7


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.

*- . . * ,;-iI+ : +. '. -. -

This concern led to several activities in different parts of the world
ith- .o.- some . u rpos strategy and methodologies whh
:.. -with some common threads of purpose, strategy and methodologies which have


-. t*- .., . .1 .


... <.:- v^-sss^^ .." '.4i_ ..r v .7.4 s ; Z -.'/ S t- "'- ,-- .-"u~.~ ...'^r~. . -- .- i "-










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

farming systems perspective and other terms such as Farming Systems Research

(FSR) or (FSR/E) to include extension'. One of the co;lmon thLcads of this

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

science disciplines to understand the farm as a whole, rather than the

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

participants in the evaluation and selection of technology.



The University had contact with this renewed wholistic approach, and

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

However, the University, recognizing their responsibilities to agriculture in

the State of Florida with a highly varied agricultural industry, -sked if this

approach was also applicable in their setting.



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

first with an interest in the application of the systems perspective to local

conditions, and second to gain experience and use the project as a base for

teaching programs to strengthen their capabilities both at home and abroad.



II. Purpose of the University of Florida Farming Systems 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

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

', -, ;. .

-''. l . .. .
* ^I.,..' ; i.sf-', o ,- .s -it .w .:- '.. .... --,.*-.e_: '- t. j.' .- . ." ... . ..
r^ l~ahBBmii i~ }tM^iaart^B^ifiit^ii.^ .^a. !,h^, -.1;. ,r *mJ-rt^^~-,...^.-fl6^^.^^^sraBLaba~ri^^~I -^l pC-^.., .










specific area of experimentation. The experim.rintation related dir-ctly to 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 farr-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/denonstrational field activities. The field program of

Dr. Mickey Swisher is an excellent example of the application 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

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

linkages between producers and the traditional extension services

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

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


* ~ X --- .--

C~ -


i- -,awiCts~ZP At-^-*


- --L -- --1------0 m -- WWA-- m.).fiXWAU-_.t, -~;1


~:ia,..
n~ :-CL":-I

7


.fii.~ _.


~9:











the sharing of existing technologies. It has, in reality, already

realized some of the desired multiplier effect by encouraging

individuals to extend the area of demonstration, move aggressively

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

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

the s:-ason after the normal period of corn planting has'passed.




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

establishment of demonstration/applied research programs 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.



S 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
4 ." -. .

... ,- nd sociological environments is a major accoLplish'ient.

-v' -'


UAW OA Ir-
: _-,' 111. r . ..i..... ., . .. .r *_- -.


~-J


~iF;Jr~;l-i~*-iuri~SICi


- -- -- I' ~~"~


* "











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 systems

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 rhich the original recommendations had been based.

,The team encountered several examples of these inconsistencies.



Soil fertilizer recommendations have been generalized and have


-. J C -'


.rL.L
V41W,


;-'e

n, -- c
:I: ~: ?r




f









evolved from a body of information including soil test results, la nd

.. use history, cropping intention, and management level. The

usefulness of a generalized reconnondation for fertilizer ,n .,'.

is an appropriate topic for further examination.



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

region. The new variety Florida 301 came at a time ;.hen far'-ing

enterprises were in flux, winter pasture was in demand and a ic2d

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

used these circumstances to test both the efficiency and cost

effectiveness of the existing recommendations and contributed

additional knowledge to the total fertilizer recoi--endation picture.

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

soil fertility specialist. There is a great need for discipline

Q. scientists to incorporate, where appropriate, the ne-w findings into

the generalized soil fertility recommendations.



Questions on the date of wheat planting clearly needs to be

understood from a multidisciplinary point of view. Major areas of

concern are related to diseases control or avoidance, forage

production, cost of production, grain yield and net profit. This

array of problems cannot satisfactorily be answered from limited

technology approaches. Any recommendation brought forward will have

to be accepted as one possible answer from among several possible

*. -. answers based on a specific set of needs or expectations.



S A major concern in this area to the review committee was the


.. . . . -. .

rtl-T^ -fi-~te ~ n.? i ^^ ^ ^ ^ r ^ ^ Si-^ ^ .^ ^ -- ^ ^ ^- -.^ ^ ^ ...- ^ ^ -.^ ^ -.511.











apparent lack of participation of farn management specialists 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 teol that any production co-ponent or

group of individual co.iponents.



To adequately address these concerns it will be necessary to

focus a larger pool of experiences than would normally be achieved

through a li'-ited number of field trials conducted in a restricted

areA. The goal "ust be to achieve maximum participation from

existing research progr-ns 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 with

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

oriented activity in north Florida. Several of these shared the

S 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
.. .
4 .... field research and extension.



. Also, identified but not studied were projects in integrated

.ALi &
** -

. *- ,, .. ... .,: .... -. ... .. .
,,. ", ,. -_.- ~ i-, _-r3 .,.; -.-" ". i -.r .. . -- ..""" -""'-


t- .











pest man-gement, mini,num tillage, farm managcment.,and multiple

cropping which.are oriented to one or more production systems

in some manner. They appear to be substantive in nature as

co.,pared to FSR/E which is a methodological approach. Also

,',sce may apply a systems approach to but not from as broad a

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

crop pest relationships and would not be expected to view

the whole farming system to the same extent as the FSR/E

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

be easy to relate such projects to the broader Farning Systems

Approach. FSR/E should maintain a close working relationship

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

offer to projects with parallel interests. Certainly farm

C management is of vital importance to FSR/E, although currently

we discovered no collaboration.



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

in the international technical assistance program of the United

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 have

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

: concentration of talent and leadership resulted in a USDA grant for

t. : this domestic effort. It is likely that the domestic effort had

S?:) .:?: .some influence on the University's being awarded the leadership role

in FSSP.



.8 .; - ,..- u -k ..- -- .-- -- . ..--.- -

S V, *- --- .
f.';l~. -Yf *ttto^- -^~- *'l" "- C1T -' -* --i^ ; ** 'M- r .. ^
71:* F llii;ffii^ *^r ^1^ ^ ^r. lllly^ ^r^? ^ ^. v ^ ^ - -^ ^ ^ . _: .- ^ .. ..*^










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

Peter Hildebrand on Methodology and one by Dr. Robert a.',gh on

Organization and Mangagement. Thes'e 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 ind

:' 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 Agronomy.

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.



S11. IFAS has an extensive network of centers which could perform a

| i_-..: useful function in the expansion strategy for FSR/E. Five or six





7 m-;L ja B i _"fiat 7 ,, ,m._' Z s. "'... ..


I










are known as Agricultural Resu_ rch -nd E!,ic.ition Centeps ('>'C) ;.nd

C. a dozen or so are Agricultural Research Centers (ARC's). The rC' s

are part of the Research Service and their personnel ans.-r J cI l.y

to the Dean of Research. The discipline oriented Departe -''ts h've

personnel posted in the AREC's, frequently :: it:. j i t

research--o'-i:exnsion appointments. 't e visited only l nie .\'.C n cro

our observations do not have a good feel for the functi on of t' .se

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

activities in problem identification arid needs asc.ess-2nt.



12. The North Florida FSR/E project is dealing t.ith t:o ov-:rall

variables in its experimentation. One variable is the FSR/E

concept. Since we saw only the one project, we do not ':now the

extent to which FSR/E differs fro. other TFAS research .-,d c-te-ision

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

relatively little effort on the part of researchers to integrate

technology into the actual production systems, leaving this to

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

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 study

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 more appropriate to the needs of this


S.- - .4--
i -.


, r,,






non-participant group. Since the project is also de;iling with the


-b
so-called limited resource farrmer that has not been an active

extension clientele, two varihAbls are under test. while e s',mie IFAS

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

IFAS think ing associtt es <'/l very closely with low resource

fare rs.



IV. Recor.nendations and Conclusions




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

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



A. Summary of Recommendations



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.





,-.
______ *" ^ *^ *.^ :- w^ ^ -^- *










b. Since there are several other activities or prograv-s in IF\S with

Schliracteristics similar to FSR/E, appropriate linkages and

colLi ,orations need to be established. One set of these is related

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

virtue of the fact that the programs have an orientation to

,r~)..uction systems.



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

concentration of resources that cannot be justified indefinitely, an

expansion strategy is needed. It appears that expansion at an

adequate rate and intensity can be achieved with modifications in

the IFAS structure that can be accomodated without unreasonable

disruption.



C B. Discussion of Recommondations



1. FSR/E should be continued in IFAS

The North Florida FSR/E project has proven the FSR/E concept

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

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 by

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,

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

t :'. I

;' .."-. -,N. -- --- ... o ..-
^ ii r in ~ i r )r









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

w thodologies are most useful in this segment of the farming sector.

It may also be that FSR/E is currently roire closely associat'ld vith

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

bind research and extension to low resource fanners.



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

4C- 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
.' S.
S- 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



.. . . -- . - --
... --- . . .. ,,, I, ,, ... -, k -. -- ,. -,. .. .









their perspective they were alr-eady doing most or all of the thlin'gs

C, that the FSR/E was supposed to do. Not having anticipated thit such

problems night arise, project personnel were not eqc:ii;:,d t. deal

with them effectively. Rather th n defusing potential conflicts,

for ex:a.nple, some project personnel ~.p- ::r *nl\" r,-.l..7 d t.o rI!'--; : ions

about the legitimacy of their work by pointing outt .AI L'e fai '.ures

in the existing system.



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

direction. Interest in the project has jr-'-:. Most of the initial

hostility appears to have disa ;'rea:'d. Sor.me ho '--.re initially

skeptical, even hostile are no, crooieratii;g :-ith the: project, some

even with enthusiasm. Others, although still skeptical, recognize

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

Much of this change in attitudes appears to have taken place 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

Sand 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 raaagement specialists, for example, the

. . . .. .. .- *

.'.'".. -. i, r'i'i ,.. ,, I, .J-- .., ..









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

Senterprises, combined enterprise and total farm budgets. As it is,

the a.,alysis of the econ; iric dimensions of the farm systems being

studied is one of the ::..::. r components of the project. More

involve'-.cnt by a l.-.'r.cr .-r'.=L of core faculty apd scientists will

he necessary if the f5;'/ ..u..:ept is to be successfully integrated

into the total IFAS '"yst;-.



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

the existing' institutional structure it appears to have had a

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

many in the administrative structure.



The people from related disciplines who have been involved

C 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 tha,t 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

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

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

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

S.substantiates these observations. -



4..
.. . -- *. .... -
.. '- C" t . .
~~I~~~-~~ .t. ~ h i
~a t--; **T*-"'. *'-c 'JI. '-<. *^SW w '',* :' ^ '- '^ < ^" -


Ji---~as-- --- s-~u


-c 'amsD~i-i ~crEIi.s, ~ ..~~r; a












Taken all together, the FSR/E is a mechanic for strgtenitheni

the linkages between the technology innovation system and its

clientele.



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

FSR/E concept is inherent in the land-grant tradition. It has been

"discovered" (or "rediscovered") in overseas operations, in part

because technical assistance personnel and programs were nore

oriented to technology per se than to its role in f.rm manage :ent

and production. Further, even though central to the land-grant

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

methodology.



L':' There may be two reasons for the current experimentation with

the re-introduction FSR/E into the U.S. agricultural system. One is

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

of agriculture has changed, there could well be an "institutional

drift" away from some of the traditional concepts. Another reason /

for the re-introduction is that there may be better methodologies or

the chance to develop improved methodologies of linking the

university research/education systems to the various production

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

i. .intuitive one, there maybe significant opportunity to develop
.. . %', ~, fi
S useful methodologies.



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



~ .' "; . .. ,' ;.. : # -- --" .


;.









segment of one clientele group. The team believes that IFAS is

using its re:;ources efficiently in addressing other syst...:!. It

must be made clear the FSR/E can b-corme.a helpful approach tn :. 11

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

that system. It loes not have a lot to offer on hov. priorities .:re

established. Su. e farming systems will get attention and so:.e '*ill

be ignored, and institutional m!nag-, nt must assume r.:spoisibility

for the choice.




With all these caveats, the team's judgment is that the

activity should be maintained, that deliberate attention to

strengthening linkages with specific clientele groups will 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.







v y -. ..... _., ,_ -*^.. v-. *,-- /_'*," .v7 *- .
MM~c


4 17


~-~I~Psllr~auur~Ilulll~L~si~U n~III~rUILIIP~ 4iL1*IP1911r~C121n-*~rJii~bL~~OW, ,- ~Ja~isPY


s~kLJII;DI.~LYS;~8%4i~L i0~ ~bS~















Cost analysis


Communication/education


Demonstration of results-


Applicatlon of finding


Farmer evaluation

Farmer testing

Scientific description

Scientific proof

Analyses of finding

Testing new technologies
-on farm
-experiment station
New discoveries


o 5

0.3
:o





--

V
A


Development of nev,' -
technologies
Testing existing tec.noiob :.

Problem identificaon A

Problem descripio-,
physical, biolo cc,
social, ecor, cnc
Biological re.c;o--,s,
Physics a,/c h:nica -n
relc ion .;:. .:
Farmer ; ;ci -),
A',waroent:.s Oi, ,cI u


-soc;.y _


., XU 4 A: -----




. .-.- .' . . ., _


I
; i

-~--
'--.
n:r,


C-)
c:
_o 0

^-^. oc


..&r a....Sat;l~~Uxa ~ -~i~al.111Aga~~i m


~~i~ir~L -..C4iLL~U


--ZF-~- -

'"~








Relatively minor adjustme-nts in the shape of tie cu.vetional

re:..arch curve could give more acttL.ntion to the t:-> FS-'.i/ it' nents

on the horizontal axis.



This adjustment in sh:.pe c.:-. rcisult frco c--c'-in i.;ccutive

actions. Top management of IEAS cn let it b12 ':1o :; t:.'c. ghoiit the

faculty that work in these areas is acceptable. Tt cr(ild go as far

as saying work in these areas is expected. Still another

alternative is to increase the number of joint r-.: -.'rch-extension

appointments,-especially in the ARC's, since rn3n FS;/E functions

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



3. An administrative home for FSR/E


The Departments of IFAS, together with the IFAS Extension

Service, have the necessary components to develop a farming systems

approach. However, the philosophy and the methodologies necessary

to implement the systems approach are not automatically 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



"-....' ..... .."". .. ....... "- ...... ..- -. ..... '. ......

"._--.-' .-o^ -. -. ,- .._ -.. .
__ __ -*^^^'~~~-I- *. .-A ~*c .- ^ ^ w ^ a^?.,.A r,-c_^ ^ ^. ,..







F,


needs of an extenJ.-d .'y:t.,m~ would increase w.ith expansion. This

should be no majur piobl'r. because of the already established

support systems of ex-tension activities through the regional and

ccu.ty organization n*id thl -'!pport of research through the ARC's.




The needed co~'Ldi .u-' in might be arrived at through different

means or diff-e-ent kinds of organization such as:



(a) Fegi-nial joint planning under executive direction.




Joint r-esearch/extension planning could be conducted at

county or cLsgional headquarters for extension agents or the

ARC's (or AREC's). This planning could be done from a farming

systems perspective if personnel to conduct the work were to

received assignments through their Departments or through the

Extension Service. Leadership responsibilities would be

assigned for joint planning and general supervision and

coordination.


7 1





-.;- -I :... -l. *-.


The output from the joint planning would be a plan of

work which would include specific activity assignments. Such

plans of work would have to be reconciled with financial and

human resources. This system probably would function if

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

to be equitable in comparison with other research and

extension opportunities for promotion and tenure.


- - - - - --wsI I~~i~A -y- I Cr-NAY L--L









(b) .n administrative home coid he established thr',ii.h

a high level unit (such as the Center fr Rural Develop;-'t) .

The planning still should be done on a rce~ional basis *ith the

participation of commodity and discipline research perso>niel

along with extension personnel. Such a structure would ave

administrative functions, be a center for reporting and general

guidance and supervision. The work would be conducted by

personnel from the Departments and from Extension.




(e) A third system would be to place 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 this

.: approach would be avoidance of establishment of a program but

Still achieve the institutionalization a systems mode of

a action.





V. .,.._ . , ..- .. -" ,, ^
-- -J - ..a -, -..
'*." :, :_3; ** _,- .- .- . -
ll;l?1 rl** ^ l.*/"fg ^ i lltf r^a i': ',.* ..... .. { ., .. .. .. "_ -.13 ... . .- ..- _.. _-. .. .._ .. '.


_


------~--~----~-'AM -


j











The farming systems approach is more a manner of di rec-ting r.:ur,-'s

:' toward specific biological objectives than a specific progr'la. It is qiite

different from a strictly component approach for two reasons: (a) it foc:"es

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

component research to the holistic system for integration and ev-!1i- ior; in

production systems rather than relying upon the farmer or the e>:t-nsion a.ent.




4. Expansion of geographic coverage




Increased coverage is necessary if the systems -pproich is to

become institutionalized in the IFAS system.




Experience in other countries has indicated that the two

logical means of increasing coverage is (a) to increase or e :'and

the area around the initial implementation and (b) to use tfan

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

for a team to work in a new area. In both cases the expansion is

based upon the experience of personnel gained in one area to

increase coverage.


The process of gaining the information and sk

time consuming and costly in the initial stages. How

information and skill are gained a team can cont

-'," technologies with less effort, thus it should be poss

team size (or expand the area), without complete



.-. . " .. .' e -
area.






.: ....... ,, -^'.. .. ^.4 ; .; . -* '. ".; .^ -. V


:ill required is

ever once basic

inue to update

ible to reduce

.y abandoning an

.... / -" i :,' :'


--- -- -- ------- ~~ s _.l~~~eu ~lr-I-N..XAl* ~~~~ft (A- am --- B.hsr~.7P3r


T . .. am


-;




. ::- ,,-,-.- -,.- : I ~ .- i -W: :
, W W. -,* .: ... ..- ".- u. .- .- -.
.- -.,. .- . .. .. .. . .


Auxiliary personnel for support of filid .:ork is thus. -
.-4". . .- .. -. -.
especially important during the initial stages of t:or.: in a- given .

area. In this regard the pr-. -nt North Florida t.-'-i, probably would.. -

Shav been more efficient with :,.re support perPso:el, especially in. ..

the support of field i:ork. Conducting ts rf~ .r~ :ork can be' l

exc-llent training --:perienc. for the expansion nf cou-erage to new -

areas. Much of the field work can also be done by

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

top level scientists.



IFAS, in addition to c-, pus !-cat.:-d i-'rsonn-l, and in addition

to line extension agents, has 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