work, if it is
effective, has a dramatic effect on team members. Morale, dedication
and empathy for their farmers become extremely high in a good team. It
requires a high level of management skill by leadership from above the
village team level to limit and shape the activities of the team to
coincide with their skills and training.

Summary

FSR methodologies are newly emerging, conceptually complex and
quite different from mostapproaches used in the past. The conceptual
differences are crucial to their success. The scientist being exposed
to them for the first time should seriously attempt to sense and under-
stand those concepts and differences. The application of FSR in its
broadest sense as related here, has received wide acceptance in third
world agriculture. That acceptance by third world development leaders,
concerned with the broad aspects of both institution-building and area-
development programs, has preceded widespread acceptance by the more
tradition-minded scientific community.

I do not see FSR as "the" answer to agricultural development. I
do see it as a very important tool, among others, which can play a
central role in development efforts.







SELECTED REFERENCES


1. Harwood, Richard R. 1980. Farming Systems Research and its
role in the national agricultural research system.
Paper presented at the workshop: "Increasing the productivity
and impact of agricultural research." Sponsored by the
International Agriculture Development Service and the Indonesian
Agency for Agricultural Research and Development, Yogyakarta,
November 9-14, 1980.

2. Harwood, Richard R. 1979. Small Farm Development: Understanding
and Improving Farming Systems in the Humid Tropics. Westview
Press, Boulder, Colorado.

3. Hildebrand, Peter. 1979. Summary of the Sondeo Methodology
used by ICTA. Institute de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agricolas,
Guatemala C.A.

4. Gomez, A.A. and K. A. Gomez (in press). Multiple Cropping in
the Humid Tropics. IDRC, Ottowa, Canada.


OTHER GENERAL REFERENCES ON FSR METHODOLOGIES

The following are excellent comprehensive summaries:

5. Consortium for International Development (in press). Guidelines
to assist nationaF government in the implementation of Farming
Systems Research and Development Programs aimed at farmers with
limited resources. Boulder, Colorado

6. IRRI (in press). Guide to on-farm cropping systems research.
Los Banos, Philippines.

7. Norman, David W., E. H. Gilbert and Fred Winch, 1980. "Farming
Systems Research in the Third World: a Critical Appraisal."
Michigan State University Rural Development Paper.

8. Rohrbach, David D. 1981. A discussion of issues relevant to the
development and implementation of a farming systems research
approach. Concept paper for this workshop.















OVERVIEW OF THE POTENTIAL APPLICABILITY OF FARMING SYSTEMS

RESEARCH TO U.S. SMALL FARMS

AND U.S. RESEARCH AND EXTENSION












by

Art Hansen
Department of Anthropology
University of Florida


Paper presented at the Symposium on Farming Systems
Research (December 8-9, 1980) in Washington, D. C.,
co-sponsored by the Office of International Coopera-
tion and Development and the Science and Education
Administration of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and the Development Support Bureau, Office of Agri-
culture of the U.S. Agency for International Develop-
ment.












Introduction:

We are examining farming systems research (FSR) from two perspectives:

(1) as experts in one or more aspects of agricultural change, and (2) as em-

ployees and officials of different bureaucratic organizations. The examina-

tion is both theoretical and practical. Theoretically, what is the logic

behind FSR, and what should it do? In practice, how does it really work?

Those of us with actual field experience with FSR must describe how it helps

us, and what are its costs as well as its benefits? In the end, as experts

and bureaucrats, do we want to use an FSR philosophy and methodology?

In examining the applicability of FSR to the U.S. and to research

and extension programs oriented toward small farms, we must start by being

very clear about our evaluation of existing and past small farms programs.

Are they working as we want or not? Where do they work, and with whom?

What kinds of farmers and farm problems are handled the best and the worst?

Do we think that FSR could theoretically do a better job? Would we ourselves

work better, and would small farmers be better off, if we worked through the

FSR process? In performing this evaluation, we must remain constantly aware

that we (the expert evaluators) owe our jobs, our professional careers, and

a great deal of loyalty to our governmental agency or land grant university.

These are the selfsame agencies and universitiesthat have masterminded or

ignored American small farmer programs in the past. This paper is not de-

signed to judge these bureaucracies and programs nor to sell FSR. Each of

us, and the group that is assembled, must wrestle with our own evaluations
and recommendations.








2


FSR Surveys in Alachua County,Florida:

Most of my own experience since the mid 1960s is international:

Bolivia, the Dominican Republic, Zambia, and Malawi. Only since 1978 have

I begun to work in Florida with small farmers. This last spring a multi-

disciplinary group of Florida faculty, led by Pete Hildebrand, taught a

course in FSR methodology to a multidisciplinary group of graduate students.

We took them out in our county to conduct a sondeo or rapid reconnaissance,

then we analyzed together the small farmer situations they encountered,

and finally planned possible interventions. At the end of the class, its

findings and recommendations were presented to an audience that included

county small farmers and an extension agent.

This past summer Elon Gilbert, an agricultural economist, and I ex-

tended our knowledge of the county by supervising a set of FSR surveys

(Table I). The core survey was a random sample of operators of agricultural-

ly assessed land. For the single county we were trying to work out what

kinds of systems exist and their frequency, while at the same time testing

FSR survey methodology.

In addition, we supervised three surveys of production and marketing

practices for specific commodities: beef cattle, watermelons, and squash.

These FSR studies "in the small" were designed to illuminate differences

between low and high resource farmers and to point out potential areas of

under-utilized or mismanaged resources for future research and extension.

Reports of these four surveys will be published in January 1981 (Hansen,

Griffith, et. al. 1981; Gilbert, et. al. 1981).











TABLE I

ALACHUA COUNTY FSR SURVEYS

Purpose

-describe existing systems/practices

Types

-general verification of county farming
systems

-specific study of production and marketing
for different commodities

Personnel

-faculty and graduate students from:
agricultural economics, agronomy, animal
science, anthropology, education, entomology,
history, and vegetable crops

-county extension agent

Advantages

-broader comprehension:
within a commodity
among commodities
farm and off-farm

-reality testing

-research flows into extension


Faculty and graduate students from eight departments, as well as a

local extension agent, were involved in planning, carrying out, and analyz-

ing the four surveys. This is really the major reason why I personally be-

came involved in a domestic program. These domestic, in-state operations

are the best and cheapest way to train people in FSR--our graduate students,

fellow faculty and agency colleagues, and visitors from other nations may












receive hands-on, do-it-yourself experience and skills right in our own

backyards. At the same time, we may more easily and quickly test and evalu-

ate FSR methodologies in these in-county programs, as well as call upon the

accumulated expertise of all our agencies and universities.

We who participated in the spring and summer projects are now con-

vinced that the multidisciplinary FSR method is very rewarding. Without

tackling the cost-benefit analysis of these rewards, the interplay of

agronomists, animal scientists, anthropologists, entomologists, economists,

etc. kept all of us constantly aware of the complexity of the conditions

that farmers face and the complexity of the farming systems that people

create to cope with their environmental conditions. Other advantages of

FSR were the constant testing of our ideas with county realities--including

extension agent and farmer input throughout our research kept us from be-

coming too theoretical--and the flowing together of research and extension

as extension agents helped plan and question research, and as researchers

got out onto farmers' fields.

County production is quite diverse, and there is a lot of hetero-

geneity in farming systems. We made sense of this by first dividing farms

into three major production strategies: (1) livestock-centered farms in

which crops (other than pasture and feed) are absent or minimal elements;

(2) crop-centered farms in which animals are absent or minimal; and (3)

mixed or balanced farms in which animals and crops are about equally impor-

tant. Within these major strategies we differentiated systems and recom-

mendation domains by separating a few key enterprises and splitting low











and higher resource farmers. At the end we had the nine systems shown in
Table II.

TABLE II

COUNTY FARMING SYSTEMS AND RECOMMENDATION DOMAINS
Livestock-Centered Farms

1. Beef-centered low resource farmers
2. Beef-centered higher resource farmers
3. Non-beef livestock-centered low resource
farmers

Crop-Centered Farms
4. Horticultural crop-centered low resource
farmers
5. Specialty crop-centered low resource farmers
6. Agronomic crop-centered higher resource
farmers
7. Agronomic and horticultural crop-centered
higher resource farmers
Mixed or Balanced Farms
8. With tobacco higher resource farmers
9. Without tobacco low and higher resource
farmers


In our surveys we found that farmers (like many other people else-
where) did not like to tell their income. This research problem is confirmed
for the U.S. by Lola Smith, a colleague with extensive research experi-
ence with family farmers in this country. Since income data was not readily
available, we used acreage and herd size as the criteria for defining small
or low resource farmers. We categorize people who operate less than 101

0













acres or, if livestock-centered, fewer than 50 head of livestock as
Low Resource Farmers (LRF).

Fifty per cent (54%) of our random sample of county farmers are low

resource, a percentage that agrees fairly closely with U.S. agricultural

census statistics. It must be clearly pointed out that these people who

practice a low capital agriculture are not necessarily poor people. In fact,

the relative absence of obvious poverty among the surveyed low resource

farmers is a surprising finding of our survey.

In many other ways, however, the Alachua County low resource farmers

do fit the common assumptions made about American small farmers (Table III).

Their land resources, although small, are under-utilized: only 55% of the

land they control is in pasture and crops, while much of the rest is still

in woodland. Our three commodity-specific surveys also show that these far-

mers are producing much lower yields, in general, then higher resource far-

mers.

Low resource farmers in our survey are part-time farmers: off-farm

income and commitments are very important, perhaps more important for most

of them than on-farm income. Those who are not working off the farms are

often old and retired. Time and energy, therefore, should be recognized as

limiting factors. Most of them are involved in farming systems that require

little management.

By far the most popular strategy for low resource farmers is being

livestock-centered, probably because of its low management needs. This

means that county research and extension programs that want to work with the












TABLE III

LOW RESOURCE FARMERS IN COUNTY

(<101 acres, or <50 cattle)


Frequency

54% of all farmers in survey
Land Utilization

55% in pasture and crops
Time and Energy

61% are part-time farmers
39% are 60 years of age or
older

Production Strategies


63%
22%
14%


Orienta


46%
41%
12%

51%


livestock-centered
crop-centered
mixed or balanced

ttion

interested in growth of farm
want stability
in decline

receive both income and


subsistence
17% only income
24% only subsistence











majority of the present low resource farmers will need to concern themselves

with livestock and forage rather than agronomic or horticultural crops.

Less than half of the low resource farmers in our survey are growth-

oriented, i.e., oriented toward increasing their production and profits.

Almost as many are more interested in stability, neither risking, gaining,

nor committing more to their farms. About one in every ten are reducing

their involvement or getting out of farming completely (in decline). More

than half receive both subsistence (largely from gardens and livestock) and

cash income from their farms. Another one fourth only get subsistence,

while only 17% receive only cash income.

Putting these together, it means that many of the sampled low re-

source farmers are not really profit-oriented in terms of their farms. In

general, they want to live on a farm. Subsistence is important because it

cuts their living costs, underwriting the desirable rural life. They may

have inherited or purchased the land but that is not their real income-

earner. Many put something in the ground or run a few animals because they

like to do that and because they need to amortise their farm life by getting

an agricultural assessment to lower their taxes. Only some are really

interested in working harder on their farms for immediate income growth,

and others want long-term systems to set up their farms as self-sufficient,

often looking ahead to retirement.


FSR at the University of Florida

The surveys we have described are part of the first phase of estab-

lishing through the University of Florida an in-state FSR program to work











with Florida's low resource farmers. Before elaborating on this specific

program, it is important to note the broader involvement of people within

the university community (faculty, students, and administrators).

TABLE IV

FSR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


-faculty and graduate student core
-sack lunch and seminars
-courses (especially methodology courses)
-collaborative research/instruction
-minor in FSR
-administrative support
-some outside funding
-FSR/E small farmer in Florida program



Core people in FSR activities at the university are faculty and

graduate students who are dissatisfied with current disciplinary--specific

and commodity--specific approaches. There is an informal sack lunch for

the Social, Agricultural, and Food Scientists Study Group every week that

provides a way to communicate with each other about our interests and up-

coming research, courses, conferences, etc. Occasional seminars are

sponsored by the FSR group, and several courses are taught, such as the

field methods, hands-on course mentioned earlier. Multidisciplinary teach-

ing and research projects, such as the low resource farmer surveys mentioned

above, are set up and staffed by the faculty and graduate students from this

core, occasionally supplemented by otherswhen other disciplines are needed.

Recently, to formally recognize the existence of relevant courses

and strong student interest, we have established a minor in FSR. Administrative












support and some outside funding have been secondary in the past to the

faculty and graduate student interest, although that support and funding

are now increasing.

Right now, spearheaded by Pete Hildebrand, we are setting up an

FSR/E (research and extension) program to work with Florida's low re-

source farmers. Although focused on domestic farmers, the staff and pro-

grams will be available for use in training, planning, and evaluation

of international FSR projects as well.

The program structure is outlined in Table V. A coordinator

will report to the Office of International Programs, Institute of Food

and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS), and the Deans for agricultural re-

search, extension, and instruction. An advisory council of department

chairs and a technical committee of relevant faculty will work with this

coordinator on general policy and specific projects, respectively. In

the Florida counties targeted for work, an advisory committee of county

extension agents will be involved in planning and implementation, and

in those counties an FSR/E field team of scientists will identify and

work on tests and trials for specific systems and commodities in collabora-

tion with local agents and farmers. For more information on this, please

contact Pete Hildebrand, the acting coordinator.












TABLE V

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA DOMESTIC FSR/E PROGRAM

International Programs and R/E/I Deans

Advisory Council --- FSR/E Coordinator
of Dept. Chairs
(Departments)

Technical Committee -
(Faculty)

Advisory Committee -------------
of County Agents
(County Extension)

FSR/E Field Team


International and Domestic Comparisons:

In working with low resource farmers in Florida, it became rapidly

apparent that there are major similarities with Third World situations. But

rather than dwell on the similarities, let me point out some equally impor-

tant differences (Table VI).


TABLE VI

INTERNATIONAL DOMESTIC CONTRASTS

Domestic Small Farmers
-heterogeneous (in survey)
-not as committed nor as dependent
-not as poor nor as isolated
-more mechanical skills
-not as significant to country

Research and Extension
-extensive fund of knowledge
-developed infrastructure
-insiders not outsiders
-we have met the enemy ...












U.S. low resource farmers are very diverse, as our sample shows.

There is no widespread homogeneity to improve the cost-benefit performance

of FSR work. They are part-time, part-committed, and part-dependent on

agriculture. We cannot automatically anticipate that these farmers will

commit more time to farming even if we show them improved technologies.

Also, at least in our county, low resource farmers are not primarily the

poor and isolated people that are the stereotype. In Alachua County, small

farmers include airline pilots, shop owners, university staff, etc. Less

than ten per cent are obviously poor. What this means is that low resource

farming does not necessarily mean that the farmers are completely low re-

source people, only that they have committed few of their resources to agri-

culture.

Another significant difference is the importance of low resource far-

mers to the country as a whole. The U.S. farming population is only 3.5 to

4% of the national population. If we assume that 60% of them are low re-

source, that is only 2.5% of the country. In contrast, in other countries

this population may be so large that small farm research and extension are

needed to vitalize national agricultural production or prevent massive dis-

location, unemployment, and welfare problems.

There are other critically important differences between the research

and extension environments in which farmers operate. We have in this country

a lot of agricultural, socioeconomic, and political data to buttress our

domestic programs. Institutions for communication, marketing, research and

extension are well developed here and we know these institutions as insiders.












We are the native informants, the host country nationals of the agencies

and universities that are responsible. Here again we must remember that

we are bureaucrats--the officials and employees of the research and exten-

sion institutions that are responsible for much of the available data and

many of the programs. If they are insufficient or misguided, we cannot

shift the blame to "the natives", for we are they.

Footnote:

1. The surveys were funded by grants from the Center for Community and
Rural Development and from Sponsored Research, University of Florida.


Bibliography:

Gilbert, E., et. al. 1981. Production and Marketing Practices for Water-
melon and Squash in Alachua County: A Comparison of the Farming
Systems of Small and Larger Scale Producers. Center for Community
and Rural Development, University of Florida. Gainesville, Florida.

Hansen, A., D. Griffith, et. al. 1981. Farming Systems of Alachua County
Florida: An Overview with Special Attention to Low Resource Farmers.
Center for Community and Rural Development, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida.




Farming Systems Research Symposium
Dec 8-9, 1980
Barton Baker, W. Va. Univ.


THE ALLEGHENY HIGHLANDS PROJECT


The Allegheny Highlands Project was an experiment designed to test the

effectiveness of a method for delivering a package of technological infor-

mation to farmers as a means of promoting rural development. The Project

began in 1970 and terminated in December 1979. The Project was supported

by West Virginia University and by two grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.


University personnel assigned to the Project consisted of an agronomist,

animal scientist, farm economist and veterinarian who worked together as a

team to provide individual recommendations to cooperating farmers located in

a 9-county area of central West Virginia. In addition to the 4 staff members

listed above, there were also assistants in each of the discipline areas, a

resident panel consisting of 5 faculty members located on the campus of West

Virginia University who provided support and liason between field and campus

personnel, and part-time help to assist with record keeping and routine

activities of the Project.


Field Staff worked directly with some farmers and indirectly with others in

order to compare two methods of technology transfer. Approximately 80 farmers

were involved as official cooperators in the project. Many others received in-

formation but no data were maintained on their operations.


The major objective of the Project was to determine what would happen to farmers

and communities over 10 years if existing technology was presented in a new

approach. This objective originated from the question: "Is present technology

not adopted by farmers because it is not meaningful to their situations or has

it never been presented to them in a meaningful fashion?"


Due to time limitations, I will not dwell in great detail with our methodology.

The following are some of the things done in our Project that are similar to









those presented in the Farms Systems Research concept:

(1) Scientists were located in the community with people they were

serving.

(2) Extension (technology transfer) and research (demonstrational and

applied) were combined into a single functional unit.

(3) Individual farms were viewed as a total system and not a group of

unrelated entities.

(4) Farmers had a role in determining research needs and participated

in experiments conducted on their farms.

(5) A team or package approach was used.


Some things learned relative to organization and procedures that I think are

applicable and needed in the Farming Systems Research concept are:

(1) Goals and procedures

(2) Competent staff

(3) Appropriate disciplines

(4) Community involvement

(5) Mutual confidence

(6) Adequate funds

(7) Administrative support

(8) Package approach


Some further conclusions based on our experiences are:

(1) Existing technology needs modification

(2) One-to-one contacts are most effective

(3) Changes occur slowly

(4) Continuity of staff is important

(5) Staff communications are essential

(6) Support staff can play a major role





3


(7) Office location is important for farmer initiated contacts


We have found the approach used in AHP to be very successful. Farmers

benefitted from increased production and increased income per farm. Their

attitudes became more positive and cooperation increased. The University

benefitted from increased contacts with clientele which resulted in more

meaningful research and teaching and better public relations within the

State.







3

scientists (Animal Scientist, Agronomist, Horticulturist and Entomologist)

presently assigned or now on board at the Center. Logistics of developing

the 1500 acres of demonstration/validation experimental lands are in dif-

ferent stages of both planning and actual development. Hopefully, the 1981

growing season will find some "gap-filling" field experimentation underway

for all initial thrusts of the Center.


Currently, while logistically putting together the Center, detailed research

and extension programs with both short and long range goals of the Center

are being worked on by the Core Staff in consultation with many small farmer

research users, other researchers and extension specialists of the

University/SEA/and private foundations, program planning administrators,

other federal, state and county agencies and in some cases businessmen that

understand to some extent the plight of small farmers, are sympathetic to

their needs and can favorably impact success of the small farmers operations.

This approach, through the use of AD HOC committees as well as other meetings,

scheduled with the help and inputs of the state cooperative extension service

and county agents is bringing forth what might be called "grass roots" or
"users" inputs for the consideration and benefit of we in research, extension

and education. Additionally, complimentary efforts are now underway to use

intensive subject matter statistical surveys to characterize small farms of

the "hill" region and determine their "real world" researchable needs and

problems. The Center's "gap filling" research will address high priority

needs or problems surfacing through all of these inputs. Thus, the Center

will initially involve some of the same small farm people that are served

by the Center's research and extension in planning the program of the Center.







4

Hopefully, as we progress in our Center program either in-house or extra-

mural procedures will be devised to include the expressed felt needs of

a greater number of small farmers throughout the 10 state area. Hopefully,

we will be able to establish mechanisms that will allow these people to

present and receive response to their problems from the Center in a timely

manner. Identification of genuine technological needs and problems of the

small farmer is a time consuming process. Technological needs of small

farmers are in many cases location specific. Problems or needs of small

farmers are continuously shifting. These problem shifts can result from

biological or physical changes (such as diseases, pests, long term weather

conditions, etc). Among other things they can result from sociological

considerations including such things as consumer/market demand often resulting

from "easy living/or hard" times. Whatever the cause, they will require

constant reassessment and incorporation of new ideas into experimental design

to meet and overcome enough of these problems to make a real and favorable

impact toward helping the small farmer be more productive and become more

on-farm self sufficient.


Only the research component of the Center is being realized initially and

then only partially. Four, of what hopefully in time will be an inter-

disciplinary small farm research team of 9 scientists, are now assigned

to the Center. Three of these scientists are SEA-AR employees and the

fourth is on the Staff of the University of Arkansas supported through

a SEA Cooperative Agreement. Pressures of existing organizational

scientist evaluation systems, pressures to produce quick tangible results

in order to justify the program of the Center by any fashion or form will








5

require thorough considerations and determinations -- "in-truth" -- whether

the Centers goals are principally to generate, validate, and demonstrate

to the point of adoption technology that will help the small farmer become

more productive and better off or whether our goals are principally directed

toward satisfying requirements in order to document something on paper

therefore survive to investigate and serve the actual research users another

day. Hopefully, small farms researchers, extension specialists and educators

will find the kind of support from Agricultural Research and Extension

administrators that will develop alternate ways to help researchers and

specialists withstand these pressures that are often only vaguely if at all

productively oriented toward the end-product of materially helping the small

farmer.


It has been projected that state cooperative extension specialists and

perhaps federal extension will become part of the Center team within a

couple of years after a Center research program is established. These

specialists, an integral part of the Center team, will collect and disseminate

information on small farms throughout the region to be served. They will serve

as team liaison people to state and county staffs in the region, packaging

educational material by modules for initiating or expanding work with small

farmer clientele in a more timely manner. They will also be complimentary to

the research staff of the Center toward greater interfacing of researcher's

with user's needs and problems when planning the Center's research program

and providing timely responses for these small farmer needs. With many

questions yet unresolved where the Center may be headed fund-wise, personnel-

wise, facilities-wise, and even program-wise, I would like to share these







6

plans that are subject to change with you. Much of what is planned for the

Center falls within a Farming System's research approach. (a) For instance,

although team scientists have been disciplinarily trained and are generally

commodity oriented they will be concentrating their efforts toward an

interdisciplinary approach of small farm problems while taking into account

and orienting the Center program toward the total small farming operation.

(b) There will be a blend of both that referred to as "upstream" and "downstream"

research. Research conducted on the Center will be directed toward solving some

of the major problems of small farmers that are shared commonly throughout a

given region by all or at least a homogenous group but only when answers to

these problems are not available elsewhere. By the same token "location

specific" problems may be addressed both on the Center or on farmer cooperators.

Regardless, the planning of all research will have the inputs of small farmers

and a considerable degree of the implementation and evaluation using farmers

fields and resources will in time occur.


As the Center program is initiated conventional but "gap filling" research on

the four thrust areas previously spoken to begins. This research will soon

be advanced to sub-enterprise module experimentation on site. These modules

can be evaluated individually or collectively for alternative enterprise com-

positing for total farming systems analysis. They will also serve the Center

for demonstration and validation purposes. In time enterprise interaction

studies will be conducted by physically developing small farm demonstration

models on the Center. These small demonstration farms perhaps developed with

the benefits of simulation modeling and total systems analysis will serve















APPLICABILITY OF THE FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH APPROACH TO
LESS DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPED COUNTRIES LINKAGES AND CONSTRAINTS














BY

MICHAEL S. JOSHUA
BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY
PETERSBURG, VIRGINIA


SYMPOSIUM ON FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH
WASHINGTON, D.C., DECEMBER 8-9, 1980
















ISSUES DISCUSSED




A. VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT


(1) Domestic (USA) Program

(2) International (Ghana) Program



B. FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND DOMESTIC-INTERNATIONAL
LINKAGES



C. CONSTRAINTS ON THE FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH APPROACH


(1) Management of the Knowledge System

(2) Applicability of Farming Systems Research Approach










A. VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT


Virginia State University (VSU) through its Bureau of Economic

Research and Development (BERD) conducts rural development research in

seven areas: Manpower, Management, Production Analysis, Marketing,

Agricultural Finance/Rural Financial Markets, Farming Systems, and Urban

and Ecological Studies. Its approach is interdisciplinary utilizing the

disciplines of Economics, Business Administration, Sociology, Statistics,

Psychology, International Studies, Education and Agricultural Economics.

Aware of the unique perspective which the 1890 land grant institutions

can bring to the study of rural development problems, BERD has articulated

a program of domestic and international research aimed at solving rural

development problems. This program gives evidence to those involved in

rural development decision-making of the expertise available at VSU.


(1) Domestic focus

Research is carried out in a 16 county (and 5 city) area of South

Central Virginia which BERD has defined as its study area for domestic

rural development. These 16 counties include: Amelia, Brunswick, Charlotte,

Cumberland, Dinwiddie, Greensville, Halifax, Isle of Wight, Lunenburg,

Mecklenburg, Nottoway, Pittsylvania, Prince Edward, Southampton, Surry and

Sussex. The five cities of Danville, Emporia, Franklin, South Boston and,

Suffolk are included.

The research activities (completed and ongoing) in South Central

Virginia have beep organized into parts of a rural sector study focusing

on the socioeconomic aspects of the low income small farm and non-farm

units. An illustrative cross section of the research projects include:








(1) MARKETING STUDIES

(a) Market Organization and Activities by County in South
Central Virginia

(b) The Small Farmer and Agricultural Marketing in South
Central Virginia

(c)- Market Structure of Selected Agricultural Products and
Services Industries in South Central Virginia

(2) AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AND RURAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

(a) An Analysis of Commercial Bank Credit to Farmers in
Pittsylvania County, Virginia

(b) Demand for Agricultural Credit

(c) Credit to Small Farmers in Selected Counties of
South Central Virginia

(3) PRODUCTION STUDIES

(a) Economic Analysis of Small Farm Production in Swine
Operations of South Central Virginia

(b) The Effects of Socioeconomic Characteristics Adop-
tion of Recommended Beef Farm Practices

(4) RURAL DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

(a) Agricultural Resources and the Development of the
Small Farmer in South Central Virginia

(b) Sociological and Economic Factors Affecting the Labor
Supply and Earnings of Male and Female Heads of House-
holds in South Central Virginia

(c) A Comparative Socioeconomic Profile of South Central
Virginia

(d) Socioeconomic Impact of Intrastate Motor Carrier Regu-
lations on Rural Development

(e) Occupational Mobility of Rural Labor

(f) Labor Turnover in Small Enterprises in South Central
Virginia

(5) WOMEN AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

(a) Social and Economic Characteristics of Women in Virginia-
the Labor Status of Rural Women

(b) The Value of Farm-Wives' Time in Agricultural Production
in South Central Virginia










(6) HUMAN RESOURCES AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

(a) An Assessment of Human Resources in South Central Virginia

(b) Human Resources in South Central Virginia Social and
Economic Characteristics

Research projects conducted in the South Central Virginia laboratory

area develop and utilize research methodologies that are transferable to

LDCs. One critical methodological area relates to the unit and framework

of analysis. VSU's experience in studying constraints on rural develop-

ment points to the need to focus on the farm-firm-household (FFH) as the

unit of analysis. The interaction between consumption and production

activities play an important role in resource allocation decision making

in the rural sector. This means that the appropriate model is the FFH.

Further, since the the performance of the FFH is affected by forces ex-

ternal to it (marketing facilities, input delivery systems, extension,

agricultural knowledge systems, and value system) the most appropriate

framework for analysis is the systems approach. This approach permits

an examinatation of the internal and external factors affecting consump-

tion/production activities and so permits better targeting of constraints

and more accurate and effective intervention strategies.

Another critical methodological area relates to information mobiliza-

tion strategies. Focusing on a rural area in the U. S. which has little

secondary data available for assessing its basic socioeconomic constraints

and needs is analogous to the conditions prevailing in some LDCs. Experience

in determining factors affecting socioeconomic conditions in this country's

rural areas provides the researcher with important insights into the pro-

blems of limited resource rural people in developing countries. Methodo-

logy has focused on household and farm survey techniques and extensive in-

terviews, as well as careful quantitative and non-quantitative analysis of









data. Since primary data collection expertise is essential for socioecono-

mic research in developing countries, the field experience and the research

methodologies developed in the laboratory area encourage the attainment of

the skills needed to gather information in developing countries.



(2) International focus

VSU, utilizing its experience in field work and the development of

methodology for resolving socioeconomic problems in rural South Central

Virginia, developed an international program with similar focus for imple-

menting in LDCs.

The program was initiated with a bilateral linkage agreement with the

University of Science and Technology (UST) in Kumasi, Ghana. This UST/VSU

linkage program has enabled staff members at VSU to increase significantly

their capability to identify, design, analyze and evaluate rural development

projects in LDCs.

Research carried out under the UST/VSU linkage program includes:

(1) CAPITAL, CREDIT AND RURAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

(a) Enterprise Combination and Capital Requirements in Northern
Ghanaian Agriculture: Case Study of the Kumbungu Area

(b) An Evaluation of Institutional Credit and its Role in Pro-
duction in Ghana

(c) The Role of Credit in the Adoption of New Technology. A
Case Study of Small Rice Farmers in Northern Ghana


(2) LAND TENURE AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

(a) Customary Land Practices in Relation to Agricultural Pro-
duction

(b) Land Tenure Systems in Relation to Agricultural Production


The program afforded VSUstaff to spend approximately five person years
in Ghana (at UST) in research, teaching and the organization of conferences.
UST staff spent approximately two person years at VSU on similar activities.









(3) APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY

(a) Production of Agricultural Implements for Small-Scale Rice
Farmers: Socio-Economic Aspects


(4) SMALL FARMERS AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

(a) Supply Response of Cotton Farmers in Northern Ghana

(b) Economic Viability of Small Scale Farmers in the Forest
Zone of Ashanti

(c) The Economics of Small Farm Systems and Socioeconomic Con-
ditions in the Atebubu District Ghana

(d) Marketing and Infrastructure-Food Marketing, Transportation,
and Small Farm Production in Ghana- A Case Study of the Ate-
bubu District.


For the most part the above research projects cover a range of issues

that reflect an attempt to understand the farm, farmer and the farm environ-

ment as a complex system of interdependent parts. Secondly, they reflect

an attempt to determine the intervention strategy by delineating the con-

straints posed by the internal and external farming environment. And

thirdly, they reflect an attempt to utilize an interdisciplinary/multi-

disciplinary framework of analysis.1


B. FARMING SYSTEM RESEARCH AND DOMESTIC INTERNATIONAL LINKAGES

While VSU might not be following the letter of FSR approach, its

rural development strategy does reflect the spirit of FSR. It is farmer

focused; it is interdisciplinary and it is systems approach oriented.

Further, the target group studied- small limited resources farmers- is

the same in both Virginia and West Africa (Ghana). The structure and

capacity for growth differ only in degree and not in kind. Our research

in South Central Virginia indicates that the limited resource farmers


1D. Rohrbach, (9)
D. Rohrbach, (9).









(1) are shifting from farm to non-farm activities (off-farm employment),

(2) Do not necessarily belong to a.homogeneous group, (3) are under-

utilizing land resources because of a lack of appropriate equipment and a

lack of access to capital, (4) can, with given resources, increase their

net income through better planning and better utilization of available re-
1
sources, (5) have limited access to appropriate technology, (6) interact

with support systems (marketing facilities, transportation, agricultural

knowledge system) that can be improved. As a result, they make less than

optimal contribution to socioeconomic development. With respect to the

limited resource farm families in Ghana all of the above problems affect

their operations albeit to a greater degree. The important point here is

that the nature qf the problem, being the same, there seems to exist real

opportunities to develop lessons of experience that serve both rural

American and rural Ghana. In short, there are links that can be forged

between these two environments as regards rural development problems and

solutions. The linkages are not sp much concerned with technological

practices only a relatively small part of which can be transferred any way,

but more with the management and administration of agricultural and rural

change, including production, output and input systems and the associated

questions of prices, capital, and credit; articulation of official ser-

vices with one another and with services provided by the private sector;

groupings of producers; and management at the subdistrict level, rural

level where the real producers are. Developed countries have evolved


1See Sammly L. Comer and R. C. Woodworth, Improving Incomes on Limited
Resource Farms in South Central Tennessee, Tennessee State University.
Nashville, Gennessee Bulletin #36 Oct. 1976.

Quanda L. Cooper- An Economic Analysis of Small Farm Production in
Swine Operations of South Central Virginia MA thesis, Virginia State Uni-
versity, Petersburg, VA 23803.









mechanisms for dealing with the whole process of managing rural develop-

ment. LDCs can adapt these mechanisms to their particular locale avoiding

the inconsistences that accompained their evolution. Plans for increasing

incomes of limited resources farmers in Virginia and Ghana deal with a very

complex undertaking. The complexity is not due to a technology problem in

the narrow sense, but to the administration and management of rural develop-

ment, because whether incomes can be increased will depend on the extent

to which the appropriate administrative mechanisms can be developed to

manage the cooperation among researchers/research institutions, extension

services, the delivery system of support systems and the limited resources

farm family.

BERD/VSU has recently established a Small Farm Development Center,

whose major task will be the development and testing of a small farm model

that can be used as a framework to mobilize the potentials of limited re-

source farm families and enhance their productive capacity. Given the

similarity of the nature of the management problems in rural sectors of

Virginia and Ghana, it is expected that such a model with appropriate

modifications could be used effectively in less developed countries

(LDCs)- Ghana.


C. CONSTRAINTS ON THE FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH APPROACH

Among the many major institutional, technical and managerial con-

straints that affect the implementation of the FSR appraoch the severest,

as far as limited resource small farmers are concerned, are those gene-

rated by the external environment. Of particular importance is the

agricultural knowledge system (AKS) and its management.

The ideal AKS consists of:









(1) Human capital (existing stock of knowledge)

(2) Means of expanding the stock of knowledge-research

(3) The means of preparing accumulated knowledge for use on
a practical level development

(4) The practical means of applying the knowledge or technology
to particular purposes- extension subsystem

(5) Education and training subsystem

(6) Farmers and farmers' organization

An effectively managed national AKS must

(1) Coordinate all of the following structures/functions:

(a) Information subsystem

(b) Education subsystem (primary, secondary, tertiary)

(c) Research institutions

(d) Extension services

(e) Education and training of rural people

(f) Farmers and farmer's organizations

(2) Produce trained personnel at all levels including technicians,
and in all relevant subject areas

(3) Provide the stability for monitoring and evaluation

(4) Provide for field service- extension services- to be a part
of the system as an essential partner in helping to study the
existing system and the multiple purposes and real difficul-
ties of producers, to help select objectives for research and
to monitor changes

(5) Involve producers especially small farmers


Experience in Ghana indicates that the components of the knowledge

system (the necessary conditions) are for the most part in place; however,

their coordination (sufficient condition) is either non-existent or mal-

function. Despite the existence of universities with agricultural facul-

ties, a structure of research institutes covering major areas of agricul-









ture, agricultural training programs and an extension service,1 national

coordination is weak and there is significant inbalance in emphasis on the

technical as opposed to the social science aspect, too little emphasis on

the development of appropriate technology, and inadequate linkages between

national researchers and national research users. It is possible to per-

ceive a real linkage between the South Central Virginia and Ghana in the

sense that in both areas the nature of the small farm problems is basical-

ly the same: the small farm sector is a relatively neglected sector,

'technology' needs are urgent, comprehensive information on the small farm

problem is non-existent, although from a technical standpoint, some of the

modern technology is scale neutral, operationally, small farmers are unable

to adopt because of the effectiveness of the constraints imposed by the

knowledge system as reflected in the form of inefficient dissemination of

technology and for inadequate extension services and system.


(2) Further Constraints: Applicability of FSR Appraoch.

The constraint on FSR by the management of the knowledge system of

LDCs can be traced to the evolution of the system. In many LDCs agri-

cultural research developed in the preindependence period much earlier

than agricultural education at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels.

Moreover, such research as developed was concerned with development of

export crops from the plantation sector, each of which had its own re-

search institution. Research was done by expatiates for the technical

staff of the plantation. Extension services were needed only where cash

crops were grown by small-scale producers (Cocoa-Ghana). The legacy of

this development is that in many LDCs the academic components of the know-


1Two major universities with schools of Agriculture and one concerned
with the training of agricultural (vocational) teachers; under the Council
for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), of the nine research insti-
tutues, five are concerned with agriculture related research- soil, crops,
food, forest products, livestick, etc. Four institions for training exten-
sion workers- See Barron and Mensah (1), National Extension Services.









ledge system is neither organizationally or operationally linked to the re-

search component. Where this is the case, there is a tendency for separa-

tion between agricultural research and the human sciences. This operational

style puts severe constraints on attempts to develop multidisciplinary under-

standing and cooperation needed to describe, analyze and improve the existing

resource- use systems. More importantly it constrains the academic institu-

tions' ability to associate with ongoing efforts of the government in agri-

cultural research or in agriculture and rural development. Even where

attempts have been made for closer linkages, it has not been easy to build

strong associations between the universities which are either autonomous

or associated with the ministry of Education. Knowledge systems which re-

flect such weak linkages fail to provide the professional personnel through-

out the system with the professional growth that is expected to occur within

the system.

It seems useful to distinguish between knowledge systems with weak

coordination and those with strong coordination. The former will be re-

ferred as centrifugal systems reflecting a lack of consensus among the

disparate groups composing the system, and the latter centripetal system

reflect the existence of such consensus. It makes quite a difference to

the applicability of FSR if one or the other system is dominant in a given

country. In countries where the centrifugal system predominates (Ghana)

FSR practioners will have to consider using an interventionist, as opposed

to the submissive approach.












REFERENCES


(1) Barron J. and Mensah I. Administrative and Organizational Issues in
Agricultural Research, Department of Agricultural Economics,
University of Ghana, August 1977.

(2) Bunting, A. H. Science and Technology for Human Needs, Rural Develop-
ment, and the Relief of Poverty, Occasional Paper, International
Agricultural Development Service, 1979.

(3) Cox, M. L. A Symplied Approach to Agricultural Systems, Occasional
Paper, International Agricultural Development Service, 1979.

(4) Comer, Sammy L. and Woodworth, R. C. Improving Incomes on Limited
Resource Farms in South Central Tennessee, Tennessee State Uni-
versity, Nashville, Tennessee. Bulletin No. 36, October 1976.

(5) Cooper, Quanda L. An Economic Analysis of Small Farm Production in
Swine Operation in South Central Virginia MA Thesis, Virginia
State University, 1979.

(6) Hinman, H. R. Management Training for Agricultural Extension Officers
Within Ghana- Successes and Shortcoming (Mimeo).

(7) Lionberger H. F. and Chang, H. C. Development and Delivery of Scien-
tific Farm Information: The Taiwan System as An Organizational
Alternative to Land Grant Universities- U. S. Style (Mimeo).

(8) Norman, D. W. General Overview of Farming Systems Research (Mimeo,
1980).

(9) Rohrbach, D. D. A Discussion of Issues Relevant to Development and
Implementation of a Farming Systems Research Program USDA/OICD
October 3, 1980.










Research-Extension Interface


ABSTRACT

Howard W. Kerr, Jr.

U.S. Department of Agriculturel


To prepare for the Farming Systems Research symposium, I read the paper of
Robert Chambers, University of Sussex, entitled "Understanding Professionals:
Small Farms and Scientists". Of particular interest was Mr. Chamber's
statement "The challenge is to listen to and learn from farmers, encouraging
them to express their categories, meanings, and priorities, and treating them
not just as professional colleagues and collaborators, but as teachers."
Viewing farmers as teachers is an approach, I believe, that is relevant to
domestic small farms research and specifically to the Northeastern Region (NER)
small farms research program. To appreciate this idea, one must first under-
stand the framework within which the NER small farms research program operates.

Agricultural Research is one of the three major subunits that comprise the
Science and Education Administration (SEA). Cooperative Research and the
Extension Service complete the structure of SEA. Each agency has specific
responsibilities and,in the most general terms, Cooperative Research and
Agricultural Research are, respectively, the State and Federal research arms
while Extension Service is the educator and disseminator of information. Prior
to the formation of SEA, those agencies had all functioned as independent agencies
within the Department. United under SEA, they were consolidated to form the
Department's science (research) and education (dissemination) thrusts.

Small farms research efforts began in FY 1979. In February 1979, the NER
Administrator named a coordinator for the program, charging him to "make the
approximate $1.5 million small farms research funds accountable, tractable,
visible, and yield tangible results." Seventy-five percent of these funds were
designated for in-house research and 25 percent for extramural research to be
conducted by State Agricultural Experiment Stations and institutions located
in the Northeastern Region. The target areas of research were selected and
identified by the SEA National Program Staff small farms committee.

Quickly, it became evident that a plan was needed to identify specific research
needs of small-scale farm operators so that limited AR small farm funds could
better be targeted to developing appropriate technologies. To develop a plan,
a survey questionnaire was sent to Extension Service county agents, requesting
information relative to small-scale agriculture in the Northeast. A definition
of small farms operations was provided. Questions were limited to 2 pages and
were designed to provide a profile of small-scale agriculture in that county,
particularly the immediate research needs, specific directions for future
research, and technology needed in 1984. The questionnaire also asked how
small farm operators would be affected in the next 5 years, as the economy
rapidly changed due to energy shortages, tight money, and expected higher food
costs.


Coordinator, Small Farms Research, Northeastern Region, Science and Education
Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville Agricultural Research
Center, Eeltsville, Nd. 20705. Paper presented at the Symposium on Farming
Systems Research on December 8, 1980, Jefferson Auditorium, USDA, Washington, D.C.











SEA's Agricultural Research (AR) is a storehouse of knowledge, however, most
of the NER scientists are located in centers such as the Beltsville Agricultural
Research Center or Eastern Regional Research Center. These citadels tend to
restrict the scientists' exposure to the full breadth of real world problems,
particularly those of small-scale farms. Further, because the scientists are
experts in a particular agricultural science, their interest and expertise
will necessarily be focused on the scientific discipline in which they are
academically trained. Thus, AR scientists were not the best respondents to
the questionnaire.

On the other hand, Extension Service (ES) county agents are deployed in every
county of the United States, where they can better understand and further
educate the agricultural sector. This ubiquitous force of county agents havi
daily contact with the farming community. Thus, a selected group of 70 ES
county agents in the NER were identified to respond to the mailed questionnaire.
An analysis of their responses provided the major thrust for a relevant small
farms research plan.

The hallmark of the NER small farms research program is the communication
between AR and ES. This approach focuses on rectifying small-scale farm
operators' needs by targeting the limited resources of each agency to yield
maximum returns. ES has grass root contacts with small farmers and thus can best
identify the needs of small farmers. This information is needed by AR scient-.sts
when deciding the appropriate technology to develop within the constraints of
what is feasible considering the current capabilities of science-at-large for
small farms. AR scientists will publish their findings or results; however,
to more quickly reach small farmers, the new knowledge should be presented in
a SEA AR/ES communication. Disseminating information to the small-scale farm
operator, remains the responsibility and work function of ES. With proper
communication between research and extension,each can perform its role in a
team effort. The team is perhaps more like a track team than a football teaw.
but, nevertheless, each can take complete pride in their achievements.


-Kerr, Howard W. 1980. A Survey of Current and Expected Research Needs of Sm. 11
Farms in the Northeastern Region. ARR-NE-9, USDA/SEA, Beltsville, Md 2;5705






December 4, 1980.


INITIATING APPLIED FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH
IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES*


L.W. Harrington**


1.0 Introduction

Farming systems research (FSR), in its various manifestations, is re-

ceiving increased attention as a means to stimulate agricultural development.

During the last several years, donors, international agricultural research

centers (IARC's) and a number of national research programs have developed

alternative methods for conducting FSR. There has recently been a substantial

effort on the part of these "practitioners" to pool their knowledge and share

their experiences. The result has been a remarkable degree of consensus on

procedures for FSR, at least when the scope and purpose of research are carefully

specified, e.g., applied FSR conducted by national programs versus basic FSR

conducted by IARC's (Harrington, 1980).

Although research on FSR procedures continues, a related issue is gaining

prominence: implementation of applied FSR in national research programs. The

issue is clearly one of feasibility. How feasible are FSR procedures for na-

tional programs, given the various constraints under which they operate? What

are the basic decisions that must be taken to initiate FSR? What steps are nec-

essary to make FSR operational? The purpose of the present paper is to address

some of these questions.


* Paper presented at the AID-USDA Symposium on Farming Systems Research,
Washington, D.C., 8-9 December, 1980.

** Economist at CIMMYT, Mexico. The opinions expressed are not necessarily
those of CIMMYT.









In order to comment on the feasibility of implementing applied FSR in

national programs, however, a characterization of FSR is needed. Applied FSR

is viewed as research that is:

1) problem-oriented -- research focuses on the solution to production

problems that promise to have a considerable effect on farmer goals (e.g.,

increased income at reasonable levels of risk).

2) on-farm -- experimentation is planned and conducted in light of farmer

circumstances and under farmers' conditions.

3) multi-disciplinary -- the effective collaboration between biological

and social scientists is needed in the design and testing of new technology.

The approach to applied FSR used at CIMMYT may b.. seen in Figure 1.

On-farm experiments are planned in light of farmer problems and circumstances.

Experimental results are analyzed in order to formulate recommendations. Those

recommendations are subjected to farmer assessment before being promoted among

target farmers (Byerlee,.Collinson et al, 1980).

The very characteristics of applied FSR (farmer-oriented, on-farm, multi-

disciplinary), of course, lead to many of the issues and difficulties in imple-

mentation that will be discussed in subsequent sections.

2.0 National Research Programs: Constraints and Circumstances

There exists a great diversity among developing countries with regard to

the structure and operation of their agricultural research programs. Nonetheless,

the majority of national programs share at least two salient characteristics:

(1) an institutional environment that is not entirely sympathetic to the intro-

duction of FSR, (2) a scarcity of research resources.





















SFigure 1. Over.icw of an Integrated Research Program


Choice of Target Farmers
and Research Priorities













POLICY
CONTEXT
National goals, input sup-
ply credit, markets, etc.




Identification
of Policy Issues


ON-FARM RESEARCH


1. Plan
Obtain a knowledge and un-
derstanding of farmer cir-
cumstances and problems
to plan experiments.

1
2. Experiment
Conduct experiments in
farmers' fields to formulate
Improved technologies un- a
der farmers' conditions. o
I 0

3. Recommend ,u
Analyze experimental re-
suits in light of farmer cir-
cumstances to formulate
farmer recommendations.


4. Assess
Determine farmers' experi-
ence with technologies.


5. Promote
SDemonstrate improved
technologies to farmers.


New Components Incorpo-
rated into OrnFarm Research













EXPERIMENT
STATION
Developing and screening
new technological com-
ponents (e.g., varieties,
new herbicides, pesticides)


Identification of Problems
for Station Research









The institutional environment often constitutes a major obstable for

the initiation of FSR. The agricultural research system itself, usually orga-

nized along disciplinary or commodity lines, often resists the introduction of

FSR because of the consequent need to re-define institutional jurisdiction.

Individual researchers, having been trained as disciplinarians, frequently see

FSR as a threat to traditional research activities. Even researchers who see

a need for FSR have little incentive to push for its introduction. The current

structure of incentives (salary increases, promotions, peer approval) normally

favors those who excel as disciplinarians.

Other institutions, outside of the established agricultural research

system, may also prove to be obstacles. On-going rural development programs

may frown on the introduction of FSR into their areas of influence, foreseeing

that FSR may discredit some of their past efforts. Even extension services may

see FSR as an usurpation of their traditional prerogative of linking with farmers.

Institutional difficulties are made more acute by financial constraints.

FSR can be expected to produce superior results when the research teams are

composed of highly-skilled personnel who control a budget adequate for survey

and experimental field work. Mobility is especially important: researchers must

be able to visit experiments and farmer-collaborators frequently.

Skilled personnel and funds for recurrent expenses are, however, espe-

cially scarce in LDC agricultural research programs. In many countries there are

few social scientists available for work on FSR. There are even fewer (and in

many cases, none) who have either training or experience in collaborating with

agronomists in problem-solving research. Similarly, resource limitations can

strongly affect the conduct of FSR. In Ghana, fuel for staff vehicles was ex-

tremely scarce during the initiation of an FSR project. Researchers had to use










considerable ingenuity to obtain a modest fuel allowance for on-site visits.

In the face of resource limitations, then, the demands of an FSR program must

either be met by diverting resources from on-going research activities or by

obtaining special-project funding.

Researchers engaged in traditional, on-station research can point, in

defense of their budgets, to recent studies indicating a high rate of return to

their past activities (e.g., Arndt et al, 1977). However this may be, FSR practi-

tioners believe that their approach is far more cost-effective in terms of "tech-

nology adopted per monetary unit spent" and that FSR deserves a chance in most

national programs.


3.0 Initiating Applied FSR

A decision by a national agricultural research program (or by individual

researchers in such a program) to "give FSR a chance" leads directly to other

decisions on organization. These decisions focus on the institutional character

of FSR, the proper scope of research and the choice of target area for the initial

FSR enterprise. As the organization of FSR takes shape (at least for initial

efforts), increased attention may be paid to operational questions, such as

training researchers in FSR procedures, insuring effective multi-disciplinarity

and getting research onto farmers' fields.

3.1 Institutional Character of FSR

An important decision that must be addressed early is that of "program

versus project". As described in the CID Draft Guidelines (Consortium for In-

ternational Development, 1980), the "program versus project" choice is one of

scale. Initiating FSR as a project merely entails the assignment of a team of

researchers to conduct FSR in a given target area. It is not necessary that

the supporting agency make any large changes in research philosophy or organi-










zation. The project approach to FSR can be especially painless (in a budgetary

sense) because special-project funding may be available for initial FSR efforts.



The program approach is more ambitious, requiring a major commitment to
1.
FSR from the beginning. An FSR program may be carried out through the re-orien-

tation and co-ordination of the activities of existing agencies or through the

creation of a new agency with a mandate for FSR.

The decision made on the "program versus project" issue will depend on

the specific circumstances of the case. However, the project approach to FSR

is more attractive under conditions of institutional neutrality or hostility,

and scarcity of research resources. Given that these are the very conditions

that most national programs must face, the project approach to FSR has proven

to be relatively popular. Within national programs, it is possible to "start

small", without major institutional rearrangements.



3.2 Scope of Research

Whatever the scale of FSR organization that may be adopted, another

issue must immediately be faced: the appropriate scope of research. It is

patently impossible to consider everything as variable at the commencement of

research: some things must assumed as fixed, outside the scope of research.

The phrase "farming systems research" carries with it a connotation of wholeness,

a feeling that ll management practices in the farming system must be considered

as variable. However, there is no reason why some of these management practices

may be not also be classed as fixed. The issue, then, is how many practices

should be allowed to vary during research -- many or few?










One alternative is to allow many variables, considering for example the

selection of crop or livestock enterprises for a farming system (and the manage-

ment of each) as variable. This has been called "FSR-in-the-large". Another

alternative is to focus research on the management of one (or few) enterprises

in the context of the current farming system. This has been called "FSR-in-the-

small". The point of importance is that this focus on one or few enterprises

is still a valid form of FSR. This is because the design and analysis of research

on these few, selected enterprises takes into account effects of technological

change on other components of the farming system.

A focus on one (or few) enterprises in FSR is likely to be particularly

wise under the following conditions:

(1) The bulk of farmers' resources are used in one enterprise (e.g.,

maize in much of Central America, wheat in N. Africa) so research on this enter-

prise is likely to have the best leverage on such system problems as deficient

income, excessive risk, or seasonal variability in the employment of farmer-owned

resources (Collinson, 1980).

(2) There appears to be some scope for improvement in the management of

the pre-dominant enterprise. In fact, our experience indicates that, in the

case of maize or wheat, improvements in crop management can have substantial

impacts on production and farmer income.

(3) Land-use is not highly intensive (although even here a single enter-

prise focus will often lead to useful innovations as long as system interactions

are carefully considered).

A focus on the most important enterprises) will, in addition, normally

lead to lower research costs. The amount of information on farmer practices and

circumstances needed to plan research (describe representative practices, identify









priority production problems, pre-screen potential solutions to these problems) I

is less when research is well-focused. Similarly less data is needed for evalua-

tion of experimental results. Even farmer assessment of new technology is facil-

itated because recommended improvements on the current farmer practice tend to

be relatively uncomplicated, making it easier for farmers themselves to evaluate

these improvements.

Needless to say, the specific choice of target enterprises) will vary

from target area to target area. The issue to which reference is being made is

one of scope: in general, should researchers try to improve the management of

one (or few) major enterprises in a farming system or should they attempt a

broad-brush re-design of that system? National research programs interested

in FSR should consider a relatively simple and inexpensive form of FSR -- that

of "FSR-in-the-small".

3.3 Choice of Target Area

Another major decision in the initiation of FSR concerns the target area,

or region where initial research efforts are to be carried out. While it is

conceivable that an FSR program may wish to initiate research in many areas si-

multaneously, FSR is usually initiated in one or few target areas, both because

of resource limitations and to allow researchers to gather experience in FSR

procedures. The characteristics of the initial target area, however, may influ-

ence the success of the FSR activities therein and, consequently, can affect the

probability that FSR will be extended to other regions, as well as the form it

may take.

Several criteria may be considered in the selection of an initial target

area: (1) The possibility of gaining tangible results in a reasonable period of

time. This is particularly important when the credibility of FSR is at stake,









Later, more difficult areas can be selected -- when greater researcher expe-

rience can help compensate for more difficult research problems. (2) The

presence or absence of major bottlenecks (human resources, logistics) to

the implementation of FSR. At least initially, accessible areas are pre-

ferred. (3) The likely effect of a success in FSR on such national ob-

jectives as lower food prices for urban consumers, rural development, income

distribution, etc. For example, when food prices are of primary concern, a

different target area may be chosen than when the welfare of small farmers is

given top priority (Byerlee, Collinson, et al, 1980).

3.4 The Incorporation of Social Scientists in FSR

A key step in the initiation of FSR is the formation of research teams

with effective collaboration between biologicall and social scientists. The role

of the social scientist in FSR is now widely regarded as essential. The social

scientist is responsible for incorporating the "human element", or socio-economic

problems and circumstances that affect farmers' decisions, into the design and

evaluation of new agricultural technology. He must take as much responsibility

as breeders or agronomists for such research activities as choice of representa-

tive farmer-collaborators, selection of high-priority experimental variables,

selection of the level of non-experimental variables, and evaluation of experi-

mental results.

Effective multi-disciplinary is not, however, easy to achieve. An effec-

tive multi-disciplinary research team is composed of researchers who enjoy a

sound base in their respective disciplines but who nonetheless work to meet a

common objective: the development of new technology useful to farmers. That is,

they must be "task-oriented". Collaboration is facilitated when one discipli-

narian is aware of the questions that fruitfully may be asked of another (Bartlett

and Akorhe, 1980).









Team effectiveness can be influenced by experience (or its surrogate,

training) and team organization. The more experience researchers have in multi-

disciplinary, problem-solving research, the easier subsequent collaboration

becomes. In the initial stages of FSR, however, such experience is in short

supply. Training team members in FSR philosophy and methods can help overcome

this initial hurdle. Although some IARC's have begun FSR-related training pro-

grams, there is still a scarcity of such programs that focus on the practical,

multi-disciplinary aspects of FSR. (See Gilbert et al, 1980, Chapter 7 and

CIMMYT, 1978).

Team organization can influence the quality of multi-disciplinary colla-

boration by pre-determining both the role and status of social scientists. In

one country, economists of a junior level were recruited to work as staff members

on experiment stations, in order to encourage and collaborate in research on

farmers' fields. Their relatively low status in comparison with their agronomist

colleagues, however, proved to be a serious obstacle to their attempts to initiate

FSR off-station. In another country, social scientists were involved in the

planning and evaluation of on-farm research -- but as a "support unit", not as

full-fledged members of a target area research team. Although useful information

on new technology was produced, the absence of social scientists during the ex-

perimentation stage led to inadequate contact with farmers during that stage,

with a considerable loss of farmer feedback on the characteristics of new tech-

nology.

In yet another case, agronomists and economists were organized as a target-

area-specific research team, with joint responsibility for research decisions.

This is normally regarded as the best form of team organization. Nonetheless,

effective multi-disciplinary collaboration proved to be elusive because the









relatively inexperienced economists demonstrated a preference for independent

projects. While formally sharing responsibility for team decisions, in practice

they preferred to work alone in conducting extended farm surveys that were only

marginally related to on-farm experimentation.

In summary, a trained, experienced and task-oriented team of biological

and social scientists, with joint responsibility for research decisions in a

given target area appears ideal. Frequently, however, national program circum-

stances and policies will not allow the use of this ideal. In extreme cases,

agronomists may be specially trained to provide a social science input. When

a few social scientists are available, they may be either attached to experiment

stations or placed into a "support unit" to back-up several research field teams.

In these cases, however, the social scientist will usually be forced to cope with

status problems and with an increased difficulty in acquiring an intimate acquain-

tance with farmer circumstances for a given target area.

3.5 Moving Research Onto Farmers' Fields Farmer Collaboration

With few exceptions, research whose purpose is to provide useful new tech-

nology to farmers within a reasonable period of time must be conducted on-farm.

This is because experiment station circumstances (e.g., soil fertility, weed

and insect population, irrigation and drainage) are normally unlike those faced

by target farmers.

Within a target area, then, the primary responsibility of the selected

multi-disciplinary research team is to plan, conduct and analyze on-farm experi-

ments. Armed with a knowledge of farmer problems and circumstances, researchers

are in a good position to field-test promising solutions to important production

problems. However, the team must avoid the temptation to conduct "experiment-

station research" on farmers' fields -- i.e., in isolation from farmers.










On-farm research begins with a review of secondary data on the target 1

area and surveys of target farmers, to ascertain their agro-climatic and socio-

economic circumstances. This information can be used in a variety of ways in

planning on-farm experimentation: farmers may be pooled into roughly homogeneous

groups, or recommendation domains. For each domain, important production problems

can be identified and possible solutions to these problems pre-screened for com-

patibility with the current farming system and for effect on farmer welfare.

A wide variety of experiments can be used in on-farm experimentation.

Complete factorials (and in some cases "super-imposed trials") aid in identifying

production limiting factors. Economic levels of inputs and practices that affect

production can be estimated through researcher-managed, replicated experiments.

Large-plot, unreplicated trials can verify the attractiveness of an innovation

when compared to the current farmer practice (Palmer et al, 1980). Finally,

farmer-managed trials allow farmers themselves to assess the attractiveness of

new technology.

The key to effective on-farm research, however, is the maintenance of

close contact with farmers. During the initiation of FSR, research teams often

lose sight of this point.

During on-farm research, farmers should collaborate in various ways:

respond to surveys, loan their fields, provide a reference point from which the

effects of innovations may be measured (farmers' practice), comment on alternative

experimental treatments, completely manage fields in which promising innovations

are added to their current practice, and provide feedback on the reasons for

liking or disliking proposed new technology.

Clearly, on-farm research without effective farmer collaboration can

easily degenerate into a series of sterile exercises. Continuous contact with










farmers is usually needed to maintain the "farmer-orientation" that characterizes

applied FSR.

4.0 Low-Cost FSR

The feasibility of FSR for national research programs is a question that

is currently attracting considerable attention. This question frequently takes

the form of the cost-effectiveness of FSR, given its apparent expense. Some ways

in which resource-poor research programs can initiate FSR activities have already

been presented: (1) FSR can be initiated as a small-scale project instead of a

large-scale program, (2) FSR can focus on important issues in the management of

major crops (in the context of the farming system) instead of attempting the

wholesale re-design of that system, (3) FSR can be initiated in an accessible

target area in which prospects for success within a reasonable period of time

are high, (4) FSR researchers can practice effective multi-disciplinary collabo-

ration and close collaboration with farmers.

FSR practitioners claim that their approach is more "cost-effective"

than traditional research in terms of "technology adopted per unit of money

spent". They believe that traditional, on-station research in developing

countries has led to relatively little adoption of new technology by small

farmers. Nonetheless there is still a current of concern about the expense of

FSR. It may be a worthy exercise, then, to list more ways in which FSR expense

can be reduced.

A principal way to increase the effectiveness and reduce the cost of FSR

is to stratify the farmers within a target region into relatively homogeneous

target groups or "recommendation domains". A recommendation domain is merely a

group of farmers facing similar problems and circumstances, operating similar

farming systems, and for whom similar recommendations will be appropriate (Byerlee,


*










Collinson et al, 1980). By placing all on-farm research in this context, one

avoids the two extremes that serve as alternatives: (1) assume that research

results will be appropriate for all farmers in a target area, heterogeneity in

circumstances notwithstanding, (2) formulate separate recommendations for indi-

vidual farmers.

The acquisition of data on farmer problems and circumstances provides

another area of possible cost reduction. Informal, non-probabilistic surveys

and well-focused, single-visit small-sample formal surveys are preferable to

large-sample surveys or frequent visit surveys in this connection. The criterion

for the selection of survey instrument should be that of "the lowest cost com-

mensurate with the degree of understanding that is necessary." (Norman, 1980).

Another area of possible cost reduction is that of expanding the universe

for which FSR results are applicable. This may be performed by determining the I

transferability of one set of results to other similar environments (i.e., extra-

polating recommendation domains into new target areas). In this fashion, some

(but rarely all) of the steps in FSR may be skipped.

Finally, it should be pointed out that it is unnecessary for FSR to pro-

duce the "best" new technology for farmers. Insofar as it discovers anything

"better" than the current farmer practice, it will be useful. Thatis, FSR need

not engage in the fine tuning of the farming system, but rather may concentrate

on seeking the best of readily available solutions to important problems.


5.0 Conclusions

FSR procedures have been seen as fairly adaptable to the varying circum-

stances of national research programs. As a consequence, national programs

wishing to commence FSR are faced with serious decisions. Among these are the

questions addressed in this paper:









Should FSR be initiated as a large-scale program or a small-scale

project?

Should FSR focus on the management of major existing enterprises in

the context of the current farming system or should it attempt large changes

in that system?

What are the desirable characteristics of a target area for the initia-

tion of FSR?

To what extent should effective multi-disciplinary collaboration be a

priority objective? How can it be achieved? How should training be organized

to prepare field team researchers?

To what extent should FSR be conducted on-farm? How, and to what

extent, should farmers collaborate in FSR?

How may FSR be made more cost-effective?

No single methodology for FSR can be defined for use by all national

research programs. However, even resource-poor national programs operating in

an institutional environment not wholly sympathetic to FSR can and must afford

to "give FSR a chance".








REFERENCES


Arndt, T.M., D.G. Dalrymple and J.W. Ruttan, 1977. Resource
Allocation and Productivity in National and International
Agricultural Research. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.

Bartlett, C.D.S. and J.A. Akorhe, 1980. "Interdisciplinary Co-
operation to Identify Innovations for Small Farmers -- The
Role of the Economist". IITA.

Bernsten, R.H., 1980. "Cropping Systems Research in a National
Program: Indonesia", presented at the AAEA Annual Meeting,
Champaign Urbana, July 28-30, 1980.

Byerlee, Collinson, et al, 1980. Planning Technologies Appro-
priate to Farmers: Concepts and Procedures. CIMMYT Economics.

CIMMYT, 1978. "CIMMYT Training". CIMMYT Today No. 9 .

Collinson, M.P., 1980. "Some NoLes on the Farmer as the Client
for Research" presented at the Workshop on Methodological
Issues Facing Social Scientists in On-Farm Farming Systems
Research. CIMMYT, April 1-3, 1980.

Consortium for International Development, 1980. "Guidelines to
Assist National Government in Implementing Farming Systems
Research and Development Programs Aimed at Farmers with
Limited Resources", second draft.

Gilbert, E.H., D.W. Norman and F.W. Winch, 1980. "Farming Systems
Research: A Critical Appraisal", E. Lansing: Michigan State
University, Rural Development Paper No. 6.

Harrington, L.W., 1980. "Methodological Issues Facing Social
Scientists in On-Farm/Farming Systems Research", CIMMYT
Economics Program.

Norman, D.W., 1980. "General Overview of Farming Systems Research",
presented at the Workshop on Methodological Issues Facing
Social Scientists in On-Farm Farming Systems Research.
CIMMYT, April 1-3, 1980

Palmer, A., A. Violic and F. Kocher, 1980. "In-Service Training
in Maize Production Agronomy at C.MMYT" presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Society of Agronomy, Detroit,
November 30 to December 5, 1980.







Problems of Interdisciplinarity in
Farming Systems Research*

Randolph Barker**



Scientists argue about the definition and meaning of "farming systems."

However, there is general agreement that.farming systems research requires a

wholistic approach and this in turn implies a team or interdisciplinary re-

search effort. In this paper I propose first to define the problems asso-

ciated with interdisciplinary research in farming systems. Then I will dis-

cuss the implications for training. However, before discussing the problems,

I would like to characterize the various forms of interdisciplinary research.

In the early part of this century there was little if any formal in-

terdisciplinary research. However, the research staffs of the college of

agriculture were small. As a result there was a good deal of informal in-

teraction among disciplines, just as there is today in the international

agricultural research centers. Under this environment each individuals'

disciplinary research is likely to reflect to an important degree the in-

fluence of other disciplines.

As the disciplines grew, however, communication among disciplines in the

agricultural colleges declined until today it is not uncommon for scientists

to work and socialize exclusively with people in their own discipline. Formal

interdisciplinary research studies in agriculture began in the 1940s. The

earliest that I am aware of is the. research by Jensen et al. (1942) on imput-

output relationships in milk.. In the 1950s and 60a there was a great deal of



* Paper prepared for the AID-USDA sponsored Workshop on Farming Systems Re-
search, December 8-10, 1980, Washington, D.C.
**Professor of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University.






2

interdisciplinary research of this type conducted between agricultural eco-

nomists and biological scientists particularly at Iowa State and Michigan

State Universities (see for example, Hoffnar and Johnson, 1966). The de-

gree of formal collaboration among researchers varied considerably from pro-

ject to project. In some cases individuals worked together under a broad man-

date that allowed each to pursue.his/her own interests. In other cases a

tightly managed group worked under a project director meeting frequently to

discuss the design and execution of the research and integrating the results

into a coordinated product.

Today it is still more common to find multidisciplinary projects loosely

organized in such a way to enable each individual scientist to do his/her own

thing. An obvious reason for this is the difficulty of conducting truly

integrated interdisciplinary research. The obstacles encountered in under-

taking such research are described below.



Defining the Obstacles

There are three elements in farming systems research which when analyzed

help to explain the difficulties associated with conducting interdisciplinary

work in this area. These three, which I refer to as: (1) group dynamics,

(2) the systems approach, and (3) the farmer'.s system, are discussed in the

subsections which follow.



Group dynamics

A considerable amount of research has been conducted on group dynamics

(see for example Hare et al. 1955). Whether one is. engaged. in research or

other types of activities, factors such as size, composition, and leadership

make a considerable difference in the efficient functioning of the group.






3

Interdisciplinary research adds still another obstacle, the problem of

I communication. In this respect distinction is often drawn to the gap between

social and biological sciences. y .own experience is that there is often even

more difficulty in communication .within the social sciences. Problems of

interdisciplinary communication.unfortunately are as prevelant among scien-

tists from the developing as the developed world. The former have inherited

the disciplinary biases through advanced training in developed countries.

It is my judgement that there are definite limits to the size of a

farming system team. The value of adding an additional member or discipline

must be weighted carefully against the diseconomies of coordinating a group of

larger size. The upper limit would seem to be about six. In the sondeo

approach to establish the research agenda a relatively large group may func-

tion efficiently in the manner described by Hildebrand (1978). But in the

actual conduct, evaluation, and reporting of research even six may be too

large for the core group.

In the selection of team members important factors to be considered are

the willingness and ability of individuals to participate in a team, applied-

research, systems approach and the individuals knowledge and understanding of

farmers and farming. An understanding of systems and farmers is a prere-

quisite for farming systems research.



The systems approach

Adding to the difficulty of working together as a group is the need to

understand and master what for most scientists is a totally different approach

to scientific research, systems analysis. My remarks in this session draw

heavily on a recent article by Dillon (1976) which I recommend as must reading






4

to anyone concerned with the general topic of farming systems research.

Most of us have grown up in a world.in which the furtherance of the

discipline is taken as more important than the solution of people's problems.

This is but the inevitable consequence of specialization and .reductionism.

Since the 1950s there has been a growing.reaction to this trend and expan-

sionism, teleogy, and synthesis are now being recognized by science as ne-

cessary modes of thought for understanding the world. It follows that a

systems approach, based on teleological concepts and means-ends analysis, is

slowly being introduced as a necessary corollary to the inadequacies of the

old hypothetic-deductive method of research as a means of assessing goal

seeking and goal setting systems. In this new approach, man consumates the

system, and defining the "right" objective becomes more important than making

the "right" choice between alternatives.

Dillon (1976) refers to the systems approach as a new technology. He is

quick to point out that rapid adoption is unlikely since academics represent

perhaps the most conservative purposive element of the agricultural system.

There is, of course, not a single system within agriculture but rather a

whole hiearchy of systems of which the farmer's system is only one sub-system.

However, given the dominant role of the farmer in this sub-system and of man

as either producer or consumer in higher order systems, the implication is

that the socio-economic sphere is more important than the physical and bio-

logical sphere in the choice.of research directions.

Traditionally our research has been production oriented. .This production

orientation has been transferred. to the developing countries through the

training of scientists in our tradition and is still dominant today in the

international agricultural research network. The success of this system in





5

terms of the traditional orientation of.research has tended to emphasize its

short-comings in the modern context of the systems approach. Improving merely

a part of the system or a sub-system cannot be presumed to lead to enhanced

performance of the overall system. Although it is politically more expedient

in the short run for agricultural scientists to ignore the socio-economic

consequences of their work, there is obviously no guarantee that research

progress in the traditional mode will lead to social justice. The growing

interest in farming systems research stems in large measure from a recognition

that research efforts of the recent past have not resulted in social justice

for the resource poor farmers of either the developed or the developing world.



The farmers system

Gotsch (1977) suggests that "the farmer's system" is a more appropriate

term than "farming systems" since it lays the emphasis where it should be.

Enterprising graduate students in the Agricultural Economics Department at

Cornell recently have been selling for one dollar a pin which reads "No Farm

Background." Most of our graduate students and a good many of our faculty are

qualified to purchase such a pin. And if we were to change the title to "No

Contact with Farmers this Year" even more would qualify.

During the early part of this century students and faculty alike came

primarily from farming backgrounds.. and they brought with them an appreciation

of rural values and a capacity to communicate with farmers. I would argue that

a lack of experience in American farming.is a handicap to many scientists

engaged in applied research to assist the farmers of developing as well as

developed countries.

Often the weakest link in farming systems research is the communication

(or lack there of) between scientist and farmer. This problem and some






6

suggestions to improve communications are the subject of an excellent paper by

Chambers (1980), "Understanding Professionals: Small Farmers and Scientists."

Unfortunately, much of what passes for communication today takes the form

of an interview questionnaire now referred to professionally as the "survey

instrument". The trend toward the use of the survey questionnaire is as

pronounced in the developing as the developed countries, since surveys tend to

be rather cheap and easy to administer. The problems come later when one

attempts to transfer the data to computer tape and analyze the results.

Without minimizing the important and utility of good surveys, we need to

consider more carefully alternative ways of communicating with farmers parti-

cularly in identifying their goals and objectives, in evaluating their methods

of classifying resources, and in valuing indigenous technological knowledge.

In this task it would appear that rural sociology and anthropology should have

an increasingly important role to play in the farming system team.



Implications for Training

Dillon (1976) indicates that the adoption of the systems approach to

research will require a complete shift in the emphasis on professional

training. He suggests instead of the typical pattern, an initial (one year)

introduction to the systems approach followed.by A (two year) period of dis-

ciplinary specialization, capped off with. the bringing together of different

disciplines in the context of.-some.relevant agricultural system.

In its most fully developed form, this approach would call.for a new set

of majors to replace traditional disciplines such as agronomy, plant breeding,

and agricultural economics. Systems majors might include such titles as crop-

soil systems, plant-animal systems, or farming systems. Research funds would






7

be reallocated accordingly to multidisciplinary groups or systems teams.

Dillon's view may represent nothing more than a.vision of the distant future

which many scientists would regard with fear and trepidation. But there are

already signs that some of these changes. are coming to pass, not only in the

newly formed international research centers, but also in the more hallowed

universities and colleges of agriculture.

Ealey (1979) describes a program for training environmental managers to

work in multidisciplinary teams. Monash University in Australia offers a

Masters of Environmental Science. A core staff of three faculty organize and

administer the program and coordinate the activities of some 80 other staff

members from all faculties who teach or supervise over 100 candidates.

The program consists of a course work component and a research component.

The course work is intended to broaden insight and provide an opportunity to

improve the depth of understanding in areas of previous training. The research

component is designed to provide practical training in a multi-disciplinary

group research. Teams of three to five candidates, each one from a different

discipline, work together on a part time basis over a two year period. Each

candidate is involved in the production of two documents, a group report

integrating the work of the team and. a minor thesis which.details the work

which each individual performed as his/her. contribution to the.group report.

Efforts at interdisciplinary research and training at Cornell have been

more modest than those described above, being based on individual projects

rather than on a program. Perhaps,. the most ambitious of these involved 14

faculty and graduate students from 7 disciplines in a study of nitrogen and

phospherous in the environment (Porter. 19751.






8

Another project involved six disciplines at Cornell linked with the

CIMMYT corn program. PhD students from each of .these disciplines -- agri-

cultural economics, agronomy, biometry, entomology, plant breeding, and plant

pathology did their research.on various aspects of corn production.with

field work being conducted in Mexico (Contreras et al. 1977).

A course in water management was initiated in the mid-1970s with in-

struction from faculty in three disciplines agricultural engineering,

agricultural economics, and rural sociology. The faculty teaching this course

developed a US/AID supported research project, "The Determination of Develop-

ing Country Irrigation Project Problems," with field work being conducted in

South and Southeast Asia. The course provides a training ground for graduate

students who have later participated in the US/AID project or have returned to

conduct water management research in their own countries.

Our only ongoing farming systems research project is entitled, "Tech-

nology Introduction into Traditional Farming at High Elevations." Two graduate

students, one from rural sociology and one from plant breeding, are just

completing a study of farming systems in the Andean Mountains of Equador where

they have lived in a small village with their families for the past two years.

Following the model used in water management, we have been experimenting

this fall in the development of a course in farming systems. Ten faculty and

twenty-four students have been involved in.this experiment. Approximately 50

percent of the time was devoted to. weekly.discussions usually based on pre-

sentations of one or two faculty members.. The other 50 percent.of the time

was spent in small group exercises.. Students were divided into four mixed

discipline teams of six members and asked: (.) to present a case study of

farming systems research, and (2) to identify and study a local (New York






9

State) group of farmers in order to be.able to describe their farming system

and suggest a research agenda.

I will not go into any further details regarding this course, which is

just now coming to an end, other than to. say that it has tended to high light

the barriers to interdisciplinary research that I have described in this

paper. Faculty presentations tended to emphasize the familiar discipline

approach rather than the systems approach. The field exercises proved to be

valuable if for no other reason than providing most graduate students with

their first opportunity to interview American farmers.



Concluding Remarks

In this paper I have not dealt directly with what we understand by the

term "farming systems." But as a minimum it would seem that farming systems

research should consist in its initial stages of an interdisciplinary team

undertaking: (1) a wholestic systems look at the farm and farm family in-

cluding non-farm activities, and (2) an interaction or dialogue with the farmer

or farm family. Both of the above elements should have the purpose of aiding

in the identification of the appropriate researchable issues. Based on these

criteria, there are very few studies in the literature today which could

properly be classified as farming systems.. New concepts of interdisciplinary

training are clearly needed.to prepare .people for research in farming systems.








REFERENCES


Chambers, Robert. "Understanding Professionals: Small Farmers and Scientists."

IADS Occasional Paper, International Agricultural Development Service,

New York, 1980.

Contreras, Mario Ruban, Daniel Lee Gait, Samuel Cephas Muchena, Khalid Mohammad

Nor, Frank Byers Peairs, and Mario Santos Rodriquez P. "An Interdiscipli-

nary Approach to International Agricultural Training: The Cornell-CIMMYT

Graduate Student Team Report," Cornell International Agricultural Mimeo-

graph 59, 1977.

Dillon, John L. "The Economics of Systems Research." Agricultural Systems 1

(1976):5-22.

Ealey, E.H.M. "Training Environmental Managers to Work in Multidisciplinary

Teams." unpublished mimeo, Graduate School of Environmental Science,

Monash University, Australia, 1979.

Gotsch, C.H. "The Concept of Farming Systems in the Analysis of Agricultural

Research and Development Programs." mimeo paper presented at the Middle

East and Africa Agricultural Seminar, Tunis, Tunisia, February 1-3, 1977.

Hare, P.A., E.E. Borgatta, and R.F. Bales, eds. Small Group Studies in Social

Interaction. Knopf, New York, 1955.

Hildebrand, Peter E. "Generating Technology for Traditional Farmers A Multi-

Disciplinary Methodology." CIMMYT Asian Report No. 8, October 1978.

Hoffnar, Bernard R. and Glenn L. Johnson. Summary and.Evaluation of the

Cooperative Agronomic-Economic.Experimentation at Michigan.State University

1955-63, Michigan State. University Research Bulletin 11, 1966.






2



Jensen, Einar, John W. Klein,. Emil Rauchenstein, T.E. Woodward and Ray H.

Smith. Input-Output Relationships in Milk Production. United States

Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin No. 815, May 1942.

Porter, Keith S. (editor). Nitrogen and Phosphorus Food Production, Waste

and Environment. Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan,

1975.





0





0






0










FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH PROGRAM1

STRUCTURE, STAFFING and FUNDING

Jerry L. McIntosh2

Introduction


Farming systems studies of various kinds by teams of agricultural

scientists have been a consequence of the concern for development of more

appropriate technology. In countries where most of the food consumed

comes directly from crop production, the research has been called cropping

systems. Under these conditions there may not be much difference between

farming systems and cropping systems research. In cropping systems

research, although the emphasis is on crops, all related farm activities

are also usually considered; from land preparation, which includes animals

and family labor, to marketing, which involves transportation and infra-

structural development. Consequently, cropping systems research is a

coordinated and integrated interdisciplinary effort to develop technology

that will enable farmers to increase food production in a way that is

acceptable to them. This simple condition "acceptable to them" must not

be overlooked. This socio-economic aspect has been overlooked many times

in the past and is one of the prime reasons why farmers did not or could

not accept the new technology.

In order to have effective research where limited funds and personnel

exist, much of the research in agriculture should contribute directly to

development needs and government production programs. The research should



Prepared for Symposium on Farming Systems Research. Washington, D.C.
December 8-9, 1980.

Cropping Systems Agronomist, Cooperative CRIA/IRRI Program in Indonesia








br (1) systematic and directed to specific target areas to provide the most

efficient use of the research funds and personnel, and (2) it probably should

be conducted on farmers' fields in order to approximate farmers' conditions

and understand the constraints farmers face. It should be an interdisciplinary

effort that is well integrated with related government agencies. If we can

describe the agroeconomic environments of the target areas well, we should be

able to transfer research technology from one area to similar areas and

save considerable time and research effort. Staffing and funding arrangements

associated with a comprehensive agricultural research effort such as in a

farming systems program are vital to the success of the program. These are

administrative matters that will vary from country to country. But some

guidelines may be given that are based upon experience from existing programs.

The objective of this presentation is to describe a cropping systems

research program and illustrate the role of socioeconomic as well as ecological

determinants in the description, design, and implementation phases of the

research and, ultimately, transfer technology. The approach described is

designed primarily to meet the needs of small farmers in developing countries

where there are limited funds and personnel for agricultural research and

development. Much of the information presented is a condensation from previous

papers describing cropping systems research in Indonesia. Consequently, this

paper will only briefly outline the essential points relevant to a farming

systems research program.


Cropping Systems Research

Cropping systems research is a coordinated and integrated effort to

develop technology that will enable farmers to increase food production.

The technology must be acceptable to the farmers who will use it. In some

cases it may be desirable to identify and remove constraints to the farmers










through government programs. The increased production may result from better

management of present cropping patterns, introduction of an extra crop(s) per

year (intensification), or expansion of crop production into newly opened or

under-used land areas (extensification).

The research is carried out by a coordinated group of scientists from

various disciplines. It is focused upon specific target areas to make more

efficient use of research staff and funds. The selection of target areas for

cropping systems research is very crucial. The Indonesian cropping systems

program emphasizes the following criteria for selection of target areas:

1. Critical areas in terms of food shortages and governmental

designation.

2. Large areas having similar soils and climate.

3. Feasibility of intensifying cropping patterns based on prior

evidence.

4. Availability of markets and infrastructure.

A diagram for the cropping systems program in Indonesia (Fig. 1) shows

five distinct phases, associated research activities and approximate time

frame that follw after selection of the target area. The objectives of the

research within a target area should be specific and attainable within a

defined period of time. The research effort should be allowed to develop a

broader research base and perhaps become a farming systems research program

but only in a logical and stepwise manner. It is in this context that the

farming systems terminology is used in the remainder of this paper.


Staffing and Funding of Farming Systems Research

A cropping systems research program that evolves from the activities of

research scientists is likely to be more effective and long lasting than a








program that is conceived and implemented from the top. But unfortunately,

the evolutionary process may take a long time. A combined effort from the

administrators and from the research scientists would be most desirable.

This kind of approach has been effective in Southeast Asia for development of

programs for Genetic Evaluation and Utilization (GEU) for rice breeding and

Cropping Systems Research. These are interdisciplinary research efforts that

are complementary. The efforts of IRRI and international funding agencies

provided the access to the research administrators. The collaboration

of scientists through regional research networks for GEU and Cropping

Systems provided the stimulus at the research level. Fig. 2 illustrates

how these programs may function within a national food crops research

institute. Staff would be available from the usual divisions (or disciplines)

of the institute, hopefully on a voluntary and part time basis. Funding

through the programs would provide the incentive to work together.

Farming Systems Research, on the other hand, would involve scientists

from several research institutes. The research program would likely be

organized at a higher echelon within the ministry of agriculture than for

a cropping systems research program (Figs. 3 and 4). Again funding would

flow through the program to the research scientists as indicated in Fig. 5.

The existing research operations supported by routine funding would continue

to function within the various research institutes and directorate generals.

Special funds as seed money would probably be needed to encourage active

involvement in the programs. This is the place where some outside help may

be needed in terms of technical and financial assistance.


Organization of the Research Program

An effective farming systems program depends to a great extent upon the

Coordinator. An effective coordinator will likely move up quickly to higher









positions within the government. This dilemma can be overcome to a certain

extent by developing collective leadership through a Farming Systems Working

Group. Fig. 6 illustrates how a national cropping systems research program

was organized to direct its research activities and coordinate the activities

of regional research centers which have varying degrees of autonomy (Fig. 7).

A farming systems research program should be an interdisciplinary effort.

But it should also be integrated with other governmental activities. Rural

development programs and extension, local government and irrigation agencies

are examples of government programs and agencies that must ultimately be

involved in the implementation of the results of farming systems research.

Their involvement at early stages of the research programs is vital. Fig. 8

illustrates the level and time of involvement of different sectors of the

bureaucracy. This kind of integration facilitates the development of

relevant technology, implementation of the results and smooth transfer to

other areas with similar conditions (Fig. 9). Fig. 10 illustrates how

government interventation in terms of production programs is helpful to

farmers. Many times farmers can do little without this support. We cannot

expect farmers to immediately adopt technology that was developed over a

period of 5-10 years by scientists under conditions where inputs were available

and where no individual risks were involved. Even though farming systems

research may develop more relevant technology than traditional commodity

and discipline oriented research, the technology will likely be more complex

and dependent upon a wider range of social and governmental group involvement.


Manpower Development

It is the feeling of may people working in farming systems research

projects that the real payoff from this research is in manpower development.








A strong sense of accomplishment and enthusiasm develops among many of the

staff. This provides an ideal opportunity to identify those scientists who

are stimulated by real problems that farmers face and who can work in

interdisciplinary teams. Short term training with colleagues from other

countries at international centers such as IRRI provides a good background for

young researchers in new cropping systems programs. This kind of training

should be complemented by opportunities to meet periodically at regional

workshops and conferences. These kinds of training opportunities will

probably need support from out of country funding agencies. It would be

useful to have available a broader range of training programs than presently

exist. Advanced degree studies should also be provided. Usually there is

sufficient funding for this. It is more difficult to identify centers of

excellence for such advanced studies.




References

McIntosh, J. L. 1980. Cropping systems and soil classification for
agrotechnology development and transfer. Paper prepared for the
Agrotechnology Transfer Workhsop. Soils Research Institute, AARD,
Bogor, Indonesia and the Benchmark Soils Project, University of
Hawaii. Held at Bogor, Indonesia. July 7-12, 1980.




CROPPING SYSTEMS RESEARCH P


PHASES


Socio-oconomic Research

'Agro-economic profile

*Site reconnaissance




SEconomic data collection

STechnology Transfer IN

'Farm recording


SEconomic analysis



patterns


'Socio-economic evaluation



technology and institutions


'Airlcultural statistics


Site selection and

description

(initial)
II
Economic and biological

component studies

(yrs. 1-2)
III

Design and test cropping

patterns

(yrs. 3-5)


Implementation and.

Technology Transfer OUT


Biological Research

'Soil Classification

'Climate

'Wter availability


'Component technology

Technology Transfer IN

'Retrieval and Studies


*Partition target area



*Redesign and test patterns_ .


S*Identification of



S Production Problems


4'Extension feedback


Fig. 1. Parallel biological and socio-economic activities. required for the five distinct research and
implementation phases of a cropping systems program with little inflow of technology


SELECTED TARGET AREAS








FRAMEWORK FOR CROPPING SYSTEMS RESEARCH PROGRAM


RESEARCH DISCIPLINES


Agronomy

Crop agronomy
Weeds
Seed Produc-
tion
Multiple
Cropping

Soil ferti-
lity
Plant nutritior


Pests and
diseases....
Rice
Corn
Legumes
Root crops
Sorghum
Multiple
Cropping


4-


Physiology

Nutrition
Ecology
a. Light
b. Climate


Socio-econo-
mics

Production
Marketing
Social


Fig. 2. Interaction among programs and traditional divisions in a Cropping Systems Program.


PROGRAMS


L.














AGENCY FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
(PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE)
1978


LOCATIONS OF REUARCH
INST6TUTIS WMAIEfl &Vb
F -1 r8EEARCN INS5TITUTES


Fig. 4. Organizational structure of the Agricultural Research Agency.,





























MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE


A*fNCY FOR ANOIVALTRAL OCKAfl
GOINCY -ofl AkNMltinL 11UCAT
1IKAIko ANO EhICNZION


Fig. 3. Organizational structure in Ministry of Agriculture.







Farming Systems Research Program


RESEA


Programs


RCH ORGANIZATIONS


Cropping Systems
(Farming Systems)


Sections

Breeding

Agronomy

Pests and
diseases

Physiology-
ecology

socio-
economics


Industrial
Crops

Sections

Oil

Spices

Fiber


Horticulture



Sections

Vegetables

Fruits

Pekarangan
(Garden)


Soils



Sections

Survey

Fertility

Chemistry

Conservatior


Forestry



Sections

Windbreak

Fuel

Reforestratior

Lumber-


Animal
Husbandry

Sections

Management

Forages

Power


GF.L--Genetic Evaluation and Utilization refers to systematic varietal improvement studies for food crops
s'icii as: rice, corn, legumes, etc.

Fig. 5. Interaction among programs and traditional commodity and discipline-oriented research
activities in a Farming Systems Research Program.


R E S E A





NATIONAL CROPPING SYSTEMS PROGRAM
!,


Coordinator


National Cropping Systems Working Group
(CSWG)


I
Regional Program
Target Area
Site Coordinators
Agronomist
Economist
Field Assistant(6)


Regional Program
Target Area
Site Coordinators
Agronomist
Economist
Field Assistant(6)


Fig. 6. Organizational structure of a Cr


Working Group-members:
'Research Disciplines
Crop Specialists
Allied Fields
Regional Coordinators


National Program
Target Area
Site Coordinators
Agronomist
Economist
Field.Assistant (6)


National Program
Target Area
Site Coordinators
Agronomist
Economist
Field Assistant(6)


Systems Program.




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