ILEIA Newsletter Vol. 11 No. 1 p. 16

Towards farmer scientists

Edward D. Ruddell and Julio Beingolea

Contributors to the ILEIA Newsletter from many parts of the world presented evidence of farmers’ own experimental efforts. Supporting such experimentation has been stressed as a key strategy in the development of sustainable agriculture. But how far should such support go? Should resource poor farmers learn scientific research methods?

It was the third year in a row that farmers in Northern Potosi, Bolivia, had harvested potatoes the size of a thumb nail. This was a devastating blow after ten years of efforts to improve food security in this area. It caused farmers and World Neighbors programme leaders to realise that their joint approach needed thorough reconsideration. One has to admit that improving production in the Andean highlands is a major challenge.

Cultivation takes place on slopes of up to 50 degrees at elevations from 2,800 to 3,900 m where frosts and hail are frequent. But the greatest challenge is probably the diversity in microclimates and the objective of experimentation to assure food security under the worst conditions. Production technologies may vary from one side of the ravine to the other or 200 m down a slope.

World Neighbors has always promoted participatory farmer experimentation. In Northern Potosi this was so popular that over 120 farmers were conducting their own experiments each year and some were walking as far as a 24 hours round trip to attend monthly seminars on how to achieve food security in this isolated area.

Learning from these activities, however, was limited to the farmers who conducted them. A precise drawing of the experiment, the elevation of the site, specific planting and harvesting dates, approximate rainfall, accurate weight of the harvest, and the number of farmers who learned from the experiment were seldom known.

World Neighbors had formerly discarded teaching farmers to record the above data because of the high rates of illiteracy and oral cultures of these peoples. The failure to consistently assist peasants improve their production forced us to reexamine this policy and test a new approach so that the widest possible audience could benefit.

Finding a new way

We finally saw no hope of improving food security in remote, impoverished, mountainous areas inhabited by indigenous people unless we developed systematic ways to document all the conditions and results of farmer experiments. The first year 71 peasants volunteered to participate in this experimental programme in Bolivia and Ecuador. All of these individuals had previously assisted their communities in efforts to improve food security.

Before the planting season farmers participated in a threeday seminar to discuss why more systematic methods, documentation and analysis were required. They also learned the principles of designing, conducting and documenting potato and wheat variety and fertiliser experiments on their farm. Then they practised planning and planting a trial of about 100 m², divided into three replications. Each replication contained a minimum of four 3 x 2.7 m plots. Each variety or treatment was located randomly within the three replications. The use of very small areas helped to reduce risks and enabled poorer farmers to also test new ideas.

Two-day monthly seminars followed to provide instructions in relevant agronomic practices. During these courses farmer participants visited each other’s experimental field trials. They observed first hand the importance of including a control plot to evaluate the impact of different varieties or fertiliser applications. These seminars were followed by field visits to the respective experiments by farmers every 15 days.

Harvest and analysis

Shortly before most harvests, participating farmers were invited to practice harvesting several experiments. Farmers curiosity was wetted when the potatoes harvested from random repetitions of a treatment tended to vary. They also observed that when these random repetitions were lumped together by treatment, they generally gave clear visual indicators of which technology was most appropriate under those site-specific production conditions.

Varying results in the production of three or four potato varieties tested at two locations in which rainfall or elevation varied helped underline the importance of recording the planting and harvesting dates, the approximate rainfall, elevation of the experimental trial, the number of participants who attended the harvest, etc. Every effort was also made to demystify formal methods of statistical analysis. At the conclusion of these seminars farmers were also taught to do the required mathematical calculations on calculators and look up the results in two attached tables.

Many farmers found the application of these procedures to their data fascinating. Before long these farmers requested two hours of mathematics prior to each seminar. In addition some began to complete their secondary education via courses offered by radio. If farmers wished to have the results of their experiments published, World Neighbors processed the data and compiled the results of experiments.

When the analysis of variance shows that results do not vary significantly (they cluster around a mean), this may indicate a distinct conclusion. In statistical terms: experiments having a coefficient of variation (c.v.) with a low percentage. If the c.v. was less than 30%, the results were shared with other programmes, NGOs and scientists at The International Research Potato Institute CIP, the Ministries of Agriculture and Education, journalists and others.

It was evident from the beginning, that the success of the programme was fuelled by the initiatives of local farmers. They chose the topics of research, determined the number of varieties or agricultural practices to be tested, selected the location of the trial, determined the cultural practices, elected the planting and harvesting dates, and organised field days to share with others the results of their field trials. If they preferred not to analyse the data or publish it, for fear that other people might try to take their land away or increase their taxes, that was OK too.

Sharing results

In the past three years, 101 peasants have conducted 427 site scientific trials to test a variety of agricultural practices in a wide range of elevations for 8 basic food crops cultivated in the Andes. Seventy-five percent of these experiments have had a coefficient of variation of 30% or less. Average programme costs per experiment, including cost of training and support in data analysis by a professional agronomist was estimated to be USD 285.

Together farmers succeeded e.g. in finding the best potato variety for drought conditions, learned appropriateness of varieties for the different elevations and discovered the importance of adequate seed size to reduce damage from frost and drought. Using such seed required further experimenting to determine proper plant densities per hectare. Another series of experiments showed that organic manure could be used more effectively by concentrating it on a smaller area of land.

The response of farmers to the new approach can be summarised in the words of Jose Ninabanda: "Before we introduced new technologies by imitation. Small quantities of seed from elsewhere were planted in our fields. When they gave good yields, we stored them for the next planting season. If they produced poorly, it was discarded.

With the new experimental field trials we learn much more. We can compare a greater number of varieties at the same time and we understand better why differences occur. All this at lower risk and cost because of the smaller size of trials that can be analysed statistically."

Apart from their own benefits, farmers argue that this systematic approach to documentation enables them to more readily convince others of the benefits of new ideas. Some farmers also just loved applying mathematical formulas for statistical analysis to their data to prove that they were as smart as the mestizos from urban areas who have tended to look down upon them. Systematic documentation of the results of their activities now enhances the confidence and dissemination of the results of their work through Bolivia and around the world.

What World Neighbors learned

Most peasant farmer learning occurs by observation and verbal communication. Learning from these important experiences can be improved dramatically if simple records are kept and the simplest scientific design is used to test the results of changing one variable. The inclusion of a simple control treatment enabled farmers who had not tested new ideas to observe that the production of the control plot was often similar to their own. Comparing differences between three replications of the same treatment within their own farm greatly increased farmers’ curiosity and helped us all look more carefully at the factors causing variability.

In addition, the methodology and theory behind the experiments has become popular with them. When one day introductory courses were offered at the local level in 109 communities in Northern Potosi this past year, 794 women and 1,936 men attended these seminars. It was important to learn that the provision of family meals and delivery of the training at the local level is essential to ensure the participation of women. We foresee that in the near future a number of farmer leaders will be able to do the analysis for others in the region.

We also found that partly because of our new approach, rural teachers and researchers started taking an interest not only in our work but also in the problems of this remote area. The Minister of Education assigned 10 rural professors to work as full time counterparts. Seven agronomy students who speak the local Indian dialects of the area have also completed their thesis for professional degrees in agronomy.

Furthermore, the systematic experimentation and documentation has promoted researcherfarmer dialogue with the branch of the International Potato Center in Bolivia. In one instance the documentation of site specific farmer experiments deterred them from multiplying and distributing an improved variety of seed that worked well at lower elevations where their experiment station was located, but would have been a disaster at higher elevations where local native varieties were often the best alternative.

The publication of the results led to agreements with the IBTA (Instituto Boliviano de Tecnologia Agropecuaria) and PROSEMPA (the branch of CIP). Due to changing leadership after elections, new authorities came in which did not see the importance of farmer scientists and cooperation with IBTA. Cooperation has been excellent with PROSEMPA at field level, despite the fact that research agendas are quite different, at least initially.

Future challenges

The Minister of Human Resources of Bolivia now recognises the need for including this methodology in the new curriculum for rural schools. In addition, the Andean Office of World Neighbors recently received a request from the Assistant Director of Documentation of the National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management of the government of India for articles written on this topic and the manual used for training the farmers. Documentation of farmer based experiments taught us that it is possible to improve food production in marginal lands on a sustainable basis.

Ed Ruddell and Julio Beingolea, World Neighbors Andean Office, Casilla 20005, Santiago 20, Chile.

Reference
Ruddell E. 1994. Documentation of farmer experiments: a key strategy for achieving food security on a sustainable basis. Vecinos Mundiales, Chile.

Back to Top