Despite the large amount information on weed biology and specific weed control measures produced by researchers, organic farmers still prioritise weeds as an important area for further research. A recent project investigating weed management in organic farming systems has established that knowledge and learning are key requirements for this to be effective. Development of relevant, practically useful knowledge depends on access to information generated ‘scientifically’ by researchers and also to knowledge generated as a result of farmer experience with weeds. This requires that farmers, advisors and researchers take a participatory approach to collecting and processing information on weed management, using it to develop new and relevant knowledge. The appropriate framework for knowledge development is thus a collegiate one in which all stakeholders’ value and learn from the observations and experience of others. These findings have implications for the way in which research is conducted and funded

Bond, B

Davies, G

Gibbon, D

Turner, R

English

Organic Eprints

Aspects of Applied Biology 79, 2006What will organic farming deliver?  COR 2006107Knowledge development for organic systems: An example of weed managementBy G DAVIES1, R TURNER1, B BOND1 & D GIBBON21HDRA, Garden Organic Ryton, Coventry, CV8 3LG, UK2Rulivsys, Lower Barn, Craven Arms, Shropshire, SY7 8DR, UKSummary  Despite the large amount information on weed biology and speciﬁ  c weed control measures produced by researchers, organic farmers still prioritise weeds as an important area for further research. A recent project investigating weed management in organic farming systems has established that knowledge and learning are key requirements for this to be effective. Development of relevant, practically useful knowledge depends on access to information generated ‘scientiﬁ  cally’ by researchers and also to knowledge generated as a result of farmer experience with weeds. This requires that farmers, advisors and researchers take a participatory approach to collecting and processing information on weed management, using it to develop new and relevant knowledge. The appropriate framework for knowledge development is thus a collegiate one in which all stakeholders’ value and learn from the observations and experience of others. These ﬁ  ndings have implications for the way in which research is conducted and funded.Key words: Organic, weed management, knowledge development, participatory researchContext for Research into Organic Weed Management  Attaining relevant outputs from organic research programmes, as well as a clear purpose for un-dertaking them, requires an understanding of the context in which the research will be conducted and an appreciation of who will beneﬁ  t and in what way. Over the course of a recent Defra funded project (OF0315) on weed management in organic farming systems the various participants (mainly farmers, growers, advisors and researchers) have sought to establish common ground from which weed management can be viewed and tackled in organic systems (see also a series of papers presented on the subject by Davies & Turner, 2004; Davies & Rosenfeld, 2004; Davies et al., 2005; Davies et al., 2006). A précis of this current understanding is presented below:- weeds have a direct impact on desired farm system outcomes (e.g. on yield, on ﬁ  nancial returns,        on farmer well being, etc.)- all farmers manage weeds (or ‘unwanted’ vegetation)- organic farms are complex systems (with many different rotations, enterprises, market systems, and values depending on socio-economic and environmental context)- weeds are just one aspect of the farm ecology and socio-economics (but an important one! Most farmers have low tolerance of at least some weed types or species but other stakeholders value 108them for their biodiversity value)- weed management technologies and techniques underlie many farm operations (but are not always the only factors taken into consideration)- a deep understanding of any speciﬁ  c weed situation depends on many factors at ﬁ  eld level (e.g. ﬁ  eld history, crop, weather), at farm level (e.g. size, enterprises, location), and at regional level (e.g. markets, policy, environment)   As a result of this narrative it is clear that effective weed management in organic farming systems will depend on a large number of contingent factors, some of which the farmer will be able to control, but a large number of which will be outside their direct control. In addition, useful answers to farmer’s weed management questions are likely to be very situation speciﬁ  c and dependent on farm context.   In contrast, researchers (and to some extent organic advisors) generally formulate very speciﬁ  c research questions and then undertake detailed replicated trials of limited scope, which are statistically evaluated, to give overarching ‘recommendations’ of very general applicability. Such trials are not likely to provide farmers with enough detail to satisfy their requirements. This difference might go some way to explaining why, after a considerable research investment over many years, farmers still prioritise weeds and weed management as important research topic even though research funders have generally pulled back from funding basic weed research, an indication that they perceive the topic has, in some sense, been sufﬁ  ciently covered. Participatory weed research  Based on experience in the weed management project we propose a more farmer centred view of weed research as likely to be more effective in meeting the needs of farmers when considering weed management. Experience during the project has shown that organic weed management is about learning for improving complex situations (see above). A developing narrative during the project has been that:- no farmers (or advisors or researchers) think that they have all the answers - effective organic weed management is likely to need an integrated systems approach and a range         of approaches will work best over period of time. In practical terms it will necessarily be a mixture of longer term planning (e.g. rotations, crop variety choice) combined with short term reactive or direct measures (e.g. harrowing, ﬂ  ame weeding).- a consequence of the complex circumstances surrounding weed management practices is that farmers are constantly seeking new knowledge on weeds to incorporate into their weed manage-ment strategies and constantly adapt and try out different weed management techniques (i.e. they engage in research in its widest meaning)- researchers and advisors are best used to support this on-going process either in facilitating information exchange, providing speciﬁ  c information where necessary or helping to place on-going farmer research on a more ‘scientiﬁ  c’ basis  Farmers generally carry out a lot of their own ‘generic research’, some of which has been documented as part of the project process. Farmers seek information on weeds (especially succinctly written information and press articles), they are especially interested in how other farmers are managing weeds (farm walks, farmer groups) and undertake a great deal of informal experimentation with weed management techniques and methods in their own ﬁ  elds (trialling to see what works). Weed management strategies on their farms are the outcome of this experiential learning process; usually practical weed management methods, applicable in speciﬁ  c situations and not ‘formally’ evaluated.  The project has therefore sought to place farmers and their experiences with weed management at the centre of the development process and to draw in organic advisors and researchers to provide additional knowledge where required. The aim has been to allow farmers and growers to develop practical weed management techniques that are adapted to their speciﬁ  c farm situations. In this 109context the results of detailed scientiﬁ  c trials and botanical observations are one element of a large pool of knowledge on which farmers can draw on to make decisions about weed management. Processes for organic weed research  The central theme for any future organic weed management projects should be to reconcile the two predominant strands of knowledge development as deﬁ  ned in the project narrative; that is farmer experiential knowledge and researcher scientiﬁ  c knowledge. It is towards this end that many of the current project resources have been devoted rather than developing technological ﬁ  xes to particular problems.  In short, the project process has developed a participatory approach and has tried to construct a learning collegiate framework in which all perspectives on weed management are valued. The various approaches taken to try and do this have been:- development of an open website and database: an extensive literature review on weeds and weed management, largely carried out by scientists, has been made freely available to all stakeholders through a website (www.organicweeds.org.uk). The database is ﬂ  exible enough to allow for the input of farmer and advisor knowledge and experience, which can be set alongside the scientiﬁ  c knowledge in order to make the information more relevant and the site is therefore a database of current information and knowledge on organic weed management practice in the UK.- development of case studies: speciﬁ  c weed management stories from working farms have been elaborated and are available for critical analysis. They are a unique source of farmer knowledge and experiential learning which allow farmers to share knowledge and provide a learning oppor-tunity for converters and young farmers. All are available on the website alongside the database on weed information.- farm walks and open days: interactive meetings have been organised on speciﬁ  c topics and used to discuss and develop knowledge (e.g. farm walks focusing on dock management, annual weed management in arable systems). They have proved an invaluable opportunity for mixed groups of farmers, advisors and researchers to exchange ideas and experiences. Special attempts were made to capture ‘farmer stories’ at these shared ﬁ  eld experiences and these are available through the reports on the website. - talks, discussions, meetings, focus groups and workshops: the project has helped facilitate of large number of organised talks, farmer discussions (often with ﬁ  eld walks), meetings and work-shops themed by weed, farm type or crop depending on requests.  Many of these were for existing farmer groups but the project also helped facilitate focus groups of researchers, advisors and farm-ers, which evaluated and reﬂ  ected on the main project themes, ensuring that the project remained relevant to the concerns of farmers. An annual stakeholder meeting was held to which farmers and advisors were invited and asked to explore weed issues and reﬂ  ect on the project progress.- on-farm trials and surveys: the project has facilitated a number of on-farm trial themes and surveys for farmers and/or farmer groups (themed by weed, topic or crop). Some of the work has provided valuable information where researchers were able to help monitor the effect of weed management practices over a period of time.- ﬂ  exibility in producing other outputs: outputs have included bulletins, leaﬂ  ets, press articles and    conference papers according to demand. They have mainly been aimed at improving communica-tions, diffusing information and reﬂ  ecting on project achievements.  The various methods employed by the project have generally been effective in allowing individual participating farmers to reﬂ  ect and act to resolve speciﬁ  c weed management situations.  However it is clear that not all methods suit all actors and that it is important to have a range of different ap-proaches to sharing information that allow all stakeholders to participate. A more critical analysis and reﬂ  ection on the project process is provided by Davies et al. (2006). Implications for weed research projects  Actual weed management practice in organic farming systems will depend on a large number of contingent factors.  Research to help farmers improve weed management situations best places 110farmers at the centre of the process. This demands a reorientation of the conventional roles of advisors and researchers to facilitate information exchange in a ﬂ  exible format and to help farmers develop knowledge in a manner that provides them with appropriate information or solutions. Such a research system aims at combining farmer, advisor and researcher knowledge for more effective weed management options, rather than generating new basic ‘scientiﬁ  c’ knowledge (as traditionally perceived), which is of limited use to farmers. Other stakeholders, such as funders, may also need to adjust their expectations of what researchers deliver to end users as part of scientiﬁ  c projects.  Central to this approach is the sharing of information between stakeholders on an equitable basis. Whilst it has been possible to fund the current project it has also become apparent that the nature of the project, an open-ended enquiry into weed management, does not ﬁ  t easily within existing funding structures which tend to demand ﬁ  xed length projects delivering scientiﬁ  cally ‘robust’ outputs. Future work will require ﬂ  exibility on behalf of funders, researchers and farmers. Acknowledgements  The project was an inclusive project and could not have been successful without the willing participation and contributions of organic farmers and growers, advisers, researchers from other institutions, and last but not least the support of our research managers and funders (Defra) for taking a novel approach under the organic weed management project (OF0315).ReferencesDavies G, Turner R J. 2004. Systems thinking in organic research: weeds are the symptom. In Organic Farming: Science and practice for proﬁ  table livestock and cropping. Proceedings of the BGS/AAB/COR Conference, pp 180–184, at Harper Adams University College, 20–22 April 2004. Ed. A. Hopkins. British Grassland Society.Davies G, Rosenfeld A. 2004. Participatory research and learning for organic farming systems. In ESRC Transdisciplinary Series: Approaches to Sustainable Farmland Management at Silsoe Research Institute, 20 April 2004.Davies G, Turner B. 2004. Organic farmers’ perspectives on weed management. In ‘Arable weeds and biodiversity’ at CSL, 27–28 September 2004. Wellesbourne: The Association of Ap-plied Biologists.Davies G, Turner R J, Bond W, Gibbon D. 2005. Weed management in organic farming sys-tems: a learning approach. Proceedings BCPC Crop Science and Technology Conference 2005,  pp. 715–722. BCPC. Davies G, Turner R J, Gibbon D. 2006. Knowledge development for weed management in organic farm systems in the UK. In Changing European farming systems for a better future. New visions for rural areas, pp 304–308. Eds H Langeveld and N Roling. Wageningen Academic Publishers. Organic weed management website. 2006 - accessed on 10 July 2006 http://www.gardenorganic.org.uk/organicweeds/farmer_trials/ongoing.php?id=0.

Knowledge development for organic systems: An example of weed management

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Organic Eprints