Farmer participatory research (FPR) has generated many programmatic statements and few technologies. FPR has probably been of interest more because of dissatisfaction with the green revolution and agricultural establishment research than because of a proven ability of scientists and farmers to collaborate together. There are several barriers between farmers and scientists, not the least of which is social distance. The role of FPR should be critically examined; it may work best setting research agendas or in the case of researchers who (...) can dedicate themselves to FPR full-time for quite some time. (shrink)

Folk experiments in agriculture are often inspired by new ideas blended with old ones, motivated by economic and environmental change. They tend to save labor or capital. These notions are illustrated with nine short case studies from Nicaragua and El Salvador. The new ideas that catalyze folk experiments may be provided by development agencies, but paradoxically, the folk experiments are so common that the agencies that inspire them usually pay little attention to them. Some folk experiments are original, but others (...) simply copy innovations that farmers have seen somewhere else. Unlike formal scientific research, in which results are consistently written, folk experiments are rarely “inscribed,” because the results are for use by individual farmers and need not be shared with an audience. (shrink)

During the 1990s, the Government of Peru began to aggressivelyprivatize agriculture. The government stopped loaning money to farmers' cooperatives and closed the government rice-buying company. The government even rented out most of its researchstations and many senior scientists lost their jobs. As part of this trend, the government eliminated its seed certification agency. Instead, private seed certification committees were set up with USAID funding and technical advise from a US university. The committees were supposed to become self-financing (bycertifying seed grown (...) by small seed producers) and each committee was supposed to encourage the development of a group of small seed-producing firms, clustered around the seedcertification agency. The amazing thing is that many of the seed committees actually accomplished these goals. The agronomists who staffed the committees stood by their jobs,even after US funding ended, even though the committees' income was (at best) modest, and occasionally under the threat of violence from the extreme left. Some seed certificationcommittees failed and others did not. Some of the problems with Peruvian agricultural liberalization can be seen in regard to the seed programs of maize, rice, potatoes, and beans. For example, the government abandoned most research, yet could not resist creating certain distortions in the seed market (e.g.,buying large amounts of seed and distributing them for political ends). (shrink)

Of the four types of biological control, (1) natural, (2) conservation, (3) augmentation, and (4) importation), ethical concerns have been raised almost exclusively about only one type: importation. These concerns rest largely on fears of extinction of animal species. Importation biological control is a cost-effective alternative to chemical control for basic food crops of resource-poor farmers. Regarding the other types of biological control, natural biological control is not consciously manipulated by humans. Augmentation has some technical concerns, but is generally an (...) environmentally-sound, viable alternative to chemicals and offers local employment. Conservation can help empower farmers to preserve native species, while saving labor and money and reducing chemical insecticides. (shrink)

Traditional Central American peasant farmers know more about some aspects of the local agroecosystem than about others. In general farmers know more about plants, less about insects, and less still about plant pathology. Without discounting economic factors, ease of observability must explain part of this difference. Certain local beliefs may affect what farmers observe and know. For example, a belief in spontaneous generation may lead people to fail to observe insect reproduction. The implications of the gaps in farmer knowledge are (...) discussed in terms of the sustainable agriculture movement. (shrink)

Farmers are experts on their natural environment and are innate experimenters. However they do not know everything. Filling in gaps of missing farmer knowledge can help them improve their experiments. The authors designed and taught a course to Honduran farmers that effectively covered a number of key points on insect ecology and biology that farmers had not understood. After receiving the course many farmers did experiments to solve pest problems without synthetic pesticides.

Nearly all contemporary people subsist on cultivated plants, most of which are vulnerable to diseases. Yet, there have been few studies of what traditional people know – and do not know – about crop disease. Agricultural scientists in general are becoming aware of the potential contribution of social scientists and farmers in developing integrated management of crop diseases. The International Potato Center (CIP) has focused on stimulating farmer-scientist collaboration in developing management of late blight, a major fungal disease of potatoes (...) and other plants. Understanding farmers' knowledge of this and other plant diseases is an important element in furthering such collaboration. Although not all agricultural scientists recognize the value of social science, this literature search shows that some agricultural scientists now actively collaborate with farmers, in ways that cross the boundary into social science research. During this search, much of the work we found was written by plant pathologists and entomologists. We found over fifty publications on farmer knowledge of crop disease, and we have annotated the material that we thought most relevant to farmer- scientist collaboration for research of crop diseases, especially late blight. (shrink)