ON FARM RESEARCH WORKING GROUP DISCUSSIONS
(RAPPORTEUR: O. SCHMID)
There were 18 participants from 13 European countries and one participant from the USA. Involvement in on-farm research: 40 percent in investigations, 30 percent in field experiments, 23 percent in monitoring, 3 percent in designing and 3 percent in prototyping.
Working Procedure
The Group collected the main questions of the participants related to the following steps of on-farm research:
- approach, participation;
- research design and methods;
- adequate tools;
- elaboration of results;
- interpretation, discussion of results;
- action on the farm;
- dissemination of result;
- future needs.
Main Areas of Interest were:
- How to interact with farmers.
- How to develop farmer's tools.
- How to elaborate the data collection and statistics.
- How to define objectives.
These questions were linked with practical experiences of the participants.
Results of the Work of Sub-groups Nutrient Budgeting (NL) and Farm Profitability Tool (IL)
a. Interacting with the farmers
Strength
|
now
|
Weakness
|
Aim: high motivation and responsibility
early involvement (perhaps including consumers)
continuous contact and information (up to weekly)
extension service can be easily involved
|
|
Disadvantages for farmers and researchers:
can get too overloaded
can be very time consuming
|
Opportunities
|
future
|
Threats/Problems
|
Win/Win-situation
follow-up necessary
not too narrow scope
financial compensation for farmers should be possible (to be clarified in the beginning)
educate/develop the farmer's research attitude
group process, also to stimulate Organic Farming in general (social function)
care to appreciate, validate the farmer's input
|
|
risk: no further projects
include time-limitation, or else steady-state
|
b. Tools for farmers/farm advisers: Two case studies were discussed.
1. Nutrient budgeting (NL)
Objective: Improve management by crop rotation, green manure and manure management.
Input of farmer: Previous crops, PK soil sample, crop plan (calculations by farmer or farm adviser/researcher).
Strength
|
now
|
Weakness
|
| Tool to reduce surplus
Define organic need including both P and K and N
|
|
Reliability co-efficients
Impracticable weather conditions
Farmer may not accept
|
Opportunities
|
future
|
Threats/Problems
|
| More own data to improve estimates
|
|
Standards preclude import of manure
|
2. Farm profitability tool (IT)
Objective: Improved income
Input: Farm inputs, activities, finances
Strength
|
now
|
Weakness
|
| Accurate description of farm activities and costs
Farmer can use results
|
|
Important time input of farmers
Many farmers do not have computers
Many farms are too small
|
Opportunities
|
future
|
Threats/Problems
|
| Farm size increases
More farmers will be competent to use the tool
|
|
Economy is not only criteria
|
c. Tools for elaborating and collecting data
Besides the above-mentioned tools, other examples were given:
- Soil fertility measurements (biological, physical, chemical);
- Weed monitoring: visual in five plots, 30 farms (OK);
- Yield monitoring (N): random sampling;
- Multiple monitoring (NL): transect of ten plots in 1.5 ha for every observation;
- Modelling yields (OK): Relate yield variation to modelled potential yield.
d. Defining objectives
Strength
|
now
|
Weakness
|
| Before on-farm research starts: an inventory of problems are, has to be elaborated first. Does it help to practise organic farming in general? (perhaps including external evaluation committee)
Objectives elaborated with farmers
Learning from each other as principle
Whole chain must be included
|
|
Problems with the project results to other projects
|
Opportunities
|
future
|
Threats/Problems
|
How to find:
Direct contacts with interested farmers
Meetings to inform and discuss objectives
Young ambitious farmers often more suited than "old pioneers"
|
|
Objectives are not clear
|
