Main Contributor: A. N. Atta-Krah1
5.0 Performance objectives
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Definition of on-farm research
5.3 Why do on-farm research?
5.4 Types of on-farm research
5.5 The importance of developmental OFR for composite technologies
5.6 Recommendations for extension of alley farming
5.7 On-farm adaptations
5.8 Feedback exercises
5.9 Suggested reading
5.10 References
1 Portions of Section 5-6 are taken from D. Rocheleau, F. Weber, and A. Field-Juma, 1988 Agroforestry in Dryland Africa (ICRAF, Nairobi).
Unit 5 is intended to enable you to:
1. Understand the basic characteristics of on-farm research (OFR) and identify the key elements in such research.2. Differentiate between three different kinds of OFR and describe the main activities involved in each.
3. Describe three major roles played by OFR in the research and development process.
4. Compare and contrast the main purposes of experimental OFR and developmental OFR.
5. Explain the possible relationships between farmer and researcher during the experimental and developmental phases of OFR.
6. Discuss the relative importance of OFR in research and development on different types of technologies.
7. Demonstrate familiarity with basic recommendations for extension of alley farming.
8. Explain the approach researchers should take to on-farm adaptations, and cite examples of on-farm adaptations made to alley farming.
In alley farming research projects, it is highly desirable to initiate on-farm research activities as early as possible. Naturally, before alley farming experiments can move on-farm, a certain amount of time will be devoted to purely on-station research. This is necessary for screening and evaluation of multipurpose trees, and for experimentation with management practices. However, AFNETA's strategy is for collaborating institutions to begin on-farm work as soon as researchers have found a "best-bet" prototype for local agroecological conditions.
This unit begins by defining on-farm research (OFR) and explaining the important role of OFR in the testing and development of alley farming systems. It then describes the various types of OFR which alley farming research projects may entail. Detailed methodological guidelines and experimental designs are not provided here, but may be found in the Annex and in Volume 2.
As part of AFNETA's Core Course in Alley Farming, this unit restricts its coverage to experimental and developmental OFR. These are the types of OFR that are directly involved in alley farming research projects such as those supported by AFNETA. However, it is assumed that researchers have conducted on-farm surveys at an earlier stage. Such diagnostic on-farm work is necessary to demonstrate the potential relevance of alley farming in the local area. For example, a station or a ministry may have found through on-farm surveys that local farmers face constraints such as declining soil fertility, soil erosion, poor livestock nutrition, and/or land scarcity. Such findings would justify research into alley farming or other technologies that could address the constraints.
The pre-experimental type of on-farm activity is covered in the technical papers on Diagnosis and Design methods and socio-economic surveying (Volume 2).
On-farm research is an indispensable tool for developing and validating alley farming technology. On-farm research (OFR) can be defined in its simplest terms as research carried out on farmer's fields and in a farmer's environment. From this simple definition, one can identify four key elements in OFR. These are:
· the farmer,
· the farmer's land,
· the farmer's involvement, and
· the farmer's environment.
The Farmer
In OFR, it is essential to specify the type of farmer for which a particular intervention is aimed, whether for development or for testing. Thus if one is developing a technology for low-resource-base, smallholder farmers, it will be incorrect to sample commercial, large-scale farms for the OFR. Equally, for a technology which requires use of costly inputs - seeds, fertilizer, herbicide, insecticide, etc., - one would have to deal with medium and large-scale farmers who could afford the essential inputs for the technology, rather than deal with smallholder, low-resource farmers.
The "type of farmer" issue is not linked only to resource base, but may also be linked to the production system. For example, in developing a fodder intervention package, it would be necessary to look for a farmer community where both livestock and crop production are important, so that the technology will be relevant. The central issue, therefore, is to define and describe the type of farmer for which the technology to be developed or tested is appropriate and relevant.
The Farmer's Land
Any experiment carried out on a plot of land outside the experimental station could be described as off-station research, but not all such research qualifies as on-farm research. For research to be classified as on-farm, it should be carried out on a plot of land belonging to the farmer and within the farm environment of the farmer. Off-station research is, therefore, not synonymous with on-farm research, though all on-farm research is by definition "off-station."
The Farmer's Involvement
The nature of farmers' involvement in any OFR activity is very important as it influences the interpretation of output and results obtained. OFR scientists seek varying degrees of farmer's involvement in OFR. The exact nature and degree of farmer involvement is determined by the objective of the OFR and the nature of the research in terms of components, systems, or technologies being assessed. The degree of farmer involvement also has an effect on the design of the experiment and the interpretation of results obtained.
The four possible ways in which farmers are usually involved in OFR are:
· landlord/tenant relationship,
· passive on-looker involvement,
· active involvement - researcher controlled, and
· active involvement - farmer controlled.
These relationships are discussed under Types of OFR, below (Section 5.4).
The Farmer's Environment
The farmer does not live as an independent entity. He lives within a family structure, which in itself is embedded within a community structure. Thus, the farmer's input, assessment, and eventual adoption of a system will have to be viewed and assessed within the framework of the community in which the farmer operates. The sociocultural, anthropological, and economic environment within that community will have to be taken into account in the design of the technology, in its testing, and eventually in the assessment of its acceptability to farmers.
The second aspect of the farmer's environment has to do with the cropping and farming system in which the farmer operates and the big-physical base within which the farming activity goes on. For example, farmers' fields may have many more problems associated with soil fertility and drainage than the research station fields where on-station experiments have been conducted. Farmers may also be practicing a much more complex cropping system than is used in on-station trials. All these factors underline the need for OFR, and the need to take into account the farmer's environment in the design and testing of technologies.
5.3.1 Testing and Validation
5.3.2 Development and Adaptation
5.3.3 Demonstration and Extension
While some amount of time devoted to purely on-station research will be necessary, (in order to screen and evaluate multipurpose trees, and to experiment with management practices), quick initiation of on-farm research will help the research and development process. Within the context of the AFNETA project, on-farm research plays essential roles in the following areas:
· testing and validation of alley farming technologies under local farmer's conditions
· development and adaptation of alley farming technologies for local farmers' conditions
· demonstration and extension of alley farming technologies in local farming communities.
Research should be aimed at solving farmers' problems and at involving farmers in the research process quite early on, rather than involving them as passive recipients at some future date.
In actual farm conditions, the best-practice on-station technology rarely performs at the same level. On-farm research is commonly used as a means to ensure that technologies developed on-station will be relevant to the problems and priorities of the targetted client adopters. In the case of alley farming, the target adopters are typically resource-poor small farmers.
To validate on-station results, OFR is carried out to assess the performance of particular systems or technologies on-farm, with or without the farmer's involvement. Such research will likely lead to the observation of yield gaps or shortfalls (Figure 5-1). Research is then aimed at identifying constraints causing the gaps and eliminating or narrowing the gaps.
On-farm trials allow assessment of the system according to a broad range of criteria. Analysis of such trials should be based not only on productivity and profitability, but on all other factors that are likely to influence the acceptability of the system to the farmer. These may include farmers' resources, the community's economic and social infrastructure, etc.
Figure 5-1. Comparison of technology performance on-station and on-farm with different levels of farmer involvement.
On-farm research is often used to generate new or modified technologies. Moving to farmers' fields and interacting with farmers allows the researcher to have an appreciation of the farmers' conditions and problems. It also provides a great opportunity for the identification of problem areas and researchable issues that may arise following farmer use of developed technology. This leads to a continuous process of refining, improving, and re-testing the system.
The length of time required for standardization and adaptation of the technology to various specific farmer situations may be shortened through contributions from the participating farmers. The farmers' own adjustment mechanisms and experiences will be important inputs in the adaptive process. The farmers have an important role to play at this stage of the research, and when possible they should be encouraged to experiment with the system and to suggest improvements.
For any new technology or technology component to be accepted by farmers, it has to be shown to be superior to the existing system. The most reliable means of proving this is through OFR, in which the farmer is involved and the trial is run within the farm environment. Such OFR trials provide an excellent opportunity to compare the performance of the proposed system and farmer's traditional practice in a reliable way (Figure 5-2).
Figure. 5.2 Demonstration of the new systems' improved performance.
When researchers and farmers are testing alley farming in the field, they are also demonstrating the system to the local community. On-farm research thus creates links with extension in at least three ways. Firstly, if on-farm research clearly demonstrates the viability of the technology, it may create a "neighbourhood effect," whereby innovation waves spread outward from the research sites. Since on-farm research is likely to be conducted in many locations across the region, the innovation waves will spread from many centers and thus speed up both generation and diffusion of the technology. Moreover, horizontal (farmer to farmer) diffusion is likely to take place, due to lateral learning within each research location.
Secondly, OFR promotes collaboration with extension and development agencies which helps in improving the efficiency of the technology generation and diffusion process. Involvement of extension and development agencies as partners and participants in the technology generation process will bring them directly into contact with the farmers. It will also acquaint them with the salient features of the technology while it is being generated. This is a step ahead of the more typical situation where such agencies have to wait until some best-practice technology package is made available to them for dissemination.
Thirdly, the OFR stage may test the suitability of the existing institutional framework for proper delivery of the technology to the users. For example, in most countries, crop, livestock, and forestry extension services are independent with little collaborative activity. Moreover, the crop extension service tends to be much better organized than the other two. Since the scope of alley farming cuts across all three fields, appropriate mechanisms could be developed at the technology generation stage to integrate the roles of these various agencies in the diffusion process. Mechanisms for using non-governmental and traditional institutions in the diffusion process such as village associations and local leadership structures, could also be studied at the OFR stage.
5.4.1 Experimental OFR
5.4.2 Developmental OFR
5.4.3 Three Phases in Developmental OFR
There are basically two types of OFR:
· Experimental OFR,
· Developmental OFR.
The range of objectives for which OFR may be carried out is very wide. Thus, it is inconceivable that a single OFR activity will embrace all these objectives. It is essential in carrying out OFR to define the objectives clearly. It is important to make a clear distinction between the assessment of a technology for its biological, technical, and economic potential, on the one hand, and assessment for its workability, acceptability, and potential adaptability by farmers on the other. Often, different types of OFR activity are required for achieving different objectives (Figure 5-3). The interpretation of results from different types of OFR should into account the limitations imposed on the system by the specific objectives and methodologies followed.
AFNETA's guidelines for designing experimental and developmental OFR trials are given in the Annex.
This is the more commonly known and practiced of the two types of OFR. It is performed for big-physical, technical, and economic assessment of alternative systems or treatments within the framework of standard experimental designs. Bio-physical assessment aims at determining the system's biological and physical yield and productivity, while economic assessment inquires into the availability of labor, cash, and other resources for meeting the projected needs of the alternative system, and looks into the level and dependability of profit.
Figure 5-3 Research objectives and levels of farmer involvement vary in the different types of on-farm research.
Experimental OFR trials emanate directly from on-station research. Their structure and design are very similar to those used on-station. Generally, however, on-farm experimentation is kept as simple as possible to ensure effective farmer understanding of issues and meaningful involvement and contribution. Depending on the nature of farmer/researcher involvement in the trials, experimental OFR may be further classified into three different types, namely:
· researcher-managed trials,
· researcher/farmer-managed trials,
· farmer-managed trials.
Researcher-managed Trials
Researcher-managed trials are very similar in structure to on-station trials. The researcher is responsible for directing and implementing the treatments in accordance with the chosen design and methodology of the trial. A single farmer's field could be used for such a trial, though this may be repeated on another farmer's plot (if required).
The farmer and researcher may have a landlord/tenant relationship, which represents the lowest degree of farmer involvement. It applies to the situation where a researcher obtains a plot of land from a farmer's holding to carry out an OFR activity in which the farmer has no part to play. The farmer may also have no direct interest in what is going on, and may consider his or her involvement only as having given land (on lease, on loan, or as gift) for research activity.
Alternatively, the farmer may have a passive on-looker involvement. In this case also, the farmer makes land available, but has no direct role in the management or operation of the trial. The major difference between this and the landlord/tenant relationship is that in this case, the research is carried out on the same piece of land that the farmer is cultivating. The researcher may, from time to time, invite the farmer to observe particular operations or see some emerging responses. Such a situation usually arises in researcher-managed OFR trials superimposed on existing farmer plots.
Joint Researcher/Farmer-managed Trials
These are trials in which management and operation are the joint responsibility of farmer and researcher (figure 5-4). Such trials need to be made simpler than the researcher-managed trials, since an increased level of farmer's involvement is required. Simplicity insures a better understanding of the trial by the farmer.
The farmer's role may be termed active involvement (researcher-controlled), as the farmer is directly involved in carrying out some or all of the management operations in the trial. However, the farmers' contribution is very clearly defined and controlled by the researcher. He is therefore unable to use his initiative, and does what the researcher has programmed for him to do in terms of treatment applications and management requirements.
Farmer-managed Trials
In farmer-managed OFR, the farmer is responsible for carrying out almost all management operations for the trial. An even higher level of simplicity is thus required, and the number of unit plots within a single farmer's field are kept at a minimum to avoid complications for the farmer.
Figure 5-4. Measuring biomass on farm. Researchers and farmers cooperate to achieve common objectives in jointly managed or farmer-managed trials.
The farmer's role is active involvement (farmer-controlled). The farmer is made to see the trial as his or her own, and is free to make modifications in the management of the system being tested and to identify problem aspects of the system. The researcher takes on what may be described as an "active on-looker" role in this process, making regular observation of the farmer's performances, responses, attitudes, impressions, and opinions, as well as the biological and technical performance of the system being tested.
Criteria for Adopting Researcher-managed or Farmer-managed Trials
The main consideration for carrying out one or the other type of experimental OFR is the level of knowledge and confidence about the technology in question. Technologies for which sufficient information is not available are generally tested under researcher-managed trials with a high degree of control by the researcher. But technologies for which enough accurate information is available are carried out under researcher/farmer-managed trials or under farmer-managed trials. A- rough generalization about the three type of trials is that researcher-managed trials are technology generation trials while the other two aim at technology validation or demonstration.
Figure 5-5. In farmer-managed trials, the farmers are responsible for pruning, mulching, and other aspects of managing an alley farm.
This type of OFR activity has received less attention than the experimental type. It involves (1) the introduction of particular systems within the farmer environment and (2) the assessment of the workability of the system and its acceptability by farmers. Developmental OFR operates within a framework of research-extension collaboration. Its main purpose is the extrapolation of the tested results to the target area. An attempt is made to fine-tune the technology and to determine the required support structures prior to wide-scale extension of the technology. Through the developmental OFR process, farmers of the targetted area are gradually exposed to a new technology, and their management of the system is monitored in order to identify problem areas and researchable issues.
Developmental OFR makes use of extension techniques and methodologies for the introduction of the concept or system and development of farmer's awareness. For this reason, developmental OFR requires the joint involvement of researchers, farmers and extension agents.
The farmer's involvement evolves gradually to the point where he or she considers the experiment to be his/her own, and is free to make modifications and adjustments in accordance with his/her own circumstances. For such development-oriented research, the performance parameters are not necessarily crop yield or other biological or technical indicators, but the farmer's level of interest and adoption. It is important to note that farmer's adoption of the technology (and just as importantly, their adaptation and manipulation of technology) is a crucial validation tool in developmental OFR.
Two examples of developmental OFR from Nigeria illustrate the usefulness of the approach, as documented by Kang, Reynolds, and Atta-Krah (1990):
Example 1:
The relevance, workability, and social acceptability of alley farming have been shown in southwest Nigeria through a developmental on-farm research process (Okali and Sumberg, 1985: Atta-Krah and Francis, 1987). This process involves actual farmer control of the management and use of the technology and relies on observations of farmer initiative, management, and use of the system, and on adoption analysis. From 60 farmers who established alley farms in the project site in 1984, the system has spread to four adjacent villages, with more than 200 farmers planting alley farms.
Example 2:
In southeast Nigeria, where a similar project was undertaken, alley farming was assessed to be of only limited acceptability. This finding was traced to a number of edaphic, sociological, and institutional factors. These include low soil fertility with high acidity levels, incompatibility of woody species tested to established cropping patterns and rotation practices, the division of labor and the decision-making process within the household, and land and tree tenure rules (Francis and Atta-Krah, 19893.
There are three phases in the developmental OFR process, namely:
· the exploratory phase,
· the intermediate phase,
· the pilot project phase.
Exploratory Phase
The exploratory phase is the stage where a new system or concept such as alley farming is introduced into a community. This allows the farmers to gain an accurate image and a practical understanding of the system. This exploratory phase thus has a demonstration objective. It begins with the identification of individual farmers within the community with whom the researchers work closely to put the system on the ground. During this phase, researchers' involvement is very high as the farmers perception of the system is almost nil. Only a few farmers (1-5) are selected for these trials; they do not necessarily have to be in the same village.
Intermediate Phase
The intermediate phase begins after the exploratory trials are established and management of the system has commenced. This phase, like the exploratory phase, is also targetted at individual farmers, but requires a greater involvement of the farmer in the establishment and management of the experiment. Farmers participating in the intermediate trials will have a clearer perception of the system because of the existence of the exploratory (demonstration) units which provide a visual dimension for discussions on the system's structure and potential. The number of farmers used in this stage could be 3-5 times the number in the exploratory trials. The exact number is usually determined by resource availability.
Pilot Project Phase
The pilot project phase takes off after the intermediate trials have been conducted and farmers' understanding and capability in management have been sufficiently established. At this point, direct involvement of researchers in management and other farm operations is withdrawn, and the farmer involvement is greatly increased.
The main objective of the pilot project is to place the technology within a community framework and to enable assessment of its relevance, workability, and acceptability by the farmers. More specifically, a pilot project aims at:
· evaluating benefits to farmers and community from the adoption of the new technology,· assessing institutional and social requirements for the accelerated adoption of the technology,
· identifying constraints and researchable problems in adoption of the technology by individual farmers and the community,
· redesigning the production program as necessary for wide-scale implementation.
During the pilot project stage, the focus is on the community rather than on individual farmers. Participating farmers are responsible for all farm activities and for management of the experimental plots. The involvement of extension agents, which is required to a lesser degree in the earlier stages, also reaches its peak during the pilot project phase. The extension officer becomes the key link between the farmer and the researcher.
The relative importance of the two types of OFR described above is determined by the nature of the technologies to be tested (Figure 5-6). For this purpose, three different types of technologies may be identified:
· single component technology (e.g., fertilizer, cassava cultivar).· package technology, consisting of several independent components (e.g., improved seed, fertilizer, and herbicides).
· composite technology, consisting of several interacting components (e.g., alley farming).
These different types of technologies differ in their input and management complexity, management and operational flexibility, and also in the waiting period for benefits to appear. Single component technologies are the least complex and can be easily managed with little flexibility required in their proposed operational plans. They also have a short waiting time for responses to be shown. For example, the results of a fertilizer trial can be seen in one cropping season or less.
Composite technologies, like alley farming, lie at the other extreme. They are more complex because they involve several interacting components. They also require a higher degree of management flexibility to allow alternatives objectives to be met. They are usually of a long-term nature and may have a rather long waiting period before benefits can be seen. These factors make OFR on composite technologies a much more difficult task. Package technologies fall in between single component and composite technologies.
The role of OFR as a link between research and extension is much simpler when dealing with single component technologies. For such technologies, the effects show up quickly, and farmers' interest and participation can be expected to rise if early results are promising. An active involvement of the farmer in experimental OFR on such technologies can lead directly to extension work without necessarily passing through the developmental OFR process. This is in line with traditional thinking on the research/extension linkage (Figure 5-7). However, the process will depend on the existence of an effective extension service which can link up with the research group for the dissemination of the technology.
Figure 5-6. Overview of linkage between research and extension
(a) Illustrates the gap that usually exists between research and extension in developing countries.
(b) Illustrates a back-to-back research/extension linkage. Suggested for simple technologies such as fertilizer-use.
(c) Illustrates the overlapping phase between research and extension in which the two units operate together in a developmental OFR activity. Suggested for composite technologies such as alley farming.
The research-extension linkage is more complex in the case of composite technologies. For OFR to lead to extensive adoption and extension, farmer involvement will have to be developed to the point where farmers have management control over the system under trial. In view of the complexity, flexibility, and long waiting time for benefits to show up, composite technologies would need to go through the three stages of developmental OFR.
Developmental OFR may be linked to both on-station research and experimental OFR as illustrated in Figure 5-8. A feed-back mechanism exists among all three processes such that problems identified during developmental OFR can receive further research attention in either on-station or experimental OFR trials.
For composite technologies, the interface between research and extension is more likely to be provided through a developmental OFR approach rather than through experimental OFR. Results from the experimental OFR trials will be worked into the later stages of the developmental OFR process (i.e., the pilot project stage). The direct involvement of extension agents during the developmental phase will facilitate this process. Meanwhile the involvement of the researcher will ensure that problems and opportunities arising as a result of farmer modifications and adaptation are taken into account in further development and fine-tuning of the system.
Alley farming requires the adoption of new management techniques such as tree planting, pruning and management, mulching and cut-and-carry feeding. Experience has shown that, given information and advice, farmers are willing to adopt, and even to experiment with, this new system. The most effective level of extension is at the community level.
The community should be approached through the appropriate leaders, traditional or otherwise. Community meetings will need to be held, at which the potential benefits of alley farming are explained to interested farmers. It is very important to stress to farmers at the outset that the adoption of alley farming does not imply access to credit or other privileges, unless specific provision for credit, etc., has been made in the extension project.
Figure 5-7. The traditional view of links between stages of agricultural research and extension. This scheme is more appropriate for single component technologies such as fertilizers.
Figure 5-8. Relationship between developmental OFR and other stages of research and extension. This scheme is more appropriate for composite technologies such as alley farming.
Posters illustrating the various steps in the establishment process are useful at this stage. However, there is no substitute for farmers seeing alley farms on the ground. Field trips should be organized for would-be alley farmers to see some alley farms - preferably on farmers fields rather than on a research station.
Participatory demonstrations of activities such as planting, pruning, and mulching should also be arranged. Instructions on technical issues, such as arrangement of tree species, intra- and inter-row spacing of the trees, planting depth and planting methods, are best discussed during such demonstrations. However, farmers should be allowed to benefit from the inherent flexibility of alley farming by tailoring it to their own needs, priorities, and preferences.
An extension worker should be based in the village to assist farmers as and when required, and also to monitor activities on the farms. The extension worker should visit farmers and their farms regularly.
As mentioned earlier, researchers and extension workers should be alert to adaptations made by farmers that could lead to improvements in alley farming practices. Clearly, this requires a commonsense approach. When a particular farmer does something unusual, the researcher/extension worker should first discover the reason. If the farmer was simply ignorant of recommended practices, and was mismanaging the system, the researcher should educate him or her so as to improve the chances of success.
Figure 5-9. The involvement of extension agencies is essential during on-farm testing and adaptation of alley farming.
However, if the farmer had a rationale for the modification, the researcher should look at the new system carefully, and discuss with the farmer the possible harms and benefits. The farmer may be modifying the system to better achieve his/her own objectives, while not harming crop productivity or long-term sustainability Through this sort of interaction, researchable issues can emerge and suggest new directions for on-station and/or on-farm research.
Some examples of on-farm adaptations are provided in the sections that follow.
Adaptations made by Farmers
Smallholder farmers have priorities and limitations that may affect their approach to hedgerow management. For example, one farmer might decide to prune some trees on the sides to encourage rapid growth of tall trunks with small, high canopies. The prunings can be applied as mulch, and poles can be harvested after the trees reach a useful size, usually in 4 to 10 years. After coppicing, this farmer can lop the trees for leaf mulch or coppice them for more poles.
Another farmer might choose to allow tethered goats to browse on regrowth for mulch in the following cropping season. As another consideration, farmers may vary the timing of hedgerow management tasks to fit in with plowing or weeding schedules. In areas where domestic or wild animals damage the trees in hedgerows, farmers have suggested planting trees in small blocks close to the home. While the leaf mulch then has to be carried to the fields, only a small block of trees has to be fenced. Farmers have tested and will continue to develop many other variations on the standard pattern of alley cropping.
Farmers have combined alley farming with many other practices. For example, farmers participating in agroforestry research projects in Kenya have expressed an interest in combining tree litter from hedgerows, blocks or fence lines with composting or related techniques. In one case, farmers reported adding leaves and twigs of Euphorbia tirucalli. Terminalia brownii and Combretum species to cattle pens for composting. They were interested, not in the structure of alley farming, but in the idea of nutrient cycling by adding leaf litter to the soil.
In many cases, a combination of hedgerows with dispersed trees in cropland can provide additional or better products and a greater impact on surrounding crops than a simple alley farming system. Farmers may wish to combine alley farming with carefully spaced individual fodder trees, such as Acacia albida, fruit trees, such as Persea americana (avocado) and Carica papaya, or trees intended for pole production. Hedgerows may provide a site for individual trees that serve a purpose very different from that of the hedgerow itself.
Alley farming can also complement contour vegetation strips and structural measures for soil and water conservation. In such cases, mulch production complements the erosion-control function, while the hedgerow plants strengthen conservation structures and improve soil fertility in the surrounding fields.
Adaptations made by Researchers in Response to Farmer Preferences
Useful adaptations of alley farming technologies have resulted from observations of farmers' problems and preferences during on-farm trials.
For example, in more than five years of extensive on-farm trials, IITA and ILCA have collected information on farmers' behavior during the establishment phase of alley farming. Small farmers have often proved to be sufficiently intrigued by the idea of using shrubs to improve soil fertility and yields to try the alley system. Their initial interest, however, has not always translated into the extended effort needed to protect and maintain the young hedgerows. Nor are the farmers always motivated to abandon familiar cropping patterns. Some busy farmers, for example, put off establishing hedgerows until after they have planted their crop. Late planting increases the probability that young hedgerow plants will be damaged during weeding.
To keep farmers from getting discouraged, IITA and ILCA researchers have worked on developing alley systems in which the hedgerows provide early, direct, and significant economic benefits; and in which future economic benefits are large and certain enough to justify the farmers' patience. For example, agronomists are testing systems in which perennial cash and food crops, such as oil palm and plantain, are planted in the same hedgerows with leguminous trees. Assurance of an early yield of perennial crops has encouraged farmers to plant annual crops in their alleys and to maintain the alleys during the first two to four years, until the system effects a visible improvement in yields of annual crops.
At some sites, on-farm research has shown that farmers do not favor a close association of crops with hedgerows. Such observations have stimulated research into alternative spatial arrangements, in which wider (double) hedgerow are spaced further apart. This may lead to more competition between hedgerow plants, but will reduce direct competition between the hedgerow and the crops. This spacing can also be used to accommodate higher hedgerows with larger trees interspersed.
All answers can be found in the text and figures of Unit 5.
1. Which one of the followings represents the true definition of OFR? Circle the correct answer.
· Research carried out on a plot of land outside the experimental station.
· Research carried out on-station with farming systems perspective.
· Research carried out on a farmer's fields in a farmer's environment.
· Research carried out on-station with farmer's involvement.
2. A farmers' involvement in OFR could be one of four types, as given below:
i) Landlord/tenant relationship.
ii) Passive on-looker.
iii) Active involvement - researcher controlled.
iv) Active involvement - farmer controlled.
From the viewpoint of a researcher, which one of the above would be labeled as the "most passive" and "most active" involvement ?
3. The following five statements concern experimental guidelines for MPT screening and evaluation. Circle T for true statements or F for false ones:
|
i) OFR is a means of ensuring the relevance of technologies developed on-station |
T |
F |
|
ii) OFR is used only for technology validation but not for adaptation or extension. |
T |
F |
|
iii) OFR is often used to demonstrate new technologies to farmers. |
T |
F |
|
iv) OFR can indicate the suitability of existing institutions for delivery of the technology to users. |
T |
F |
4. There are two types of OFR, namely, experimental OFR and developmental OFR. Indicate which of the following activities fall under experimental OFR (Exp.), which under developmental OFR (Dev.), and which under both.
|
· Tests the biological and technical feasibility of the technology. |
Exp. |
Dev. |
|
· Demonstrates the value and feasibility of the alternative technology over large areas involving many farmers. |
Exp. |
Dev. |
|
· Determines the social and institutional requirements for adoption of the technology. |
Exp. |
Dev. |
|
· Tests the economic viability of the technology. |
Exp. |
Dev. |
|
· Fine-tunes the technology. |
Exp. |
Dev. |
5. a.) The pilot project phase in developmental OFR is normally preceded by two other phases. What are these phases?
· _________________________________________
· _________________________________________
b.) A pilot project is carried out with certain specific objectives. Name at least three.
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
6. Give one example of each of the following three types of technologies:
i) composite technology: _________________________
ii) package: ___________________________________
iii) single component: ___________________________
7. Imagine you are conducting a developmental OFR project. Most of the farmers have planted single hedgerows at 4 meters spacing, according to your recommendations.. One of them, however, has decided to plant double hedgerows, spaced 8 meters apart. How will you respond to this farmer's "deviation"?
Atta-Krah, A.N., and P.A. Francis 1987. The role of on-farm trials in the evaluation of composite technologies: The case of alley farming in southern Nigeria. Agricultural Systems 23 (2): 133-152.
Amanor, K. 1990. Abstracts on farmer participatory research. ODI Agric. Admin. Unit Paper No. 10. Regent College, England: Overseas Development Institute.
Farrington, J., and A. Martin. 1988. Farmer participation in agricultural research: a review of concepts and practices. ODI Agric. Admin. Unit Paper No. 9. Regent College, England: Overseas Development Institute.
Merrill-Sands, D., and J. McAllister. 1988. Strengthening the integration of on-farm client-oriented research and experiment station research in National Agricultural Research Systems: Management Lessons from Nine Country Case Studies. OFCOR Comparative Study Paper No. 1. The Haque: ISNAR.
Merrill-Sands, D., P. Ewell, S. Biggs and J. McAllister 1989. Issues in institutionalizing on-farm client-oriented research: A review of experiences from nine National Agricultural Research Systems. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 28 (3/4): 279-300.
Nordblom, T.L., Awad El Karim, Hamid Ahmed, Gordon R. Potts. 1985. Research methodology for livestock on-farm trials. Ottawa, Canada: IDRC.
Atta-Krah, A.N., and P.A. Francis 1987. The role of on-farm trials in the evaluation of composite technologies: The case of alley farming in southern Nigeria. Agricultural Systems 23 (2): 133-152.
Francis, P.A., and A.N. Atta-Krah. 1989. Sociological and ecological factors in technology adoption: Fodder trees in southeast Nigeria. Experimental Agric. 25: 1-10.
Kang, B.T., L. Reynolds, and A.N. Atta-Krah. 1990. Alley Farming. Advances in Agronomy 43: 315-359.
Okali, C., and J.F. Sumberg. 1985. Sheep and goats, men and women: Household relations and small ruminant development in southwest Nigeria. Agricultural Systems 18: 39-59.
