Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:04:10.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development of more effective conservation farming systems through participatory on-farm research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

S.B. Wuest ,
D.K. McCool ,
B.C. Miller  and
R.J. Veseth
S.B. Wuest*
Affiliation:
Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS, Columbia Plateau Conservation Research Center, P.O. Box 370, Pendleton, OR 97801;
D.K. McCool
Affiliation:
Agricultural Engineer, USDA-ARS, Department of Biological Systems Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6120;
B.C. Miller
Affiliation:
Agronomist, 3505 Laurelwood Lane, Olympia, WA 98502;
R.J. Veseth
Affiliation:
Extension Conservation Tillage Specialist, Washington State University and University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2339.
*
Corresponding author is S.B. Wuest (Stewart.Wuest@orst.edu).
Get access

Abstract

Research aimed at advancing conservation farming practices is typically performed using traditional scientific approaches, which have been highly successful in increasing agricultural output and efficiency. With the current emphasis on environmental and economic sustainability of agriculture, there is a need for a more integrated approach to applied agricultural research. Participatory research helps to bring scientific methods and the integrated production needs of farmers together to develop practical, effective, and carefully tested farming methods. The strength of participatory research is in the synergism of scientists and farmers working together to design, implement, and evaluate research. The development of new technologies for farming systems large or small, conventional or organic, can be greatly enhanced through more extensive use of participatory research.

Keywords

sustainable farming systemstechnology transferresearch agenda
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 1999 , pp. 98 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

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

1.Bunch, R. 1990. The meaning and benefits of partnership in agricultural research: Past successes—future potentials. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 5:147–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Elkana, Y.O. 1991. Participatory onfarm research: An international perspective. University of Illinois Agro-Ecology Program Paper, AE 91–15. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Agricultural Research Institute, Rockville, Maryland, October 16–17.Google Scholar
3.Ervin, D.E. 1994. Soil and water conservation down on the farm: A changing economic landscape. J. Soil and Water Conservation 49:232–234.Google Scholar
4.Exner, D.N., Thompson, R.L., and Thompson, S.N.. 1996. Practical experience and on-farm research with weed management in an Iowa ridge tillage-based system. J. Production Agric. 9:496–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Francis, C.A., and Madden, J.P.. 1993. Designing the future: Sustainable agriculture in the US. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 46:123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Johnson, J.J., Miller, B.C., Alldredge, J.R., and Ullrich, S.E.. 1994. Using single-replicate on-farm tests to enhance cultivar performance evaluation. J. Production Agric. 7:75–80.Google Scholar
7.Kittrell, B.U. 1974. Result demonstration technique—history, philosophy, and contemporary nature. J. Agronomic Education 3:90–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.McCool, D.K., Pannkuk, C.D., Kennedy, A.C., and Frohne, P.S.. 1999. Effects of burn/low-till on erosion and soil quality. (Unpublished completion report submitted for publication as a Washington State University technical bulletin.)Google Scholar
9.Pannkuk, C.D., McCool, D.K., and Mutch, P.W.. 1998. Small grain canopy cover effects on water erosion. Paper #982062. Amer. Soc. Agric. Engineers Annual International Meeting.Google Scholar
10.Rosmann, R.L. 1994. Farmer initiated on-farm research. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 9:34–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Rzewnicki, P. 1991. Farmers' perceptions of experiment station research, demonstrations, and on-farm research in agronomy. J. Agronomic Education 20:31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Rzewnicki, P.E., Thompson, R., Lesoing, G.W., Elmore, R.W., Francis, C.A., Parkhurst, A.M., and Moomaw, R.S.. 1988. On-farm experiment designs and implications for locating research sites. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 3:168–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Sumberg, J., and Okali, C.. 1988. Farmers, on-farm research and the development of new technology. Exploratory Agric. 24:333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Thompson, R., and Thompson, S.. 1990. The on-farm research program of Practical Farmers of Iowa. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 5:163–167.Google Scholar
15.Tripp, R., and Anandajayasekeram, P.. 1990. Building institutional capacity for on-farm research: Call system training courses. J. Agronomic Education 19:131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Wuest, S.B., Miller, B.C., Alldredge, J.R., Guy, S.O., Karow, R.S., Veseth, R.J., and Wysocki, D.J.. 1994a. Increasing plot length reduces experimental error of on-farm tests. J. Production Agric. 7:211–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Wuest, S.B., Miller, B.C., Veseth, R.J., Guy, S.O., Wysocki, D.J., and Karow, R.S.. 1992. 1992 Pacific Northwest on-farm test results. Department of Crop and Soil Sciences Technical Report 92–4. Washington State University, Pullman.Google Scholar
18.Wuest, S.B., Miller, B.C., Veseth, R.J., Guy, S.O., Wysocki, D.J., and Karow, R.S.. 1994b. 1994 Pacific Northwest on-farm test results. Department of Crop and Soil Sciences Technical Report 95–1. Washington State University, Pullman.Google Scholar