Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


SESSION V: INTERDISCIPLINARY WORKING GROUPS REPORTS


Application of a Holistic Interdisciplinary Approach to Laboratory and Field Experiments - (Rapporteur: R. KEATINGE; Chairperson: I. RASMUSSEN)

INTRODUCTION

The Working Group consisted of twelve members from nine countries with a strong bias towards plant rather than animal production. Of the four workshops in this Session, the Group felt that the task to be considered was less compatible with the organic ideal, seeking, as it was to apply reductionist techniques to organic research. Early in the discussions, it became clear that the Group were in danger of trying to brainstorm all possible techniques without considering or understanding how they might fit within a holistic approach. It was decided that the first priority should be to examine the decision-making process involved in evaluating suitable techniques, to guide selection and possible adaptation to organic research.

IMPORTANCE OF A HOLISTIC BASE

While holistic methods may be more difficult to apply to laboratory and field experiments, a holistic outlook is critical in deciding the context in which research should be undertaken. The holistic view must inform:

Specific experiments need to be derived from a full consideration of the research question, each forming a component towards greater understanding or solution of the problem. The process should be highly interactive, ‘top to bottom’, ‘farmer back to farmer’ and cross-referencing the relevance of the research at all levels.

COMPARISON OF ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL EXPERIMENTS

Taken as a whole, organic and conventional experiments tend to have a different blend of characteristics, some of which are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Generalized characteristics of organic and conventional experiments

Organic

Conventional

· Inter (multi) disciplinary

· Discipline based

· Interdependence of activities

· Singularity of activities

· Role of value judgement/intuition

· Objectivity

· Longer-term

· Short-term

· Environmental interaction

· Environmental control

· Greater range of parameter studies

· Fewer parameters evaluated

· Based on farmer goals

· Involve ‘commercial’ goals

· Applied

· Fundamental

An organic approach is based more on an acceptance of complexity, as an inherent part of the system rather than seeking to reduce or avoid complexity altogether. Control treatments will tend to be defined by the system, rather than artificially imposed. Environmental effects may be used positively, for example, to drive selection in organic plant breeding. Due to the greater range and interdependence of factors, there is likely to be a greater element of value judgement or intuition when setting up the experiment, compared to the conventional researcher who tends to be less involved.

From these discussions the Group concluded that:

APPLICATION OF TECHNIQUES

Techniques were broadly classified according to:

The requirements of holistically based research, will determine the approaches to be taken and the particular techniques (modified or otherwise) to be applied. Some possibilities are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Approaches and techniques for organic laboratory and field experiments

Requirements

Approaches

Techniques

Multi-disciplinary

· Cooperation
· Brain-storming

Inputs from diverse sources e.g.
· Social sciences
· Molecular biology

Interdependence of activities

Define
· Primary effects
· Secondary effects

· Computer modelling
· Causal and flow analysis techniques

Value judgement/intuition

· Consultation
· Observation

· Non-traditional plant breeding techniques

Range of parameters

· Qualitative and quantitative methods
· Macro and micro scale

· Better developed food quality assessments
· Soil biological activity
·’Picture building’ techniques
· Development of ‘indices’

Experimental control

· Experimental design
· Observation study

· Novel statistical techniques

Environmental interaction

· Multi-site experiments
· Multi-factorial design

· GPS technology

To accommodate more complex, interacting issues, greater emphasis will be given to consultation and observation studies, in formulating the research question and the experimental approach to be taken. The experience of a range of participants (farmers, researchers, retailers) from a variety of backgrounds (production, economics, social sciences) may be brought to bear, for example, to propose novel approaches to a particular problem. New and developing approaches in computer modelling, statistics or global positioning by satellite may be used to analyse data or improve experimental design. Even technologies such as molecular biology, normally thought to conflict with organic ideology may be used for example, to chart population dynamics within a non-traditional plant breeding programme.

Specific scenarios were discussed, for example, the assessment of quality in organic food products. The whole food production, transport, processing and distribution chain may need to be considered. There may be further issues of supply and demand, seasonality of production, consumer attitudes and inputs. At the broadest level, environmental impacts or efficiency of energy use may provide additional dimensions to the research questions posed. Existing techniques may be used for example, analysis of mycotoxin of vitamin anti-oxidant levels, to support newer techniques, namely, the development of a ‘chemical nose’ to describe overall quality.

The Group did not produce an exhaustive list of research techniques. Nor, did it produce a priority list, as the potential application and relative weighting of techniques could vary depending on the particular research problem.

CONCLUSIONS

Laboratory and field experiments have an important contribution to make to the holistic evaluation of organic farming systems. This needs to be firmly driven from a holistic base. Having met this criterion, there are few limitations to the type of techniques which could be applied. It is not the choice of technique which is of primary importance but how and in what context it is applied.

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:

a) How to interact with farmers.
b) How to develop farmer’s tools.
c) How to elaborate the data collection and statistics.
d) 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:

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

How to Apply a Holistic Interdisciplinary Approach to Development/Extension - (L. SEPPäNEN and S. PADEL)

INTRODUCTION

The main question the group addressed during the discussion was: how can extension be a tool for research. However, all members of the group agreed that the right choice of extension service for organic farming was very important and needed more detailed discussion at the beginning. This included a discussion about the control of knowledge and it was acknowledged that organic farmers are in a slightly better position than conventional farmers because more of the needed knowledge e.g. about good husbandry and ecosystems, is in the public domain. In the dimension from basic to adaptive research, the most useful role of extension was considered to be in applied and adaptive research. Despite a lot of discussions, not many organic farming research projects appear to be based on participatory research methods. Two reasons were identified for this. Difficulties in participatory research with farmers were mainly identified as related to farmers not respecting the research protocol. This might give an indication that the research question is not directly relevant to the farm and the experiment therefore not truly participatory. The farmers do not feel ownership and/or are overwhelmed with the research demand. Secondly, participatory methods might not be regarded as scientific and are therefore not mentioned in such publications.

THE ROLE OF EXTENSION IN RESEARCH

Various ways of involving farmers and advisers in research were identified and their advantages and disadvantages discussed (see table). These include various methods in working with farmers and advisers (listed at the top of the table) and three more structural ways in involving farmers and advisors in the organizations of research (bottom of the table).

Farmers providing data were considered a very important and lowest tool in research work, even though some problems with data quality can arise, particularly if the farmers’ judgement is the only data source. Nearly as important were farm optimization studies, or so called action research. Examples for this type of work include various conversion studies and work with developing prototype farms. The method was considered to be relevant to farmers, although time-consuming. There was some discussion whether replicability must always be a necessary criterion of research work. In addition this type of research work might lead to conflicts with advisory organizations. Including advisers in case studies or farm optimization studies might avoid such conflicts, would further increase the relevance of the projects (because advisers generally have a good overview) and would facilitate the wider dissemination. However, the process would be even more time consuming and the method was therefore considered by the Group to be less important.

INVOLVING FARMERS AND ADVISERS IN RESEARCH

Involvement

Advantages

Disadvantages

Farmers provide data

Cheap, data easy available
Representative

Data quality
Farmers overstate/understate

Action research, farm optimization

Relevant to farmers
Setting good example

Not representative and replicable
Might not consider farming style
Time consuming

Advisers in farm optimization and case studies

High relevance
Facilitate learning of all
Improved dissemination

Bias/adviser manipulates
Even more time consuming (Too expensive)

On farm trials Demonstrations

Acceptance high
Traditional extension tool

Question of representativeness
Might increase the gap between farmers

Survey of advisers

Cheap
Good insight knowledge

Subjective opinion
Bias

Research priorities set by farmers

Farmers’ involvement

Deeper understanding needed
Farmers too short sited
Other users

Farmers and/or advisers on steering groups for projects

Relevance
Quality assurance

Risk of conflicts
Members loose touch with constituency

Co-financing of research by farmers and extension service

More control of farmers
“User pay”

Knowledge privatization
Resistance to pay

It was agreed that on-farm trials and demonstration projects are important and highly accepted, but there was some discussion on their representativeness. It was also pointed out that the well known danger of demonstration projects in traditional extension work, to increase the knowledge gap between farmers, remains valid, even if demonstration projects are concerned with organic farming. For more structural elements it was considered important to include farmers in the process of setting research priorities as this will increase the farmers’ involvement in the research process and/or the likely use of research results. However, farmers are not the only users of research results. In addition, farmers sometimes might not understand the cause of some of their problems and would therefore not see the immediate relevance of some research, for example of work concerning ecological principles and a deeper analysis of the farming systems might be needed. In any research aiming to develop the farming activity it is highly relevant to analyse and take into consideration the farmers’ orientation, their management style and farming objectives. Including farmers and/or advisers in project steering committees was also considered to be quite important to assure the quality of the project and maintain relevance for the developments in farming. However, this can increase this risk of conflicts on the committee and over a period of time the advisers/farmer members may loose touch with the group they were supposed to represent.

CONCLUSIONS

Involving members of extension organizations, farmers and advisers alike, in research corresponds well with participatory methods and the holistic nature of organic farming system. The involvement can take place in various ways and is overall likely to increase the relevance of the research work, but problems with data quality and the representativeness of individual farm studies were identified. However, researchers, farmers and advisers should jointly develop a strong link with the aim to expand and improve organic farming in the future.

CONCLUSIONS FOR ON-FARM RESEARCH (OFR): FUTURE NEEDS/STEPS BY PROCEDURE

- Adequate statistics
- Need for a manual
- Improvement of data collection/sheets
- Need for multidisciplinary approach
- Better link with other methods, extension workers and experimental farms
- Use on on-farm research more to improve the system (in the long run)
- Improve dissemination (to farmers and scientific “community”)
- Include more economical impacts, regional comparisons
- Better involvement of farmers in defining the objectives of on-farm research

® OFR is a very useful, helpful approach but is in need of further development

ON-FARM RESEARCH: PRIORITIES FOR A FUTURE FAO WORKSHOP

  1. Training on OFR: different types, methods, models, practical examples (incl. aspects of extension work, non EU-experiences. Manual for OFR, catalogue with methods.
  2. Establishment of a network for OFR-researchers.

OTHER ITEMS REGARDING ON-FARM RESEARCH


Previous Page Top of Page Next Page