The role of participatory processes in organic research programmes

CORThe colloquium of organic researchersIORNotes from a COR workshopThe role of participatory processes in organic research programmesHeld at: HDRA, Ryton Organic Gardens, Coventry, CV8 3LG.on 25th January 2005IntroductionThe aim of the workshop was to explore and discuss the relevance of participatory approachto organic farm research in general taking some on-going projects as examples. The contextfor the workshop was to examine:1) who is setting the research agenda and how?2) are the organic research programmes addressing the needs of farmers, growers andadvisors, researchers and policy makers?3) is the research addressing the needs of the wider organic movement?4) how can wider stakeholder engagement with research be encouraged?The outline plan for the day is provided in annex 1. During the day summaries of the researchapproach of four contrasting ‘participatory research’ projects were presented and theaudience invited to compare them using various participatory methods. These notes brieflydetail the outcome of these exercises. Analysis and presentation of qualitative data wasdiscussed and some time was spent discussing and identifying research projects that mightbenefit from a more ‘participatory approach’. This report is only intended as a set of notesoutlining the day as an aide to recalling the events and as a record of the meeting.Expectations for Day• learn some new techniques that can be applied to work (x2)• share experiences with others running participatory projects (x3)• plan new research together• good lunch• trade-offs and synergies• new ideas and approachesIssues to address• social/ natural scientist learning processes• statistics and participatory research? How to do quality research with statistics (x3)• how to scale up both temporally and spatially• “balance” in action• publishing (in journals?)• engaging scientists or researchersStakeholder AnalysisStakeholders are persons, groups or institutions with interests in a project or programme. Seealso notes from the day are presented in annex 2.Who?• Primary stakeholders are those ultimately affected, either positively (beneficiaries), ornegatively.• Secondary stakeholders are the intermediaries in the delivery process.

CORIORWhy?• the identification of a project's key stakeholders,• assessing project suitability and viability,• assessment of interests and the ways in which these interests affect project riskinessand viability,• linked to both institutional appraisal and social analysis.How?• Clarifying objectives of the analysis. Could include a checklist for identifyingassumptions and risks from stakeholders, e.g.:ƒ What is the role or response of key stakeholders that must be assumedif the project is to be successful ?ƒAre these roles plausible and realistic ?ƒCan negative responses be expected, given the interests of thestakeholder ?• Placing issues in a systems context• Identifying decision-makers and stakeholders• Investigating stakeholder interests and agendas• Investigating patterns of interaction and dependence (e.g. conflicts andcompatibilities, trade-offs and synergies)A group exercise using CATWOE analysis was carried out by brainstorming a list of projectsor outcomes considered useful in order to advance the organic agenda (see annex 3). Theexercise was useful in outlining the roles of participants in projects. It is sometimes difficultto pin down the stakes that various actors have in a project or process.Discussion of ProjectsExperiences with participatory research in four organic research projects, covering varioussectors, were given (see presentations in annex).• Participatory weeds project (annex 4)• Participatory cereal variety project (annex 5)• Poultry (annex 6)• Farming Connect organic herbage seed project (annex 7)Participants were asked to evaluate the projects using a stakeholder approach to determinewho was participating and in what capacity and these are presented in annex 8. This approachto analysis of a project did not seem to work well in the time available although participantsmight like to take the analysis and develop them (say for changes over time, or changes fromthe initial project documentation). Identification of projects often involves a diffuse gatheringof information over a long period. Sometimes the roles of actors or the ‘stakes’ involved arenot very clear and it needs more time to develop this, perhaps by including a wider range ofstakeholders in the analysis.The results of the stakeholder analyses and project descriptions emphasised the importance ofperceptions when engaged in this type of research. The participatory approach provides adifferent emphasis, is not a cheaper option, and can often take a great deal more organization.The results can however be more rewarding and applicable, to farmers in particular. Weshould also recognise that we did not fully complete the stakeholder analysis. In a morerealistic situation we would need to spend longer on it and complete the different exercises,2

CORIORwhich would enable us to analyse the implications fully (this may take many differentmeetings during the project even). The outcome would be to decide which stakeholders areimportant and whether they are acting in a positive or negative manner that might affectproject outcomes. If they were negative we would need to decide what to do about it.Evaluation of different research approaches(On-farm) research can take place on a number of levels as, perhaps, shown by the range ofapproaches taken by the four projects above. In this energizer exercise participants wereasked to split into four groups and do a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities andthreats) analysis on each of four categories of research:Contractual- researcher designed and implemented (farmer input minimal)Consultative-researcher designed and implemented jointly (farmer manages trial)Collaborative- joint consultation, researcher in control but farmer involved in planning anddesign and implements trialCollegial- fully participatory with design, implementation and evaluation by all partnersThe SWOT diagrams for each are given in annex 9. The SWOT analyses emphasize theadvantages and disadvantages of the different approaches to on-farm research. It should beappreciated that the research types form a continuum and are not discrete types and thatdifferent approaches might be necessary or desirable depending on the topic or issue beingaddressed. In itself this was a useful exercise, as it pushed people into roles that they may nothave thought about previously. As a technique, it had a valuable function.Qualitative research and evaluationA brief talk was given on qualitative research and evaluation. This is presented in annex 10.A discussion indicated that the biologists present have not realised that social scienceapproaches were also rigorous and involved corroboration and triangulation of information inorder to build up reliable datasets. Agricultural journals increasingly recognise the value ofsuch data sets and social science journals will accept them as well (e.g. geography, ruraldevelopment).In order to develop some of the ideas an exercise was presented and briefly discussed (annex11). The exercise was not meant to imply that a division existed between quantitative orqualitative methods but rather that they are part of a continuum and when used in acomplimentary way are a powerful analytical tool. Participants were urged to read variousbooks on qualitative research methods and inform themselves of the issues. The exercise ispresented in annex 11 and could be used by all researchers to examine their perspectives.A handout on research approaches and methods was distributed to allow participants to get anoverview of some qualitative methods.Discussion possible research ideasA brief discussion of ways to move the participatory agenda forward from the day included:• Develop ways to measure the impact of such projects, that is monitoring change andlearning3

CORIOR• (Global) climate change- could be better dealt with by a participatory and inclusiveapproach• Local food production projects• Biodiversity issues can be dealt with using this approach• Health and well being projects are well suited to inclusive methods• Education and knowledge transfer projects should be developed which take advantageof the participatory approach. We should continue a dialogue on these themes and tryto develop some of them for future organic projects.Some Issues arising during the day• DEFRA- the role of DEFRA was discussed at many points during the meeting. Arethey owners of the process and/ or actors (see stakeholder exercises). How can wedraw DEFRA in or how do they want to become involved. How do they cope withparticipatory processes and outcomes internally?• Why are there no extension services in the UK or why is there no funding forextension service type work? (Note added: There are extension services but most areprivatised and farmers pay for these services. An issue for further discussion wouldbe: is there a place for publically funded extension today? If so, what aspects offarming and rural livelihoods should it cover? Are there areas of research andextension that are now being neglected because the extension system is privatised e.g.organic? )• How do we measure the impact of participatory projects? (Note added: There is a lotof literature on this, especially in development literature (e.g. NRI, DiFID) and thiscould be followed up.)SummaryThe day provided on overview of the use of participatory methods. The participants, mainlyorganic researchers, but also extensionists, were able to share a great deal on information andcontribute with many different perspectives. Many of the exercises could be built upon toaddress some of the issues with participatory research arising from both the projects and theworkshop.Thanks to all who took part;Notes summarised byGareth Davies,HDRA, 27 January 20054

CORIORAnnex 1Outline plan for the participation workshopAims for day to explore and discuss the relevance of participatory approach to organic farmresearch in general taking some on-going projects as examples. Context for questions: 1) whois setting the research agenda and how? 2) are current organic (participatory) researchprogrammes addressing the needs of farmers, growers and advisors, researchers and policymakers? 3) is research addressing the needs of the wider organic movement? 4) how canwider stakeholder engagement with research be encouraged?Activity Who? Material etc…Expectations for day: on arrivalall toparticipateHDRA stafforganise1) Put expectations up on poster,2) write up issues to address during theday3) introduce yourself to someone new…..Chart for expectations (flipchart), chart for problems,main hall, minimal seating?Graffiti posterIntroduction: aims for day, projectbackground (10 mins)Stakeholder Analysis: who are thestakeholders in organic research? Whatare there needs, expectations and rewards?Discussion groups, brainstorm, initialdiscussion (to be continues below) (20 mins)Report back very briefly on stakeholders tomain group (10 mins)Current Participatory Projects: (45 mins)experiences with participatory approaches inorganic research• Weeds project (GD)• Cereal varieties (BP)• Poultry (Josie )• Farming Connect organic herbageseed project (HM)Discussion of Projects: carousel groupdiscussion for each project with the theme‘delivering to whom and how?’.Continuation of stakeholder analysisintroduced above (45 mins)Brief report back to the whole group. Whatare the main issues emerging for each project?(15 mins)GD/BPDG to adviseGD, HM, BP,JosieallLaptop/projector/ Main HallForm groups, flip charts,pens, table and wall spaceCrib sheet availableProjector and flip chartsFlip chartsLunchEvaluation different approaches: quick DG GD BP Crib sheet, flip charts5

CORIORSWOT analysis of two contrasting researchapproaches (participation/collegial vscontractual collaborative) What are theadvantages to each and where to the previousprojects fit in…….Qualitative research and evaluation: talkand discussion of researcher fears of usingsocial science type approaches…..Talk and/or discussion (15 mins)Exercise on characteristics of quantitative andqualitative (15 mins).Research Proposals: what types of researchcan benefit from these approaches anddiscussion potential research projectsGroup brainstorm (20 mins)Group discussions (30 mins)Report back on potential research projectsand funding proposals (10 mins)Wrap up and teaFH, GDGDGD, BPGDAllAllGD, BPHandoutsExercise sheetsFlip ChartsGD, 24 January 20056

CORIORSTAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ( SA)Annex 2 (thanks to David Gibbon)1. IntroductionStakeholder Analysis is the identification of a project's key stakeholders, an assessment oftheir interests and the ways in which these interests affect project riskiness and viability . It islinked to both institutional appraisal and social analysis: drawing on the information derivingfrom these approaches, but also contributing to the combining of such data in a singleframework.Stakeholders are persons, groups or institutions with interests in a project or programme.Primary stakeholders are those ultimately affected, either positively (beneficiaries), ornegatively. Secondary stakeholders are the intermediaries in the delivery process.2. Stages in processes• Clarifying objectives of the analysis• Placing issues in a systems context• Identifying decision-makers and stakeholders• Investigating stakeholder interests and agendas• Investigating patterns of interaction and dependence(e.g. Conflicts and compatibilities, trade-offs and synergies)•• 3. Stakeholder Analysis MatricesChecklist for identifying assumptions and risks from stakeholders• What is the role or response of key stakeholders that must be assumed if the projectis to be successful ?• Are these roles plausible and realistic ?• Can negative responses be expected , given the interests of the stakeholder ?• If such responses occur what impact will they have on the project ?• How likely are the negative responses and are there major risks ?• Which plausible assumptions about stakeholders support or threaten the project ?7

CORIOR• Table 1. CATWOE Analysis• Customers– the victimsorbeneficiariesof ‘T’• Actors– thosewho do‘T’T: Transformationprocesses– the conversion ofinput to output• Weltanshaung– the worldviews whichmake the Tmeaningful incontext• Owners– those whocould stop TEnvironmentalconstraints– elementsoutside thesystem (whichare taken asgivens)8

CORIOR4. Stakeholder Participation MatricesWho should be included when, in what capacity – project level or wider systems level ?Table 2IdentificationInform Consult Partnership ControlPlanningImplementationMonitoring andEvaluationWho should be included, when and in what capacity ?Table 3StakeholderWhat does this majorstakeholder do in theproject ?+veactivities-veactivitiesWhich groupsdoes this affect?What are the implicationsof including or notincluding this stakeholderin the project ?Inclusion Notincluded9

CORIORStakeholder Influence/Importance matrixWhat are the impacts of including or not including different stakeholders likely to be for theissues identified and the success of the project.Table 4High importance/low influenceHigh influence/ High importanceA. B.C. D.Low importance/low influenceHigh influence/Low importance10

CORIORAnnex 3: CATWOE analyses of various transformation processes• Customers– the victims orbeneficiaries of ‘T’Farmers (organicand potentiallyorganic)ConsumersRetailersCertifying bodiesLocal food marketsLocal communitiesPolicy makersFarmersOrganic farmingCommunityAdvisorsMillers?Seed producers?Farmers/ growersConsumersGeneral publicDEFRAFarmerBusinesses• Actors– those who do‘T’Certifying bodiesPolicy makersFarmers?Where doresearchers fit in?FarmersResearchers(social andnatural sciences)AdvisorsDEFRAFarmersAdvisorsResearchersDEFRAFarmersGovn’tNGOsScientistsResearchersBusinessesLocal peopleT: Transformationprocesses– the conversion ofinput to output“ImprovingOrganicStandards”“On farm cerealvariety trials”also “seedtreatmentexperiments”and “farmerinterviews”“Organic WeedManagement”also “interactionand learningabout weeds…”“think oftechnology anddevelop it”contextdevelopmentproject in SriLanka• Weltanshaung– the worldviews which make theT meaningful incontext“Enviromentalists”“Free trade”“level playing field”“lowest commondenominator”“best practice”“better understandingof processes”“robust science”“need more organicfarmers”“reducing costs”“more effective weedmanagement”“the market place”“increase inproduction to makemoney on worldmarkets”• Owners– those whocould stop TPolicy makersRetailersFarmersConsumersDEFRAEFRCKingston UniMiddlesex UniNIABDEFRACompetitorsEnvironmentalistsTamil TigersEnvironmentalconstraints– elements outsidethe system (whichare taken as givens)Institutional context(e.g. WTO)CostsPublic relationsFundingPolicyNatural disastersNature of weedsShort termismInertiaConsumer awarenessPre-conceived ideasto weed control and‘conventional’approachesWanting clean fieldsPeer pressuremoneyGreaterenvironmental goals,wildlife, pests11

CORIORAnnex 4. Participatory investigation of the management of weeds in organic productionsystems (OF0315)Participatory investigation ofthe management of weeds inorganic production systemsParticipatory investigation of the managementof weeds in organic production systems• DEFRA funded project OF0315• 4 years - total cost £400,000- started August 2002• Collaborative led by HDRA in partnership withEFRC, HRI, ADAS and RULIVSYS• DEFRA evaluating participatory approach• we aim…..DEFRA funded project OF0315Aims of the project“…..to define weed problems together with organicfarmers and growers, propose ways of addressing theseproblems, and then research solutions in order to arriveat the most appropriate for use in organic systems.”Project approach• approach and methods have been continually modified as a response tothe developing interaction between farmers, advisors and researchers.• (at present) the project is taking on a role of facilitating discussion andlearning between ‘stakeholders’ (mainly farmers, growers, researchersand advisors, but also widening to include conservation and otherconcerns) on issues surrounding organic weed management.• therefore has developed an emphasis on process as well as trying toproduce practical and useful outputs.Specific Project approaches:• learning from and gathering of knowledge relating to weed managementfrom organic farmers• a review of the scientific literature (research knowledge) and other sourcesof information (including advisor knowledge)• identifying (and prioritising some) weed related problems to work on• monitoring and trialling weed management strategies or technologies onfarm• promoting the sharing and development of knowledge within the organic(farming) community• promoting an approach in which all participants- farmers, advisers andresearchers- have equal voices in the design, planning and implementationof the projectProject methods:• meetings/ workshops, focus groups, field walks and open days duringwhich learning takes place among all participants• case studies of weed management on farms• scientific/grey literature review(s)• monitoring weed management practices on-farm (recording difference andmonitoring change, exploring novel methods such as use of photographs)• ‘researcher led’ trials• ‘farmer led’ field trials12

CORIORProject methods:• development of website…..• leaflets, popular press articles, a technical booklet, and, where appropriate,refereed scientific journals….. ….Project outcomes: three themes have emerged• Docks and perennial weeds• System approaches to weed management• Knowledge collation and disseminationhttp://www.organicweeds.org.ukProject outcomes: on weed management in organic systems•organic weed management is an intensely practical business•weed “problems” are essentially systemic and cannot be “solved” by simplecause – effect analysis but require a deep understanding of land history,timing and spatial context.•it is often not clear where ‘scientific’ research can help as each farm systemis in some senses unique•consequently farmers/growers do a lot of ‘practical experimentation’ ontheir farms (which includes observation, informal investigation and simplecomparisons (i.e. experiential learning)•researchers and advisors are best used to support this on-farm practicalresearch (through providing information, monitoring, and devising ways inwhich farmers can do some of their own assessments by using qualitativeindicators such as photographs and scores)•basic research into weed biology provides a useful underpinning toresolving weed “problems”Project outcomes: outputs (what will the project deliver)• Knowledge development (combining farmer, advisor and researcherknowledge for more effective weed management options)• Web based weed management information for organic farmers andgrowers, advisors (and researchers)• A series of unique farmer case studies which present stories of weedmanagement histories and weed management in practice• Knowledge/protocols for on-farm trials to support on going farmerresearch• Closer links between farmers, advisors and researchers in defining weedresearch agendas through the development of regular fora for reviewing ,re-planning and re-designing research approaches and methodsProject outcomes: outputs (what will the project deliver)•Specific topics for basic or applied research (funding applications?)• Proposals on research methods which include more interdisciplinary,systemic and participatory research• Proposals for a greater emphasis on the research process as a complementto research products• An understanding of how farmer participatory research can add value toconventional , researcher- driven formal research approaches13

CORIORAnnex 5: OF0330: Cereal Varieties for Organic Production: Developing a ParticipatoryApproach to Seed Production and Varietal Selection.A COR Workshop.The role of participatory processes inorganic research programmesOF0330: Cereal Varieties forOrganic Production: Developing aParticipatory Approach to SeedProduction and Varietal Selection.Dr Bruce D PearceIOR- Elm Farm Research Centre.25 th January 2005. HDRA.© Elm Farm Research Centre© Elm Farm Research CentreParticipatory Cereals.Objectives." Four Year Project .‹ Started on 1 st August 2002.‹ Finish on 31 st July 2006." Costs of £295K" Aim: To develop a robust system for identifying, testing,multiplying and marketing cereal varieties, lines, mixturesand populations best suited to organic production in differentparts of the country." 1. Develop a participatory research and developmentmethodology for UK organic farmers using variety triallingand the management of seed-borne disease as examples." 2. Collect information on the range of cereal varietiescurrently grown by organic farmers to help identify the majorpriorities and constraints among the varieties available." 3. Establish a pilot programme of cereal variety trials withorganic farmers on organic farms using the methodologydeveloped by Objective 1.© Elm Farm Research Centre© Elm Farm Research CentreObjectives.Objectives.• 4. To obtain information on which seed-borne diseases,including ergot, may cause problems in the organic seedproduction chain of wheat, barley, oats and triticale, and toexamine any relationship between organic husbandryconditions (seed rate, sowing date, rotation etc.) andincidence/severity of disease.• 5. Determine whether cultivars with good potential fororganic production are resistant to one or more of the seedbornedisease problems.• 6. Working with farmers (Objective 1), review and identify arange of organically acceptable seed treatments andprocesses, considering both chemical and physical methods,and test these under organic conditions to determineefficacy.• 7. Formulate a code of best practice for the production ofcertified organic seed, and for the processing of seed onorganic farms.• 8. To evaluate the participatory research and developmentapproach throughout the entire research process andproduce guidelines and materials for best practice. Data willbe collected throughout the duration of the project.© Elm Farm Research Centre© Elm Farm Research CentreHow the project ran.Evaluation of the Approach.• Desk study on participatory methods.• Development of UK methods.• Survey of varieties used.• Survey of diseases.• Variety resistance tests.• Seed treatments tests.• Pilot and then further field trial with farmers.• Study, analysis and evaluation of the approach.• Expectations different for different actors.‹ Funder.‹ Biologists.‹ Social scientists.‹ Farmers.• Planning.‹ Field trials & Ownership.‹ Scientific rigour.‹ Training and learning.‹ Dissemination/Communication.© Elm Farm Research Centre© Elm Farm Research Centre14

CORIOREvaluation of the Approach.Evaluation of the Approach.• Current experience and immediate needs.‹ Biologists - Positive.„ Scientifically robust methods are being developed –Participatory?• Current experience and immediate needs.‹ Farmers.„ More regular support.„ Scientists more sensitive to their needs.‹ Biologists – negative.„ Understanding others needs.„ Failing to make others understand our needs.„ Getting farmers involved.„ Boundaries of the project.© Elm Farm Research Centre© Elm Farm Research CentreEvaluation of the Approach.Personal Experience.• Lessons for the future - farmers.‹ Experience of mistakes has been recognised.‹ Develop better relationships with scientists.‹ 18 of the 20 came back.• Lessons for the future – biologists.‹ Experience of mistakes has been recognised.‹ More inclusive planning.‹ Better communication.• COMMUNICATION!!!• Dynamics.• Entrenched ideas.• Scary.• Juggling different expectations, priorities, interests.• Frustrating!!• Reward!!© Elm Farm Research Centre© Elm Farm Research CentreSome results.Some results.Straw height versus grain yield correlation (N.S.)Infected samples 2003 harvest9080Samples (%)100806040200M. nivale (W)BuntLeaf stripeNet blotchLoose smutM. nivale (O)* * *P. avenaeOrganicConventionalUstilago spp.* = Limited data setStraw height (cm)7060504030201000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Yield (t/ha)© Elm Farm Research Centre© Elm Farm Research CentreSome results.© Elm Farm Research Centre15

CORIORAnnex 6: The Participatory Approach: Poultry Research at Sheepdrove Organic FarmThe Participatory Approach:Poultry Research atSheepdrove Organic FarmJosie O’Brien BSc (Hons.) MScPoultry ResearcherElm Farm Research CentreHamstead MarshallNr NewburyBerkshireRG20 0HRIntroduction¾ EFRC contracted by Peter and JulietKindersley of Sheepdrove OrganicFarm¾ To conduct research into, and develop asilvo-poultry system at Sheepdroveorganic farm¾ Envisaged by Sheepdrove¾ Designed using organic and holistic farmideals¾ System was designed and implemented© Elm Farm Research Centre© Elm Farm Research CentrePast Research¾ Result of development partnershipspreads to other areas¾ problems or ‘symptoms’ identified bySheepdrove poultry staff¾ ‘cause’ investigated by EFRC research team¾ Migration¾ Effect of temperature on bird weight¾ Effect of initial bird weight on final weight¾ Current research¾ Instigated by Sheepdrove staff¾ In the following areas¾ApproachBehaviour, veterinary, processing andslaughter, experimental design andstatistical analysisprovide¾ Farmer manager and poultry manager¾ Required researchersapproached identified problem contactedResearch ¾ To design investigation AdditionalUniversity¾ EFRC Removal of EU derogation allowingTeam ¾ To carry out research Researchersof Bristolminimum of 80 per cent organiccomponent in poultry rationSheepdroveProducer OrganicFarmconsultedFeedMerchants¾ Viability feeding 100 per cent ration¾ Feed merchants contacted forinformation on¾¾Expertiseviability and nutritioncomposition and productionof ration© Elm Farm Research Centre© Elm Farm Research CentreSheepdroveOrganicFarmApproachEFRCExpertiseUniversityof BristolFeedMerchants¾ Suggested suitable measurableparameters¾ ¾ Expanded by researchers includeEffect onmeasurable parameters¾ Producer set research objectives ¾ With techniques for measurement¾ Agronomic and Economic factors¾¾ Research addressed needs of producerBehaviour Health and Welfare¾ OBJECTIVE: To compare 100 percent organic ration with an80 percent organic production ration© Elm Farm Research CentreParameters¾ Weekly weights¾ Weekly behavioural observations¾ Gait scoring (1 week prior to slaughter)¾ At slaughter¾ On-line flapping¾ Feather damage and cleanliness¾ Contact dermatitis¾ Dressed carcase weight¾ Wing haemorrhages and red wing tips¾ Carcase bruising, damage and conformation© Elm Farm Research Centre16

CORIOROn-Going Development¾ Offered ¾ ideas Informed farm staff of training opportunities¾ Raised potential ¾ Poultry problems welfare between and handling research courses schedule andproduction ¾ schedule Animal welfare coursesExperimental ResultsAgronomic and Economic Factors¾ Growth curve average live weight30002500SheepdroveOrganicFarmEFRCUniversityof Bristol¾ Offered ideas on further development¾ Discussed of measurable parameters¾ Discussed of experimental design¾ Carried out researchAverage weight (g)20001500100050000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10WeekColourpac 80% ISA 257 80% Colourpac 100% ISA 257 100%© Elm Farm Research Centre© Elm Farm Research CentreExperimental ResultsAgronomic and Economic Factors¾ Feed ConsumptionExperimental ResultsAgronomic and Economic Factors¾ Feed Costing1800016000Total feed consumption (kg)140001200010000800060004000200001 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73Day80% Ration 100% Ration-4 -3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5Estim ated cost, % increase on baseline (all birds on 80% orangic ration)Batch 1 80% Ration Batch 1 100% RationBatch 2 80% Ration Batch 2 100% Ration© Elm Farm Research Centre© Elm Farm Research CentreExperimental Results100% Organic RationBehavioural, Health and Welfare Factors¾ Behavioural Observations¾ Some significant difference were identified betweenthe two rations - No trends¾ Cannibalistic behaviour could reflect nutritionaldeficits - low levels of essential amino acids¾ Absolutely no difference in cannibalistic behaviours¾Virtually no incidence¾ Gait Scoring¾ Low levels gait scores – no sig. different in rations¾ Good leg health and welfare© Elm Farm Research CentreSummary¾ No justification on economic health orwelfare grounds for an extension of thederogation to allow for an 80% organicpoultry ration© Elm Farm Research CentreHighlights and Lowlights¾ Production scale trial¾ Farmers facing problemsdirectly involved inresearch to tackleproblems¾ Re-evaluation of needs anddirection possible¾ Experience and input ofseveral partners¾ Rewarding for partners¾ Forging useful links forfuture informationexchange¾ Boundaries to possibilitiesof research¾ Effective communication –researcher understandingof farmer needs¾ Effective communication –farmer understanding ofresearch needs¾ Scheduling andorganisation¾ Retaining research focussometimes difficult¾ Personalities© Elm Farm Research CentreConclusions¾ Successful approach?¾ Produced valuable applicable results forfarm¾ Addressed a major issue causing currentconcern for organic poultry producers¾Removal of 20% non-organic feed componentderogation in August 2005¾ Applicable to wider organic movementoutside Sheepdrove Organic Farm© Elm Farm Research Centre17

CORIORConclusions¾ Successful approach?¾ Good distribution of results¾Farm - regular updates on progress and farm reportproduced¾Researchers in team – Report produced andcirculated¾Feed merchants -made availableResults discussed and data¾Wider Farming Community - Presentation ofresearch findings at conferences¾Researchers - Presentation of research findings atconferences¾Researchers - Publication in scientific journalsConclusions¾ Successful approach?¾ Discussion of results and possibledirections with partners¾Development of further trials¾ Further Trials¾Small scale¾Further investigation into one hundred percentorganic rations with differing compositions¾Trials to factor in the effect of season, inparticular winter weather and temperatures© Elm Farm Research Centre© Elm Farm Research CentreSummary¾ This project successfully incorporatedparticipatory type approach¾ Trial provided¾ Robust findings valuable to all involved¾ Good relationships between partners¾ Learning curve for future trials¾ Potential and ideas to continue this work© Elm Farm Research Centre18

CORIORAnnex 7: Improving the availability of organic forage seed (Heather McCalman, IGER)Introduction of the EU regulation requiring organic farmers to use 100% organic herbageseed is getting closer. Currently they are enjoying derogation from this because suitable seedis not available. For 2004 seeds mixtures must contain at least 50% organic seed. Thisbreathing space before full 100% organic seed gives the organic industry time to improve theavailability of suitable species and varieties.In a recent survey, organic farmers in Wales identified persistence, total annual yield andearly spring growth as the most important characteristics of a seed mix. Sourcing organicseed of such forage varieties is essential for the continued development of the organic sector.Following a series of farmer discussion group meetings, where these concerns werehighlighted, a feasibility project funded by Farming Connect is looking at the potential ofproducing organic forage seed in Wales .Experimental plot work at IGER has been tackling some of the challenges in organic seedproduction. Four farmers from organic discussion groups, with a range of farm types andsystems are involved in developing this work by hosting field scale demonstration plots.Field plots designed with the farmers have focused on different approaches to forage seedproduction. Initially the emphasis has been on weed control, crop nutrition and integration offorage seed production into the farming systems using perennial ryegrass, hybrid ryegrassand timothy seed crops.Harvesting, drying and cleaning of seed have also been covered. The first demonstration areaof the hybrid ryegrass variety Aber Linnet was successfully harvested in July 2003, withfurther areas to be harvested in 2004.To involve all stakeholders, the project includes Organic and Seed Certification bodies, aswell as seed companies to progress organic forage seed production in Wales and to develop abetter understanding of the challenges involved.(from http://www.iger.bbsrc.ac.uk/Practice/GTT/OrganicSeed.htm)19

CORIORAnnex 8: Stakeholder participation matriciesWeeds projectInform Consult Partnership ControlIdentification DEFRA HRI, EFRC, ADAS,RULIVSYSFarmers,researchersDEFRAPlanning DEFRA FarmersadvisorsImplementationMonitoring andEvaluationFarmingcommunityFarmingcommunityEnvironmentalbodiesCertificationagenciesFarmersadvisorsFarmersadvisorsUncertain?Uncertain?Uncertain?Cereal ProjectIdentificationPlanningInform Consult Partnership ControlOAMGOSPfarmersOAMGOSPFarmersmillersFarmersOAMGOSPOAMGOSPFarmersSeed cleanersSeed cleanersOAMGOSPfarmersResearchersImplementation Advisor Seed cleaners FarmerResearchersMonitoring andEvaluationDEFRAAdvisorsFarmerDEFRAResearcherPoultry ProjectInform Consult Partnership ControlIdentification Bristol Uni EFRC Sheepdrove OrganicFarm (SOF)Planning Feed merchants Bristol Uni Bristol UniEFRCImplementation SOF Feed merchantsBristol UniMonitoring andEvaluationSOF (all aspects)SOF (farm staff andmanager)EFRCBristolSOF (all) Bristol Uni SOF(staff andmanager)EFRCBristol UniEFRCEFRCSOF (control ofoutput)20

CORIORIGER ProjectIdentificationPlanningImplementationInform Consult Partnership ControlFarmersEU standardFarmersExtension agentsFarmerIGERFarmersCert bodiesSeed certs andindustryPlant breedersExtension agentsCertification bodiesSeed certifiers andindustryFarmersFarmerIGERFarmersCertification bodiesSeed certifiersSeed industryPlant breedersExtension agentsFarmersCertification bodiesSeed certifiersSeed industryPlant breedersExtension agentsfarmerIndustryFarmerFarmerMonitoring andEvaluationSeedcertificationExtension agentsSeed certificationFunder21

CORIORAnnex 9: SWOT analysis of on-farm research approaches.ContractualStrengths:Targeted and frame limitedControlledPrimary stakeholder focusEvaluation easyEasy funding, costing and managementOpportunities:“more work needed” syndromekeeps cash flow into researchcan be generalised and extended to otherfarmers?Weaknesses:NarrowInflexibleLike a circle, limits innovationOften short termComplex systems not describedThreats:Depends on “funder” fashionFarmer interaction and changing goals,changing mindConsultativeStrengths:FocusedRigorousSome farmer involvementOpportunities:Knowledge exchange between farmer andresearcherScientific innovationFarmer opps advisor involvement to takeresearch forwardWeaknesses:Don’t address a needNot enough farmer involvementNot relevantUnequal ownershipThreats:Can go off at a tangentNo uptake of resultsIgnore important factorsCollaborativeStrengths:Covers all partners (research, advisor,farmer)Statistically rigourousRelevantDirect dissemination to partnersCommercial confidentialityAll own projectOpportunities:Better knowledge transfer to wider audienceGood feedbackBuilding new or improving existingrelationshipsBetter understanding of others needsWeaknesses:Hard to maintain focusMore difficult to plantIncreased admin costsThreats:Commercial confidentialityLack of accountability/ un clearToo much compromiseInappropriate implementation22

CORIORCollegialStrengths:All involvedInter disciplinaryMore equitableOpportunities:Relevance to all involved (meeting needs)Develop new way to workLearn about each otherNew perspectivesWeaknesses:Lack of controlTakes longerRequires learning how to work togetherThreats:Failure to reach consensusSuch a big team that it is unmanageable23

CORIORAnnex 10: Using Qualitative Methods in Organic Farming ResearchUsing Qualitative Methods inOrganic Farming Researchz Qualitative research is not wishy-washy,but collected with structure and methodand analysed rigorously to provide soundresultsFrances HarrisKingston University12Data collection: SamplingData collection: Interviewingz Probability sampling and non-probabilitysamplingz Identifying small samplesPurposive samplingSnow-ballingClustered samplingz Other issuesTrustworthinessCooperationAccessKey informant3z Establish a relationship with interviewee which isrelaxed, informal, equalz Establish a mutually convenient time and placeto meetz Semi-structured interview– Core questions, but flexibility to explore issues inmore detail– Use interrogators: who? what? where? when? why?how?– Use scales, rating, ranking exercisesz Take copious notes, or record interview on tapez Post interview, add context, fill in gaps4Data Analysisz Review notes / Listen to tapesz Identify key themes and issuesz Use coding in notesz Develop analysis tablesz Draw out themesQuality control in qualitativeresearchz Consistency– Researcher trained in interviewing techniques– SSI ensures comparable data collected fromeach interviewz Corroboration– Triangulationz Evidence– Document the process56Case studiesSummaryz Illustrate issues clearlyz Provide opportunity for depth of analysisz Enable more holistic analysisz Useful in explaining relationshipsz Qualitative research is a useful method fordiscovery, explanationz There is a structure and method toqualitative research which will provideacademic rigourz Qualitative research complements, ratherthan replaces, scientific research7824

CORIORAnnex 11: Characteristics of quantitative and qualitative research; look at the quantitativecolumn, fill in the complementary characteristics on the qualitative side.QuantitativeScientificObjectiveData are numbersDeductiveExplanation/ predictionGeneralisationNomotheticLarge sample sizes/ macro scaleIncidence and frequencyArtificialSubjects/ objectsSocietyData gathered by technology or prescriptionQualitativeAfter doing the exercise does this make you any more or less apprehensive? Why? Howcould you address any issues that are emerging?25