Transcript Designing Alternative Solutions: Case Study of the North Florida FSR/E Project An Audio-Visual Training Module Peter E.

Designing Alternative Solutions:
Case Study of the
North Florida FSR/E Project
An Audio-Visual Training Module
Peter E. Hildebrand
TMS 403
July, 1983
This is a presentation of the University of Florida
Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSRE) Program
and the USAID/UF Farming Systems Support Project
that was active in the first part of the 1980s
The North Florida sub project was financed jointly by the
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS)
of the University of Florida
and the Office of International Cooperation and Development
of the United States Department of Agriculture
FSR/E is a procedure for technology generation and dissemination
that is based on an understanding of farmers’ problems,
resources and desires.
The FSR/E approach conducts the greater portion of research on farms
with farmer and extension participation. On-farm research plots
have a dual function, creating a situation in which
research is combined with initial extension efforts.
Let’s take a look at how FSR/E works. Beginning in the lower left hand
corner, the approach starts by identifying problems in specific systems.
This is accomplished through a rapid reconnaissance survey (Sondeo),
directed surveys or exploratory agronomic or animal research.
Alternative solutions are generated for specific problems in those
specific systems. This is directed or applied problem-solving research.
As soon as possible, new technologies are evaluated under
real farm conditions. On experiment stations and early
on-farm trials the researchers usually manage the experiments.
When the technicians are satisfied that one, or a few technologies
have high potential for solving problems in an area, farmers,
themselves are given the opportunity to evaluate the
acceptability of these technologies in what is called
farmer-managed trials.
Finally, a technology that is found to solve specific problems
in specific systems and has a high acceptability by the farmers,
can be promoted within that system with a high level of confidence
that it will be adopted.
Initial efforts in 1981 to locate areas of small farmers in
north Florida concentrated on a six-county area.
Interviews were conducted with individual county extension directors,
farmers and other persons knowledgeable
about local agricultural conditions.
Suwannee and Columbia Counties were determined
to have an adequate concentration of small farmers
and were selected as the primary area for further study.
Sondeo comes from the Spanish word – to sound out.
The Sondeo is a rapid survey conducted by a multidisciplinary
team using a conversational, informal interview technique.
This procedure entails driving many back roads
with maps and plat books.
And knocking on doors and meeting
dogs and people.
The lack of clipboards, notes and questionnaires
Is conducive to increased cooperation, farmer input,
and candor on the part of the farmer.
This is of great importance to the FSR/E approach
as it relies on the farmer’s perceptions of his or her
system, problems, constraints and resources.
The North Florida Sondeo consisted of 66 interviews
with small-scale, family farmers in the two county area.
Additional data were collected in conversations with
area feed store operators, Extension agents,
local government officials and others.
Several different kinds of small farm systems were encountered
in the area. The first and most general differentiation was based
on socio-economic rather than production criteria.
Recently established farmers were defined as those who had
been on the land for less than one generation.
Old line farmers were defined as those who had been on the land
two or more generations. Yes, this one used to squeeze
sugar cane to make molasses or sugar.
Old line farmers predominated in the sample and formed the basis
for the major thrust of the project. Comparison of selected
characteristics revealed some major differences.
One of the most important differences was access to
and participation in long-established networks for sharing
information, labor, equipment, influence and capital.
Old line farms frequently inherited or purchased from
family, while recently established farms purchased
on the open market at current interest rates and with
rigid mortgage conditions.
Old line farmers generally used older, fully depreciated
equipment, consistent with low cash investment,
low cash flow, and low indebtedness.
Recently established farmers, on the other hand, must usually
purchase new equipment, leading to much higher capital outlay,
cash flow and indebtedness. Risk aversion strategies dominated
old line production enterprises.
While the production systems of many black and white farmers relied
on tobacco as the means for providing stable, annual cash income,
major differences in production practices and access to resources
were evident between them.
The smaller black farmers had less access to capital but greater
access to labor. Tobacco production on black farms was generally
on non-irrigated, small, individual allotments
and it was worked with older equipment.
Old style stick barns, such as this one, for curing tobacco,
were still found in use on many black tobacco farms.
Tobacco production on white farms used high technology
equipment, with attendant high capital investment on
larger, consolidated allotments. These larger acreages were
frequently irrigated. A minimum of 10 acres was needed to
justify irrigation costs.
Bulk barns for curing were used by most white tobacco farmers.
The high initial cost and rising fuel costs kept this
equipment predominantly in white production systems.
Both black, and white old line farmers were important
in the sample, but white, old line farmers constituted
nearly 50 percent of the total.
Three types of enterprise mixes were encountered In the farming
systems in the area. Crop-centered farming systems included
a variety of crop mixes; however they all
centered around an important cash crop.
Peanut-centered systems such as this one had been
prevalent in the southern portion of the area,
but were declining in importance.
Growing corn for grain that can be fed, stored or sold
was a traditional crop enterprise on most farms in the area.
Increasing input prices and continuing low yields were
discouraging many farmers from producing this grain.
Tobacco was another historically important enterprise in
crop-centered systems that was declining in importance,
particularly for small farmers.
Soybean production was growing in importance in the area
in spite of the higher management and input levels
recommended for the crop.
A second kind of system was the mixed crop-livestock system.
These systems, producing both crops and animals in varying
combinations were the most frequent in the sample.
The traditional corn-velvet bean intercrop provides an
efficient use of resources by feeding both cattle and hogs.
The traditional corn-peanut intercrop had the advantage
of providing bird hunting in the fall.
This farmer adopted technology appropriate to his particular
circumstances. His swine-corn operation showed a blend of old and new
technologies. Corn was grown and milled on the farm. The addition
of concrete in the pens, sprinklers for summer cooling, and an
antibiotic injector in the watering system allowed the advantages
of modern technologies without the high capital
investment of recommended confinement systems.
The third general category, livestock-centered systems,
included a low management, low input cattle system that
utilized pastures, crop residues and purchased or farm grown feed.
Swine production enterprises varied from high capital, high input
confinement facilities to traditional woods pig practices.
The mixed crop-livestock system was the most important
system in the area.
The FSRE team identified problems in specific systems.
Even though in the FSRE project in the North Florida area we were
considering small farms, land, itself, was not found to be one of
the primary constraints to the productivity of any of the systems.
Some farmers sold small acreages to gain needed capital.
However, all systems shared some basic constraints.
Low soil fertility was general throughout the area.
Erratic rainfall, compounded by soil compaction on many farms
created moisture stress through much of the growing period.
Lack of adequate market opportunities discouraged the
production of many specialized crops such as sweet potatoes.
Credit was generally available in the area; however for many
old-line farmers, capital was an effective constraint. On both
black and white old-line farms, many farmers preferred not to
become indebted, and land title problems on some black
farms precluded the possibilities of credit.
In both crop centered and mixed farming systems in the area,
low corn yields, decreasing prices and increasing input costs
had effectively constrained these systems.
On both the mixed and the livestock centered systems, a source
of forage during parts of the year was also a constraint to productivity.
particularly in late spring and early winter, the high cost of providing
high quality forage was evident.
The FSRE team generated alternative solutions to specific problems.
Because corn played such an important role in both the crop-centered
and mixed crop-livestock farming systems in the North Florida area,
top priority was given to looking for a substitute for this crop whose
low productivity and increasing cost of production had effectively
constrained the productivity of both the crop-centered and the
mixed crop-livestock systems of the area.
A new winter wheat variety, Florida 301, had just recently been
introduced in north Florida and appeared to have a great promise
as a possible substitute for corn. Wheat could be fed, stored or sold
so it had many of the same attributes that corn has. Advantages
included growing in a period when disease and insect problems
are lower and when more dependable moisture is available from rain.
The team began to explore potential interest in producing winter
wheat with some of the small farmers. One of the first questions
asked by these farmers was whether the wheat could be
grazed in the winter. This was a practice they were accustomed
to with rye or oats.
No important information was available on the effect of grazing
Florida 301 so among other trials, the team immediately established
some trials both on station and on farms to determine the effect
of different lengths of grazing on the productivity of the grain.
Another question the farmers asked was whether they could
plant their wheat earlier than the December 1 to 15 period
recommended in order to provide them more forage during
part of the winter when forage is scarce. Date of planting
was also incorporated into the trials during the first year.
Data from research conducted on the beef research unit
in collaboration with the other scientists from the university
indicated that indeed, planting earlier improved productivity
and resulted in a lesser effect from grazing than planting
during the recommended time frame.
On-farm data, with lower yields than on the beef research unit
indicated that 4 to 6 weeks of grazing had little effect on grain
production. Differences in response to grazing on the beef
research unit and on farms pointed out the need for obtaining data
from on-farm trials as well as station trials in order to fully
understand the nature of the response to be expected if and when
practices being tested are put into effect by farmers.
At the same time the station and on-farm trials were being conducted,
members of the team were also working with farmers who were
keeping enterprise records. Most of these farmers were still raising
older varieties of wheat, shown here on the right, but some were
utilizing Florida 301, on the left. When the crop was harvested, the
data from the enterprise records were analyzed.
These data, which reflected real farm practices, resulted in some
very interesting conclusions. It was quite evident that Florida 301
was far superior to the varieties the farmers were using. And 301
responded much better to fertilizer application than the other varieties.
The recommended rate for nitrogen for 301 was 80 lbs per acre. Some
farmers were applying more than that and were losing money.
The other varieties required less nitrogen. However, it was found
that the majority of farmers were fertilizing more than 80 pounds in
attempts to increase the productivity of the other varieties. The data
indicated that 53% of the farmers could save money by applying less
nitrogen, and two thirds could improve productivity and net income
significantly by shifting either or both variety and fertilizer practice.
Tests taken by the FSRE team indicated a large incidence of soil
compaction, not recognized by many farmers. Small farmers with
light equipment were not able to practice subsoiling. The team began
working on a simple prototype for a 20 horse power tractor.
Exploratory corn trials were conducted on five farms in the area
with very satisfactory results.
The evaluation of research results takes into consideration the
constraints of these farmers and recommendations are made that fit
into the capabilities of the kinds of farmers with which the team works.
However it is the farmer and his or her family who ultimately make
decisions concerning the adoption or non-adoption of any
practice or technology. Therefore, it is necessary for the farmers
to manage the technology themselves in order to evaluate the
acceptability of the technology under their conditions.
Small-scale farmers perceive their farm first as a home. That is, a
desirable and cherished lifestyle that they wish to maintain. Family
living expenses and production costs are more likely to compete for
the same scarce resources so that production decisions on the farm
and consumption patterns in the household are closely linked.
Production strategy is calculated for yields that are roughly one-third
to one-half those on large, commercial farms for many crops in
North Florida. Two and four row equipment, enterprise diversity,
integration between crops and livestock and the high utilization of
farm products by the household typify many of these farming operations.