Science and Technology Mailing List Archive

["James BISCOE" <<address removed>>]

I have looked at some of the contributions on this aspect of the consultation 
with interest.

It is my opinion and experience that technology is best developed as close to 
the end users as possible. What is best? In my view that is technology which 
makes the greatest positive impact on production and productivity  while having 
the least possible negative impacton the environment and sustainability of the 
natural resources and people who operate it. When dealing with something as 
dynamic as agriculture there is a need to be able to respond to changing 
conditions year on year. Thus, while you may have a long term programme of 
research there is a largely unmet demand for adaptive research to meet the day 
to day needs of producers. Through having the long term programme running the 
overhead is met and the marginal capacity can be applied to the shorter term 
issues. Also there is the opportunity to enhance capacity through running 
shorter term programmes  which eventually can be applied to the longer term 
work.

On a different level there is potential for research to develop ways and means 
of mobilising the available forces of nature to the benefit of farmers. Thus, 
for instance, rather than controlling weeds with herbicides, can a cover crop 
be used? Which cover crop? How to manage it? Does it have secondary benefits, 
for instance as grazing?
In my experience little attention is paid to the impact of research 
recommendations extended on the use of labour. Too often it is construed as a 
freely available resource. Can the research programme also embrace  
consideration of the productivity and performance of labour in order to make 
the adoption of preferred practices more attractive to the people who actually 
do the work?
There has been much excellent work done on the use of trap crops and companion 
planting. Can similar work be done at a less costly level in local areas 
looking at obtaining similar benefits?
Lastly it has long seemed to be the case that research work considers a margin 
of improvement of 10% to be good. My experience is that with smallholder 
farmers a much larger increment of benefit is necessary. This is easily 
understood I think. 10% on 100 hectares yielding 5 tonnes per hectare is 50 
tonnes. 10% on one hectare yielding two tonnes per hectare is 200kgs and yet 
the complexity of applying a particular recommendation or technology will be 
the same applied  to one hectare as 100? Thus there is an economy of scale 
issue. To be beneficial to the smallholder a gain of 50% would perhaps be 
attractive and worth the effort and risk where 10% would not.
Provocative? Quite likely.
Thanks
James Biscoe
28/4/04
1045hrs