Designing Alternative Solutions:Case Study of the

North Florida FSR/E Project

An Audio-Visual Training ModulePeter E. Hildebrand

TMS 403 July, 1983

This is a presentation of the University of Florida Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSRE) Program

and the USAID/UF Farming Systems Support Projectthat was active in the first part of the 1980s

The North Florida sub project was financed jointly by theInstitute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS)

of the University of Floridaand the Office of International Cooperation and Development

of the United States Department of Agriculture

FSR/E is a procedure for technology generation and disseminationthat is based on an understanding of farmers’ problems,

resources and desires.

The FSR/E approach conducts the greater portion of research on farmswith farmer and extension participation. On-farm research plots

have a dual function, creating a situation in whichresearch is combined with initial extension efforts.

Let’s take a look at how FSR/E works. Beginning in the lower left handcorner, the approach starts by identifying problems in specific systems.This is accomplished through a rapid reconnaissance survey (Sondeo),

directed surveys or exploratory agronomic or animal research.

Alternative solutions are generated for specific problems in thosespecific systems. This is directed or applied problem-solving research.

As soon as possible, new technologies are evaluated underreal farm conditions. On experiment stations and early

on-farm trials the researchers usually manage the experiments.

When the technicians are satisfied that one, or a few technologieshave high potential for solving problems in an area, farmers,

themselves are given the opportunity to evaluate theacceptability of these technologies in what is called

farmer-managed trials.

Finally, a technology that is found to solve specific problemsin specific systems and has a high acceptability by the farmers,

can be promoted within that system with a high level of confidencethat it will be adopted.

Initial efforts in 1981 to locate areas of small farmers innorth Florida concentrated on a six-county area.

Interviews were conducted with individual county extension directors,farmers and other persons knowledgeable

about local agricultural conditions.

Suwannee and Columbia Counties were determinedto have an adequate concentration of small farmers

and were selected as the primary area for further study.

Sondeo comes from the Spanish word – to sound out.The Sondeo is a rapid survey conducted by a multidisciplinary

team using a conversational, informal interview technique.

This procedure entails driving many back roadswith maps and plat books.

And knocking on doors and meetingdogs and people.

The lack of clipboards, notes and questionnairesIs conducive to increased cooperation, farmer input,

and candor on the part of the farmer.

This is of great importance to the FSR/E approachas it relies on the farmer’s perceptions of his or her

system, problems, constraints and resources.

The North Florida Sondeo consisted of 66 interviewswith small-scale, family farmers in the two county area.

Additional data were collected in conversations witharea feed store operators, Extension agents,

local government officials and others.

Several different kinds of small farm systems were encounteredin the area. The first and most general differentiation was based

on socio-economic rather than production criteria.Recently established farmers were defined as those who had

been on the land for less than one generation.

Old line farmers were defined as those who had been on the land two or more generations. Yes, this one used to squeeze

sugar cane to make molasses or sugar.

Old line farmers predominated in the sample and formed the basisfor the major thrust of the project. Comparison of selected

characteristics revealed some major differences.

One of the most important differences was access toand participation in long-established networks for sharing

information, labor, equipment, influence and capital.

Old line farms frequently inherited or purchased fromfamily, while recently established farms purchased

on the open market at current interest rates and withrigid mortgage conditions.

Old line farmers generally used older, fully depreciatedequipment, consistent with low cash investment,

low cash flow, and low indebtedness.

Recently established farmers, on the other hand, must usuallypurchase new equipment, leading to much higher capital outlay,cash flow and indebtedness. Risk aversion strategies dominated

old line production enterprises.

While the production systems of many black and white farmers reliedon tobacco as the means for providing stable, annual cash income,major differences in production practices and access to resources

were evident between them.

The smaller black farmers had less access to capital but greateraccess to labor. Tobacco production on black farms was generally

on non-irrigated, small, individual allotmentsand it was worked with older equipment.

Old style stick barns, such as this one, for curing tobacco,were still found in use on many black tobacco farms.

Tobacco production on white farms used high technologyequipment, with attendant high capital investment on

larger, consolidated allotments. These larger acreages werefrequently irrigated. A minimum of 10 acres was needed to

justify irrigation costs.

Bulk barns for curing were used by most white tobacco farmers.The high initial cost and rising fuel costs kept this

equipment predominantly in white production systems.

Both black, and white old line farmers were importantin the sample, but white, old line farmers constituted

nearly 50 percent of the total.

Three types of enterprise mixes were encountered In the farmingsystems in the area. Crop-centered farming systems included

a variety of crop mixes; however they allcentered around an important cash crop.

Peanut-centered systems such as this one had beenprevalent in the southern portion of the area,

but were declining in importance.

Growing corn for grain that can be fed, stored or soldwas a traditional crop enterprise on most farms in the area.

Increasing input prices and continuing low yields werediscouraging many farmers from producing this grain.

Tobacco was another historically important enterprise incrop-centered systems that was declining in importance,

particularly for small farmers.

Soybean production was growing in importance in the areain spite of the higher management and input levels

recommended for the crop.

A second kind of system was the mixed crop-livestock system.These systems, producing both crops and animals in varying

combinations were the most frequent in the sample.The traditional corn-velvet bean intercrop provides an

efficient use of resources by feeding both cattle and hogs.

The traditional corn-peanut intercrop had the advantageof providing bird hunting in the fall.

This farmer adopted technology appropriate to his particularcircumstances. His swine-corn operation showed a blend of old and new

technologies. Corn was grown and milled on the farm. The additionof concrete in the pens, sprinklers for summer cooling, and an

antibiotic injector in the watering system allowed the advantagesof modern technologies without the high capital

investment of recommended confinement systems.

The third general category, livestock-centered systems,included a low management, low input cattle system that

utilized pastures, crop residues and purchased or farm grown feed.

Swine production enterprises varied from high capital, high inputconfinement facilities to traditional woods pig practices.

The mixed crop-livestock system was the most importantsystem in the area.

The FSRE team identified problems in specific systems.

Even though in the FSRE project in the North Florida area we wereconsidering small farms, land, itself, was not found to be one of

the primary constraints to the productivity of any of the systems.Some farmers sold small acreages to gain needed capital.

However, all systems shared some basic constraints.Low soil fertility was general throughout the area.

Erratic rainfall, compounded by soil compaction on many farmscreated moisture stress through much of the growing period.

Lack of adequate market opportunities discouraged theproduction of many specialized crops such as sweet potatoes.

Credit was generally available in the area; however for manyold-line farmers, capital was an effective constraint. On bothblack and white old-line farms, many farmers preferred not to

become indebted, and land title problems on some blackfarms precluded the possibilities of credit.

In both crop centered and mixed farming systems in the area,low corn yields, decreasing prices and increasing input costs

had effectively constrained these systems.

On both the mixed and the livestock centered systems, a sourceof forage during parts of the year was also a constraint to productivity.particularly in late spring and early winter, the high cost of providing

high quality forage was evident.

The FSRE team generated alternative solutions to specific problems.

Because corn played such an important role in both the crop-centeredand mixed crop-livestock farming systems in the North Florida area,top priority was given to looking for a substitute for this crop whose

low productivity and increasing cost of production had effectivelyconstrained the productivity of both the crop-centered and the

mixed crop-livestock systems of the area.

A new winter wheat variety, Florida 301, had just recently beenintroduced in north Florida and appeared to have a great promise

as a possible substitute for corn. Wheat could be fed, stored or soldso it had many of the same attributes that corn has. Advantagesincluded growing in a period when disease and insect problems

are lower and when more dependable moisture is available from rain.

The team began to explore potential interest in producing winterwheat with some of the small farmers. One of the first questions

asked by these farmers was whether the wheat could begrazed in the winter. This was a practice they were accustomed

to with rye or oats.

No important information was available on the effect of grazingFlorida 301 so among other trials, the team immediately established

some trials both on station and on farms to determine the effectof different lengths of grazing on the productivity of the grain.

Another question the farmers asked was whether they couldplant their wheat earlier than the December 1 to 15 periodrecommended in order to provide them more forage during

part of the winter when forage is scarce. Date of plantingwas also incorporated into the trials during the first year.

Data from research conducted on the beef research unitin collaboration with the other scientists from the universityindicated that indeed, planting earlier improved productivity

and resulted in a lesser effect from grazing than plantingduring the recommended time frame.

On-farm data, with lower yields than on the beef research unitindicated that 4 to 6 weeks of grazing had little effect on grain

production. Differences in response to grazing on the beef research unit and on farms pointed out the need for obtaining data

from on-farm trials as well as station trials in order to fully understand the nature of the response to be expected if and when

practices being tested are put into effect by farmers.

At the same time the station and on-farm trials were being conducted,members of the team were also working with farmers who were

keeping enterprise records. Most of these farmers were still raisingolder varieties of wheat, shown here on the right, but some were

utilizing Florida 301, on the left. When the crop was harvested, the data from the enterprise records were analyzed.

These data, which reflected real farm practices, resulted in somevery interesting conclusions. It was quite evident that Florida 301 was far superior to the varieties the farmers were using. And 301

responded much better to fertilizer application than the other varieties.The recommended rate for nitrogen for 301 was 80 lbs per acre. Some

farmers were applying more than that and were losing money.

The other varieties required less nitrogen. However, it was foundthat the majority of farmers were fertilizing more than 80 pounds in

attempts to increase the productivity of the other varieties. The dataindicated that 53% of the farmers could save money by applying lessnitrogen, and two thirds could improve productivity and net incomesignificantly by shifting either or both variety and fertilizer practice.

Tests taken by the FSRE team indicated a large incidence of soilcompaction, not recognized by many farmers. Small farmers withlight equipment were not able to practice subsoiling. The team beganworking on a simple prototype for a 20 horse power tractor. Exploratory corn trials were conducted on five farms in the area

with very satisfactory results.

The evaluation of research results takes into consideration theconstraints of these farmers and recommendations are made that fit

into the capabilities of the kinds of farmers with which the team works.However it is the farmer and his or her family who ultimately make

decisions concerning the adoption or non-adoption of anypractice or technology. Therefore, it is necessary for the farmersto manage the technology themselves in order to evaluate the

acceptability of the technology under their conditions.

Small-scale farmers perceive their farm first as a home. That is, adesirable and cherished lifestyle that they wish to maintain. Familyliving expenses and production costs are more likely to compete forthe same scarce resources so that production decisions on the farm

and consumption patterns in the household are closely linked.Production strategy is calculated for yields that are roughly one-third

to one-half those on large, commercial farms for many crops inNorth Florida. Two and four row equipment, enterprise diversity,

integration between crops and livestock and the high utilization of farm products by the household typify many of these farming operations.