Title: Report of the team for the evaluation of the north Florida farming systems research and extension project, 1983
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00096327/00001
 Material Information
Title: Report of the team for the evaluation of the north Florida farming systems research and extension project, 1983
Physical Description: 23 p. : ; 22 cm.
Language: English
Creator: University of Florida -- Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Donor: unknown ( endowment )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 1983
Copyright Date: 1983
 Subjects
Subject: Agriculture -- Research -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Agricultural extension work -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage: United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
General Note: Typescript.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00096327
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 - 86078755

Full Text


REPORT OF THE TEAM FOR THE EVALUATION

OF THE NORTH FLORIDA FARMING SYSTEMS

RESEARCH AND EXTENSION PROJECT, 1983



I. Introduction

A team of four was invited by the Institute of Food and Agricultural

Sciences (IFAS) of the University of Florida to review the North Florida

Farming Systems Research and Extension Project (NF-F.SR/E), from June 27, 1983

through July 1. At the' same time, the project held its annual internal review

and planning sessions. The review was conducted by: (a) participating in

review sessions with administration, University staff members, and project

personnel, (b) interviews with staff and administration people and (c)

visiting the project area in two northern Florida counties, ;:here there was

opportunity to dialog with team members and farmer collaborators. The review

team interacted with both research and extension personnel.



Several factors led to the development of the NF FSR/E Project. The

University of Florida has a long history of international activity in

agriculture. During the late sixties and the seventies, production,

productivity and the well-being of small, limited resource farmers in the

developing countries became a major concern of both national and international

agricultural research personnel as well as national and international

organizations that support development. activities.



This concern led to several activities in different parts of the world

with some common threads of purpose, strategy and methodologies which have





generically become known as the farming systems approach to research, th

farming systems perspective and other terms such as Farning Syste-s Rese-arc

(FSR) or (FSR/E) to include extension'. One of the comn.moi thr(j'ads of thi

approach are the interaction of scientists from both the biological and s-.-'a

science disciplines to understand the farm as a whole, rat-cer than th

isolated study of components, and the recognition that farmers can becon

participants in the evaluation and selection of technology.



The University had contact with this renewed wholistic approach, iani

became interested in it as a contribution to rural development world-.ide

However, the -University, recognizing their responsibilities to agriculture i;

the State of Florida with a highly varied agricultural industry, .isked if thi:

approach was also applicable in their setting.



With the support of USDA, the North Florida FSR/E project ::as initi-ace

first with an interest in the application of the systems perspective to l-ca]

conditions, and second to gain experience and use the project as a bse foi

teaching programs to strengthen their capabilities both at home and abr-ad.



II. Purpose of the University of Florida Farming Systc-is Initiative



The FSR/E initiative was designed to serve two purposes. The first was

to test the FSR/E concept in a domestic setting. This involves an
t
understanding of selected farming systems and, on the basis of this

understanding, to define needs and to identify critical problems and

constraints. The second purpose was to produce a beneficial impact on the

institutional structure and function of selected farming systems of the

. '





specific area of experimentation. The experimn._ritation related dr-ctly t;" the

technological problems of Florida farmers, and to programs in international

assistance of the University of Florida.-



III. Findings



A. Local Farming Area.



1. A significant strength of the fari'ing system model that has evolved

from this project has been its ability to focus upon critical issues

and to assist in the design of research and

educational/denonstrationial field activities. The field program of

Dr. Mickey Swisher is an excellent example of the appli_:ation of a

solid understanding of production technology methodologies to the

problems of producers who seek to achieve cost effective and

practical levels of production from their management units. The net

result of these activities has been the identification of a series

of practical problems which related to the acceptance of new

technologies or the modification of current production practices to

make more efficient use of existing resources.



2. A second major factor in the farming systems program which can be

identified with the in-the-field activities is the establishment of

community linkages. In many cases these do not appear to be new

linkages between producers and the traditional extension services

but rather It has been an ability to address the questions raised

and the concerns expressed through on-farm testing of technology and





the sharing of existing technologies. It has, in reality, alre.id

realized some of the desired multiplier effect by encou1raing

individuals to extend the area of demonstration, move aggresU.'el)

to utilize the technology under test and to be receptive to a nei

idea such as the planting of early maturing tropical corn later ir

the s;-son after the normal period of corn planting has passed.



3. The farming systems group has made excellent progress- in the

establishment of de1monstration/applied research progra-s in

off-station locations. This appears to have filled a distinct void

associated with an increased emphasis being placed on the so called

"basic" or "fundamental" aspects of the research spectrum. The role

of applied research in farming systems has been to seek appropriate

components of modern technology which can be utilized effectively

across a range of levels or which can serve multiple functions in

the operations of the limited resource producer. When these

technologies can be matched both in scale and intensity to the needs

of the limited resource producer, they can assume unique values by

affecting several components in the total farming system.



An example of this principle has been the incorporation of the

wheat variety, Florida 301, into the farming systems. It has value

as a winter forage and it utilizes the early spring season to

produce a grain crop which can be sold or fed during a period when

feed grains are normally in short supply. This matching of new

and/or appropriate technology to 'the existing physical, biological

and sociological envirconnents is a major accomplishment.


*'1




--b
4. The two-county area of north Florida chosen for the development of

the farming system initiative contains large areas of sandy soils

inherently low in available plant growth nutrients and water holding

capacity. Strategies of production are, in many cases, as important

as the application of production technology. Farming syste-s

programs have attempted to simultaneously address multiple factors

in the farmers production equation. Since it is not always possible

to evaluate each component of the system in a distinct and separate

category, it-becomes essential for scientists familiar with results

of single component research to be involved in the measurement of

results and the formulation of recommendations based on these tests.



5. During the course of the review, numerous reports were made on field

research and demonstration activities in the two-county area, often

as graduate student thesis problems. Other reports consisted of

measurements or observations related to existing recommendations

being used in educational-demonstration programs. These activities

were attempts to address specific questions of cooperators or to

collect new knowledge about particular practices in the region.

There has been an attempt to utilize information collected from

these activities as bases for revised extension recommendations.

-Unfortunately, this may have been done without fully examining the

principles upon which the original recommendations had been based.

The team encountered several examples of these inconsistencies.



Soil fertilizer recommendations have been generalized and hive






evolved from a body of information including soil test results, I,:

use history, cropping intention, and management level. T

usefulness of a generalized reconniendation for fertilizer ,p -'I

is an appropriate topic for further examination.



Wheat was, for all practical purposes, a new crop in :

region. The new variety Florida 301 came at a time when fE-.-in

enterprises were in flux, winter pasture was in demand and a r.:

existed for a cash/feed grain source. The Farming SyseI..s group

used these circumstances to test both the efficiency and cos

effectiveness of the existing recommendations and contribute

additional knowledge to the total fertilizer recom-endation ict::-e

This is an excellent example of the need for participation of th

soil fertility specialist. There is a great need for disciplir.

scientists to incorporate, where appropriate, the new findings int

the generalized soil fertility recommendations.



Questions on the date of wheat planting clearly needs to b

understood from a multidisciplinary point of view. Major areas o

concern are related to diseases control or avoidance, forag

production, cost of production, grain yield and net profit. Thi:

array of problems cannot satisfactorily be answered from limited,

technology approaches. Any recommendation brought forward will havy

to be accepted as one possible answer from among several possible

answers based on a specific set of needs or expectations.


A major concern in this area to the review co:mnittee vws thi






apparent lack of participation of fErm management special sts in the

economic considerations related to farm analysis and project

evaluations. Since each of the farms studied in the project

included a variety of income sources, overall economic analysis may

be a more useful diagnostic to-ol that any production coIponent or

group of individual co.yponents.



To adequately address these concerns it will be necessary to

focus a larger pool of experiences than would normally be achieved

through a li-nited number of field trials conducted in a restricted

areA. The goal nust be to achieve maximum participation from

existing research programs and to support field tests and

observations with more intensive analyses and evaluation procedures

than would be traditional under the controlled conditions of an

appropriate laboratory setting.



6. The team identified a number of programs both within IFAS and wih

IFAS collaboration that appear to have much in common with the FSR/E

oriented activity in north Florida. Several of these shared the

'projects' orientation to small scale, limited capital farming

systems. These were not studied, but we received clear indication

that an FSR/E collaboration might have been productive. Of

particular relevance are those of Florida A&M University staff

oriented specifically to small scale systems and dealing mainly in

field research and extension.


.Also, identified but not studied were projects in integrated







pest management, minlinu m tillage, farm management and multip

cropping which. are oriented to one or more production : system

in some manner. They appear to be substantive in nature

co.-pared to F SR/E which is a methodological approach. Al.

Thcse may apply a systems approach to but not from as broad

base as in the case of FSR/E. For example, the IPM studio,

crop pest relationships and would not be expected to vi

the whole farming system to the same extent as the FSRY

project. However, since they use a systems approach it shou

be easy to relate such projects to the broader Farning Syst,_-r

Approach. FSR/E should maintain a close working relations

with these activities, since, the FSR/E approach has much t

offer to projects with parallel interests. Certainly fai

management is of vital importance to FSR/E, although current]

we discovered no collaboration.



7. The University of Florida has been assigned a major leadership ro]

in the international technical assistance program of the Unite

States in the form of the Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP)

-Personnel of IFAS, both through University projects and through

their participation in other technical assistance projects hav

played leading roles in the evolution of the FSR/E concept. Thi

concentration of talent and leadership resulted in a USDA grant fo

this domestic effort. It is likely that the domestic effort ha

some influence on the University's being awarded the leadership rol

in FSSP.





8. At least two courses are currently being taught in FSR/E, one by Dr.

Peter Rildebrand on Methodology and one by Dr. Robert '...h on

Organization and Mangagement. These are editions of materials

included in the international training courses. A large percentage

of the students in these courses are international students.



9. International activities in FSR/E at the University are at a much

greater scale than are the domestic FSR/E activities, and the

domestic program frequently enlists the services of personnel

engaged essentially in international work. However, to the extent

feasible the domestic and international programs are maintained

independent of each other.



10. The Extension Service has developed considerably more activity 'n.n

interest in FSR/E than has its research counterpart. Of the two

principal functionaries, Dr. Marilyn Swisher is employed full time

by Extension as a multi-county agent, and Dr. E. C, French has a

joint Extension-Research appointment in the Department of Agronony.

Apparently there is an increasing interest in some segments of the

research component. Dr. James Rich, acting director of the Live Oak

Research Center has an active involvement. His involvement is an

indication that there is no significant jurisdictional issue in the

area of testing and adaptive work on innovations released by the

.Research Service.



11. IFAS has an extensive network of centers which could perform a

useful function in the expansion strategy for FSR/E. Five or six






are known as Agricultural Res-irch !'nd E-iucation Centies (.'1tC) 7r

a dozen or so are Agricultural Research Cencers (ARC's). The ArC'

are part of the Research Service and their personnel ans:-.r '.-ctL

to the Dean of r.search. The discipline oriented Depart,--m.ts h:-

personnel posted in the AREC.'s, frequently with jotn

research--et'tension appointments. 'A*e visited only ,
our observations do not have a good feel for the function of th..'s

centers as sites of adaptive research or the scope of. their

activities in problem identification and needs rasess.s:-nt.



12. The North Florid-a FSR/E project is dealing vith t:o ov)ral

variables in its experimentation. One variable is the FSR/

concept. Since we saw only the one project, we do not know th

extent to which FSR/E differs from other IFAS research t.nd eateisio

efforts. There is an indication that in so-'.e cases there i

relatively little effort on the part of researchers to integrate,

technology into the actual production systems, leaving this t,

farmers and/or extension agents. On the other hand, -we receive

reports.where extension is conducting highly sophisticated

"demonstration trials" for the purpose of generating technologies,

Also there 'appears to be, at least in some counties, trials to studio

the use of new crops, such as blueberries, for example.



: The FSR/E project is also dealing with the so-called limited

resource farmer, a group that apparently has not been active among.

the traditional extension clientele. FSR/E.seems to be asking if

there is technology moce appropriate to the needs of this




non-part cipant group. Since the project is also lo'-ailing with the

so-called Limited resource farrier that has not been an active

extension clientele, t.:o vair.bl cs are under test. while e s'-.e IFAS

personnel recogaizes FSR/E in a broader context, the predominate

IFAS thinking associ-ites :;/E very closely with low resource

f ari rs.



IV. Recor-aendations and Conclusions



This section is in two parts. The recommendations are summarized in the

first part and discussed in considerable detail in the second part.



A. Summary of Recommnendations



1. Since FSR/E appears to have achieved certain results and attained a

significant creditibility among various groups, it should be

continued in IFAS.



2. Since FSR/E is more in the nature of a concept or methodological

approach than it is a substantive program, deliberate actions need

to be taken to enlist increased participation of core, discipline

oriented faculty in FSR/E activities.



3. FSR/E needs an institutional home, a minimum structure, and

legitimacy. This will involve executive endorsement and protection,

a leader to provide professional advocacy, a set of expectations on

the part of faculty, and an appropriate reward structure.






4. Since there are several other activities or prog'r.:s in IF\S wit

ch-racteristics simi lar to FSR/E, appropriate linkages an

col vibrationss need to be established. One set of thTese is relatc

to the small scale farm clientele. Another set relates to FSR/E b

vi rtuie of the fact that the programs have an orientation t

)i.:duction systems.



5. Since FSR/E has shown considerable promise and represents

concentration of resources that cannot be justified indefinitely, a

expansion strategy is needed. It appears that expansion at a

adequate rate and intensity can be achieved with modifications i

the IFAS structure that can be accomodated without unreasonabl

disruption.



B. Discussion of Recommondations



1. FSR/E should be continued in IFAS

The North Florida FSR/E project has proven the FSP./E c-nc ep

by at least one criteria. It has won, if not acceptance, at leas;

serious attention from the executives of IFAS as well as from middle

management and from many of the individuals involved. The concept

of "system" has been correctly articulated in this review b

personnel of various management levels. The concept of needs

assessment has been recognized as well as the recognition there has

to be discrimination among needs of various sectors of the

clientele. A new clientele is being reached, but low-income,

low-resource, poor farmers should not be considered the primary





domain of the FSR/E concept. It may be that current FSR/-E

methodologies are most useful in this segment of the farming sector.

It may also be that FSR/E is currently more closely associ.itid i.-th

that sector than with any other. But the concept of FSR/E doe r.ot

bind research and extension to low resource fannrers.



Only two concepts are essential to FSR/E. One is that

research activities are derived from specific and important needs of

a farming system. This requires the research service to know and

understand the farming system. The second essential aspect is that

improved technologies be tested in the farming system in which it is

expected to function and by criteria of the system. Everything else

is elaboration, improvement, strengthening, useful, but not

essential.



Initial responses to the north Florida project were not as

positive as they might have been. Apparently little thought was

given as the outset of the North Florida project to how people in

the existing institutional system would react to the project. Many

people with whom the project had to work or should have worked

appear to have been confused. Some apparently were even hostile.

One reason cited for their reactions was that people did not have a

clear understanding of the objectives of the project -- whether they

were similar or different, compatible or competitive, with what they

were already doing. No doubt some people were afraid that the

project was designed to supplant their work and felt threatened.

Others were not sure why the project was being initiated since from






their perspective they were alr-eady doiog most or ill o[ t\c. thii:,g

that the FSR/E was supposed to do. Not having anticipated thi.t suc

problems night arise, project persunn'el were not eqL 2.,, L 1 '

with them effectively. Rather then deoFsing potential conflicts

for e:a.a ple, some project personn..l p : :n:ly r .... :d o n ,' :ion

about the legitimacy of their w'ork by pointing out -aI L 'T f.ailre,

in the existing system.



Attitudes towards the project have'e;olv.d in a. favorahl(

direction. Interest in the project h.-is "j'cC,. "ost of the initial

hostility appears to have disai'p ar.:i. S? .e 'ho *,-re initially

skeptical, even hostile are no'. cooper atii;g .:.th th-- project, so5 m-

even with enthusiasm. Others, although still ?s-'ptical, recognize

that the project does have potential and are beginning to cooperate,

Much of this change in attitudes appears to have ti.ken police quite

recently. This change appears to be due to the fact that thE

project has begun to produce some concrete results. It may also be

due to a recent organizational change which had the effect of

integrating a member of the project team more effectively into the

research and extension structure existing in the two counties in

which the project operates. There has been a determined, specific

effort to improve communication on the part of the project leader.



There still remains, however, a large group of core faculty

and scientists who have not been drawn into the project. In some

instances this has worked to the detriment of the project. With

more involvement of farm management specialists, for example, the






project could have h.-en further along in its devel pment of farm

enterprriss, combined enterprise ind total farm budgets. As it is,

the a-.-lysis of the econ. ir, dim-ensions of the farm systems being

studied is one of the <. :Lr components of the project. More

involve-cait by a I ..-r .-r '..L- of core faculty dpd scientists will

he necessary if the ;/C ....,-.:ept is to be successfully integrated

into the total LF'S system.



Although the FSR/E approach has to. reach many more people in I

the existing' institutional structure it appears to have had a (

positive impact on the thinking of those it has reached, including i

.aaniy in t'he administrative structure.



The people from related disciplines who have been involved

with the project cite examples of positive contributions made by the

project to their work. Most of these did not involve people doing

different things; for most people FSR/E has meant their giving more

emphasis to certain things thai they have always done -- more

emphasis on interdisciplinary work, more emphasis on the potential

interactions among crops/enterprises physically as well as

biologically and more emphasis on involving farmers in the design

and evaluation of programs. The observation was also made that the

FSR/E concept could help Increase the efficiency of the existing

institutional system, i.e., it provided a way to identify research

topics and modify field studies more quickly with less lead time.

The things that the evaluation team saw and heard during the week

substantiates these observations.








Taken all together, the FSR/E is a mechani`m for strengtYienri

the linkages between the technology innovation system and ii

clientele.



To a large extent, IFAS is working in an FSR/E mode. Ti

FSR/E concept is inherent in the land-grant tradition. It ha.s her

"discovered" (or "rediscovered") in overseas operations, in pa;

because technical assistance personnel and programs were not

oriented to technology per se than to its role in firm .m3n-age

and production. Further, even though central to the landi-gr.a

concept, it had never been recognized as a conscious, distinct

methodology.



There may be two reasons for the current experi.-entation wit

the re-introduction FSR/E into the U.S. agricultural syste-m. One i

that as both the land-grant institution and the structure and need

of agriculture has changed, there could -well be an "institltiona

drift" away from some of the traditional concepts. Anot'-er reason

for the re-introduction is that there may be better m.thodologies o

the chance to develop improved methodologies of linking th

university research/education systems to the various productio

systems. If it is now a deliberative process rather than a

intuitive one, there may be significant opportunity to develop

useful methodologies.


We have seen only a tiny segment of IFAS and only a tin







segment of on,. clientele group. The team believes that IFAS ';

using its re:iources efficiently in addressing other syst,.;:-". It

must be made clear the FSR/E ca,, b. co.e.a helpful approach t.- :' 1

with a system once the decision has been made to seek to influence

that system. It loes not have a lot to offer on hotw prioriti:.s :..ir

established. Su.-e farming systems will get attention and -o:;e "-ill

be ignored, and institutional mni%.g-int must assume rspoo.sibility

for the choice.



With all these caveats, the team's judgment is t'-at the

activity should be maintained, that deliberate attention tc

strengthening linkages with specific clientele groups ;-ill likely be

a profitable course of action for IFAS.



2. Broader Core Faculty Participation



If FSR/E is a concept rather than a program, it needs to have

a diffuse, pervasive impact on the way IFAS does its business. The

following diagram helps show a manner by which the work of IFAS

could be affected and a broader participation achieved.



Farming Systems Research and Extension is important in the

problem choice or needs assessment area and again in the last stages

of the technology innovation process, testing in the production

system. Meanwhile, conventional research is most intense in the

research and technology development functions.
















































II

f I


w (n







> c CD
\.O CC ;
0 01


xapul <1;P


Cost analysis

Communication/education 2 =

Demonstration of results- <-.

Applicallon of finding .
o --

Farmer evaluation -

Farmer testing /

Scientific description

Scientific proof

Analyses of findhg on
Testing new technologies
-on farm,
-experiment station
New discoveries 5
Develc,-,ent cf new
technologies
Testing existing tec Ci .- :

Problem identifcaot n A
Problem description,
physical, bio;c: ic.,
social, econc-.:c g
Biological re.:,o,",,
Physicci/c'''. .ica..
relc c .. ..
Farrnc-, o(>r,'
A.vcrcnU .j' 01' 1 .._Uj
fc.- ,-
soc,.y \ /






Relatively minor adjusLtrn-nts in the shape of Ct, con:'.-nt ional

re:;, rch curve could jive -.ore att-.ntion to the t.:- FS i :-nents

on the horizontal axis.



This adjustment in sh:,pe c ; :n csult frcio : in *:;cut ive

actions. Top management of I'AS c in let it 1- '2o :: t c gjihoit the

faculty that work in these air.eas is acceptable. TI c'-ild go as far

as saying work in these areas is expected. Still another

alternative is to increase the number of j-'int r-: 'rcih-extets ion

appointments,-especially in the ARC's, since -any FS:/E functions

can be performed as well by extersion as by research personnel.



3. An administrative home for FSK/E



The Departments of IFAS, together with the IFAS Extension

Service, have the necessary comjpoiients to develop a farming systems

approach. However, the philosophy and the methodologies necessary

to implement the systems approach are not auto-.atically applied.

The systems approach requires guidance and coordination. How to

bring about the coordinated action and to institutionalize the

farming systems approach to research and extension needs be given

attention. The need for direction, guidance, and coordination is

greater in the initial stages of its implementation. Considerable

guidance would be needed in order to increase its coverage over a

wide area, especially during the period of expansion.


Another reason for a coordination system is that the logistic







ne2ds of an extend..,d '.ys'st'n would increase with expansion. Th

should he no m.ajur p.,jbl r. because of the already establish,

support systems of e x. ns ion activities through the regional a

ccu.ity Orgaaii action ';'dt th.3 -,pport of research through the ARC's.



The r.ced.Id co'rdi i n might be arrived at through differ

means or diffcent kinds of organization such as:



(.1) F.e,i-n-eial joint planning under executive direction.



Joint research/extension planning could be conducted

county or c-giLonal headquarters for extension agents or tI

ARC's (or AREC's). This planning could be doone from a farmii

systems perspective if personnel to conduct the work were t

received assignments through their Departments or through tl

Extension Service. Leadership responsibilities would t

assigned for joint planning and general supervision ar

coordination.



The output from the joint planning would be a plan c

work which would include specific activity assignments. Suc

plans of work would have to be reconciled with financial ar

human resources. This system probably would function i

rewards for the work would be adequate. The system would hav

to be equitable in comparison with other research an

extension opportunities for promotion and tenure.







(b) .\n idmi inistrative ho.ne coilJd b"? established th'r,,'i:h

a high l.,.vel unit (such as the C.ent:r fir Rural Develo e-'t)..

The pl.inning still should be done on a regional basis -.";h t-h

participation of commodity and discipline research pers~o-.inel

along with extension personnel. Such a stricture would '"V'e

administrative functions, be a center for reporting and gn.ral

guidance and supervision. The work would be conducted by

personnel from the Departments and from Extension.



(e) A third system would be to pl.ce the responsibility

for the systems approach within either research or

extension--probably extension since it is extension which has

the framework for a disperse operation already in place.



(d) A fourth system might be to appoint a joint

"research/extension coordinator for on-farm technology" (or

some other more imaginative name or title) to work under both

the director of Research and Extension, who would do the FSR/E

coordination. Since the guidance and coordination is greater

during the initial phases of establishing the system this

position might eventually be eliminated. This would have the

advantage of requiring no new mechanisms, as compared with a

high level administrative unit. The objective of Lhis

approach wodld be avoidance of establishment of a program but

still achieve the institutionalization a systems mode of

action.





The farming sy'.tens approach is nore a rianner of di r-i- ing r.'-;= r

toward specific biological objectives than a specific prolgr lm. It is qit

different from a strictly component approach for two reasons: (a) i: f,'c~-s

component research toward specific needs and (b) it returns the reslilts

component research to the holistic system for integration and evl -J or

production systems rather than relying upon the farmer or the e:;:tension ,'ei



4. Expansion of geographic coverage



Increased coverage is necessary if the systems ;'proich is

become institutionalized in the IFAS system.



Experience in other countries has indicated that the c;

logical means of increasing coverage is (a) to increase or e -2

the area around the initial implementation and (b) to u'se r'-;

members that have gained experience in one area to form the nuclei

for a team to work in a new area. In both cases the exparnsio. :

based upon the experience of personnel gained in one area t

increase coverage.



The process of gaining the information and skill required 1

time consuming and costly in the initial stages. However once basi

information and skill are gained a team can continue to updat

technologies with less effort, thus it should be possible to reduce

team size (or expand the area), without completely abandoning a

area.














Auxiliary personnel for support of f ild >.ork is thus

esp-ci.-illy important during the initial stages of ':orkz in a given

area. In this ruga.rd the pr.s-nt ;North Florida t-:-.. pr.bably would

have been more efficient with :':,re support perso-::el, especially in

the support of field t:ork. Cond'icting t'i. ;.'!d *:ork can be

excellent training e::pei.ience for the expansion rf CLuerage to new

areas. Much of the field o ork can also be done by

para-professionals, thus increasing total o,'ount of work output by

top level scientists.



IFAS, in addition to c-npi:s lcat.d p'- sonnl, a-nd in addition

to line extension agents, hIs several regionally located department

members, many of whom might possible be more directly integrated

into the systems approach.





Dr. Roberta van Haeften

Dr. Robert K. Waugh

Dr. J.K. McDermott

Dr. D.D. Harpstead




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