Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Can we talk? Improving Weed Management Communication between
Organic Farmers and Extension
Sarah Zwickle, The Ohio State University Marleen Riemens, Wageningen University and
Research Centre, the Netherlands
November 13, 2012
http://www.extension.org/organic_production
Sarah Zwickle The Ohio State University
Marleen RiemensWageningen University and Research CentreThe Netherlands
Patrick LillardPurdue University
Can we talk? Improving Weed Management Communication between
Organic Farmers and Extension
Presented by: Marleen Riemens, Wageningen University and Research Centre, the
Netherlands and
Sarah Zwickle, the Ohio State University
Weeds mean DecisionsIn a sense, farming might be called a warfare against weeds. Some farmers emerge from the struggle victorious, while others go down to defeat. So powerful are weed enemies in reducing crop yields, while at the same time multiplying labor, that the farmer should at every turn strengthen his position against them. He should bear these invaders in mind in planning the crops he will grow and in deciding on the fields where he will grow these crops, in choosing the implements he will use, in buying his seed, and in many other farm activities…Some men do not attack weeds with enough vigor; they look for rocking-chair methods of work. There is no royal road to weed control. In the main, the old doctrine of “hard work and plenty of it” must be observed, but unless this work is applied intelligently a vast amount of labor may be expended with but little accomplished other than a temporary abatement of the evil.
(Cox, 1915 USDA Farm Bulletin)
Research Questions
Collaboration and communication between land grant universities and organic farm community historically poor.(Lyson, 2004)
Weed management research is extensive, and Ecological Weed Management (EWM) well known in the scientific community.(Liebman and Mohler 2001; Gallandt and Molloy 2008)
What are the obstacles to successful EWM on organic farms?
Allows an individual to interpret what they see, make decisions, and solve problems. (Kempton et al., Environmental Values in American Culture, 1997; Morgan, G., B. Fischhoff et al., Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach, 2002)
Internal representation of the external world
Helps to explain everyday things
Practical
Farmer Mental Model
!@#%*...Canada thistle...out of place…more than last year…disc or hand pull…
Theoretical in nature and often research-based
Possibly more complex than a lay-person’s mental model
Expert Mental Model
Canada Thistle…perennial…taproot…phenological traits…
TWO WAY COMMUNICATIONStarts with the intended audience’s knowledge, beliefs, and perceptions
EFFECTIVE MESSAGE“Weeds” out what the audience already knows
INFORMATIVE NOT PRESCRIPTIVEUses the actual knowledge, beliefs, and perceptions of farmers to communicate what they need to know (not what they should know) to make informed decisions
Generating a Mental Model
• In-depth interviews • Coding to find categories and concepts• Visualize codes into diagrams/tables
Hierarchical Structure Percent Agree
Frequency % of Total Mentions
Category: Perception of Weeds: Benefits 100% 174 12%
Concept: Agricultural Benefits 83% 73 42%
Sub-concept: Soils 62% 44 60%
Properties: Prevent Erosion 31% 12 27%
Aerate 7% 2 5%
Cover Soil 28% 12 27%
Add Organic Matter 34% 15 34%
foreign
no silver bullet
Perceived Benefitsof Prevention
Perceived Risksof Prevention
Actual Weed Management Behavior
Sources of Info
Barriers
Long-term Thinking
Time/Labor
Heuristics
Prioritizing
Learning
bias/frames
expands
ImplementingEWM
Knowledge of EcologicalWeed Management
Managing Over Time
Orienting Values
LifestyleEconomic
markets
consumers
myopicy
capturing niche
plan products
remain visible
know city folk
more than profit
refuse chemicals
providing food
connecting
locating in comm.
Community
holistic thinking
beyond production
planning long term
Defining Operationideological
support localec.
food pedigree
philosophically
employees
restoring ecosystem
against USDA spray guide
health
reduce inputs
Stewarding
improve soilsenvironment
harmonious partnership
closed loop sust.
biodivesrity
keep alive
rebound from fail
RecognizingOpportunities
Manage WeedSeed Bank
Weed ID
WeedThresholds
Timing
phenology
biology
biotype
spread from stream banks
Economic Barrier
Symbolic Plant
Beliefs aboutWeeds
Biological Competitor
Social SignifierAgro-ecological
Entity
heritage/religion
mandate perfection
determine weed tol.
purpose not aware of
send neg thoughts to
#1 Pest
adapted to agriculture
grow in wheel tracts
selected for shade tolerance
mowing regime
exploit niches
thrive in disturbed soil
thrive in fine seed bed
overwinter insects
hosts for viruses
high-nutrient soils
climate dependent
native
ecological functions
time/labor
plant out of placecompete with crop
hard to control
hurt yield
bio-fuel/protein source
specify type
thistle
CA weeds
5 warm5 cool
Giant Ragweed
root spreadweed from hellhigh in protein
recent prob.
grassesresistant to flaming
germinate in compact soil
seed characteristics
persistence
seed bankdepthmovement in soil profile
life cycleperennial
annual
tolerate frost
size/shape
phenology
reproduction
dormancy
peak emergence
mine nutrients
suck water from crops
viability in soil
white thread
profile peak emergence
annual/perennial
Utilizing Multiple Tactics
Understanding Weed/SoilRltp
mg atvisible/invisible
balancing the systemsystems thinking
diversifying
deciding effectiveness oftactic
filtering strategies
inviting weedswith ag. soils
weeds related tosoil structure
causing shifts inweed species
managing withevidence
weeds as indicators ofnutrient imabalance? re-balance rids
weeds
"experts" cansee
Weed Population
Experience
Intro of Weeds
Social
rain
floodwind
neighbor's livestock
intro by contractor
seed rain
diverse croppingsystem
strategic rotation
alter plant dates
no-till
pre-empt seed rain
predation
increase land base
aggressivecultivation
max effort/time
procrastinating
rotation choice
not prioritizing
density
low high
geography
choose competitor crop
Nature
Agricultural
unknowingtillage equip
seedpasture
boots
row cover
mulches
cover crops
compostraw manure
field edgesinvite withrich soils
farmer decision
Spread of Weeds
soil structure
Agricultural
Nature
Biological
Wildlife
previous crop
microbes
move in soil
dormancy strategy
non-evidence based mgt.
dirty seed
ploughing
low-diversity selection
compost manure
row covers
mulches
fall tillage buries seed
irrigation water
field edges
tillage in waterways
equipment
earthwormbirds
deer grazing
wind
sun, moisture, temp.
flooding
allowing to set seed
farmer decisions
cover crops
density/spatial
length/temporal
viabilitysun/temp/water
break
nitrate breaks
age
academic
college professor
all on-farm incomecool ideas
Farmer Traits
Social
Individual
Demographics
living in isolation
comparisons
successful weed mgr
intuitionland/labor ratio
diverse rotation
instructs emp.zero tolerance
confident
experienced
debt/hunger
knowledge
skill with equip.
know art form
off-farm experience
risk tolerance risk averse
low weed tolerance
no patience for loss
want evidence
late adoptersrisk tolerant
high weed tol diversify risklow discount fact.
lose $ long term thinker
patience w/ complexity
early adopters
experience farming
new farmer
no exp.
cheap start-up2-3rd generation
household eco.
off-farm income
allows $ loss
off-farm insurance
personality
take dif. path organic stigma
large geo networks
relating to culture
heritage
history farming
pride in field aesthetic
recognition
expectations
management style
holistic
indirect
direct
love complexity
eco. knowledge
applied ecolog.
diseases
plagues self educatedread more
want to learn
mechanical tech.
cover crops
gather info widely
aggressive
philosophical
innovative
disciplined
love challenge
curiosity ingenuity
flexibleindependent
passionate
characteristics
filters to kids/workers
with weed control
new technology
no advantage yetnetworking
part of agro-ecosystem
rapid growth
rapid spread
has a place
critical weed free
social Perceived Risksof Weeds
Perceived Benefitsof Weeds
ecological
none
agricultural
ecological
agricultural
tolerance levels
Emotional
Cognitive
loving
embarrassmentfearing
shifting
None
regretting
fighting
failing
rationalizing
AttitudesTowards Weeds
host to fungi
host nematodes
no fear
no perceived competition
no ID
control unknown
no observation
public perception
inspections
visibility
shunnedneighbor
landlord
religious comm.
farmer stress
aggressivenesscontrol diff.
density
interference
planting
harvesting
economic
to production
unknown yield
grain contamination
niche market trends
beautyfragile link for wild in ag land
habitatpollinate
insectory
bio-diversity
food
livestock food
soil micro-org
nutrient cycle
aeration
prevent erosion
reduce N leach
add C/nutrient
water channels
cover soil
admit
see new
rec. aggressive
worrying about comp.
new biology knowl.
trade in phil for $
discovering tool
realizing crazy
locating $ losstransitioning
increasing weeds
understanding soil
cost/benefit anal.
norm in org.
who cares?
zerothresholds
tolerating
wishing mg. different
address seed bank
more proactive
not prioritizing
out of control
dedicated
helping soil
weeding later
made me feel better
discouraged
fatalism
fatigue
tested
mass mine prod. eradication
aggressiveat all costs
pre-emptingeconomic return
early maturing
non-priority
nuisance
maxing yield not imp.
encourage in borders
health/sanity #1
other chores first
Behavioral
competes with crop eats time
farm visits/sales
$
trying to worry more
scale up
costly
Existing WeedPopulation
workman's comp
hay no $
push out small farmerproduce mkt
pressure for tech.
standardization
SKILL in Ne.
no more hunger
conservation prog.
voluntary
transitioning
no weed regs
cost share trans.
suppliers
Resources
Enterprise
Regulations
Farm Parameters
geography
flatrolling
hillsides
cropping system
diverse
specialized
locationto markets
type
trees
livestock
dairycash grain
veggie
long/short term
scalegross income
climate
soil type
cash flow
capitalize gov't subsidy
converting to org.
available tools
implements
hadn labor
equipmnet
no herbicides
land ownership
renting
landlord infl.
pristine crops
land base
owning land
certifying land
expanding base
markets
catering
wholesaledirect/CSA
contractors
available labor
mechanization
cost
family
hiring
season avail.
available buildings
favor agri-business
NOP
markets that fit
more stable
consumer choiceone size doesn't fit all
providing opp.
written system
show crop rot.
species protect
accept fert.
nutrient mgt. unique
alternativecertifiers
natural
state
record keeping
IPM
punitive
lower $
farmer to farmer
low doc.
Viability
stay in the game weed pressure
high seed bank
low seed bank
long-termsustainability
ease ofuse/mgt
Seeding
fallow
Nutrient Mgt.
Tiling
Cover Crop/Green Manure
Crop Rotation
Other CulturalPractices
rotate type
rough
pre-emptseed rain
mow edgespathways
depthband N
lengthenwindows
Diversity
site specific
break weedperiodicity
Perennial/Annual
complexityshadows
cause/effect
density
timing
timing
follow weedywith clean crop
Holistic Mgt.
high learningcurve
unknown weed
Prevention
Cultivation
Economic
Agricultural
Social
seed cost
time/laboryield loss
moisture level/miss windowdisease from
high density
miss a spot
crop standnot good
no marketfor hay
allelopathyinconsistent
EcologicalAgricultural
Social
Ecological
non-chemical
Allelopathiceffects
adjust/useexisting
tools
ease of harvest
higher cropyield
less work inlong run
reduced seedbank
reducedseed rain
energyefficient
increased stress
increased seed rain
prevent disease/soilpathogens
lowers cost inlong run
four+ yr withforage crop
cropstand/canopy
Economic
not visible
systemsoriented
disease/pathogens
nutrients
weedsee bank
timing in rlt tophenology
knifingphysicalbarrier
roller/crimper
timing
weed dictatescrop choiceland out of
production
crop damage
seed burial
stale
Local Mgt.till/fallow
edges
transplant
terminate beforeweeds set seed
Crop Choice
cultivationoptions
short vs. fullseason
competitivevariety
pride
respect
bust paths
Mulches
black plastic
organicfabric
crop residue
density
robust
density
disturbanceresidue
mediatedeffects
allelopathy
N holdup
sanitation
soil erosion/structure
under plastic
source
equipment/hand tools
drainage
cultivation/tillage
canopy
seedpredators
equip. cost
effectivemanagement
no orlow-till
seedtype
increasedseed bank
seed bed
tillage
no; ridge;conservation;
shallow
no orlow-till
seedtype
seeddepth
Mowing
Nutrient Mgt.
Tiling
Org. ApprovedHerbicides
Cultural Practices
pre-emptseed rain
edgespathways
band N
seeddensity
timing
Control
Crop Canopy
source
Seed Predators
Seeding
timing in rlt tophenology
knifing
Allelopathyinconsistent
complexityshadows
cause/effect
frustration
Perceived Risks
Economic Socialtime/labor
yield loss
weather/miss window
high densitycause disease
miss a spot
Ecological
stress
tillagestimulates/buries
seeds
grasses do not flame
soil erosion/structure
rely seasonal laborinsurance $
short-term
bad cropstand
overtillage
crop damageweed not
ready
shunned
Agricultural
increase seed rain
fewerpredators
sitespecific
PerceivedBenefits
Agricultural
Social
Ecological
adjust/use existingtools
ease ofharvest
higher cropyield
reducedstress
reducedseed bank
reduceseed rain
energyefficient
non-chemical
Economic
severalgood tools
handweedingefficient
visibilityrespect
lengthenwindows
targeted
lesstillage
drainage
multiple
MechanicalCultivation
Novel Techniques.
flaming
air pressure
ceramic plates
blind cultivation
steam
hot foam
bust pathsafter seeding
Hand Weed
rotaryhoe
tineharrows
inter-row
timing
correct tool
soilcondition
intra-row
critical period
Farmer Decision
States of theAgro-Ecosystem
Expert Model
Perceptions of Weedsand Weed Management
ManagementDecision
FarmAttributes
Critical WeedFree Mgt.
Seed BankManagement
biophysical
influences
influences
trial and error
continuum of practices
farm scale
cropping system
resources
regulations
FarmerAttributes
EWM knowledge
farmer traits
values
tillage/cultivation
mowing
hand weeding
novel techniques
cultural methods
crop rotation
cover cropping
mulching
cultural methods
agricultural
economic
ecological
social
agricultural
economic
ecological
social
learning aboutweeds and weed mgt.
WeedBenefits
WeedRisks
Mgt.Benefits
Mgt.Risks
Expert Model
Perceptions of Weedsand Weed Management
ManagementDecision
FarmAttributes
Critical WeedFree Mgt.
Seed BankManagement
biophysical
influences
influences
trial and error
continuum of practices
farm scale
cropping system
resources
regulations
FarmerAttributes
EWM knowledge
farmer traits
values
tillage/cultivation
mowing
hand weeding
novel techniques
crop rotation
cover cropping
mulching
cultural methods
agricultural
ecological
agricultural
economic
ecological
social
learning aboutweeds and weed mgt.
WeedBenefits
WeedRisks
Mgt.Benefits
Mgt.Risks
indicator weeds
seedbank beliefs
economic
social
organic herbicides
cultural methods
Perceptions of Weedsand Weed Management
ManagementDecision
FarmAttributes
Critical WeedFree Mgt.
Seed BankManagement
biophysical
influences
influences
trial and error
continuum of practices
farm scale
cropping system
resources
regulations
FarmerAttributes
EWM knowledge
farmer traits
values
tillage/cultivation
mowing
hand weeding
novel techniques
cultural methods
crop rotation
cover cropping
mulching
cultural methods
agricultural
economic
ecological
social
agricultural
economic
ecological
social
learning aboutweeds and weed mgt.
WeedBenefits
WeedRisks
Mgt.Benefits
Mgt.Risks
Expert Model Farmer Model
Perceptions of Weedsand Weed Management
ManagementDecision
FarmAttributes
Critical WeedFree Mgt.
Seed BankManagement
biophysical
influences
influences
trial and error
continuum of practices
farm scale
cropping system
resources
regulations
FarmerAttributes
EWM knowledge
farmer traits
values
tillage/cultivation
mowing
hand weeding
novel techniques
crop rotation
cover cropping
mulching
cultural methods
agricultural
ecological
agricultural
economic
ecological
social
learning aboutweeds and weed mgt.
WeedBenefits
WeedRisks
Mgt.Benefits
Mgt.Risks
indicator weeds
seedbank beliefs
economic
social
organic herbicides
cultural methods
Perceptions of Weedsand Weed Management
ManagementDecision
FarmAttributes
Critical WeedFree Mgt.
Seed BankManagement
biophysical
influences
influences
trial and error
continuum of practices
farm scale
cropping system
resources
regulations
FarmerAttributes
EWM knowledge
farmer traits
values
tillage/cultivation
mowing
hand weeding
novel techniques
cultural methods
crop rotation
cover cropping
mulching
cultural methods
agricultural
economic
ecological
social
agricultural
economic
ecological
social
learning aboutweeds and weed mgt.
WeedBenefits
WeedRisks
Mgt.Benefits
Mgt.Risks
Expert Model Farmer Model
Salient concepts: Cultivation/Tillage, Cover Cropping, and Resources
Perceptions of Weedsand Weed Management
ManagementDecision
FarmAttributes
Critical WeedFree Mgt.
Seed BankManagement
biophysical
influences
influences
trial and error
continuum of practices
farm scale
cropping system
resources
regulations
FarmerAttributes
EWM knowledge
farmer traits
values
tillage/cultivation
mowing
hand weeding
novel techniques
crop rotation
cover cropping
mulching
cultural methods
agricultural
ecological
agricultural
economic
ecological
social
learning aboutweeds and weed mgt.
WeedBenefits
WeedRisks
Mgt.Benefits
Mgt.Risks
indicator weeds
seedbank beliefs
economic
social
organic herbicides
cultural methods
Perceptions of Weedsand Weed Management
ManagementDecision
FarmAttributes
Critical WeedFree Mgt.
Seed BankManagement
biophysical
influences
influences
trial and error
continuum of practices
farm scale
cropping system
resources
regulations
FarmerAttributes
EWM knowledge
farmer traits
values
tillage/cultivation
mowing
hand weeding
novel techniques
cultural methods
crop rotation
cover cropping
mulching
cultural methods
agricultural
economic
ecological
social
agricultural
economic
ecological
social
learning aboutweeds and weed mgt.
WeedBenefits
WeedRisks
Mgt.Benefits
Mgt.Risks
Expert Model Farmer Model
The risks agricultural and ecological risks of weed management were very similar, but farmers focus slightly more on the risks to soil health and have management,rather than ecologically, based risk perceptions.
Perceptions of Weedsand Weed Management
ManagementDecision
FarmAttributes
Critical WeedFree Mgt.
Seed BankManagement
biophysical
influences
influences
trial and error
continuum of practices
farm scale
cropping system
resources
regulations
FarmerAttributes
EWM knowledge
farmer traits
values
tillage/cultivation
mowing
hand weeding
novel techniques
crop rotation
cover cropping
mulching
cultural methods
agricultural
ecological
agricultural
economic
ecological
social
learning aboutweeds and weed mgt.
WeedBenefits
WeedRisks
Mgt.Benefits
Mgt.Risks
indicator weeds
seedbank beliefs
economic
social
organic herbicides
cultural methods
Perceptions of Weedsand Weed Management
ManagementDecision
FarmAttributes
Critical WeedFree Mgt.
Seed BankManagement
biophysical
influences
influences
trial and error
continuum of practices
farm scale
cropping system
resources
regulations
FarmerAttributes
EWM knowledge
farmer traits
values
tillage/cultivation
mowing
hand weeding
novel techniques
cultural methods
crop rotation
cover cropping
mulching
cultural methods
agricultural
economic
ecological
social
agricultural
economic
ecological
social
learning aboutweeds and weed mgt.
WeedBenefits
WeedRisks
Mgt.Benefits
Mgt.Risks
Expert Model Farmer Model
Unique farmer concepts of note: seed bank beliefs and indicator weeds. Values also more salient with farmers than experts.
Risks of Seedbank Risks of CWF Benefits of Seedbank Benefits of CWF0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
51%49%
33%
67%
56%
44%
32%
68%
ResearchersFarmers
How do the two models compare?
Sharp alignment in almost every category• EWM knowledge concepts high among farmers (31% experts, 27% farmers)• Risks and benefits perceptions almost identical (risks of cover cropping slightly
different)
– Rare for mental models research
– Explanation: farmers are also experts
So why is EWM not implemented successfully? Why are weeds still such a problem?
If EWM knowledge is high, why are farmers still struggling?
• Constraints and Complexity
!@#%*...Canada thistle...need to transplant peppers…only 10% of field…not enough time to hand pull…
Decision Science Theories
• Descriptive/Behavioral Model– Dual Processing (Damasio 1994; Epstein 1994; Kahneman 2003)
• Balance of experience/emotion and deliberation • System 1 and system 2
– Rely on heuristics to speed complex decisions and to motivate behavior• can help and/or hinder (biases)
Ranking Exercise
• What are the most important considerations when making a weed management decision?
• Work fairly quickly (simulate time constraints)• 16 note cards based on system 1 and system 2
processing. For example:– What worked in the past (experience) system 1– Latest science and research system
2
Rankings
Decision Factor System• What worked in the past 1• Time and labor 1• Type and timing of weed 2• Soil health 1
Rankings
Decision Factor System• What worked in the past 1• Time and labor 1• Type and timing of weed 2• Soil health 1
• Public perception 1• NOP standards 2• Latest research and science 2• Extension recommendations 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
-25-20-15-10-50510152025
System 1System 2
Most Important
Least Important
System 1 Short-Cuts: Affect
– Affective Responses• Initial response to weeds• 95% negative• Lead to emotional reactions that
could enhance dread/ uncontrollability and influence risk perceptions
– If risk perception too high/low, bad– If risk perception balanced with
deliberation, good
• Motivate both short and long term choices
“We accepted an enormous amount of weed pressure on the farm when I took it over, and I accepted it, too. But now I realize that this is crazy.”
System 1 Short Cuts: Satisficing
– Satisficing• Based on most important
attributes of a choice– Economics– Ecology– Health
“You know corn, soybean, wheat is not a good enough rotation. There needs to be more than a three way rotation, but you know we’re so starved for money that you feel like you can’t do that.”
“What can I do with the equipment that I have and the amount of time I have to best utilize it?”
Trade-Offs
– Trade-offs• How do farmers weigh their values and
their perceptions of weed management options in their decisions?
– Short term economics, long term soil health?– Clean fields or weed thresholds?– Ecological partnership or economic
maximization? (Marleen has a good slide on this one)
“Why aren’t you cutting hay?” they ask, and I had the “lame” excuse that the bobolinks are nesting. “Bobolinks are nesting!” I said. “Well you don’t worry about bobolinks” they said. “Well, yes I do.”
Decision Tools:Trade-offs Table
Attributes Farmers Care
AboutSeedbank management Mix of seedbank and
critical weed free mgt. Critical weed free mgt.
Cost: fuel, seed, land out of production
Fuel: lowSeed: highLand: 30% out of production
Fuel: mediumSeed: mediumLand: 15% out of production
Fuel: highSeed: lowLand: 0% out of production
Length of rotation
5 years 4 years 3 years
Yield loss 1st year: 15%5th year: 0%
1st year: 15%5th year: 0%
1st year: 15%2nd year: 15%
Yield gain 1st year: -15%5th year: +10%
1st year: -15%5th year: 0%
1st year: -15%5th year: -15%
Time and labor 1st year: medium5th year: low
1st year: medium-high2nd year: medium-high
1st year: high2nd year: high
Soil health High Medium Low to medium
Seed bank Low Stable High
Conclusions
• Farmer knowledge is management (experience/system 1) based
• Organic farmers observe how their actions effect weed populations. Focus less on ecology and more on management based causes and solutions for weeds.
• Farmers have strong risk perceptions in relation to soil health
Recommendations
• Emphasize benefits of weed management to soil health
• Recognize farmer’s skill in cultivation and tillage
• Research Farmer Short-Cuts• Emphasize seedbank strategies (cover cropping/rotations) as
saving time and labor in the long run with data• Facilitate trade-offs with farmers by providing the costs and
benefits of different management practices according to their values
• Research mechanisms behind indicator weed observations• Conduct on-farm research that matches their way of learning
about weeds and weed mgt.(trial and error/experience)
Thank you for listening
• Sarah Zwickle
http://ess.osu.edu/sites/drupal-essl.web/files/OWE_report2%20(2).pdf
Weed management is more than technology:
the importance of
the farmer
Observations in the Netherlands
About the Netherlands• Population: ~16,7
million • Total area for
agricultural land: 1.858.390 ha
• Total area organic: 55.182 ha ~3%, but increasing with 10% per year
Farming systems in the Netherlands• Average size conventional farm: 26.4 ha • Average size organic farm: 36.5 ha• Main AGF crops:
– Potatoes– Carrot– Onions– Peas– Cabbage
12%
9%
64%
3%
1% 11%
AGFcerealsgrassfoddercropsfallowother
Typical Crop Rotation
1 out of 4-7,e.g.• Sugarbeet• Summerwheat• Carrot• Peas• Consumption potatoes• Grass/clover• Seed onions
Dutch organisation of agricultural knowledge development and dissemination
• Several institutions active:– OVO-model– Green education– Knowledge vouchers– Regional knowledge
centres– Regional knowledge
managers
3 general types of innovation*
• Linear model, science driven: – fundamental-> applied-> adaptive research->extensions-> application by farmers
• Chain link model, demand-pulled:– Many feedback loops between innovation, testing, redesign, distribution,
production and marketing.
• Participatory technology development model, farmers in control:– Adaptive oriented research, farmers in control, strong emphasis on local
knowledge
*(Rölings and Seegers, 1992)
OVO- model (1880-1990s)(OVO meaning Research Extension and Education)
• Linear model• All agricultural research carried out under the
Ministry of Agriculture:– 1 university– 34 research institutes – 49 regional research centres (experimental farms)
• Systematic research programmes
Highly successful
• 1950s -1980s: Clear goal: increase production volumes, lower costs and improve quality
19611965
19691973
19771981
19851989
19931997
20012005
200930000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
year
whe
at y
ield
per
ha
Global Changes, different demands
• 1990s: – Overproduction and environmental problems– Global demand for more liberalization and
diversity of markets. Innovation became responsible of markets.
– More diverse goals and diversification of production systems
Participatory Technology Development
• 1990s-today: – extension and (part of) research privatized – shift from linear OVO-model to Participatory
Technology Development models via the Chain Link model.
• Research institutes serve participants in networks of farmers, agribusiness and public sector.
• Research demand-pulled system (demands of both farmers as well as agribusiness and public)
Basic rules for research in demand pulled systems*
• Understand the system in which you participate.
• Be aware of your role: – problem observation and methodology
development.
* Van Dijk & Van Boekel, 2001
Understanding the system
• Need to understand the system where we as weed scientists are part of.
• Start of explorative study in 2003 on weed management systems.
• Investigate farmer beliefs on weed management and weed management behavior, identify problems they encounter and link that to outcome of behavior (weed pressure).
Explorative 3 year study on weed management behavior
• Specific question
Can we relate:
1) weed pressure to weed management behavior,
2) weed pressure to farmer beliefs about weeds and weed management,
3) weed management beliefs to weed management behavior?
• Approach
16 farms in NL
Investigated:– Weed pressure (weed seed production and weed density)– Application of type of Management Strategies (EWM or CWF)– Beliefs on Weeds and Weed management
Weed pressure explained by management behavior
• Variation in weed pressure was best explained by two management activities:
– Timing of the main soil tillage treatment (spring or fall)– Number of applied preventive measures (EWM strategies)
• Ploughing in autumn prevented seed production during winter and early spring of abundant species such as Stellaria media and Poa annua.
• Preventive measures were activities targeting the seed bank, e.g. stale seed bed preparations, use of competitive cover crops.
Weed pressure related to farmer beliefs
• Beliefs on soil structural damage
never sometimes often0
5
10
15
20
25
soil structure damage reason NOT to control weeds
wee
d de
nsit
y (n
r/m
2)
Weed pressure related to farmer beliefs
• Beliefs on importance of long term strategizing
(short term market oriented vs. long term rotation oriented)
Weed management beliefs related to weed management behavior
• Long term oriented farmers (with lower weed pressure) grow different crops from farmers that are more short term market oriented.
• Long term thinkers grow more competitive crops such as Cabbages, potatoes, cereals, grass, legumes, with lower yield ($).
• Short term market oriented farmers grow more crops with less competitive qualities such as flower bulbs, onions, sunflower, pumpkin, but with higher yield ($).
Conclusion of explorative study
The incorporation of the human dimension, in terms of farmers’ beliefs, attitudes and behavior, can lead to a better understanding of the (organic) farming systems and lead to more effective communication on weed management in those systems.
MM Riemens et al., 2010. Weed Science 58(4): 490-496
Dutch results within current project
• Similar to Midwest:– Knowledge of (experience) EWM principles high – External farm constraints are a barrier
• In addition to Midwest:– Farmers indicate that species specific EWM requires
more experiment based EWM knowledge (knowledge research can not provide yet).
– No or reduced till systems are a big issue: farmers want to know whether these systems will reduce or increase weed seed banks.
Factors taken into considerationrank of consideration Overall ranking Midwest Overall ranking NL
1 What worked in the past Time and labor2 Time and labor Crop yield3 Type and timing of weed* Soil health4 Soil health What worked in the past5 Crop yield Cash flow6 What farmers with similar crops/soils do Environmental/ecological health7 Markets and consumer demand Respected farmer’s advice8 Environmental/ecological health Markets and consumer demand9 Immediate control* What farmers with similar crops/soils do10 Respected farmer’s advice Family and worker health11 Family and worker health Extension recommendations12 Cash flow Latest science and research 13 Public perception Public perception14 NOP standards* 15 Latest science and research 16 Extension recommendations
Focussing on maximizing short term profit increases weed seed bank
Conclusion
• Organisation of agricultural knowledge development and dissemination is changing to a demand-pulled participatory development model.
• Requires good understanding of the system• Role of research is to observe problems (identify
research objectives) and develop methodology• Mental model development can help us understand
the system and develop farmer driven research
Find all upcoming webinars and archived eOrganic webinars at http://www.extension.org/pages/25242
Find the slides as a pdf handout and the recording at http://www.extension.org/pages/65534
Additional questions about organic farming? http://www.extension.org/ask
We need your feedback! Please fill out our follow-up email survey!
![[Marleen Claessens (Auth.)] de Springprocessie](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/55cf92c3550346f57b995e4e/marleen-claessens-auth-de-springprocessie.jpg)
