Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:13:49.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is conventional agricultural research fit for the purpose of supporting ecological agriculture? A case study of an attempted transition in Sweden

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2010

Karin Eksvärd
Karin Eksvärd*
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Centre of Sustainable Agriculture, Box 7047, SE 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden.
*
*Corresponding author: karin.eksvard@cul.slu.se; karin@comlaetitia.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In order to increase ecological horticulture in Sweden, it is necessary to increase productivity while reducing working hours. To improve the relevance of research results as a base for such transitions, a Participatory Learning and Action Research (PLAR) group was added to a conventional research project that aimed to find options for using green manure as a multifunctional tool in vegetable production. The project consisted of four work packages looking at different aspects of a system of interest defined by researchers. The PLAR group sought to evaluate the agronomic outcome of the conventional research outputs but came to add qualitative experience of using the different manuring methods tried. The article reports on the evaluation of the PLAR activities as well as on issues of cooperation and understanding The difficulties and constrains that arose revealed the limitations of conventional research as a means for supporting ecological horticulture transitions, but using PLAR as an ‘add on method’ is also shown to be inadequate for helping producers effect the transitions required. Discussion on the robustness of the data generated and the stability of the approach show the importance of using approaches that are fit for practice when extending research to develop ecological horticulture to include participation with practitioners. Moving from conventional research approaches to trans-disciplinary approaches is not easy and includes the need to relate the contextual knowledge of farmers to the abstract knowledge of scientists.

Keywords

ecological horticultureParticipatory Learning and Action Researchresearch transitiongreen manureSweden
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 25 , Special Issue 1: “Food for Life”: Looking Beyond the Horizon , March 2010 , pp. 55 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

1Environmental Objectives Portal. 2008. Sweden's Environmental Objectives: No Time to Lose. Available at Web site http://www.miljomal.nu (last accessed 14 April 2008).Google Scholar
2Regeringens skrivelse. 2006. Ekologisk produktion och konsumtion – Mål och inriktning till 2010, Skr 2005/06:88. The Swedish Government, Stockholm.Google Scholar
3Statistics Sweden. 2008. Jordbruksstatistisk årsbok 2008. Available at Web site http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/JO1901_2007A01_BR_15_JO01BR0801.pdf (last accessed 2 December 2008).Google Scholar
4Nilsson, U. 2007. Ekologisk odling av grönsaker, frukt och bär – hinder och möjligheter för framtida utveckling. Ekologiskt lantbruk 49. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.Google Scholar
5Hanson, M. 2006. Odlare och marknad – en inventering av ekologisk produktion av köksväxter i Västra Götaland. Hushållningssällskapet Väst, Vänersborg.Google Scholar
6Rölin, Å. and Larsson, L. 2001. Problemområden inom ekologisk odling av grönsaker och bär på friland – Enkätundersökning 2001. The Swedish Board of Agriculture, Jönköping.Google Scholar
7The Swedish Board of Agriculture. 2006. Trädgårdsproduktion 2005, Statistiska meddelanden, JO 33 SM0601. The Swedish Board of Agriculture, Jönköping.Google Scholar
8Johnson, N., Lilja, N., Ashby, J. A., and Garcia, J. A. 2004. The practice of participatory research and gender analysis in natural resource management. Natural Resource Forum 28:189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Hildebrand, P. and Russel, J. 1996. Adaptability Analysis: A Method for the Design, Analysis and Interpretation of On-farm Research-extension. Iowa State University Press, Iowa.Google Scholar
10Eksvärd, K. 2007. Ett möte mellan olika forskningsprocesser – deltagardriven forskning i ett multidisciplinärt projekt. Ekologiskt lantbruk 48. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.Google Scholar
11Pretty, J., Guijt, I., Thompson, J., and Scoones, I. 1995. Participatory Learning and Action: A Trainer's Guide. IIED, London.Google Scholar
12Ison, R. 2008. Systems thinking and practice for action research. In Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (eds). Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage Publications, London. p. 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13NJF. 2005. NJF-Seminare 369. Organic farming for a new millennium – status and future challenges. Nordic Association of Agricultural Scientists, NJP Report Volume 1, No. 1. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp. p. 252–256.Google Scholar
14Elfstrand, S., Båth, B., and Mårtensson, A. 2007. Influence of various forms of green manure amendment on soil microbial community composition, enzyme activity and nutrient levels in leek. Applied Soil Ecology 36(1):70–82.Google Scholar
15Elfstrand, S., Lagerlöf, J., Hedlund, K., and Mårtensson, A. 2008. Carbon routes from decomposing plant residues and living roots into soil food webs assessed with 13C labelling. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 40(10):2530–2539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Barnett, M. L. 2004. Are globalization and sustainability compatible? A review of a debate between the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the International Forum on Globalization. Organization and Environment 17(4):523–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Hall, A., Rasheed Sulaiman, V., Clark, N., and Yoganand, B. 2003. From measuring impact to learning institutional lessons: an innovation systems perspective on improving the management of international agricultural research. Agricultural Systems 78:213–241.Google Scholar
18Arnold, E. and Bell, M. 2001. Some new ideas about research for development. In Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (eds). Partnership at the Leading Edge: A Danish Vision for Knowledge, Research and Development. p. 279–316.Google Scholar
19Cook, S. D. N. and Brown, J. S. 1999. Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between organisational knowledge and organisational knowing. Organization Science 10(4):381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Bonny, B., Prasad, R., Narayan, S., and Varughese, M. 2005. Participatory learning, experimentation, action and dissemination (PLEAD). A model for farmer-participatory technology evolution in agriculture. Outlook on Agriculture 34(2):111–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Eshuis, J. and Stuvier, M. 2005. Learning in context through conflict and alignment: farmers and scientists in search of sustainable agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 22:137–148.Google Scholar
22Scholz, R., Mieg, H., and Oswald, J. 2000. Transdisciplinarity in groundwater management – towards mutual learning of science and society. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 123:477–487.Google Scholar