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

, "