Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:47:54.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farmer research: Conventional experiences and guidelines for alternative agriculture and multi-functional agro-ecosystems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

C.S. Wortmann ,
A.P. Christiansen ,
K.L. Glewen ,
T.A. Hejny ,
J. Mulliken ,
J.M. Peterson ,
D.L. Varner ,
S. Wortmann  and
G.L. Zoubek
C.S. Wortmann*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
A.P. Christiansen
Affiliation:
Cooperative Extension, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.
K.L. Glewen
Affiliation:
Cooperative Extension, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.
T.A. Hejny
Affiliation:
Cooperative Extension, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.
J. Mulliken
Affiliation:
JM Crop Consulting, 1687 CR 24, Nickerson, Nebraska, USA.
J.M. Peterson
Affiliation:
Cooperative Extension, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.
D.L. Varner
Affiliation:
Cooperative Extension, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.
S. Wortmann
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Augustana College, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, USA.
G.L. Zoubek
Affiliation:
Cooperative Extension, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: E-mail: cwortmann2@unl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Crop producers are challenged to operate profitably, use resources efficiently, meet high standards of quality and protect the environment, while sustaining rural economies and societies. Cropping systems are generally fine-tuned and improved through changes that have small effects which can often be verified only through research. The processes and successes of two farmer research projects were studied. Results of these studies, information from other sources and the authors' reflections on their own experiences were integrated to develop guidelines for the implementation of farmer research projects for alternative agriculture and multi-functional agro-ecosystems with diverse stakeholders. Surveys were mailed to 118 farmers currently or previously participating in a farmer research project, and to 15 advisors. Responses show that involvement in a farmer research project was profitable, stimulating, enjoyable and worthwhile, despite a substantial time requirement. Tillage and soil fertility research had greater impact on annual farm profit than research on other topics. Farmers and advisors emphasized the importance of the farmers' roles in identification of research topics, research planning and implementation, and interpretation of the results. Replicated trials conducted over 2 or 3 years were recognized as necessary to adequately verify practices for the corn–soybean rotation of eastern Nebraska, USA. Such trials may need to be complemented with alternative research approaches for improving alternative agriculture and multi-functional agro-ecosystems where knowledge about some system components is relatively scarce and there is a need to evaluate long-term effects. In conclusion, organized farmer research is an efficient means to cropping system improvement. Guidelines are given for initiation and implementation of farmer research projects.

Keywords

agro-ecosystemsalternative agriculturemulti-functionalon-farm researchparticipatory research
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 243 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Bentley, J.W. 1992. Alternatives to pesticides in Central America. Applied studies in local knowledge. Culture and Agriculture 44: 10–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2McDougall, C. and Braun, A. 2003. Navigating complexity, diversity and dynamism: reflections on research for natural resource management. In Pound, B., Snapp, S.S., McDougal, C. and Braun, A. (eds). Uniting Science and Participation: Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods. Earthscan, UK and IRDC, Toronto, Canada p. 20–47.Google Scholar
3Fujisaka, S., Wortmann, C. and Adamassu, H. 1997. Resource poor farmers with complex technical knowledge in a high risk system in Ethiopia. Can research help?. Journal of Farming Systems Research and Extension 6: 1–14.Google Scholar
4Nielson, F., Farley, C. and Wortmann, C. 1997. Opportunities and constraints for farmer participatory research for technology development and diffusion. In Kang'ara, J.M., Sutherland, A.J. and Gethi, M. Participatory Dryland Agricultural Research of Mount Kenya, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute and British Department for International Development, Nairobi, Kenya. 2–15.Google Scholar
5Ashby, J. 2003. Introduction: uniting science and participation in the process of innovation—research for development. In Pound, B., Snapp, S.S., McDougal, C., Braun, A. (eds). Uniting Science and Participation: Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods. Earthscan, UK and IRDC, Toronto, Canada. p. 1–19.Google Scholar
6Gerber, J.M. 1992. Farmer participatory research model for adaptive research and education. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 7: 118–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Lacy, W.B. 1996. Research, extension, and user partnerships: models for collaboration and strategies for change. Culture and Human Values 13: 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Francis, C., Salomonsson, L., Lieblein, G. and Helenius, J. 2004. Serving multiple needs with rural landscapes and agricultural systems. In Rickerl, D., Francis, C. and Madison, WI (eds). Agroecosystems Analysis. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. p. 147–165.Google Scholar
9Fischler, M. and Wortmann, C.S. 1999. Green manure research in eastern Uganda—a participatory approach. Agroforestry Systems 47: 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Fischler, M., David, S., Farley, C., Ugen, M. and Wortmann, C. 1996. Applying farmer participation research methods to planning agricultural research: experiences from eastern Africa. Journal of Farming Systems Research and Extension 6(1): 37–54.Google Scholar
11Wortmann, C.S., Kaizzi, C.K. and Fischler, M. 1999. Farmers' experimentation on green manure/cover crops: A component of participatory research for improvement of Ugandan farming systems. In Fujisaka, S. (ed.). Systems and Farmer Participatory Research: Developments in Natural Resource Management. CIAT, Cali, Colombia. p. 118–127.Google Scholar
12Norman, D., Freyenberger, S., and Schurle, B. 1997. County extension agents and on-farm research work: results of a Kansas survey. Journal of Extension 35. Available on-line at http://www.joe.org/joe/1997october/a4.html (verified 20 July 2004).Google Scholar
13Creamer, N.G. 2000. Organic farming systems. Available on-line at http://www.ncsu.edu/organic_farming_systems.html (verified 22 July 2004).Google Scholar
14Flora, C.B. 2004. Community dynamics and social capital. In Rickerl, D. and Francis, C. (eds). Agroecosystems Analysis. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. p. 93–107.Google Scholar
15Vernooy, R. and McDougall, C. 2003. Principles for good practice in participatory research: reflecting on lessons from the field. In Pound, B., Snapp, S.S., McDougal, C. and Braun, A. (eds). Uniting Science and Participation: Managing natural resources for Sustainable Livelihoods. Earthscan, UK and IRDC, 113–141Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
16Thornley, K. 1990. Involving farmers in research: a farmer's perspective. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 5: 174–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar