multipurpose tree species research for small farms: strategies ... - part

More documents

Recommendations

Info

from on-station research, through on-farm research managed by researchers, and finally to farmer managed validation (van Elys 1985). With MPTS, Atta Krah and Francis (1087) have distinguished between types of trials to collect technical, biological and economic data (what they describe as type I information), and farmers' own evaluatioa of the technology (type 2 information). Practice The difficulties with the above approaches to technology testing have been described by Amir ef al. (1989). In retrospect, it can be seen that much FSR has been a losing battle to try and adapt research station experimental techniques to the on-farm situation. Often it is difficult to apply these techniques to on-farm component technology trials, and verification trials need a very different approach. Research stations are usually situated and managed to maintain uniform and fertile condition., which can show the yield potential of different technologies. In more marginal and variable upland environments, whe re mixed cropping is widespread, yield or productivity per area is difficult to measure at best, and may often be an irrelevant measure of system productivity, One answer to the problem of this variation is to increase the replication of experiments across farms, or to use experimental designs with one replication per farm. Lack of landon small holdings explains why some crop researchers have preferred to use one replication per farm in their experiments, However, the resources available to many onfarm research programs and the number of different subjects investigated in actual practice often mean that the number of replicatiois is not sufficient to give reasonable estimates of yield, With coefficients of variation of 25%, typical of on-farm conditions, at least 10 replications are needed to detect a 30% difference in treatment effect at the 10% probability level. There is commonly an interaction between site and the treatments under test, with some treatments best at one site, and others superior at another. If this interaction exists, and only one rcplication per farm is used in an experimental design, the commonly used analysis of variance does not provide any useful information. In this case, more replications are needed to identify the factors correlated with the relative performances, or to study the stability across sites, Similarly, difficulties in on-farm livestock research include the small number of animals per 158 farm, the mobile nature of livestock, long life cycle, unsynchronized units, measurements of multiple inputs and outputs, and measurement of long-term changes in productivity (Bernsten el al. 1985). As farmers are oftcn unwilling to let researchers manage their valuable animals, or manage them according to researchers' recommendations, researchers have used unit farms or sentinel herds where they manage animals under conditions that approximate the farmers' conditions as closely as possible (ICARDA 1982; Fallada and Cook 1985). Other solutions have included paying farmers incentives in cash or inputs (Calub 1985; Bunderson and Cook 1985). Economic return is often stressed as an important criterion in evaluating new technology. However, if estimates of production per hectare are imprecise, so will estimates of return based on the production figures. Labor data needed for an accurate partial budget are very ard to obtain (Lightfoot and Barker 1986). Secondary or non-market inputs and outputs may be ignored (such as the fodder and manuring values of a grazed fallow in a crop rotation), the real costs of credit and purchased inputs are often underestimated, and the losses incurred in a bad year unaccounted. Most economic analyses in FSR have used short-term or annual budgeting techniques. These are not ap propriate where bene its and costs are spread over several years, as with livestock and trees. Efforts have been made to include a time dimension in economic models for agroforcstry (Etherington and Matthews 1983), but such analyses are still rare in practice. Furthermore, one of the principal benefits of MPTS technologies is their sustainability. It is only recently that economists in general have tried to include natural resource depletion as an economic cost, and techniques for this at the field level are almost non-existent. It is not surprising to find that many apparently productive and remunerative technologies remain unadopted. The literature shows that research procedures and methods to deal with these problems of technology evaluation can be developed. However, this sophistication requires highly trained personnel and money. Methods resulting from well endowed foreign aid projects or the intrnational research centers are difficult to adopt by resource poor government programs on a widespread basis (Amir ct al. 1989). The irony is that researchers have been slow to accept the conclusion concerning research
approach that is already known about farm technology -- it is not the tcchnulogical feasibility which is important, rather the cost effectiveness "rnd practicability under the everyday conditions of the users. Farmer ParticipatoryResearch The overall failure of FSR to involve the farmer, and the practical difficulty of many FSR methods, has intensified the debate about the relative importance of technical, biological and economic evaluation versus the farmer's opinion. The literatu-c on alley cropping provides a good example of this. There are calls to research a variety of management options, such as spatial arrangements, time and frequcncy of cutting, method of pruning, etc., under a variety of ecological conditions (Ssekabembe 1985). Others argue that using a classical experimental approach to determine the optimum arrangement of these variables would require many years before recommendations could be made, and would fail to take into account both the farmers and many of the secondary products of the alley farm (Sumberg and Okali 1988). Alternative approaches, it is argued, need to incorporate farmers into the process of development and provide both farmers and researchers with an appreciation of the options presented by the technology. Well structured experimental trials to evaluate a defined technology can not provide this information, and offer little scope for farmer participation (Lightfoot et al. 1986). Sumberg and Okali suggest that results can be assessed in terms of farmers' interest and adoption, which they argue is by definition validation of a technology, even if the effects of the technology arc difficult to quantify. Calls to evaluate farmers' opinions and adoption rates are not new. However, systematic recording of these responses has been rare. Collinson (1987) stated that few methods have been developed for rvaluating farmers' opin:ons, but it would seem that the use of such data is less acceptable to researchers. Fellow scientists prefer yield data and statistical rigor, and donors look for figures of production increase on which to base their cost-benefit analyses. Interest in methods to involve farmers in the development and evaluation of tcch~lology, known as farmer participatory research, has grown rapidly in recent years (Farrington and Martin 1987; Farrington 1988). It is to be hoped that this interest in the literature will give such methods 159 more respect. Much of the research involves establishing a dialogue between farmers through group meetings and discussions, and encouraging them to identify and modify the technology to be tested. Indeed, Bunch (1982) suggests that the real aim of development workers ought to be to train farmers how to do research, rather than conduct it themselves. In the past, FSR methods emphasized effective evaluation before tefhnologies could be recommended for adoption (Norman and Collinson 1985). In the future, it may be easier to develop and screen promisin technologies through farmer participation using adoption as the criteria, and then evaluate them for impact on production and income. This process would represent a reversal of the original FSR procedures. The Uplands Agriculture Conservation Project Objective and Target Area The Uplands Agriculture Conservation Project (UACP) represents a joint IBRD and USAID effort to support upland conservation and development in Indonesia. The goal is to increase farm production and income, while minimizing soil erosion in densely populated upland areas by improving farming systems, farm technologies and management. There are five components of the project -- research, extension, training, road construction and a project innovalion fund. The project is being implemented in four districts in Central Java, and four in East Java. These districts are located within two major watersheds, the Jratcnselund, which is the catchment of 5 major rivers, and the Brantas. The eight districts are comprised of 250 thousand hectares of rainfcd land, home to 18 million people, of which 80 thousand hectares havc been classified as in a critical state of erosion. The topography in the project area is predominantly hilly, with elevatiors of 100-400m. Rainfall varies from 1,800-2,600mm per year, distributed in a rainy seastn of 7-9 months. Average farm size in these uplands is about 0.6ha. Typically, farms include plots on rainfed lowland, on rainfed upland, and a homegarden. About 50 crops are economically important, with rice, corn, cassava, peanuts and soybeans the most prominent annual food crops,
Page 1 and 2:
Proceedings of an International Con
Page 3 and 4:
MULTIPURPOSE TREE SPECIES RESEARCH
Page 5 and 6:
Session 3: Determining Extension, I
Page 7 and 8:
Preface While a great deal of inter
Page 9 and 10:
Participants of the conference, lad
Page 11 and 12:
The establishment and continued gro
Page 13 and 14:
Session 1: Determining End Uses, De
Page 15 and 16:
preliminary studies. Cross-cultural
Page 17 and 18:
farm and village forestry practices
Page 19 and 20:
group. A village in Thailand or Nep
Page 21 and 22:
fit within the structure of each of
Page 23 and 24:
There is a growing literature on vi
Page 25 and 26:
A. heterophyla isplanted in homegar
Page 27 and 28:
Data Analysis The results of an exe
Page 29 and 30:
Table 1. Dependency test between ho
Page 31 and 32:
Survey and Participant Observation
Page 33 and 34:
used the participant observation me
Page 35 and 36:
needs to stay in the village for an
Page 37 and 38:
A Descriptive Research Method to Es
Page 39 and 40:
Important external data sources for
Page 41 and 42:
Although a discussion of statistica
Page 43 and 44:
demanded by consumers and the payme
Page 45 and 46:
Table 2. Components and goals of th
Page 47 and 48:
through a form of informal collusiv
Page 49 and 50:
Information about the current envir
Page 51 and 52:
importance to Sri Lankan society as
Page 53 and 54:
Table 1. Major aspects considered i
Page 55 and 56:
Table 2. Common perennial species.
Page 57 and 58:
able to purchase basic inputs. Duri
Page 59 and 60:
Session 2: Evaluating the Supply of
Page 61 and 62:
The status of fuelwood utilization
Page 63 and 64:
consume 184,990m 3 of fuclwood per
Page 65 and 66:
References Boonyavechewin, S. and B
Page 67 and 68:
loan, the decision is based on the
Page 69 and 70:
subsidizes poor farmers. The govern
Page 71 and 72:
Table 1. Components and expected ou
Page 73 and 74:
traditional and simple with few exc
Page 75 and 76:
levels. Education curricula should
Page 77 and 78:
Session 3: Determining Extension, I
Page 79 and 80:
or from scientific analysis of such
Page 81 and 82:
Similarly, in another country, tria
Page 83 and 84:
aiming at commercial markets. The t
Page 85 and 86:
Multipurpose Tree Species in Agrofo
Page 87 and 88:
Table 2. Number of fruit trees plan
Page 89 and 90:
Research should be designed to impr
Page 91 and 92:
The majority of farmers can not aff
Page 93 and 94:
and worked with them in both projec
Page 95 and 96:
Timber is needed by most of the far
Page 97 and 98:
home. In Maharashtra State, several
Page 99 and 100:
Methodologies are reviewed for anal
Page 101 and 102: Development (NERAD) Project is an a
Page 103 and 104: small-scale charcoal manufacturing.
Page 105 and 106: Table 1. Hypothetical logit test re
Page 107 and 108: hectare of cultivated land requires
Page 109 and 110: The farmers' choice of species lead
Page 111 and 112: References Abell, T.M.B. 1981. Fucl
Page 113 and 114: Session 4: Orienting Research Effor
Page 115 and 116: Research mus. concentrate on these
Page 117 and 118: esearch scientists. Many crop and f
Page 119 and 120: Improving the Effectiveness of Mult
Page 121 and 122: western half of Timor. It is the po
Page 123 and 124: crops will result in less land bein
Page 125 and 126: compete with the tree crop in the f
Page 127 and 128: Small Farm Multipurpose Tree Specie
Page 129 and 130: The usual solution is to pilot test
Page 131 and 132: The CENRO offices which are scatter
Page 133 and 134: problem and begin work on a solutti
Page 135 and 136: and industrial levels, as well as s
Page 137 and 138: agicultural crops. Many of these ga
Page 139 and 140: woodlot and grow cassava using a cr
Page 141 and 142: local interest in the wo.-k on MPTS
Page 143 and 144: Tree improvemqnt efforts by forest
Page 145 and 146: the mother trees for their homegard
Page 147 and 148: Table 2. General steps required to
Page 149 and 150: Applying Fanning Systems Research C
Page 151: Planning Diagnosis is only useful i
Page 155 and 156: Research Plans and Metotls Based on
Page 157 and 158: leaves make good fertilizer, althou
Page 159 and 160: Ref.rences Amir, P., R.C. Hawkins a
Page 161 and 162: The growing importance of small-sca
Page 163 and 164: taking into account possible effect
Page 165 and 166: Poster Session Presentations / /
Page 167 and 168: planned bulletiii. are provided, bu
Page 169 and 170: L. leucocephala is the most well kn
Page 171 and 172: Table 4. Probability significance (
Page 173 and 174: Recently, systematic research on im
Page 175 and 176: Table 2. Annual Paulownia exports,
Page 177 and 178: Forest policy formulated in India u
Page 179 and 180: vigorously, reaching the pre-thinne
Page 181 and 182: Table 1. List of species for degrad
Page 183 and 184: Table 3. Productivity potential of
Page 185 and 186: candidate must withstand certain ed
Page 187 and 188: arising from the fact that at the f
Page 189 and 190: Table 1. Soil properties from the e
Page 191 and 192: Table 5. Analysis of variance of Si
Page 193 and 194: Capsule Method of Cultivation in Se
Page 195 and 196: Table 2. Comparison of average stem
Page 197 and 198: Table 1. Area and species planted i
Page 199 and 200: Table 4. P.falcataria related enter
Page 201 and 202: The Marketing System The marketing
Page 203 and 204:
The field trip, organized by the Fo
Page 205 and 206:
213 213 em
Page 207 and 208:
Participants Marian delos Angeles S
Page 209:
Syed Zahir Sadeque AST/CIDA House 6
show all

multipurpose tree species research for small farms: strategies ... - part

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?