Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-gblv7 Total loading time: 0.389 Render date: 2022-05-27T01:07:19.127Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

ON-FARM TRIALS AS ‘INFECTION POINTS’? A RESPONSE TO WALL ET AL.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2019

J. A. ANDERSSON*
Affiliation:
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center – CIMMYT, and Knowledge, Technology and Innovation group, Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center – CIMMYT– Bangladesh. House 10/B, Road 53, Gulshan-2, Dhaka 1213, Bangladesh Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation, Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 88, 6700 AB Wageningen, The Netherlands
T. J. KRUPNIK
Affiliation:
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center – CIMMYT– Bangladesh. House 10/B, Road 53, Gulshan-2, Dhaka 1213, Bangladesh
N. DE ROO
Affiliation:
Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation, Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 88, 6700 AB Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
Corresponding author. Email: j.andersson@cgiar.org

Extract

In their response to our paper on the problems of using on-farm trials in efforts to scale-out new crop production technologies and practices among smallholder farmers, Wall et al. (2019) focus on our descriptions of on-farm trials in just one of the three case studies of Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) projects that were presented. They argue we did not understand the projects’ philosophy and that the biases in farmer and site selection we discussed, do not exist in the southern Africa case study.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersson, J. A. and D'Souza, S. (2014). From adoption claims to understanding farmers and contexts: a literature review of conservation agriculture (CA) adoption among smallholder farmers in southern Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 187:116–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheesman, S., Andersson, J. A. and Frossard, E. (2017). Does closing knowledge gaps close yield gaps? On-farm conservation agriculture trials and adoption dynamics in three smallholder farming areas in Zimbabwe. Journal of Agricultural Science 155 (1): 81100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CIMMYT (1988). From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics Training Manual, Completely revised edn. Mexico, DF: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT).Google Scholar
Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (eds) (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? London:Zed Books.Google Scholar
de Roo, N., Andersson, J. A. and Krupnik, T. (2019). On-farm trials for development impact? The organisation of research for scaling agricultural technologies. Experimental Agriculture 52 (2): 163184.Google Scholar
Kiptot, E., Hebinck, P., Franzel, S. and Richards, P. (2007). Adopters, testers or pseudo-adopters? Dynamics of the use of improved tree fallows by farmers in western Kenya. Agricultural Systems 94:509519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leach, M., Mearns, R. and Scoones, I. (1999). Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Development 27 (2):225247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neely, C., Dixon, J., and Wall, P. (2008). CIMMYT's Strategy for Catalyzing the Adoption of Conservation Agriculture in Southern Africa. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/68413 (accessed on: 18 November 2018).Google Scholar
Mosse, D. (1994). Authority, gender and knowledge: theoretical reflections on the practice of participatory rural appraisal. Development and Change 25 (3):97526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pircher, T., Almekinders, C. J. M. and Kamanga, B. C. G. (2013). Participatory trials and farmers' social realities: understanding the adoption of legume technologies in a Malawian farmer community. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 11 (3):252263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanlauwe, B., Wendt, J., Giller, K.E., Corbeels, M., Gerard, B. and Nolte, C. (2014). A fourth principle is required to define conservation agriculture in sub-saharan africa: the appropriate use of fertilizer to enhance crop productivity. Field Crops Research 155:1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, P. C., Thierfelder, C. L., Nyagumbo, I., Rusinamhodzi, L. and Mupangwa, W. (2019). Comment on 'de Roo et al. (2019). On-farm trials for development impact? The organisation of research for scaling agricultural technologies. Experimental Agriculture. 52 (2):185194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

ON-FARM TRIALS AS ‘INFECTION POINTS’? A RESPONSE TO WALL ET AL.
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

ON-FARM TRIALS AS ‘INFECTION POINTS’? A RESPONSE TO WALL ET AL.
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

ON-FARM TRIALS AS ‘INFECTION POINTS’? A RESPONSE TO WALL ET AL.
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *