l-;:M;:-:' L-M-'-O-O--' John K. Lynam - CGIAR
Transcript of l-;:M;:-:' L-M-'-O-O--' John K. Lynam - CGIAR
The Role of Economists in On-Farm Testing in Agricult·if"d,..,~~rat====:::1I·
l-;:M;:-:' C=-"=O=-=F':':'"' L-M-"'-O-O--' John K. Lynam John H. Sanders March 1980
Agricultural research in the developing world has been criticized
for its lack of relevance to farm production problems. In most instan
ces this criticism has focused on the inappropriateness of new crop
tec~nologies for smal'-scale or limited-resource farmers. In response
agricultural research institutions have attempted to link their research
development process more to farm-level conditions. Methodologies for
linking agricultural research to the farm level differ, and vary from
detailed farm surveys to actual technology evaluation on farms. As wel'.
the balance between research station experimentation and on-farm experi-
mentation varies. The choice of methodology and site balance rests on
the research's ability to safely generalize from research station results
to farm conditions.
Though specific objectives of on-farm research may differ, their
principal function remains constant, which is to make the technology
development process more efficient through better specification of re
search objectives. Varietal development or evaluation is re1ated direct-
1y to yield-constraining factors at the farm level and farm production
systems. Technology evaluation proceS5 has as its final evaluation
criterion and thus in the final evaluation at the farm level re1ies
heavi 1y on economi cana lys i s.
. . - 2 -
This paper provides a preliminary assessment of on-farm research as
currently carried out by international and national agricultural research
institutes. In so doing, the paper will focus on farm trials as carried
out at CIAT and will particularly highlight the economic component in
such trials.
On-Farm Research at International Centers
On-farm research, as distinct from the broader concept of farm sys
tems research, is relatively new at international centers and for each
the approach differs. At the risk of over generalization, on-farm re
search as carried out at international centers falls into three basic
categories: diagnostic, pre-release evaluation, and post-release evalua
tion. An obvious continuum in this activity exists within the interna
tional center net work, and the focus of any particular center in part
corresponds to its s tage of advancement in the techno 1 ogy deve 1 opment
process.
The diagnostic phase is concerned \~ith attempting to characterize
and potentially model farm production systems within the particular cen
ter's mandate. The research usually entails detailed on-farm data col1ec
tion or surveys in order to define critical production parameters or con
traints, which then serve as a guide to focussing the technology research
strategy. The research in general has a dominant economic component and
a very definite systems focus. Thus, such studies are usually carried
out by centers withi n a definite ecosystern mandate such studies serve
in large part to define overall research strategies. The village-level
studies of ICRISAT, the villagc surveys of lITA and the ETES project of
..
- 3 -
of the CIAT pasture program fall into this phase.
Pre-and post-release testing of improved agricultural technology has
been exclusively associated .lith crop programs. The emphasis has been on
evaluating improved varieties and associated technologies within actual
farm production systems and thus in providing more detailed input into
research definition. Pre-release, on-farm testing as carried out at CIAT
1s one stage of the technology evaluation system, providing the final
check on te performance of the technology before release to national ins
titutions (feed fonlard activities) and flagging needed technology charac
teristics overlooked in the research process (feedback activities). Post
release testing, as principally carried out by IRRI, principal1y focuses
on idr,ntifying second and third generational problems, as well as provid
ing an ex-post assessment of the efficiency of the technology development
process. Post-release testing obviously becomes less important. the more
capable is the pre-release testing system in identifying potential cons
trainsts. In fact, the two activities should eventually merge together
as technologies are releases and second generation technologies are eva
luated.
IRRI has the longest experience with on-farm research, having begun
in 1974. IRRI's on-farm research began with post-release evaluation.
The principal objective was to attempt to explain why farmers were obtain
ing significantly lower yields than the potential yíelds as achieved at
the research station. The project was designed to understand input in
teraction and varietal yield under the physical yield potential set by
farmers' conditions, and thus to quantify the physical and economíc fac-
, , ' . - 4 -
tors responsible for the so-called yield gap. To separate technical op
timum from economic optimum budgeting analysis was used. Technical pa
rameters or economic parameters that could increase yields at the farm
level were identified and fed back into research and policy institutions.
The project confirmed that farmers were making maximum use of the availa
ble technology. The principal information flows were the high potential
yield returns to the development of low-cost insect control and a confirma
tion of the obvious importance of the rice: fertilizer price ratio in
determining farmers' economic rate of fertilizer application and thus
yield levels.
As the IRRI project document specifies: "the constraints project did
not attempt to explain the adoption of new technology, although that issue
was touched upon to some extent in considering the levels of inputs used
by farmers; (nor did the constraints project) attempt to explain or
identify constraints to rice production imposed by cirumstance beyond
the control of farmers" (IRRI, 1979). IRRI's constraints project thus
had a very narrow focus which was to separate the effects of various in
puts on rice yields and relate these to current farm yields, The analysis
did relate input use to profitability but went little beyond that to
analyze other factors that could influence adoption. The design of the
trials thus severed the results from the essential issue that world pro
vide input into the research process: what were the factors actually or
potentially constraining adoption and were these factors amenable to
redesign of the technology? Moreovcl', by limiting the analysis to farmer
input decisions rather the focusing as well on other, particularly bio-
· . - 5 -
phipical, factors that constrained rice yields, reduced further the re
levant information going into the research program!l. Characterizing
the limiting production factors at the farm level is especial1y relevant
in defining bredding priorities.
Focus ing on economi c factors that potenti a lly cons tra in farmer
adopti on and unders tandi ng the effect of vari ance in farmer' producti on
conditions on yields is the major focus of on-farm testing at CIAT.
On-Farm Testing at CIAT
Pre-release evaluation of improved technologies at the farm level
is a relatively new activity within international centers. On-farm test
ing has been carried out in the commodity (beans and cassava) programs
of CIAT since 1977. The principal objective was and continues to be
ex-ante evaluation of crop technology components within whole farm sys
tems as a basic stage in the evaluation process.
Three basic points about doing on-farm testing arise from this ob
jective. First, the trials, like those of IRRI, work with single-crop
technology components that have been identified at the research station
as agronomically superior. Initially the trials focus on the evaluation
of non-variety technology components and progressively advance to evaluat
ing principal1y improved varieties. Working with potential technologies
11 This was implicity attempted in Nueva Ecija, Philippines, with the estimation of a global production function por rice. Ho\<¡ever, no implications relevant to breeding characteristics or prioritizing
( production constraints was made. See farm-level Constraints to High Rice Yield In Asia: 1974-77, IRRI, Los Banas, Philippines, 1979, p.225-229.
· , - 6 -
is only a single crop system is critical to international centers in
limiting the large potential variability io their target region and thus
removing the trials from the study of very region specific and highly
evolved eropping systems.
Second, while the trials themselves are organized around single
erop teehnologies, the unit of analysis is the whole farm system. Analy
sis of the trial results is principally economic in nature and focuses
on the farmers' potential adoption of the technology; that is, the
analysis is ex-ante in nature. ls the technology profitable, is the
level of risk acceptable, and does it fit into the farolers' production
system are the principal issues addressed in the analysis.
Finally, the on-farm trials are a principal component of the research
evaluation system of the research center (Figure 1). Data developed from
the farm trials help to calibrate the off-farm evaluation system and thus
make it more efficient in identifying potentially viable technologies.
This linkage to on-farm evaluation is particularly important for prdomi
nantly rainfed crops, such as beans and cassava, in which it is difficult
to simulate farm production conditions at the research station level.
Moreover, the linkage is especially crucial in the early stages of the
technology development process in order to provide a means of evaluating
research strategy, especially in providing more detailed data for the
continuous evaluation of breeding priorities and selection characteristics.
r .'
- 7 -
There are two basic methodological components to the on-farm trials:
design of experimental plots and analysis of trial results. Both design
and analysis follow from the basic research question the trials attempt
to answer, i.e. wi 11 the farmer adopt the technology? The design of the
trials focus on defining the profitability of the synergistic effects of
input complementarity under farmer conditions. Complete factorial trials
are usually constrained by the number of factors being tested and deci-
sions must be made about which interactions are most important. As well,
a relatively large number of trials (25 to 30) are needed in each region
in order to statistically evaluate variance in treatment performance.
Delineating factors causing differential yield performance between farms
is important in s~ecifying under what conditions the technology is profi
tableo These results thus help to focus regional experimentation and
provi de check .\ 'r.~
on a. degree of wi de adaptati on bui 1t i nto the techno 1 ogy. ti-
The analysis of the results then proceeds through three stages
(Figure 2). First, the results are tested for significance of the mean
differences in treatment effects. If the treatment effect is not sig-
nificant and there is large vóriation in the results, the farms are
stratified. The stratification can be done with a priori theorectical
considerations or statistical searching devices, such ascluster analysis
or multiple regression. Upon stratifition, the sub-samples are again
run through ANOVA.
Once the significant treatment levels are obtained the analysis
proceeds to profitability, riskiness, and the systems evaluation of the
fit into the farmer's production syst.em. The analysis at this stage is
- 8 -
traditional ex-ante economic evaluation, assesing whether the farmer will
adopt the technology. The trials do not evaluate actual adoption or dif
fusion of the technology but whether the technology meets all ~ priori
economic criteria that would induce the farmer to adopto By the end of the ,,-.>~'; it /- t
analysis the technology eHhe-r- passes to national institutions for further r
testing or areas that need further research have been defined. To better
specify how this process works, sorne examples frorn the cassava and bean .-.¡- ·,,,to l • ¡
í 'tea~ are presented.
Cassava On-Farm Trials:
The strate9Y for the CIAT cassava program is increasing productivity ,
of cassava production through the development of a minimum-input techno-
109Y package. Tlle strategy derives from tlle definition of the principal
target area as marginal agricultural areas and the principal target group
as relatively small-scale producers. Given the riskier nature of produc
tion in marginal areas and the expected lower responsiveness to inputs in
such zones, to ensure the profitability of the crop, increases in input :;.,
costs were kept to minimum. This strategy would as well overcome capital , constraints usually faced by small-scale farmers under such conditions.
The principal component in such a package would be,improved varie-
ties, but in association with improved cultural practices. Moreover, the
program focused principal1y on the production of finished varieties from
which national programs \'/Ould select those compatible ~Iith their produc
tion and market conditions (either as parents in a breeding program on
for testin9 and direct extension to production zones). The objectives of
the farm trials were thus to evaluate the yield and income advantage
- 9 -
of the mínimum input package withín the target area and to evaluate new
varieties at the farm level, particularly an ex-ante analysis of factors
influencing farmer adoption.
The farm trials in a principal cassava production zone demonstrated
a yield increase of 65% with the traditional variety utilizing the mini
mum-input package (high quality planting material, an adequate plant po
pulation, and good weed control). The improved agronomic practices did
not greatly increase input costs but nevertheless entailed a substantial
increment in management, especially for clean stake selection. For the
improved agronomy the analysis proceeded no further than the profitability
assessment (Table ).
Even though there were large yield advantages to the two varietal
selections in regional yield trials, under farm conditions there was little
difference with farmers' varieties under similar practices. Moreover,
there was a 40-60% price discount for these selections since they could
on1y be sold on the industrial starch market. Quality characteristics,
especially high starch content, put a price premium on urban fresh market
sales. The research program had incorporated starch content in its eva
luations, but only in terms of maximizing starch production per hectare. '1'
Such evaluation i5 ~ational for industrial uses, but where price diffe-
rentiation is based on consumer preferences, price differences will be
much wider than just for percentage changes in starch contento
Starch content is a characteristic that is not we11 understood. It
not only varies between varieties but a150 is influenced by environmental
factors (especially stress factors) and physiological maturity. Partic-
- 10 -
ularly}starch levels reach a maximum (the time period being defined prin
cipa11y by temperature) and then declines. Evidence suggests that far
mers' varieties reach a higher maximum starch content and then decline
les,s rapidly after the optimal harvest periodo
The maintenance of starch content while stored in the ground is im
portant to the farmer because of marketing constraints. Through coordina
tion betv.¡een wholesalers and market intermediaríes (acting as assemb1y
and transport agents) supplies onto the market are regulated in order to
guarantee continuity ~f-s~pp1~nd manageability of daily supp1ies,with
reduced risk of 10ss due to oversupp1y (since cassava is highly perish
able after harvest). Such supp1y regulation can be achieved at the farm
level by staggered plantings. H0\1ever, where optimal planting periods
are defined by annual rainfal1 or temperature distribution, then storage
in the ground after maturity becomes important. Rainfall distribution in
the farm trial site defined an optimal planting period and an optimal
harvest periodo
The observed marketing pattern by the farmer shows ooly 37 percent
harvested for the fresh market at the optimal time and that the farmer is
forced later on to sell 28 percent on his cassava on the 10\~er priced
starch market (Table 2). After the principal harvest season the farmer
sel1s more of his cassava to the secondary market. In the linear program
ming solution without labor or marketing restrictions the farmer sells
al1 his cassava to the fresh market in the optima1 periodo Apparently,
farmers are constra í ned from se 11 i n9 on the fresh market when it i s op
tima 1. t'loreover, they wi 11 take a hi gh pri ce di s count by se 11 i ng to the
, "
- 11 -
secondary market. in order to release their land for planting in the op
timal season. In the LP model labor constraints during the optimal period
or marketing constraints during the optimum harvest season will shift the
planting into the secondary season.
What is the feedback to the breeder on the necessary variety charac-
teristics? Yield increasing technology is necessary to increase incomes
given the limited land resources of the farmers in the farm-trial site
(average size farm 4 Ha). Early maturity is usefu1 to reduce marketing
risk and take advantage of surplus labor for harvest in the slack labor
season but optimal harvest periodo Cultivars must be capable of being
5tored in the ground for long periods with little risk of yield 10ss or
105s of qualjty in order to assure to the fresh market. Resistance to "
root rot pathogens is important. Quality maintenance in the ground
through the marketi n9 season, parti cularly 10\>/ fi ber content and high
starch content, is important.
The cassava farm tria1s have focused on an ex-ante analysis of fac-
tors that inf1uence farmer adoption of new cassava technology. Given
the principal role of improved varieties within the technology package,
the trials have both attempted to measure varietal response under farm
level conditions and identify varietal characteristics important within
the farm production system. The trials thus aid in calibrating the va
ríetal evaluation system and in defining breeding strategy. For fresh '.rl\ \,;\
consumption markets minimum quality standards are essential and farm )
level profitability ís determined by both yield and qua1ity. The results
of the farm tríals on varietal starch content índicated a sharp decline
- 12 -
of starch content under environmental stress and over time in the ground
(see Appendix Al. Definition of the market thus becomes an important
component of the breeding strategy. since breeding costs could apparently
be i ncreased to produce hi gh-qua li ty-root cu ltivars adapted to more mar
ginal productíon zones.
On-Farm Research in National Institutions
The difference in focus of on-farm research as carried out by natío
nal institutions and as carried out by international centers rests on
three closely related distinctions. First, the diagnostic phase, pre
release evaluation, and post-release evaluation parts of on-farm research
are carríed out as one single process. Because the target regian and
target popu 1 ati on are very narrowly defi ned -ln-the-research i n-the-research-,
the technolagy selection, testing, and final evaluation are related to
the very specific parameters of the trial site and papulation. That is,
in on-farm trials as carried out by, for example, JCTA and CATIE, the pa-i"}"C c-
rameters for doing the research ~,;, given by the particular region or far-
mer population, whereas in internatianal centers the parameters are given
by the particular crop or ecosystem. This a110ws al1 three stages to be
carried out sequential1y in the process of developing extension recomn~nda
tions -re-cornme¡:¡dat-Hms- for the homogeneous zone únder study.
Second, the purpose of on-farm research in national institutions is
to select from many·alternatives, those that. ill'e best suited to the spe-"
cHic case under study. In the international centers I the purpose is
to generate from specific case studies, information that has rather ge-
. '
"
- 13 -
neral applicability. Thus, while the national institution will maximize
productivity increases through narrow adaptation, the international cenfer
is forced to concentra te on relatively wide-adaptability in its technology
and on factors generating the large yield gains .
Third, the analytical component of on-farm research of national ins-\'
titutions need not be so ~i;l?~'~~~ ,sinc~r,:he~,~~,:;,,?fr~e:~~~,~~¡.nt):,~efi,~~I~:: ': in terms of whether the farmers actuaily adopto l' In the case of interna- -
tional centers the analysis must be ex-ante in nature, since the clients
of international centers are national institutions and not farmers. Ac-
tual extension and analysis of adoption are roles of national institutions.
Thus, in order to generate accurate results from which more general con--\""
clusions may be drawn, the analysis must be relatively vigorous and rest (
on sorne sephistication in model building.
However, this is not to say that the objectives of on-farrn research b",
as carried out international and as carried out by national centers may ~
not eventually coincide, as was the case with IRRI in its constraints
research. The pOint here is that agricultural research in international
centers is an evolving precess, and the comparative advantage of whether
international centers or national centers should be carrying out any
particular phase of research is as well changing inthe process.
BorrOlving from IRRI, the di fferent phases of that process are pre-
sented in Figure The comparative advantage of international centers
has been ~romul~at~d on the basis of, first, the production of nel" varie-r ). : ;. " " f' , '" '
.... 'ties" and, second, research up to at least, population developrnent. In 1\
the early phases of the research process the comparative advantage may
- 14 -
extend to the production of improved agronomy and preproduction testing
of finished varieties. This was, for example, the case of rice at IRRI
in the 1960's and of cassava at CIAT currently, in that cassava has a
very limited research history and there were a a mínimal number of func
tioning national cassava programs in Latín America. The program in order
to be effective was forced to put substantial effort into the more applíed
side of the research process and focused on producting finished varieties.
Pre-release testing thus became essential in the process in order to eva
luate breeding effectiveness. As national cassava programs develop, the
comparative advantage will shift more to the basic science side and the
center will concentrate more on netwroking in variety testing and evalua
tion, as IRRI has done.
Conclusions
The principal justificatien for deing on-farm research on technology
evaluations are related to the questíon of how the plant scientist incor
porates kno~lledge of farm conditions into the design of the crap techno-
109Y. From an agronomic polot of view for the evaluation 'process, espe
cial1y for varieties, to stop at the regional (or international network)
trial stage assumes that, first, the crop's response to stress factors is
well understood, second, all the relevant stresses at the farm level have
been characterized, and third, tolerances to these stress factors can be
incorporated at the research station. From an economic point of view for
the evaluation proccss to stop at tlle regional trial stage assumes that
varietal response curves to inputs are not very variable or can be ade
quately simulated for farm production conditions, that production systems
'.
- 15 -
are already wel1 understood. and that market conditions can be adequately
simulated.
For 1 RRI in the case of ri ce under i rri gated conditi ons and in non
stress areas these conditions more or less held, although as the cons
trainsts project showed even under prime land, irrigated conditions the
severity of production constraints at the farm level had been underestimat
ed. For rainfed crops. such as cassava and beans, most of these critical
parameters are not known and as the CIAT farm trials have shown, at least
fro the forseeable future, these trials are a critical means of evaluat
ing the effectiveness research decisions made at the exeriment station.
For national institutions the more critical information gap is understand
ing of smal1-farm syst0ms, The leTA and CATIE farm research programs
offer proof that the effectiveness of research directed toward this target
group is best carried out under farm condtions.
Finally, once the research on evaluations move to the farm level
economic analysis becomes a critical component in the process. Because
the principal criterion used in then trials is farmer adoption, the
analysis relevant to a delineation of factors that influence adoption is
principally economic, especial1y in ex-ante analyses of·adoption. In
ex-post analysis the role sociologists and anthropologists.
Principal Research Prot;iem
$peCiflc Obj~ct1ves
Systems leve' Focus In e~perime"tll
Trjal~
tn Analysis
Analytical Techniques
Time frame
Target Area
Stte Select10n Criterium
lnfonmat1oo F10ws
Results/Observations
Principal Product of Instltutioo
•
TABLE 1. Senemat1c o, On-farm Res~arch,in S~lected International and Nat10nal Centers
ICRISAT
Asses fanm productioñ constraints in sembrid areas in order to determine reseaten priorities.
Understanding farmer re50urce al10cat1on in relation to en",tOil'W:ntal cMstraints. Infh.em;e of risk on farr.er- óecision-maklng.
Marketing ana consumer-pteference problef:1s.
Cropping Systeml farm SyHem Farm $ystem E C01'.OIfJetd cs Sudgetin Ex-onU!
Semi .. arid Tropics
Respective of variation in Target Area
ICRISAT Crop Research P'toqrams
Oevel~pment of Com~ prenens ive ,..,j cro~ level data set tecnolo-9Y principal eco~omic q~e$tions relate4 to introduction semi~arid areas
Assess new cassava and beao technology components as input in re~ search designo
Assess profitabi11ty. risk and fit in production sy'S.te;n of fam: COl\ditions.
trop System
Farm Sy'St~
ANOVA
Sudgeting Ex .. ante
Principal tat1n Ameritan Ptoductioo Zones fQr Cassava and a~ans
Refle<tive of Variatioo in Target area
CIAT Crop Researtb Program National lnstitutions
Highlighted major differe~tes between experf~ mental results and farm level resu1ts with im~ plication for research progra!:'l.
IRRI
Oetermine factors explaf~-109 gap between Curre~t farro yields and yields and yield potential of rice.
Quantify potentia1 yteld in farmer's fíelds. Actual farmer's yield.
Increase inpvts that resuited in yie1d gap and detemine economi e factors causing yield gap.
trop System
trap System ANOVA Sudgeting
Ex~post
Rice Production lones in Asia
Prtncipal Product1on Arcas
National Rice Programs Goverment Pol1éY Instltulions
.Showed 11'iportance of price rel"tives in level of ferti liler os.e and returfiS to control1ing ;flsect damage.
New varieties, improved New variettes. improved ~ew varieties cro~pin9 system$, water Agronomic MetnoGs man¿gew~nt systems
,
Oeveiopment of imprave-d croppin9 system to raise 1ncomes óf smal1 farmers.
Develop evaluate. 3nd validate improved croppiflg systems within context of small farm systems.
Cropptng Systtm
tropping System ANOVA BudgeHng Ex-ante
Principal Small-Farm
Prodvction ZOnes in Central America. 10# nes wi th HomO{1enetrui Croppi n9 $ys tems
Central American Extens i (¡O Agencies
OemGnstrated income advantages of intensified cropping systems over monoculture $ys~ telrls
Jmproved tropping systems
leTA
ldentify technologies adoptable by small$cale farmers.
Jdentify~ test and evaluate Receptanc! of 1mproved crop/cropping system t~chnolo9ies on farmer fi e lds.
Cropping System
Cro~p ¡ ng Sys tel1'l
Frecuency Tables EX-polt
Smal1 Fann Production Zones 'n Guatemala
HOfllogent'ous Agrof'lomic and SocjD-econ~~ic conditions
Extension Agencies/farmers
Oemonstr-Rted tbdt smal1 fanmers would adoPt new t~~nolo9Y ii properly adapted to their conditions,
Extension Reeommendations
•
TY?E o;: ?~.::r:U':T
C"-~""'1 -" ¡, "" '.01
Ii':FOf!i:AiION FLOlr:S o;:
F r.::.;·¡ L::i/EL TEST¡¡;G
" , ,
FIGURE 1
STAGES OF THE RESEARC~ PROCESS
I
BASIC OR LESS SrTE S?ECIFIC R~SEARCH
EXPER!1,i::~í SiATION
1
Ir
REGIO;,AL AD¡,PTI~T!ON: ~IORE SITE-SPECIFrC RESEARCH REG;: O~lt\L EXPERH·;EN .... Tf\L SITES
SIIE $P[CIFIC ¡'¡ORK P¡\!riCr;:¡',LLY DN J.\CJJ' -'-'(j'¡ -o $O!:C'-rc-It'tl!..,;,'! ••• 1r ..
CC;:iJ 1 TW¡S, FERTIL¡lER A~D HERBICIDE RESPOr,SE
t 1
IrI
Fr\!(.'j LEVEL AD/I.?TATION
FAn;,:s IN TARGET AREAS
IS Tfi::: NE:1 TW·::,;QLOGY PROr-IT1U3LE, RrSKY? DO ES Ii FIT EHC THE Ft,:¡;,;r.¡,S' ?ROD:';CTIO:I SYSTEi':? OT'-lER FARr: LEVEL CONSi:llIINiS?
FEEDBACK PRINCI?ALLY TO iHE VARIOUS SITES OF BC:ft.i; PROSRA¡'¡ EXPERniE)/TATION
Ol~ TO Tr.~ ~;AT!O:~';L CEiiTERS A~D EXTE~S!CX S~RV¡CES
"
'\' .'
. ' ..
VES
TO 1iATlO~lAL C?~A:;¡ZATlO~
FOR fcKjHE~ TESri~G M\~/Oí\
EXiE.\SICX
VES
OOES THE NE~ TECH~WLOGY f IT lt;TO THE
FAR.~ERS·' P;¡O~UCTlCN SYSTEM?
( ?ROGRA.v,,'1ING)
"
FIGURE 2. FLOW CHART FOR FARM TRIAL ANALYSIS
NEW FARo'! TR1ALS
~,~----------------------------~
VES
IS THE MEW TECH~:CLOGY
MORE PROF BASLE THAN FAR.~ERS' PRACTICES?
(BUOGETI NG)
NO
NO
NO
CAN THE fAR''.S St: STRAT!F!EO BY CHARACTERISilCS
RELEVA/IT ro TREAT~ENT EFFEeT?
NO o/
ANALYSIS ANO OJAG:WtIS: FEED2ACK FOR
TECHI¡OLCGY REDESIGN
, "