Previous - Next
This is the old United Nations University website. Visit the new site at http://unu.edu
The concepts of OFR and their relation to nutritional concerns, discussed above, lead to a series of conclusions regarding procedures appropriate for collaborative work between institutes of agricultural research and applied nutrition. The key to the procedures used in OFR is their iterative nature (7). Large-scale diagnostic or "base-line" studies are explicitly discouraged. Instead, researchers use informal survey techniques to understand farmer's circumstances and practices and identify particular problems that offer opportunities for investigation. This may be followed by a short, well-focused formal survey that serves to refine the description provided in the informal survey, test hypotheses regarding particular production practices, and consider possible solutions. This diagnostic sequence is described in detail by Byerlee et al. (17). On-farm experiments that examine a few high-priority problems identified in the diagnosis are established as soon as possible. During the experimentation phase further information is collected, not only from the experiments themselves, but from conversations with farmers, observations, and at times formal survey instruments. These are used to refine the focus of subsequent cycles of experimentation. At what stages, and in what form, is the collection of nutritional data applicable to this process?
Target Areas
The selection of target areas for OFR that conform to the interests of applied nutrition requires judgements both on agricultural potential and nutritional need. The agricultural potential of an area can usually be assessed quickly. Nutritional need may be a bit more problematic, but often existing survey data or other experience is sufficient to make judgements. Special nutrition or dietary studies prior to beginning OFR would be difficult to justify, unless they also fulfilled other purposes.
Informal Survey
Once an area has been selected for OFR, the next step is an informal survey. A recent publication (4) that also emphasizes the need for a flexible approach to the diagnosis of nutritional problems in agricultural project design makes reference to the guidelines used in the informal survey (52). This technique can provide a great deal of useful information on food supply, diet, food preferences, and seasonality, all of which can be important to understanding agricultural practices and proposing modifications. But an informal survey is a demanding procedure. It is carried out, not as a descriptive exercise, but rather to identify important problems, explain why they exist, and specify recommendation domains and opportunities for research. It will take skill and experience to integrate a nutrition component within the informal survey.
Formal Survey
It is often helpful to carry out a short, well-focused formal survey based on issues identified in the informal survey. The formal survey has several purposes: to verify and refine the description of farmers' practices and problems initiated in the informal survey, to further explore the problems identified as opportunities for investigation and test hypotheses to interpret farmers' practices, and to explore the feasibility of possible solutions to these problems. Questions on diet can be included in this survey, provided they have a direct bearing on the selection of themes for the experimental programme (53).
There is an important caveat here. In collecting data for nutrition planning, the use of multiple-purpose surveys is sometimes advocated (54). On the face of it, a survey on food production, consumption, and nutrition would seem to offer a powerful diagnostic tool. But the short, well-focused formal survey in OFR is designed precisely to counter the temptation in so much diagnostic work of "just one more question." Most formal surveys in agricultural research are inadequately tested, much too detailed, and impossible to analyse in a reasonable time frame. The inclusion of dietary questions on a formal OFR survey must be justified by research priorities, not mere curiosity.
Other Diagnostic Techniques
Several years of on-farm experiments are usually required for the production of recommendations. During that time there is often the need for further data collection to supplement experimentation. If new varieties of a staple crop are being tested, for instance, their acceptability in local food preparations must be investigated. There are many instances where seemingly superior crop varieties have been rejected because of their cooking qualities or taste. But it is often advisable to delay this kind of testing until after at least a year of on-farm experimentation. In that way farm families can base their judgement on both taste and agronomic performance, and thus be in a better position to consider possible trade-offs.
Information on the food preparation techniques and preferences of the target population is essential. There are several instances of breeding strategies based on urban consumer preferences that overlook opportunities for crop characteristics acceptable to the rural poor (32, 57). This information may be available through formal or informal surveys, simple observation, or secondary data.
A dietary survey may also be useful for guiding OFR. A qualitative 24-hour recall survey can be a good substitute for more expensive quantitative surveys; these are now being used with increasing frequency (56, 57). To be of use to OFR, this type of survey should include other questions useful to understanding the food system, such as the preparation method, variety, and source of each food item (32).
Other more specific studies may also be called for from time to time. The structure of OFR encourages a flexible approach to data collection where information is collected for specific purposes at appropriate times during the research process. Finally, any discussion of research methods in OFR should emphasize the value of participant observation. Researchers' contacts with farm families during experimentation provide an excellent opportunity for studying matters that are complicated (e.g., food beliefs), sensitive (e.g. marketing), or long-term (e.g., seasonality) (32).
POSSIBILITIES FOR INSTITUTIONAL COLLABORATION
The above discussion provides a basis for some specific suggestions regarding increased collaboration between national institutes of nutrition and agricultural research. The aim is to strengthen the capacities of national nutrition institutes for doing this type of work.
- It could lead to the establishment of a permanent forum through which the two institutions, with some common experience behind them, could communicate.
- It would be contrary to the spirit of this proposal, however, if the result were a formal, rigid role for a nutrition institute in the agricultural research process. Neither funding nor research priorities allow for such a result. Instead, as the two institutions get to know each other's strengths and interests, they could call on each other at appropriate times to resolve particular problems. A flexible relationship is essential.
- As nutritionists become more familiar with the agricultural research process, their own research priorities may shift. There is a need for nutrition institutes to develop more appropriate research procedures. These include:
- More efficient dietary survey methods. In this case, more can be done towards providing information relevant to agricultural researchers. Surveys that can be carried out and analysed quickly are a priority.
- Analyses of the food preferences and patterns of the poor. This type of information is important for setting agricultural research priorities, as well as for judging acceptance of new crops or varieties. Methods and information on this subject are inadequate in most countries.
- . Identification of priority areas for studying the aetiology of malnutrition. Although this paper emphasizes the overriding importance of adequate targeting and research aimed at basic productivity for achieving nutritional ends, it concedes that more complicated issues, such as women's time or income, particular nutrient deficiencies, or cropping pattern changes, occasionally assume great importance. Familiarity with the OFR process can guide nutrition institutes to do more detailed research in areas where these types of issues arise.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has described a class of agricultural research known as on-farm research, which has been designed to facilitate the work of national agricultural research programmes in developing technologies appropriate to the needs of the majority of farmers. It has already been taken up and institutionalized by a number of national agricultural research programmes. It was argued that OFR has particular relevance to nutritional concerns. Because it features low-cost procedures it can be instituted in many areas within a country; because it is appropriate for small producers it stands a good chance of reaching those at nutritional risk.
Some agricultural development work has had a neutral or negative impact on nutrition. There are many reasons for this, but two of the principal ones are inappropriate targeting and lack of attention to the agronomic and socio-economic feasibility of recommendations. OFR procedures in target selection and technology design were presented, and opportunities for nutritional input in these areas were described. Contrary to much conventional wisdom, it was argued that the nutritional impact of agricultural research is best achieved through well-focused, location-specific research that aims at improving the productivity and incomes of target groups of farmers.
Nutritionists and others have performed a valuable service by pointing out that nutritional improvement does not automatically follow agricultural development. But the remedy is not necessarily a large dose of nutritional analysis and monitoring in agricultural research. Both farming systems and nutritional systems are best understood from a holistic viewpoint, but their improvement does not (or better, cannot afford to) depend on complicated research schemes. Suggestions have been made here for involving nutritionists in OFR, particularly in refining diagnostic techniques for understanding food systems, providing relevant dietary survey data, and understanding the food preferences of the poor.
This is not to suggest that nutritionists' participation in agricultural development should be limited to an advisory role in targeting and technology design. But these are two important areas where more experience of a collaborative nature is required. Further suggestions were made for the use of OFR in developing nutrition education programmes and in refining analytical skills for dealing with special problems regarding the nutritional consequences of agricultural change. There are many other issues in the nutritional direction of agricultural development that also warrant attention. The argument here, however, is that before more sophisticated nutrition planning for agricultural development has any chance of success, national institutions need to acquire more competence in addressing some basic issues of method and focus. OFR provides an opportunity to develop that type of experience.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The paper has benefited from comments by K. DeWalt and D. Winkelmann, as well as from suggestions made by participants in the workshop on Nutrition and the
International Agricultural Research Center, the
International Livestock Center for Africa (INCA), Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, 29 February- 2 March 1984.
REFERENCES
1. N. S. Scrimshaw and M. Béhar, eds., Nutrition and Agricultural Development (PIenum Publishing Corp., New York, 1976).
2. K. G. Swanberg and E. Shipley, "The Nutritional Status of the Rural Family in East Cundinamarca, Colombia, Food Res. Inst. Stud., 14(2): 111 (1975).
3, U. Otzen, "Nutritional Needs-Oriented Rural Development Planning for Botswana," Quart. J. Internat. Agric, 20: 249; 360(1981).
4. Integrating Nutrition into Agricultural and Rural Development Projects (FAO, Rome, 1982).
5. W. P. Whelan, The Nutritional Component of Farming Systems Research,'' International Agricultural and Food Program Working Paper (Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., USA, 1982).
6. W. W. Shaner, P. E, Philipp, and W. R. Schmehl, Farming Systems Research and Development: Guidelines for Developing Countries (Westview Press, Boulder, Colo., USA, 1982).
7. D. Byerlee, L. Harrington, and D. Winkelmann, "Farming Systems Research: Issues in Research Strategy and Technology Design," Amer. J. Agric. Econ., 64: 897 (1982).
8. P. Lunven, "The Nutritional Consequences of Agricultural and Rural Development Projects,`, Food Nutr. Bull., 4 13): 17 (1982).
9. L Harrington and R. Tripp, "Recommendation Domains: A Framework for On-Farm Research,,, CIMMYT Economics Program Working Paper (CIMMYT, Londres, Mexico, 1984).
10. B. R. DeWalt, K. M. DeWalt, E, Adelski, S. Duda, M, Fordham, and K. Thompson, "Cropping Systems in Pespire, Southern Honduras," INTSORMIL Project Preliminary Report No. 1 (University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky., USA, 1982).
11. E. Davies and S. Shetty, "Herbicide Research on Groundnut and Sorghum under Farmer Conditions in the Indian Semi-arid Tropics," Trop. Pest Management, 27: 472 11981).
12. H. Binswanger and S. Shetty, "Economic Aspects of Weed Control in Semi-arid Tropical Areas of India," ICRISAT Economics Department Occasional Paper 13 International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Hyderabad, India, 1977).
13. S. Reutlinger and M. Selowsky, Malnutrition and Poverty: Magnitude and Policy Options, World Bank Staff Occasional Papers, No. 23 (IBRD, Washington, D.C., 1976).
14. W. R. F. Collis, J. Dema, and A. Omolulu, "The Ecology of Child Health and Nutrition in Nigerian Villages," Trop. Geogr. Med., 14: 140(1962).
15. J. Rawson and V. Valverde, "The Etiology of Malnutrition among Preschool Children in Rural Costa Rica," J. Trop. Pediat., 22: 12 (1976).
16. V. Valverde, R. Martorell, V, Mejia-Pivaral, H. Delgado, A. Lechtig, C. Teller, and R. E. Klein, "Relationships between Family Land Availability and Nutritional Status," Ecol. Food Nutr., 6: 1 (1977).
17. D. Byerlee, M. Collinson, et al., Planning Technologies Appropriate to Farmers (CIMMYT, Londres, Mexico, 1980), p. 16.
18. R. K. Perrin and D. L. Winkelmann, "Impediments to Technical Progress on Small versus Large Farms," Amer. J. Agric.. Econ., 58: 888 (1976)
19. M. Ernster, M. McAleeman, and F. Larkin, "Social Research Methods Applied to Nutritional Assessment," Ecol. Food Nutr., 5: 143 (1976).
20. R. Tripp, "Farmers and Traders: Some Economic Determinants of Nutritional Status in Northern Ghana," J. Trop. Pediat., 27: 15 (1981).
21. A. Sharman, "Nutrition and Social Planning," J. Develop. Studies, 6: 77 (1970).
22. M. Muńoz de Chávez, P. Arroyo, J. E. Pérez-Gil, M. Hernández, S. E. Quiroz, M. Rodriguez, M. de Hermelo, and A. Chávez, "The Epidemiology of Good Nutrition in a Population with a High Prevalence of Malnutrition " Ecol. Food Nutr., 3: 223 (1974).
23. A. Low, "Farm-Household Theory and Rural Development in Swaziland," Development Study No. 23 (Department of Agricultural Economics and Management, University of Reading Reading, UK, 1982).
24. C. K. Mann, "Packages of Practices: A Step at a Time with Clusters," paper presented at joint meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association and the Western Agricultural Economics Association, San Diego, Calif., USA, 31 July- 3 Aug, 1977.
25. D. Byerlee and E. Hesse de Polanco, "The Rate and Sequence of Adoption of Improved Cereal Technologies: The Case of Rain-Fed Barley in the Mexican Altiplano," CIMMYT Economics Program Working Paper (CIMMYT, Londres, Mexico, 1982).
26. Food and Agriculture Organization, "Food Production," in G. H. Beaton and J. M. Bengoa, eds., Nutrition in Preventive Medicine (World Health Organization, Geneva, 1976), p. 345.
27. A. Berg, Malnourished People: A Policy View, World Bank Poverty and Basic Needs Series (IBRD, Washington, D.C., (1981).
28. P. Pinstrup-Andersen, "Nutritional Consequences of Agricultural Projects: Conceptual Relationships and Assessment Approaches," World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 455 (IBRD, Washington, D.C., 1981).
29. R. W. Wenlock, "Food Intakes and Nutritional Status: Implications for the Formulation of Development Policies for Zambia," Ecol. Food Nutr., 7: 203 (1979).
30. Underexploited Tropical Plants with Promising Economic Value (NAS/NRC, Washington, D.C., 1975).
31. B. M. Koppel, "Food Policy Options for Secondary Regions: A Framework for Applied Research," Food Policy, 6: 33 (1981).
32. R. Tripp, "Including Dietary Concerns in On-Farm Research: An Example from Imbabura, Ecuador," CIMMYT Economics Program Working Paper (CIMMYT, Londres, Mexico, 1982).
33. K. G. Dewey, "Agricultural Development, Diet and Nutrition," Ecol. Food Nutr., 8: 265 (1979).
34. P. Fleuret and A. Fleuret, "Nutrition, Consumption and Agricultural Change," Human Organiz.. 39: 250 (1980).
35. K. G. Dewey, "Nutritional Consequences of the Transformation from Subsistence to Commercial Agriculture in Tabasco, Mexico," Human Ecol., 9: 151 (1981).
36. J. M. Cohen, "Effects of Green Revolution Strategies on Tenants and Small-Scale Landowners in the Chilalo Region of Ethiopia," J. Devel. Areas, 9 (1975).
37. B. C. C'Silva and M. R. Raza, "Integrated Rural Development in Nigeria: The Funtua Project," Food Policy, 5: 282 (1980).
38. H. Zandstra, K. Swanberg, C. Zulberti, and B. Nestel, Caqueza: Living Rural/ Development (International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada, 1979).
39. U. Lele, The Design of Rural Development: Lessons from Africa (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md., USA, 1975), p. 30.
40. T. J. Marchione, "Food and Nutrition in Self-reliant National Development: The Impact on Child Nutrition of Jamaican Government Policy," Med. Anthropol., 1: 57 (1977).
41. P. Fleuret and A. Fleuret, "Socio-economic Determinants of Child Nutrition in Taita, Kenya: A Call for Discussion," Cult. and Agr., 19: 8 (1983).
42. J. H. Sanders and J. K. Lynam, "New Agricultural Technology and Small Farmers in Latin America," Food Policy, 6: 11 (1981).
43. R. W. Longhurst, "Malnutrition and the Community- The Social Origins of Deprivation," Proc. Nutr. Soc, 38: 11 (1979).
44. W. L. Partridge and A. B. Brown, "Agricultural Development among the Mazatec: Lessons from Resettlement," Cult. and Agr., 16: 1 (1982).
45. M. Hernández, C. Pérez, J. Ramírez, H. Madrigal, and A. Chavez, "Effect of Economic Growth on Nutrition in a Tropical Community," Ecol. Food Nutr., 3: 283 (1974).
46. R. Goldman and C. Overholt, Nutrition Intervention in Developing Countries, Study VI: Agricultural Production, Technical Change and Nutritional Goals (Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain, Cambridge, Mass., USA, 1981).
47. E. Kennedy and P. Pinstrup-Andersen, Nutrition-Related Policies and Programs: Past Performances and Research Needs (international Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C., 1983).
48. J. Tinker, New Technologies for Food Chain Activities: The Imperative of Equity for Women (Office of Women in Development, USAID, Washington, D.C., 1979).
49. M. A. Savané, "Implications for Women and Their Work of Introducing Nutritional Considerations into Agricultural and Rural Development Projects," Food Nutr. Bull., 3 (3): 1 (1981).
50. B. M. Popkin and F. S. Solon, "Income, Time, the Working Mother and Child Nutriture," J. Trop. Pediat., 22: 156 (1976).
51. V. Valverde, R. Martorell, H. Delgado, V. M. Pivaral, L. Elias, R. Bressani, and R. Klein, "The Potential Nutritional Contribution of Opaque-2 Corn," Nutr. Rep. Internat., 23 (4): 585 (1981).
52. M. Collinson, "A Low-Cost Approach to Understanding Small Farmers,"Agric Admin., 8:433 (1981).
53. "Demonstrations of an Interdisciplinary Approach to Planning Adaptive Agricultural Research Programmes: Part of Serenje District, Central Province, Zambia" (CIMMYT East Africa Economics Program, Nairobi, Kenya, 1978).
54. J. Perissé, "Food and Nutrition Planning," in J. Mayer and J. T. Dwyer, eds., Food and Nutrition Policy in a Changing World (Oxford University Press, New York, 1979).
55. S. D. Biggs, "Generating Agricultural Technology: Triticale for the Himalayan Hills," Food Policy, 7: 69 (1982).
56. Office of Nutrition, Development Support Bureau, USAID, Sierra Leone National Nutrition Survey (USAID, Washington, D.C, 1978).
57. Office of Nutrition, Development Support Bureau, USAID, United Republic of Cameroon National Nutrition Survey (USAID, Washington, D.C., 1978).