Understanding the demand for scientific information by farmers

1

• Understanding the demand for scientific
  information by farmers
• Walter Rossing
• Plant Sciences Group, Wageningen-UR
• Biological Farming Systems Group
• Wageningen, The Netherlands

2
Background

• Major scientific advances in understanding
  ecology of cropping and animal production systems
• Scientific understanding is packaged for
  regular use by farmer (DSS, from paper to
  computer)
• Few DSS have actually led to changes in farmer
  practices (McCown, 2002)
• Understanding of reasons for successes and
  failure of DSS is needed for progress

3
Objective

• Critically assess causes of success and failure
  in two Dutch cases of decision support
• Case 1 rethinking arable cropping systems with
  goal-based farm models
• Case 2 nitrogen fertilizer recommendations for
  pasture management

4
Case 1 Re-Thinking Arable Systems

• Diagnosis and design of sustainable flower bulb
  production systems in The Netherlands (1994)
• And similar projects in The Netherlands

5
Case 1 Re-Thinking Arable Systems

• Diagnosis and design of sustainable flower bulb
  production systems in The Netherlands (1994)
• And following projects in The Netherlands.

PhD research by Barbara Sterk Towards a next
generation of goal-based whole farm models
6
A Niche for Whole-Farm Models in 2000

• Approach
• Visit a range of Dutch projects where criteria
  for innovation were met
• Actors contemplate change
• Farm management is an issue
• There is an existing meeting structure
• Observe, ask questions, propose topics

7
A Niche for Whole-Farm Models in 2000

• Projects
• Research project between University and
  Institutes
• Farming with a future 2 M / 4 years from 2000
• Grassroot farmer study groups
• BIOM organic farming, 3 M / 4 years from 2002
• researcher-initiated government-funded

8
A Niche for Whole-Farm Models in 2000
Result No niche was found in these projects

• Reasons
• Model came too late (research project)
• Change objective was not always clear
• No/few new stakeholders participated
• Discussions were monitoring-inspired what-if

9
A Niche for Whole-Farm Models in 2000
Differences with successful Flower Bulb case

• Ongoing dependency among new partners
• Incremental change insufficient
  perspective-inspired questions to develop common
  view
• gtConditions for reframing process of
  understanding and questioning ones own actions /
  frames of reference

10
Outline of the Presentation

• Background objective
• Case 1 Rethinking cropping systems from a
  whole-farm perspective
• Case 2 Nitrogen fertilizer recommendation for
  grassland in the Netherlands
• Conclusions and challenges

11
N-fertilizer Recommendations for Pasture

• History of the official Recommendations
• Evaluation in Wageningen Atelier (2003)
• Suggestions

12
Status N-fertilizer Recommendations

• First issues 1986 dates back into 70s
• THE fertilizer recommendation for dairy farms
• Probably all dairy farmers have heard of it
• Success story high production levels

13
History 1970-1990 Production

• Characteristics of recommendations
• Based on large experimental dataset 1934-1975
• Simple distribution of N within year
• No attention for different soil N delivery or
  water status

14
History 1990-2000 Environment?

• Decrease N escape to environment
• Three possible avenues were proposed (Noij,
  1989)
• Discourage fertilizer use in excess of
  recommendation
• Refine recommendation, based on economic
  optimization
• Emphasize environmental goals over production
  goals

15
History 1990-2000 Environment?

• Refinement of recommendation
• Economic optimization marginal effect gt7.5 kg
  DM/kg N
• 4 levels of soil N supply (later 26)
• 3 levels of drought sensitivity
• 3 target yield levels (later 6)

16
History 2000-2003 Communication

• Internet application
• Range of written materials
• Underlying assumption recommendations are
  correct lack of compliance by farmers causes
  environmental problems

17
History 2001

• Farmers in a national project on N use articulate
  criticism on recommendations

• Propositions
• The current advice leads to levies. The advice
  should be adjusted.
• Farmers need practical recommendations, not only
  figures.
• Too little in known about biological soil
  quality.
• Research results should be available more rapidly

18
Wageningen Atelier
New type of interaction between Wageningen UR and
society on topics of public debate
Authors Jeroen Groot, Marjan Stuiver, Lijbert
Brussaard
19
Wageningen Atelier 2003

• AIMS
• Deliver building blocks for Recommendations that
  
• Combine multiple goals (production, envir,
  nature)
• Fit in farmers scenarios for the future

• APPROACH
• Involvement of all relevant stakeholders
• Multi-disciplinary
• Ensure commitment of responsible Committee

20
Wageningen Atelier - Methods

• MIND MAPS
• 56 Stakeholders representing government/policy,
  agron. and envir. research, farmers interest
  orgs, nature environment interest orgs,
  commerce (fertilizers, feeds), extension

INTERVIEWS 8 farmers in contrasting environments
WORKSHOPS (1) Farmers and extension (2)
natureenvir. Cie
21
Wageningen Atelier - Methods

• MIND MAP

22
Wageningen Atelier - Methods

• WORKSHOPS

23
Wageningen Atelier Analysis

• Mind maps gt Positions of stakeholders
• Interviews gt Objectives of use Actual use

24
Wageningen Atelier Stakehldr Positions

• Directive recommendation is well-balanced
  farmers should alter their behaviour
• Science in change scientists should improve
  advice new approaches are needed
• Differentiation Distinguish different farming
  styles, regions and soil types

1 Agr
6 Agr, Far, Ext
6 Agr, Com, Gov
25
Wageningen Atelier Stakehldr Positions (2)

• Communication Recommendation is correct but
  poorly presented
• Farmers experiences Too little input of farmers
  into recommendations.
• Systems view recommendation should integrate
  different components of farming system, such as
  soil and manure quality
• Nature and environment Recommendation is
  detrimental for environment

4 Far, Com, Env-r
4 Far, Com, Env-r, Gov
7 Ext, Com, Env-ri
9 Ext, Gov, Env-ri
26
Wageningen Atelier Farmers Objectives

• High/sufficient DM production (3 cat.)
• High/sufficient quality production (2 cat.)
• Benefiting from early growth
• Sward quality management
• Economics
• Keeping it simple

27
Wageningen Atelier Farmer Use of DSS

• User use as intended by scientists
• Juggler tunes recommendation to his N-inputs
• Bookkeeper uses software for documentation
• Do-it-yourselver uses experience advisor

28
Wageningen Atelier Interviews

• Issues beyond fertilizer recommendations
• Emerging demand for scientifically supported
  indicators on new topics (soil-N, manure quality)
• Farm-specific adaptations/innovations are
  important
• Learning in study groups considered highly
  valuable

29
Wageningen Atelier - Summary

• Farmers adjust recommendations to farm-specific
  conditions DSS does not become part of routine
• Environmental goals can not be reached with
  economically optimized recommendations
• More detail is no solution
• Farmers ask for more insight into processes
  demand for learning in social networks and
  projects

30
Wageningen Atelier - Suggestions

• Differentiate tactical support simple basic
  advice suggestions to make this farm specific
  provide more complex self-learning tool for
  users
• Science improve insight rather than accuracy
  keep track of emerging questions
• Public farmer fora stimulate social
  developments
• Committee synthesize public farmer demands and
  scientific information

31
Round-up Conclusions

• Finding a niche for DSS is not trivial
• Demands are often unarticulated and dynamic
• Perspective-oriented versus monitoring-inspired
  which approaches in which sequence?
• Dilemmas of insight versus accuracy, generality
  vs specificity, transaction costs vs licence to
  research
• From research products to research process

32
Acknowledgements

• Thank you to
• Barbara Sterk Jeroen Groot
• for sharing their results with me