Farmer participation in Indonesian livestock farming systems by regular research field hearings (RRFH)

Agricultural Administration 22 (1986) 205-216

Farmer Participation in Indonesian Livestock Farming Systems by Regular Research Field Hearings (RRFH)*

H. C. Knipscheer & Kedi Suradisastra

Winrock International and Research Institute for Animal Production, Indonesia

(Received: 24 June, 1985)

SUMMARY

Farming systems research (FSR) is continuously challenged to maintain the motivation of farmers and scientists to collaborate in on-farm research. This is especially true for livestock farming systems research, which tends to be overlooked. Factors such as mobility of animals and their long life-cycle, lack of synchronization of experimental units, non- divisibility and size of units, multiplicity of outputs, and high statistical variability also constrain livestock-oriented FSR and aggravate the problems of on-farm livestock research. During the testing stage of FSR, Regular Research Field Hearings (RRFH) can improve communication between scientists andfarmers, thereby increasing mutual understanding and willingness to collaborate in evaluating potential technologies, and test results. Attendance records and discussion-participation rates indicate that RRFH have been successful in Indonesian small-ruminant research.

INTRODUCTION

In the assessment of new technologies, incorporation of socio-economic factors continue to be among the most difficult research activities. One strategy to improve the socio-economic feedback from rural households to the researcher would be to expand the extension agent’s role. An alternative strategy (although not mutually exclusive) is that reorienting

* An earlier version of this paper has been presented at the Workshop on Farming Systems Research in Indonesia, Sukamandi, 13-16 August, 1984.

205 Agricultural Administration 0309-586X/86/$03.50 0 Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd, England, 1986. Printed in Great Britain

206 H. C. Knipscheer, Kedi Suradisastra

the roles of all scientists, involving them on the farm in an interdisciplin- ary research effort” and in direct contact with farmers. Research priorities and trial design can thus become more relevant to small farmers’ needs. Such a reorientation is generally identified with a ‘farming systems’ approach.

A major question remains as to how to involve the scientists, as well as farmers, in on-farm testing.6 In foodcrop research, great progress has been made in the development of on-farm testing methodology.2j’x In livestock research, however, on-farm experiments are more difficult to implement and-as a result-more essential for the possible transfer of new technologies.3

In West Java, Indonesia, a program to define research problems from the perspective of the farmers is conducted through a monthly meeting activity called ‘Regular Research Field Hearings’ (RRFH) or field hearings. This paper focuses on these contacts between scientist and farmer, which are critical in livestock farming systems research and the transfer of technology, and could also contribute to more efficient food crop farming systems research.

THE PROBLEM

Since the early 1970s the term ‘farming systems’ has been used to describe the complex and diverse nature of agricultural production, particularly in the tropical and sub-tropical regions of the world. The farming systems approach locates crop and animal production, marketing, and other household activities within a specific context and emphasizes the importance of understanding the entire system (including its biological, socio-economic, and institutional components) in which agricultural production occurs.

In such a setting, the typical farm is a small, family-operated enterprise producing largely for family subsistence. Often several crops are grown and multiple-cropping and intercropping are widely practiced.8 While some of the farming systems literature recognizes the close interaction between animal and crops in agricultural systems found in the humid tropics7 most farming systems research has focused on intensive crop production.

Until recently,‘little attention had been given to the complex function of animals as consumers of the by-products from crop production,

Livestock farming systems research in Indonesia 207

suppliers of traction power for field preparation, producers of fertilizer and sources of protein for domestic consumption or sale.

Furthermore, animals serve as a ‘safety valve’ by diversifying risk and reducing uncertainty, particularly among farmers who own very limited land. Yet, some distinct differences between livestock and crop production systems have special implications for the description of mixed livestock-crop farming systems, as well as for the design, testing, and evaluation of technology or technology packages.‘*

Livestock have low cash input requirements. The cash returns often stem from sales at infrequent special occasions. In conventional farming system surveys, the economic returns of the livestock sub-system often are not adequately recorded: the surveys generally are conducted by persons with a ‘crop’ background. Although the researchers might record the animal inventory, they fail to record (or underestimate) the returns.‘4$‘6 Moreover, livestock provide inputs to other farming systems enterprises such as draft power (by cattle and buffalo) and manure, which may also go unnoticed. (Especially in upland areas, sheep and goat farmers consider manure to be a very valuable output, although they seldom sell it.)

Animals often are kept to protect the farmers against ‘bad years’. Such years are considered to be not representative by surveyors; thus data collection at these times is avoided and the recording of a peak (cash) output from livestock is missed. More often than is the case with cattle and buffalo, produce from sheep, goats, and poultry is consumed by the family. Since this household consumption does not enter the commercial market channels, the economic importance often escapes the notice of government and international agency decision-makers.‘7 Even if an effort is made to explicitly include the livestock enterprise as an important income-generating activity in the farming systems, the quality of labor required for livestock is not considered.4 Obviously, there is a large difference between the type of labor required for one hour of land cultivation, and that for one hour of sheep herding. Therefore, calculated returns to labor ($ per man-hour) generally not only fail to include some of the non-cash output of livestock, but also do not reflect the low opportunity cost of the labor input.

The non-cash, low opportunity inputs into the livestock enterprise (women, children, steep slopes, roadsides, public land, crop residues) and the non-cash outputs (traction, manure, risk buffer, home consumption, status) add to the difficulty of analyzing livestock enterprises. This is


TABLE 1 Comparison of Characteristics of Crops and Livestock and Implications for On-farm

Testing’

Situation with respect to

Factor Crops Livestock Implications

Mobility

Duration

Life cycle

Output(s)

Non-marketable inputs/outputs

Experimental unit size

Producer attitude towards product

Management variability

Observation units

Stationary Mobile

Generally less than 4 months

All units synchronized

Only grain/ tuber and residue

Generally over 1 year

Few

Not synchronized

Multiple outputs, meat, hides, milk, manure, power

Many

Small, Large, divisible non-divisible

Impersonal Personal

Low High

Many Few

Difficult to measure and control non-experimental factor

Increase costs, likelihood of losing experimental units

Difficult to find comparable units

Difficult to measure/value treatment effect

Difficult to value input/output

Increases cost, risk to co-operator

Difficult to cull, castrate

Difficult to isolate treatment effect

Large statistical variability

particularly true for the economic evaluation of traditional and improved (potential) technologies.

Bernsten et al.’ have highlighted the profound differences between crop-oriented and livestock-oriented research activities at all stages of farming systems research (Table 1). Mobility of animals, long-life cycle of animals, lack of synchronization of experimental units, non-divisibility and size of experimental units, multiplicity of outputs and high statistical variability compound the problem of livestock-on-farm-trial design and evaluation


From a research perspective, these characteristics can impede design and testing of livestock technologies. Measurement and statistical variability are key issues to the animal scientist conducting village trials. New strategies are required to allow more effective study of these factors.

REGULAR RESEARCH FIELD HEARINGS (RRFH)

Four commonly recognized stages in development of new technologies 9,11,13 C&-e:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

The descriptive stage, involving target area selection and description; The design stage, evaluating specific needs of the farming systems and identifying technologies to be developed or adapted to increase farm productivity; The testing stage, encompassing the actual trials of selected technologies on farmers’ fields. These trials are performed under varying degrees of management by researchers and farmers. By the final phase of testing, the farmer generally supplies all the inputs and is fully responsible for managing the trial; The verification/extension stage, involving a final evaluation of the acceptability of the technology, and the instruction of the technology to the extension services for dissemination.

Stage I is the exploratory stage in which the research institution defines the technology needed for the target area. The role of the extension institution is minimal. This phase also includes descriptive monitoring in the field. When phase I approaches phase II, the role of the research institution decreases (Fig. 1). Both stages I and II require little technology transfer from the research institution to the field, as scientists are still in the process of designing proper technology suitable to the target area.

A given technology will be ready for on-farm testing in stage III, which is crucial to the technology transfer process, because a given technology should be tested under conditions similar to those of the target group of farmers. In stage III, participating farmers can be expected to accept or to reject the technology being tested. On the other hand, the technology-testing stage allows researcher and extension worker to reconsider the type and kind of technology suitable to the target area and to judge the degree of suitability of the technology for

210

0%

H. C. Knipscheer, Kedi Suradisastra

Fig. 1. Role of research and extension and type of farmers’ meetings during successive phases of farming systems research. Stage I: Descriptive/diagnostic phase, Stage II: Technology design, Stage III: Technology testing. Stage IV: Verification and extension phase. SONDEO: Sondeo meetings (see text). RRFH: Regular Research Field

Hearings. EXT: Extension meetings. (Adapted from Refs 11 and 15.)

the peasants involved. The Small Ruminant CRSP program involves a team of animal and social scientists to introduce regular research field hearings (RRFH) in dealing with these transfer components.

The general objectives of the RRFH are to:

-Enhance dialogue between farmers, research workers, and extension personnel. A lack of understanding by participants results in lack of motivation.”

-Discuss specific situations, problems, and technologies in breeding, reproduction, feeding, health, management, and marketing of livestock.

-Develop field recommendations (breeding, feeding, and farm management) for village farmers and increase the probability of ‘new discoveries’ at the farm level.

-Contribute to the farmer’s knowledge of different animal husbandry practices and to the researcher’s understanding of small ruminant production problems and constraints in the village.


In livestock research, RRFH has two additional specific objectives. It increases the willingness of the farmers to submit animals to testing. Most of a farmer’s savings is in his livestock, thus he is reluctant to submit his animal to any risk. Indeed, it is less risky for a farmer to try out a new foodcrop variety on a corner of his land than to submit his animal to cross-breeding. Therefore, on-farm livestock experiments should be very carefully screened and thoroughly discussed; the RRFH can serve as the appropriate forum of discussion (ex ante evaluation) of the new technology. Also, an ‘insurance’ provision can guarantee farmers compensation for any losses.

Possibly the most important justification of RRFH is the need for farmers’ assessments of the results of the field experiments. Lack of sufficient replications and large variability in farmers’ management and animal performance and in environmental conditions, will allow a wide range of statistical variability. Thus, many trials could show differences between treatments that are not statistically significant. Individual farmers, however, usually do not evaluate interventions by comparing results between farms or treatments; rather they relate to production experience built up over their farming careers. Greater use must be made of farmer co-operators in assessing intervention than has been the case in cropping systems research.

GOALS OF RRHF

These goals are pursued by a series of monthly meetings between scientists and farmers which have the following features.

Feedback

The meetings emphasize feedback, whereby the scientists come to the field to discuss and listen, not to preach and (or) teach. On the one hand, this orientation increases the awareness of the scientists about the farmers’ environments and motives; on the other, the farmers realize their own important role and responsibility.

Regularity

The willingness of farmers to submit their animals to the testing of new technologies depends upon their ex ante understanding of the


interventions, as well as their trust in the collaborating scientists.’ One or two meetings are not sufficient to create a trusting relationship between scientists and farmers. The repetition of the hearings distinguishes RRFH from Hildebrand’s ‘SONDEO’ technique. SONDEO is basically a rapid rural appraisal (RRA) technique, when a multidisciplinary team ‘sounds out’ the field.‘It is typically an activity that would occur in the earlier stages of FSR. SONDEOs are explorative; RRFHs are preparatory and evaluative.

Multidisciplinarity

Farmers are multidisciplinary; therefore, the meetings have to be conducted by multidisciplinary teams of scientists, where each team member provides his own unique expertise.

THE INDONESIAN EXPERIENCE

On West Java, RRFH meetings were held throughout 1983-84 at monthly intervals, as part of a research program sponsored by the United States Agency for International Development (Grant Number AID/DSAW/XII-G-0049). This Title XII Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Program (SR-CRSP) was in collaboration with the Republic of Indonesia, Research Institute for Animal Production (B&i Penelitian Ternak) in Bogor, West Java. Increased animal productivity and incomes of smallholders engaged in small ruminant production were primary objectives, thus the focus was on applied research and the activities were target-group oriented.

The three SR-CRSP study sites in West Java represent three different ecological conditions, with differing cultural and social backgrounds, farming systems and animal-raising methods, and agricultural and physical backgrounds.

Results of the research were reported in a series of working papers, but the audience reached by the working papers (and in related journal articles and abstracts) was restricted to the scientific community. Later, scientists* in the program realized that the results had not reached the target group. The objective of the first meetings was to convey to the

* Mr. F. L. Bell, University of California, played a crucial role in launching the first series of meetings.


farmers some of the early survey results. This series of meetings (four meetings at three sites) produced such animated discussions that participating scientists were quick to realize their qualitative information and evaluative value.

Nevertheless, it was feared that the ‘newness’ of the RRFH would wear off, and that less effort would go into the preparation of future RRFH sessions, allowing the interest of the farmers to wane. Therefore, the responsibility for the conduct of the RRFH was clearly defined, and rotated by disciplinary sub-programs, i.e., breeding/reproduction, nutrition and socio-economics. (Animal health is under the mandate of a sister research institute, the Research Institute for Veterinarian Sciences. This component is being added to the RRFH in the form of ‘guest speakers’.)

During the nine series of meetings in the first year (1983-84) records were kept on attendance, number of comments and questions, and type of discipline leading off the RRFH with the introductory report. A summary of the data is presented in Table 2. The data show that in each village the farmers’ interest toward the meeting were relatively similar, although certain differences existed, particularly between locations.

An analysis of variance confirms (p < 0.0 1) that there was a significant difference between villages in terms of attendance, comments, and questions, but the topic discussed in the meeting did not seem as crucial as initially thought. No significant effects of the topic discussed were associated with the attendance, the frequency of comments, and the number of questions. Topics on breeding, nutrition, or socio-economics were of equal interest to farmers.

A positive result from the RRFH is the increasing involvement of the village staff employed by the research institute at the different locations. Apparently, attendance by local extension agents increased, as did that of local administrators. In some cases, these participants turned the meeting into a promotion rather than a debate. At several occasions, even the scientist chairing the meeting slipped into the role of teacher (one too easily accepted by the farmers accustomed to play theirs, i.e., that of passive listeners). It is clear that the person leading the RRFH has a strong responsibility to maintain its ‘hearing’ character.

On two occasions, one-day, well-received field trips were organized as a result of RRFH discussions: (1) a visit by the farmers to two large- scale commercial farmers who used a high level of paid inputs and

TABL

E 2

Mee

ting

Atte

ndan

ce,

Com

men

ts

and

Ques

tions

Atte

ndan

ce

Com

men

ts

Ques

tions

3

Mee

ting

Disc

iplin

e 12

3

4 12

3

4 I2

3

4 9

1 Br

eedin

g 16

30

42

~

1 3

11

- 16

8

23

- B k’

2 Nu

tritio

n 18

25

50

35

45

20

35

14

8

11

5 8

z 3

Socio

-eco

nom

ics

25

15

31

16

34

17

25

9 5

4 14

1

i? 4

Nutri

tion

25

23

47

-b

13

8 11

3

- 15

--

5 Br

eedin

g 5’

25

38

28

4 6

17

5 9

1:

1 9

5 h

6”

Nutri

tion

29

14

79

30

12

9 14

5

13

2 13

4

& 7

Socio

-eco

nom

ics

27

10

32

63

6 5

12

9 8

3 5

1 ?

8 Br

eedin

g 28

13

32

2

15

11

3 9

5 1

3 13

4

B 9

Socio

-eco

nom

ics

21

5 27

19

7

18

7 10

3

2 17

2

- 2 2

a Slid

e sh

ows.

b H

eavy

ra

in.

Loca

tion

1: C

oast

al/lo

wlan

d ar

ea

(2 v

illage

s).

2: I

nter

med

iate

ar

ea.

3: U

pland

ar

ea

(2

villa

ges)

. 4:

Upla

nd

area

(fi

ghtin

g sh

eep

cent

er).


obviously fared well by it and (2) a group visit to a village where a number of high-yielding grasses and shrubs had been introduced. The total cost of both occasions was less than $100, as farmers brought their own food. (The cost of RRFH was limited to the purchase of refreshments, always less than $10 [total] per meeting.)

Subsequent trials include a reproduction trial now underway in the coastal area, and a nutrition trial in the upland area and more trials are expected. These continuing activities substantiate the greater willingness of farmers to participate in livestock experiments.

REFERENCES

1. Bernsten, R. H., Fitzhugh, H. and Knipscheer, H. C., Livestock in farming systems research. Proc. Third Annual Farm. Syst. Symp. Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, 1983.

2. Byerlee, D. and Collinson, M., Planning technologies appropriate to farmers-concepts and procedures. CIMMYT, Mexico, 1980.

3. De Boer, A. J., Design of alternative croplivestock systems for Asian farmers. Workshop on CropLivestock Research, Asian Cropping Systems Network Meeting, IRRI, Los Bafios, Philippines. April 25-28, 1983.

4. Gunawan, M., Nurmanaf, A. R. and Sawit, M. Husein, Analysis of rural households and individual labor utilization in the Cimanuk River Basin, West Java. Survey Agro-Ekonomi, Report 02/79/L, March, 1979.

5. Hildebrand, P. E., Summary of the ‘SONDEO’ methodology used by ICIA. Rapid Rural Appraisal Conference. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton. December, 1979.

6. Hildebrand, P. E., Motivating small farmers, scientists and technicians to accept change. Agricultural Administration, S(5), 375-83, 1980.

7. McDowell, R. E. and Hildebrand, P. E., Integrated crop and animal production: Making the most of resources available to small farms in developing countries. Working Papers. The Rockefeller Foundation, New York, 1980.

8. Norman, D., Rationalizing mixed cropping under indigenous conditions: the example of Northern Nigeria. Journal oj Development Studies, 11(l), 3-18, 1974.

9. Oxley, J. W., McDowell, R. E., Wheat, J. D., Henson, J. B. and De Boer, A. J., Report of Task Force on Livestock in Mixed Farming Systems. FSSP, University of Florida, Gainesville, 1984.

10. Potts, M. J., de 10s Santos, A. B. and Solimen, J. A., Transfer of technology to small farmers: On-farm research in the Philippines. Agricultural Adminis- tration, 12(l), 27-42, 1983.

11. Rohbach, D., Issues in developing and implementing a farming systems research program. Office of International Cooperation and Development. USDA, Washington, DC, 1981.


12. Sabrani, M. and Knipscheer, H. C., Small ruminants for small farmers. Indonesian Journal for Res. and Dev., 4(3), 8690, 1982.

13. Sabrani, M., Siregar, A. P., Petheram, R. and Knipscheer, H. C., An introduction to livestock farming systems research for rural development in Indonesia. Workshop on Crop-Livestock Research. Asian Cropping Systems Network Meeting, IRRI, Los Baiios, Philippines. April 25-28, 1983.

14. Sanusi, N. A., Rural household income and expenditures in Village B, West Java. Cornell International Agriculture (mimeo), January, 1982.

15. USAID/World Bank, Composite Report of the Watershed Assessment Team. Jakarta, March 28-May 7, 1983.

16. Van Santen, C. E., Report on the pilot farm survey 1980 in Cikajang, Garut District and Jalaksana, Kuningan District, West Java Province, Indonesia (mimeo), FAO Regional Agricultural Office for West Java, Bandung, June, 1980.

17. Winrock International, Livestock program priorities and strategy for the consideration of USAID (mimeo), Morrilton, Arkansas, USA, 1983.

18 Zandstra, H. G., Price, E. C., Litsinger, J. A. and Morris, R. A., A methodology for on-farm cropping systems research. IRRI, Los Bafios, Philippines, 198 1.

Documents

Farmer participation in Indonesian livestock farming systems by regular research field hearings (RRFH)