Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-k7rjm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-22T12:54:55.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2019

J. A. ANDERSSON Open the ORCID record for J. A. ANDERSSON [Opens in a new window] ,
T. J. KRUPNIK  and
N. DE ROO
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
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 55 , Special Issue 2: Themed Issue: Contested Agronomy , April 2019 , pp. 195 - 199
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

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.Google 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): 81–100.Google 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): 163–184.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 94:509–519.Google Scholar
Leach, M., Mearns, R. and Scoones, I. (1999). Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Development 27 (2):225–247.Google 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):97–526.Google 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):252–263.Google 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 155:10–13.Google 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):185–194.Google Scholar