The farmers advisory needs in opinion of workers of Voivodship Agricultural Advisory Centers

Praca przedstawia wyniki badań empirycznych prowadzonych w 2008 roku wśród doradców rolnych czterech województw (lubelskie, mazowieckie, świętokrzyskie, łódzkie) uczestniczących w szkoleniach organizowanych przez Centrum Doradztwa Rolniczego w Brwinowie Oddział w Radomiu. Badania pozwoliły na uzyskanie 188 poprawnie wypełnionych ankiet i dotyczyły identyfikacji i ewaluacji dwóch wybranych zadań: oświatowych oraz doradczych. Uzyskane wyniki pokazują, iż obecnie rolnicy poszukują takich form szkoleń i takich porad, które okażą się pomocne w spełnieniu nowych wymogów, a także pomogą w praktycznym rozwiązaniu danego problemu (learning by doing, active learning).The work presents the results of empirical research conducted in 2008 among the agricultural advisors of four Polish provinces (Lubelskie Province, Mazowieckie Province, Swietokrzyskie Province, Lodzkie Province) participating in training courses organized by the Agricultural Advisory Center in Brwinów Branch Office in Radom. The research ended up in obtaining 188 correct questionnaires. Research aimed at the identification and evaluation of two selected forms of training and extension. The results show that farmers seek out such information and such advice, which will be helpful in meeting the new requirements, give some procedures for their completion, and also will identify sources of financial support. Also they would prefer those forms that will be helpful in practical solving of the problem (learning by doing, active learning)

Technologies and management practices for sustainable manure use in the Baltic Sea Region

Livestock production in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) is often geographically concentrated in certain areas, which creates greater livestock density in those areas. The intensification of livestock production seen in recent decades has compounded this problem by generating large amounts of manure to use in a local area. Poor manure management results in loss of nutrients to the air through gaseous emissions and to water though leaching and runoff. These nutrient losses are responsible for considerable negative impacts to the environment, climate and society.  During the past decade, there have been multiple BSR projects addressing sustainable manure use. Most projects have focused on one or a few aspects of sustainable manure use, such as reducing ammonia emissions, or reducing leaching and runoff problems, or increasing nutrient use efficiency from manure. Some projects have focused on specific technologies while others focused more on management practices that can improve sustainability. The objective of this report was to synthesize relevant results and recommendations from the previous BSR projects to create a comprehensive list of their recommendations for improving the sustainability of manure use in the BSR. This was done within the context of various aspects of sustainability that have been dealt with in previous projects, and in terms of where along the manure handling chain the measures are to be applied. Aspects of sustainability that were addressed here are decreasing ammonia emissions, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing runoff and leaching, increasing on farm nutrient use, increasing regional nutrient recycling and addressing odors, pathogens, heavy metals and other risks. Possible measures for improving these aspects of sustainable manure nutrient use recommended in the previous projects were summarized and synthesized in relation to where along the manure handling chain the measures should be implemented. These were presented in a matrix of best practices and techniques for sustainable manure nutrient use in the BSR. Aspects of economic sustainability of manure handling and use were discussed as well as how various governance actions can be used in order to help promote the implementation of these best practices

Managing experimental networks to support the design of crop mixtures: lessons from 11 cases

Agriculture face sustainability-related challenges and agroecology is put forward as a potential future model callling for novel designs of on-farm farming systems and for the renewal of methods used by agricultural R&D to support these processes (Meynard et al., 2012). Design requires that farmers and stakeholders organize to acquire knowledge and know-how on agroecological systems, such as species mixtures. Through several decades, experimentation has been the most widespread scientific method to generate knowledge to support re-design (e.g. Ronner et al., 2019; Vereijken, 1997). To foster agroecology in practice, an increasing number of articles insists on the importance to develop participatory experiments (e.g. Snapp, 2002) and to value the interests of experimental networks (ENs), i.e. articulating experiments in different agricultural situations (e.g. Navarrete et al., 2018). However, as far as we know, no work focused on the contributions of such ENs to redesign in agriculture. Given these statements, in this research, our objective is to shed light on relations between ways of managing an EN, and its contributions to the design of agroecological systems

Exploring the inner workings of design-support experiments: Lessons from 11 multi-actor experimental networks for intercrop design

New forms of field experimentation are currently emerging to support transitions towards sustainable agriculture, including “multi-actor experimental networks” (MAENs). Both in public policy and in academic research, such networks are increasingly presented as a promising approach for fostering sustainable farming system design. Many studies have inventoried, categorized and compared experimental processes to discuss them in relation to contemporary issues. However, to our knowledge, these studies have not considered how MAENs can be implemented, nor their various contributions to sustainable farming systems design. The present work therefore explores the mechanisms whereby MAENs, depending on the way they are managed, support participatory design processes. Drawing on concepts from the design sciences, we studied 11 MAENs established across Europe to support intercrop (IC) design for field crops. Data on the characteristics of these 11 MAENs and their contributions to IC design were collected through individual and group interviews with the network pilots, and the study of individual MAEN documents. The analysis provides three types of results. First, we identify nine generative functions, that is, various processes through which experiments contribute to IC design, including: (i) finding one best option or highlighting contrasts between different ICs; (ii) highlighting the conditions that must be met for an IC to achieve certain effects; (iii) discovering new ICs or properties of ICs; and (iv) supporting the emergence/continuation of collective action for IC design. Second, we highlight different ways to manage MAENs, in other words ways to manage several experiments (in space and time) with a view to supporting participatory IC design. We show that this involves (i) coordinating several objects under design within a network of experiments, (ii) managing the coexistence of experiments guided by different logics in the same geographical area, and (iii) developing interactions between the experiments at a given point in time and over time to support IC design. Third, based on the previous results, we show consistency between the various contributions of MAENs to IC design and the different ways in which the pilots managed them, and we highlight three strategies for managing MAENs to support IC design: MAENs supporting (i) R&D-led design; (ii) farmer-led; and (iii) distributed design. All these results provide mechanisms, points of reference, MAEN types and characteristics to inspire and foster the reflexivity of R&D actors interested in developing such participatory networks in the future

Exploring the inner workings of design-support experiments: Lessons from 11 multi-actor experimental networks for intercrop design

New forms of field experimentation are currently emerging to support transitions towards sustainable agriculture, including “multi-actor experimental networks” (MAENs). Both in public policy and in academic research, such networks are increasingly presented as a promising approach for fostering sustainable farming system design. Many studies have inventoried, categorized and compared experimental processes to discuss them in relation to contemporary issues. However, to our knowledge, these studies have not considered how MAENs can be implemented, nor their various contributions to sustainable farming systems design. The present work therefore explores the mechanisms whereby MAENs, depending on the way they are managed, support participatory design processes. Drawing on concepts from the design sciences, we studied 11 MAENs established across Europe to support intercrop (IC) design for field crops. Data on the characteristics of these 11 MAENs and their contributions to IC design were collected through individual and group interviews with the network pilots, and the study of individual MAEN documents. The analysis provides three types of results. First, we identify nine generative functions, that is, various processes through which experiments contribute to IC design, including: (i) finding one best option or highlighting contrasts between different ICs; (ii) highlighting the conditions that must be met for an IC to achieve certain effects; (iii) discovering new ICs or properties of ICs; and (iv) supporting the emergence/continuation of collective action for IC design. Second, we highlight different ways to manage MAENs, in other words ways to manage several experiments (in space and time) with a view to supporting participatory IC design. We show that this involves (i) coordinating several objects under design within a network of experiments, (ii) managing the coexistence of experiments guided by different logics in the same geographical area, and (iii) developing interactions between the experiments at a given point in time and over time to support IC design. Third, based on the previous results, we show consistency between the various contributions of MAENs to IC design and the different ways in which the pilots managed them, and we highlight three strategies for managing MAENs to support IC design: MAENs supporting (i) R&D-led design; (ii) farmer-led; and (iii) distributed design. All these results provide mechanisms, points of reference, MAEN types and characteristics to inspire and foster the reflexivity of R&D actors interested in developing such participatory networks in the future