Farming systems at the University of Florida 1979-2011 from my memoirs
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00000676/00001
 Material Information
Title: Farming systems at the University of Florida 1979-2011 from my memoirs
Physical Description: Technical Reports
Creator: Hildebrand, Peter E.
Acquisition: Collected for University of Florida's Institutional Repository by the UFIR Self-Submittal tool. Submitted by Peter E. Hildebrand.
Publication Status: Unpublished
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management:
This item is licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commerical License. This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon this work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge the author and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.
System ID: IR00000676:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:

Book_4_Farming_Systems_at_the_University_of_Florida ( PDF )

Full Text


1 Farming Systems at the University of Florida : 1979 to the present From my memoirs by Peter E. Hildebrand


2 Copyright 20 11


3 Forward Prior to coming to UF, I had been with The Rockefeller Foundation for five years working with ICTA in Guatemala I had known for several months that the new Gerente was not going to approve renewal of my visa and that I would be leaving ICTA by the end of August, so leaving Guatemala on August 31, 1979 was part of a planned process. However, I was not sure where I wo uld be going. Among other options were going to Sumatra with IADS, to Egypt with New Mexico State University, a Rockefeller Foundation study leave at the University of Florida, and to Colombia with T he Rockefeller Foundation. But before looking into any o f these situations, I had a series of commitments to complete I had a meeting at North Carolina State University scheduled to begin Monday morning, September 3. The meeting was to help set up the USAID funded Soils Management Collaborative Research Suppo rt Project (CRSP) that was later to be known as Tropsoils. After two and a half days of meetings in Raleigh, we all went to Washington, D.C. to meet with the USAID officials to explain what we had decided in Raleigh. After that meeting on Thursday morn ing, I headed to Las Cruces, New Mexico to talk with the people at New Mexico State University about the Egypt position. They had a contract there with US AID and were interested in me being their Chief of Party. During the visit, i t looked to me like one of the most important things a Chief of Party would be responsible to do was to spend several million dollars each month as part of the massive U.S. spending program in both Egypt and Israel. So, I decided against going to Egypt. F rom Las Cruces, I went to Gainesville, Florida, to spend a few days at the University of Florida. The main purpose of this trip for me was orientation before going to Bolivia to consult with the UF contract there. The university had a project to try to f ind profitable alternatives for the small farmers who were producing coca leaf. This was a very old custom in Bolivia, but recently had increased rapidly to fuel the illicit cocaine trade. From


4 Gainesville, I headed to La Paz. From La Paz (12,000 ft.) I flew to Cochabamba (9,000 ft.) where Pat and Tito French, among others, were then living and working with the Florida contract. Tito had worked with me during the two years I was with the University of Florida working with CENTA (agricultural research an d extension) in El Salvador. Another person there with Florida at the time was Van Crowder. Also, coincidently, my cousin, Katherine Hildebrand was there with her husband, Ken Adams, but on a different contract. With Tito we drove to the Chapare, the ar ea of coca production where he was working. It was very interesting for me to see small farmers openly producing coca as a cash crop. We visited with some of them and talked about how they did it and what their production problems were. They took their leaves to the road where it was legally purchased and picked up by truck and then taken to Cochabamba. Cochabamba had historically been the market for coca leaves and trade was still legal there. However, as soon as the leaves left this market is where t he illegal processing began. From Bolivia, I went to Colombia to talk with AID about the possibility of my working on a new project they had. From Bogot I returned to New York City where I spent a week reporting back to the Foundation about the work in Guatemala By this time we had decided that rather than one of the foreign assignments, I would go to the University of Florida on a Rockefeller Foundation Study Leave (similar to a sabbatical leave).


5 Coca field in the Chapare Coca leaves in the Cochabamba market




7 RF study leave at UF: 1980 In setting up the study leave, the Rockefeller Foundation asked me what I wanted to accomplish. I told them that then Vice President Ken Tefertiller had asked me to help the university set up a world class center in farming systems. Joe Black the head of the Social Science Division and my boss, wrote back and said that was well and good, but what did I want to do. I thought about that a while and decided that helping create the center would help me pull together my thoughts and experiences as well. So that became my focus during study leave. My university home during this time as visiting professor (and later as professor) was the Food and Resource Economics Department where Ken Tefertiller had be en Chair before moving up to Vice President, and Leo Polopolus was the new Chair. Chris Andrew was also in the department (as well as Assistant Director of International Programs in the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences IFAS) and became my clo sest associate. One of the first things Chris suggested was that I go around the department to talk with all the faculty members to see what research they were doing. It was an excellent suggestion and I began it right away. The process created my first great shock at being back in a U.S. university environment after 15 years in other countries Without fail, when I asked people what they were doing, they said, What interests me is . and not Our focus is . There was no sense of a joint miss ion, either of the department or of IFAS. It got even worse. Sometimes I would ask if they were working with another person in the department I had talked to doing much the same thing. Much to my amazement, often they did not even know what their colleag ue in the department was doing. For 15 years I had been working abroad in organizations with specific missions. With the exception of USAID, everyone in those organizations knew exactly what role they played in the mission of the organization. For examp le, at ICTA in Guatemala, when people asked me what I was doing, I always began by explaining the mission of ICTA, then the mission of Socioeconoma Rural (SER)


8 within ICTA. Then I would elaborate on all the activities of SER. In that kind of a framework it simply would not make sense to ask what individual interests were involved. This did not suppress individual initiative, however. People were encouraged to be innovative, but it was always necessary to demonstrate how individual ideas and interests were potentially in the interests of ICTA s clients before resources could be invested in the activity. A few years later, some of the writings of George Axinn (FAO, Ford Foundation, Michigan State University, Editor of the Journal for Farming Systems Rese arch Extension, and good friend) would help explain what had happened in the university (and department) environment during the time I was out of the country. People had become more and more specialized, thus narrower and narrower in focus. T his created 1 ) increasing specialization in vocabulary and terminology, resulting in 2) decreasing capability to communicate with others outside the specialization -even within the same department, and 3) increasing loss of the bigger picture -including the mission of the organization. These changes, of course, 4) eroded contact with clients so 5) research results could no longer be measured by benefits to the clientele. The only way to evaluate these research specialists was through refereed journal articles that could only be read by others in the same narrow specialization. It was no wonder that individual interests, rather than mission to the public became the drivers of the Land Grant Universities. Even in the midst of all the specialization, there were people at the University of Florida who were interested in the concept of farming systems research and extension. Elon Gilbert, another agricultural economist who had some farming systems experience in Africa, had been spending time on campus prior to my arrival and continued on for a few months, was working with a group that included Chris Andrew, some young faculty -P.J. van Blokland, also of Food and Resource Economics; Tim Olsen of Animal Science; Steve Kostewicz of Horticulture; and Art Hansen of An thropology -and some graduate students including Sandra Russo (Agronomy) and Mickie Swisher (Geography and Soils).


9 We organized a 4 credit, graduate level course in the spring in which all participated to see if it was possible to teach farming systems to others, a challenge that Ken McDermott had made to me on one of his trips to Guatemala while I was there. We started with discussions of farms as systems, and then, based on the ICTA experience, conducted a Sondeo and carried out a simulated on farm t rial using radishes (that would produce within five weeks during the semester). The course, offered jointly by the Horticulture Department and Food and Resource Economics, had an enrollment of 18 from a number of departments. I had been directly involved with agronomic research for nearly 10 years and was not ready to give up that aspect of a research program just because I was on study leave in an agricultural economics department. The Agronomy Department provided me land on the campus (part of the experiment station) to conduct an intercropping trial of corn with forage and vegetables as a possibility for small, north Florida farmers with whom we started to work in the farming systems course. With all this interest being show n in the budding farming systems program at the University of Florida, I decided to cast my lot with the university and the farming systems program rather than continue with the Rockefeller Foundation Prior to making this decision, I had traveled to Colo mbia with Miguel Altieri (now of the University of California at Berkeley), a graduate student who was taking the farming systems course, to further develop the possibility of a farming systems project there with the Foundation and USAID. Miguel would hav e been resident in Colombia if that had materialized. However, after the visit, USAID decided not to commit to more loan funds and I decided to become a Visiting Professor of Food and Resource Economics at UF. During the study leave, I traveled twice to W ashington, D.C. to work with USAID. The first trip was to present a seminar on FSRE and the second was to work with AID on a $45,000 grant proposal for initiating an international FSRE training program for UF. I presented a seminar at Michigan State Univ ersity and consulted with them on their farming systems program and their


10 project in Cameroon. I went to North Carolina State University for a meeting of the External Advisory Panel of the Soils Management Collaborative Support Project (Tropsoils), and to Colorado State University to help review the USAID funded FSRE Guidelines being written by Bill Shaner, Bill Schmehl (both of Colorado State University) and Perry Philipp (University of Hawaii) representing the Consortium for International Development and for which Ken McDermott was the USAID Project Manager. Besides the trip to Colombia, international trips included one to CIMMYT in Mexico to participate in a farming systems conference which was the only time David Norman, Mike Collinson and I ha d been t ogether at the same time. I also went to the Dominican Republic and Peru with John Nicholaides of North Carolina State University in my capacity as a member of the External Advisory Panel of Tropsoils. Th e Farming Systems Program at the University of Flor ida A fter I decided to stay at UF Vice President Ken Tefertiller appointed me Coordinator (a non title at the university!) of the Farming Systems (FSRE) Program (a non entity at the university) that was to be univer si ty wide and with both domestic and in ternational activities. The Coordinator was to: 1) Provide leadership for the development of and coordinate research, extension and training programs in farming systems in the national and international dimensions of IFAS (Institute of Food and Agricultu ral Sciences). Particular emphasis was to be placed on the interface between the domestic and the international components. Programs developed were to require a multidisciplinary approach to solving contemporary problems in agriculture. 2) Act as an advi sor to IFAS on farming systems programs. 3) Direct graduate research and develop and participate in other graduate program activities as they related to farming systems programs in IFAS.


11 4) Develop extension and training materials in farming systems and di sseminate these materials through appropriate outlets. An Administrative Coordinating Committee of the Deans of Research and Extension, and the Associate Director of International Programs (Chris Andrew); and an Advisory Committee of nine IFAS department c hairs were appointed for the FSRE Program. The USDA Office of International Cooperation and Development (OICD) expressed interest in what we were doing and with them we developed a project with their funding to accomplish three objectives : 1) H old a confe rence in San Jos, Costa Rica, to develop a book covering what we then knew about on farm research. 2) C reate a farming systems project in north Florida to determine if what was being achieved abroad could be used in North American agriculture and hopeful ly improved upon for further application abroad. 3) Provide some of my time to consult with them in their overseas projects. IFAS invested nearly $50,000 the first year to help fund the north Florida farming systems project to augment the funds from the USDA OICD (which overall totaled about $350,000). I began picking up graduate students and by the end of 1980 was on 11 graduate student supervisory committees, chairing three of them. Of the 8 Master s and 3 PhD students, eight were from Food and Resourc e Economics, two from Agronomy and one from Entomology. During the last half of 1980, after leaving The Rockefeller Foundation, I traveled to the University of Illinois for the annual meetings of the American Agricultural Economics Association; Utah State University to participate in a soil and water conservation course being taught in Spanish; to Cornell University to participate in a farming systems seminar which was utilized by them as preparation for a farming systems course; to Washington, D.C. for a m eeting of the External Advisory Panel of Tropsoils; to Detroit to chair and participate in a panel on farming systems and multiple cropping sponsored by the International Division of the


12 American Society of Agronomy (which I had joined in 1976) at their an nual meetings; and again to Washington, D.C. to participate in a farming systems workshop sponsored by the USDA/OICD and USAID. 1981 In 1981, besides taking over sole responsibility for the farming systems course, I also collaborated with Tim Olson of the Animal Scie nce Department to offer a three credit course we called Animals in Small Farm Systems. Fourteen graduate students enrolled in the course which I considered to be very successful. We covered both 1) the management and nutrition of the anima ls and 2) their role and use in small farm systems. The students presented term papers on animals in 14 different systems from around the world. It was a course that should have been continued on an annual basis, but I was never again successful in getti ng someone from Animal Science to take the time to do it with me. Even though I had a B.S. degree in Animal Science (1955, Colorado State University) I felt I needed more depth in the course from that perspective. Four of the students with whom I was work ing (two as Chair of their supervisory committees -or major professor) received Master s degrees in 1981 and I was working with 11 others from Food and Resource Economics, Agronomy, Dairy Science, Entomology, Geography and Latin American Studies. This s tarted a trend of working almost exclusively with graduate students. They were usually split between foreign and Americans and most of the Americans were former Peace Corps volunteers or had other overseas experiences. In support of working to create an i nternational center of excellence in farming systems, Chris Andrew and I spent a great deal of time and effort in 1981 with the IFAS International Programs, the UF Foundation (SHARE), and the Vice President s office on a proposal for an International Farmi ng Systems


13 Research and Training Center that would have included two endowed chairs. The effort came to an abrupt halt when the potential benefactor died unexpectedly. Gustavo Antonini of Geography and the Center for Latin American Studies, some other fac ulty, and I worked on a proposal to train a group of graduate students from the Dominican Republic in several disciplines. All the theses and dissertations were going to be based on the development of the Las Cuevas watershed in the western part of the c ountry. The project was funded by USAID and several students were in residence at UF during 1981. I chaired one of the student s supervisory committees and served on several others. Aspects of this project were going to become important in the farming sys tems program in future years. We began work on a proposal for an FSRE training program for FONAIAP, the Venezuelan agricultural research organization with anticipated signing in February, 1982. We were going to present courses in Spanish in Venezuela that could carry UF graduate credit for any participants who were going to obtain advanced degrees sometime in the future. The courses would appear on UF transcripts generated for those who paid tuition so the credits could be used either at UF or any other u niversity. Any theses developed in the project were to be on Venezuelan problems and FONAIAP would pay travel and research expenses. Jack Fry, the UF Assistant Dean of Agriculture for graduate studies was instrumental in getting the program approved by th e university and in moving the paper work through the system when the courses began. The USDA increased its funding for the North Florida project by $142,000 to cover both the activities in north Florida and for international travel. State support beyond line positions for north Florida totaled $91,400 for the year. In that project, we completed a Guatemalan style Sondeo in Suwannee and Columbia Counties ( http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00000198/00001 ) after reduci ng the number from six counties, and began research on both farms and stations Stations included the Live Oak Agricultural Research


14 Center in Suwannee County and the Beef Research Unit (BRU), Green Acres Research Center, and the campus in and near Gaines ville. Problems we had detected in the Sondeo were 1) a scarcity of high quality winter forage for cattle, and 2) an alternative crop to substitute for corn. In an attempt to solve both of these problems, we initiated winter wheat trials on seven farms ( 177 acres). A new variety of wheat had recently been released by UF that appeared promising, however no good information was available on grazing effect so on one of the farms we also initiated a grazing trial using exclosures placed at different times du ring the winter grazing period. Participating farmers also began keeping records for us of both their wheat and corn crops and provided us information from their previous corn crop. Part of the station research was on perennial peanut as a forage and hay crop and we were planning to plant some on farms in 1982 to study problems of establishment, a known problem. The grazing trial using exclosures placed at different times during the winter wheat grazing period


15 Even as the North Florida Project was just getting started, it began to attract a lot of attention. Visitors during 1981 included: Luis Frmeta, Director General of FONAIAP in Venezuela; Gerald Thierstein, ICRISAT, Hyderabad, India; Robin Henning, North Carolina A&T University (and who had b een with the USDA in Colombia when I was there); Johnson Ekpere, Ibadan University, Nigeria; Ruth Harris, Virginia Polytechnic University; the Dean of Agriculture from Rwanda; John Hyslop, USDA, Washington, D.C.; a group from Ecuador (INIAP, CONACYT and US AID); and a group of extensionists from Brazil. Besides me, full time personnel working in the project in north Florida included: Tito French, Agronomy; Mickie Swisher, Soil Science; George Clough, Vegetable Crops; Jim Dean, an anthropologist assigned to F ood and Resource Economics; and Noel Beninati, Agronomy. Della McMillan, an anthropologist and Assistant Director of the Center for African Studies at UF, was involved part time. Graduate students involved in the project included: Ramiro Ortiz (formerly Regional Director and Technical Director at ICTA in Guatemala), PhD, Agronomy; Francisco Romero, PhD, Dairy Science (whose wife, Jeannette was my highly valued bilingual, executive secretary for many years at UF); Dwight Schmidt, PhD, Anthropology; Juan He rbas, M.S. Agronomy; Bruce Dehm, M.S., Food and Resource Economics; and John Wake, M.S., Food and Resource Economics. Extension personnel from the counties where we were working also participated in the project. Following lessons learned at ICTA in Guate mala, at least the core or full time persons and the graduate students met weekly to discuss activities during the previous week, problems, and plans. At these meetings we all agreed on both short term and long term activities and strategies. It proved t o create a very cohesive group. In support of these activities I had an active travel schedule during the last half of the year after I no longer was teaching the farming systems course. In June I went to Kenya to consult with the USDA project team in tha t country and where I again saw


16 Mike Collinson who was working in that country at the time. In July I went to Venezuela to initiate discussions with FONAIAP about the proposed training program. In August I went for three days to Utah State University to participate in a short course in Spanish being offered by the International Irrigation Center, (the Director was Ted Olsen who had been with me in Pakistan), and to the American Sociological Association meetings in Toronto to present an invited paper. 1 I n September I made a one day trip to Washington to discuss the USDA/OICD project in Portugal. In October I was in Ecuador to consult with INIAP and CONACYT and initiate discussions on a collaborative farming systems program with that country. Also in Oct ober I was at the University of Minnesota for three days to present a farming systems seminar and consult with them on several of their research projects. The last week of October I went to Portugal to consult with the USDA/OICD team in that country and i nitiate discussions concerning an FSRE training program for them. In November I presented an invited paper at the Farming Systems Research Symposium at Kansas State University in which Cornelia Flora and David Norman played critical organizational roles a nd that was to become the first of a continuing series of symposia. The last half of November I was in Guatemala to update information and data on ICTA, and in December I spent another day in Washington in discussions with the USDA/OICD on the Portugal pr oject. ( http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080633/00001 ) 1982 In 1982, the permanent designator number for the farming systems course was assigned. We opted for a general agricultural 1 Hildebrand, P.E. 1981. Toward an agrosocioeconomic methodology. Paper presented a t the didactic seminar on T he role of sociologists in the field among other professions" at the 76th annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. Toronto, Canada.


17 designation (AGG 5813) rather than a Food and Resource Economics designation (AEB) for a number of reasons. Most importantly, this would allow graduate students from any major, including FRE, to use the course for a farming systems minor. If it carried an AEB designation, FRE studen ts would be prevented from the possibility of a farming systems minor because the course was one of the required courses for the minor. Also, the department did not like the idea of having a graduate course with an AEB designator that was open to students from any major and who did not have a number of math, stat and economics prerequisites. This created some confusion when students tried to find the course in the catalog, but in the long run it was a very good choice. In 1982, another 19 students took t he course and one professor, Joe Conrad from Animal Science, took it for no credit! Even though Joe was a senior full professor, he participated right along with all the students in all the exercises and was very well accepted by the students. He added a very interesting dimension to the course. To facilitate international training, in 1982 we compressed my farming systems course into a one month short course and began preparing materials in Spanish and Portuguese as well as in English. The first of these courses was presented in Venezuela in March and April, 1982. As part of the program we had negotiated with FONAIAP in V enezuela, 10 of the participants took the course for credit and another 9 took it as audit students. James C. (Jim) Jones was the primary trainer and Bob Waugh and I also participated. Jim was one of my first graduate students after I arrived at UF. He came to FRE after completing a PhD in Anthropology and took a non thesis MAMRD (Master of Agricultural Management and Resource Development) degree with me. He had spent a number of years in Bolivia and was fluent in Spanish. Bob had been in Guatemala wit h ICTA and had come to UF on a contract basis to participate in the farming systems program. Also as part of our international training efforts in farming systems, Jim Jones and I led a S ondeo exercise (equivalent to a


18 one credit module from the AGG 5813 c ourse) in the Napo River area of the upper Amazon Basin in Ecuador over a two plus week period in February and March. This was based at the INIAP experiment station in that area where they were planning to initiate a farming systems program to benefit bot h the colonists and the indigenous people in the area which had recently been opened for the extraction of petroleum. The S ondeo was also part of the UF program in Ecuador where Kamal Dow was Chief of Party. Although Kamal did not go to the Napo with us, Hugh Popenoe, Director of International Programs for IFAS, did visit us during the writing phase of the course. I took him on a tour to get a feel of the area. In the S ondeo, all the technicians from the station including the Research Director, and the Director of Research for INIAP (Patricio Espinosa) also participated as did an American Peace Corps volunteer who was stationed in the area. At the request of USAID in Honduras we made a training needs assessment in May and submitted a training proposal. Based on mission response, we prepared a course and ordered materials, but at the last minute, AID decided not to sign the contract. This helped us realize that with USAID, nothing was certain until the money was in our hands! Later, in October, I presen ted a short course in Malawi in southern Africa about on farm research as part of the University of Florida project in that country. In this case, the money for the course was already in Florida s hands as part of their project contract. One of the purpos es of the USDA/OICD project with us was to host an international workshop to pull together all that was known at the time about on farm research. It was hoped that the material would be put out as a book. Much of our time in 1982 was spent in organizing this conference which was held in conjunction with IICA in San Jos, Costa Rica. At this time, less than a decade after initial efforts at anything resembling FSRE had been undertaken, most people thought of on farm research as being a process moving from experiment station results to exploratory trials superimposed on farmers fields, to site specific trials controlled by researchers, to researcher managed regional trials


19 specifically for agronomic evaluation, to researcher managed trials incorporating so cioeconomic evaluation, and finally to farmer managed trials. In part this process reflected the then, nearly globally accepted procedures for approval of improved genetic materials (varieties) that had to go through a prescribed sequence prior to being released by the country involved. This is me and our vehicle on a ferry crossing the Rio Napo A family in the Napo region with a snake skin they had recently killed. On the right is one of the INIAP technicians.


20 Our water taxi on the Rio Napo For the conference in San Jos we tried to locate persons with practical experience in all phases of this sequence and asked them not only to bring ideas and their knowledge, but also data that could be used as specific examples for each of the p hases. After a wide ranging search we assembled, September 5 11, the following persons: Ramiro Ortiz, AGRIDEC, Guatemala; Federico Poey, AGRIDEC, USA; Julio Henao, Ral Moreno and Luis Navarro from CATIE, Costa Rica; Anila Wijesinha, Central Bank of Ceylo n, Sri Lanka; Franklin Arboleda, CONACYT, Ecuador; Juan Herrera, ICTA, Guatemala; Nicols Mateo, IDRC, Colombia; Antonio Pinchinat, IICA, Peru; Rufo Bazan, Victor Quiroga, Jorge Soria, Karel Vohnout and Quentin West, IICA, Costa Rica; Guillermo Joandet, IN TA, Argentina; Lynne Rienner, Lynne Rienner Publishers, USA, who was interested in publishing the book and helped us with preliminary organization and editing; Larry Nelson, North Carolina State University, USA; Donald Ferguson, OICD/USDA, USA; and me and Bob Waugh from the University of Florida. We did get a very rough draft of a document, but it was to be another couple of years before a book based on this conference was to be published. On the flight back from San Jos I had a long conversation with Lyn ne Rienner about the possibilities and potential for an


21 FSRE journal. Lynne was enthusiastic, but also cautious. It would be another decade before the journal would be born. During this period, the North Florida Farming Systems project continued in full s wing as well. Tito French became the day to day manager, but I kept in close touch with it. During 1982, we had activities on 40 different farms. These included: 9 farmers keeping wheat enterprise records; 26 farmers keeping corn enterprise records; 7 o n farm winter wheat trials, one of which was also a grazing trial; 7 trials on methods of establishing perennial peanut; 5 trials on planting corn with minimum horsepower, reduced tillage equipment for small farmers ; 4 corn trials; 3 soybean trials; 5 alyc e clover trials; and 4 miscellaneous exploratory trials. Based on this activity, we sponsored two perennial peanut field days and one wheat growers meeting. Grazing exclosure in an on farm winter wheat trial. As part of this project we prepared two sl ide tape modules which we used for state, national and international meetings and conferences. One was on the north Florida project, itself, and the other presented the need for the FSRE approach to technology generation and dissemination and compared thi s need in Florida with that in developing countries around the world. We found


22 these slide presentations to be especially effective when visitors came to Florida to see what was going on in the project. During 1982, the following persons and/or groups we re given the presentations and escorted to the project in Suwannee and Columbia Counties: Bill Morris, Purdue University; Marcus Ingle, OICD/USDA, Washington, D.C.; Kamal Dow, Vince Cusumano and two Ecuadorians from CONACYT, Ecuador; Luis Frmeta, FONAIAP, Venezuela; Jorge Soria, IICA, Costa Rica; Mario Lalama, INIAP, Ecuador; Bill Wright, The Rockefeller Foundation, New York; Don Ferguson, OICD/USDA and Ruth Harris, VPI; Bill Hoofnagle, OICD/USDA, Washington, D.C.; two different groups from the Philippines ; an individual from Figi; a group from Portugal; Ian McLean, UF, Malawi; a group from China; and a group from three countries in Africa. The slides were also used at a seminar I gave at North Carolina A&T University, at a banquet speech I gave at the sec ond Kansas State University Farming Systems Symposium, and at the first annual review of the Farming Systems Research and Extension Program at UF. This annual review, an innovation at UF was held June 30 to July 2. Besides faculty, students and staff from the project, also participating in the review were: Ken Tefertiller, Vice President for Agriculture; John Woeste, Dean for Extension; Neil Thompson, Assistant Dean for Research; Charlie Dean, Chair of Agronomy; Don Maynard, Chair of Vegetable Crops; B ill Smith, Extension Director in Suwannee County; Bill Thomas, Extension Director in Columbia County; Jimmy Rich, Director of the Live Oak Agricultural Experimental Station; Chris Andrew and Bob Waugh. T he Soils CRSP, Tropsoils, headquartered at North Caro lina State University, became fully operational in 1982 and I was appointed to the permanent External Evaluation Committee. Responsibilities were to evaluate orientation and progress of the contributing projects and report directly to AID. Other committe e members were: John Coulter, Science Advisor, World Bank, who was the Chair and Marlowe Thorne, University of Illinois. Marlowe, a former Chair of the Soils Science Department at Illinois, and John were both soil scientists. I was also appointed to


23 the External Review Panel for the Bean/Cowpea CRSP headquartered at Michigan State University. Responsibilities were the same as for the Tropsoils committee. Other members were: Clarence Gray, formerly of the Rockefeller Foundation, Chair; Mel Blase, Univers ity of Missouri; Hugh Bunting, Reading University in England; Luis Camacho, INTSOY, Puerto Rico; Antonio Pinchinat, IICA, Costa Rica; and Charlotte Roderuck, Iowa State University. In particular, Hugh Bunting and I became very good friends. Chris Andrew a nd I had been working on an unsolicited proposal for USAID/Washington to help fund an international FSRE training center at UF to provide training for the increasing number of farming systems projects AID was creating in their missions around the world. A s I recall, we requested $40,000 to get it started. This proposal was not funded, but after a number of meetings with AID, they came out with a request for proposals for a Farming Systems Support Project, FSSP, that would be somewhat similar to a CRSP ( but not one) and would have worldwide responsibilities for training, technical assistance, networking and state of the art components. This project was similar in many ways to our original proposal and eventually was awarded to the University of Florida a s a Cooperative Agreement.


24 1983 1987: USAID/UF Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP) C hris Andrew became the FSSP Project Director at UF. I was not employed directly by the project (my salary was part of the UF matching funds), but rather served as Senior Scientific Advisor. This project, originally set up as a $10,000,000, five year project, was to become a major part of the farming systems program at UF. The project was approved in 1982 but did not really get underway in a big way until 1983. Heaviest emphasis was on training and preparing training materials. At this time, the number of people with firsthand knowledge and experience with farming systems activities was very limited. The FSSP was charged with providing both training and techni cal assistance on a world wide basis, so one of the first priorities was to train trainers. Besides working on the book about on farm research coming out of the San Jos meeting, I began working on a book of readings for my university course and for the s hort courses. The first short course was offered in Gainesville on June 5 10, 1983, to 17 people coming from the following universities: Iowa State, Washington State, Florida, VPI, Michigan State and Illinois, as well as from CIMMYT and our own FSSP staff The second short course was on July 17 22 and was offered in Gainesville to 29 people from: LSU, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan State, Colorado State, Minnesota, VPI, Arkansas Development Alternatives, Inc., PRECODEPA (Guatemala), USAID/El Salvador, CARDI in the eastern Caribbean, USAID/Mali, and one private consultant. By design, some of the people from the first course participated as trainers in the second course. After these two courses were offered, other courses, based on these and with more partic ipants becoming trainers, were offered at: VPI, August 29 to September 2; Michigan State, August 21 to 24; and Colorado State, September 26 to 30. Internationally, courses based on the Gainesville course were offered in


25 Ouagadougou Upper Volta (now Burki na Faso) September 25 to 30 in French; and Paraguay December 11 to 16 in Spanish. Much of my work in 1983 was on the slide tape modules we used in the FSSP for training. During the year we produced the following modules for which I was the principal autho r and source of slides. Most were also put out in French and Spanish. Introduction to Farming Systems Research and Extension Many people, including many from USAID, did not know what FSRE really was. Some had their own ideas, but they were very different from what we felt it was, so we needed to let people know what it was we were doing. Economic characteristics of small scale, limited resource family farms: Implications for technology development, Part I. (Mainly for non economists). These kinds of farms had many special characteristics that were very different from the kinds of commercial farms most people were familiar with. One of the most important was that these farms were first homes rather than first a business. Economic characteristics of small scale, limited resource family farms: Implications for technology development, Part II. (More technical than Part I) Based on Hildebrand and Luna 1973 http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00075671/00001 Because many people who needed to understand the nature of these farms were not economists, we felt it necessary to make one non technical set for them. Then for economists, the second could also be used. The small scale family farm as a system (with Jim Dean) Technologies were generated in the FSRE approach based on a sound knowledge of the systems aspect of the small farms. We used as a basis the work that Bob McDowell and I did as a follow up to the Bellagio conference (McDowell and Hildebrand 1980) These figures have shown up in many publications since.


26 Defining recommendation domains: A case study of Santiago Sacatepequez, Guatema la This was the S ondeo report that Maria Chinchilla presented as a representative of ICTA at the PCCMCA meeting in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, in 1979. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00000270/00001 The term Recommendation Domain was just coming into use. This was a first attempt to describe how one was defined. It was based on the concept of a homogeneous farming system. Later, in my own work I was going to modify this definition. It was also one of the most complete S ondeo reports written by ICTA. Among other things it had a pretty complete discussion of the women s role in the farming system of the area. Designing alternative solutions: Case study of Jutiapa, Guatemala It was unclear to many people ho w to move from the knowledge of a farming system and its constraints to deciding what kinds of solutions made sense. Too often, low yields translated into improved varieties to increase yield ( production per unit of land area ) The point of this set was that land, while small in area, was not often the most limiting of the resources available to the farmers. In this case study, we showed that the amount of bean seed available at planting time, and labor at planting time right when the rains started, were the constraints on the system (based on Hildebrand and Cardona 1976) http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055937/00001/2j We also demonstrated some technologies designed to alleviate these constraints. Designing alternative solutions: Case study from Zapotitan, El Salvador. This was an irrigated area and very different from the eastern Guatemala situation in Jutiapa. Here, labor was relatively abundant, inputs relatively available, market infrastructure was adequate, but land was very scarce. This case was based on the work that Tito French and I were involved with in El Salvador where we designed a system (the multicultivos ) that allowed a


27 family to make a good living on only about one acre of land. (b ased on Hildebrand 1976 http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055920/00001/2j ) By using the two alternative solution sets together, it gave a good idea of the kinds of things that could be done. Designing alternative solutions: Case study of the North Florida FSRE Project. The question was always asked if FSRE could be used in the U.S. We developed this set to demonstrate that it could. Design and analysis of on farm trials. At the time the FSSP began, most people felt strongly that good research could not be done on farms because of the lack of control they faced. Others, who were willing to try, had little or no idea how to go about designing and analyzing farmer manag ed on farm research. This module responded to both concerns. Based on Hildebrand and Poey 1985 http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080557/00001 During 1983 alone, these slide tape modules were distributed, at the r equest of the institutions to the following: AID/Manila, AID/Upper Volta, CIMMYT/Turkey, IITA/Nigeria, AID Senegal, AID/Washington, CIP/Peru, OICD/USDA, and the following universities: Arizona, Colorado State, Hawaii, Southern Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota California/Davis, Illinois, Iowa State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Washington State, Oregon, and VPI. I also used them in my classes as PowerPoint presentations for many years We had them in French for the course in Ouagadougou, but, of course, most of the pictures were from Latin America. It is interesting that the French and American officials attending the course were upset that we did not have African slides. But the Africans in the course thought it was great to see slides and cases from other co ntinents. This was j ust another example of the difference between the donors and the locals. It should be mentioned that the FSSP was a cooperative project and had as partners, besides USAID, some 20 U.S. universities and four consulting firms. It was ob vious that the project was beginning to have an impact even in its first year.


28 My travels in 1983 consisted of the following: March 8 9, Washington, D.C. to present a seminar to OICD/USDA. April 11 12, Cleveland to participate in a meeting of author s of a book on the impact of the Land Grant system on international agriculture. April 19 20, Washington, D.C. to present a seminar to USAID July 7 13, Dominican Republic to obtain materials for a new slide tape module and conduct a needs assessment wi th USAID on participation of the FSSP in the DR. August 14 Sept. 1, Utah State University, International Irrigation Center to write a monograph on the use of farming systems principles in designing and operating irrigation projects (Hildebrand 1983 http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00081823/00001 and participate in a short course about on farm water management. September 16 30, Ouagadougou, Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso) to participate in the ICRISAT West Africa n Program workshop on farmer participation in development and evaluation of agricultural technology and to attend the FSSP short course as a resource person because the workshop was in French October 10 13, Washington, D.C. to attend a meeting of the Tr opsoils CRSP External Review Panel. October 30 Nov 4, Kansas State University to attend the third annual international farming systems symposium and the second annual FSSP meetings. December 5 6, Honduras for an on site review of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP project as a member of the External Review Panel. December 7 9, Guatemala for an on site review of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP project as a member of the External Review Panel. December 11 17, CIAT, Cali, Colombia to review the on farm bean research program as a member of the External Review Panel of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP.


29 Although my international and domestic travel schedule was very heavy, I continued general supervision of the North Florida FSRE project. In the beginning of the project, the funds were pu t in FRED, but to be honest, our front office was very inefficient in their management. In 1982, the Agronomy Department, where Tito French was located and who had a super efficient manager (Nancy Bird), agreed to manage the funds for us so we transferred them. In 1983, a multi county extension agent (Mickie Swisher) was appointed to the project and was headquartered at the Live Oak Agricultural Research Center. It was planned to gradually move the funds from Gainesville to Live Oak, along with managemen t and administration of the project. I considered this an orderly and healthy process toward institutionalization. 1984 In 1984 the farming systems course had an enrollment of 23. For some reason, the year before it had dropped to five. Perhaps we h ad satisfied the initial demand for those already in degree programs, I don t know. Also, I agreed to take over responsibility for the course AEB 4164 that was called Managing Farms in Tropical Areas. P.J. van Blokland had taught it as an alternative to the regular farm management course, using tropical types of farms as examples. It was still oriented toward commercial farming. I agreed to take the course, but to modify it to treat limited resource, family farms. Enrollment in the fall was 18. There were some undergraduate students in it because it was an undergraduate level, but most were graduate students. My MS student, John Wake did his thesis in north Florida on the effect that the cost of learning to use a new technology has on its adoption. T o effectively use a new technology, a farmer must first obtain the necessary information then learn by doing. If a technology is complicated (for example, soybeans as opposed to wheat in north Florida) and it is not done well the first few times,


30 then hig her costs are not offset by higher profits. Wake concluded that because wheat technology was simpler, wheat diffused more rapidly than soybeans in the area. 2 Another of my MS students, Bruce Dehm studied the constraints to adoption of modern technology on small farms in north Florida. He found that the s maller farmers mostly were part time farmers and did not have access to the capital required for the newer technology. They would use their livestock for collateral, but not their land which was considered home rather than a business investment. What I always considered a milestone occurred in 1984 when the Agronomy Journal (official journal of the American Society of Agronomy) published my article on Modified Stability Analysis. Stabili ty analysis had long (about half a century) been used by plant breeders to help them decide which cultivars should be released. They placed emphasis on stability, even though they did not all agree on what the term meant. I liked the procedure when I f irst got acquainted with it in Guatemala, but not the concept and the way they were using it. I felt it would work better to help find niches for different cultivars based in on farm research data, rather than broadly adaptable cultivars that was how the breeders were using it. I considered my use was a modification of the traditional use, thus the name I gave it. The data I used in the Agronomy Journal article were those obtained by the UF farming systems team in Malawi headed by Art Hansen, an anthr opologist, and used during the short course I had given there. Because the data were not from replicated trials (the bible in agronomy), were from on farm trials, and under the supervision of an anthropologist, I was not at all confident the Agronomy Jour nal would accept them and the article based on them. But they did. 3 2 Wake, J.L., C.F. Kiker and P.E. Hildebrand. 1988. Systematic learning of agricultural technologies. Agricultural Systems 27:179 193. 3 Hildebrand, P.E. 19 81 Modified stability analysis of farmer managed on farm trials. Agronomy Journal 76: 271 274


31 Another breakthrough was being able to obtain funds from IFAS to support four farming systems assistantships for graduate students from any department in the College of Agriculture. Thes e were to be viewed as prestigious assistantships and were pegged at the rate then being paid in the Food and Resource Economics Department which was the highest in the College with the exception of Agricultural Engineering. They were also made available from the beginning of the students programs until they finished. The students were expected to take the farming systems minor and do farming systems research. It proved to be a very powerful and effective recruitment tool and resulted in some outstand ing students (B.K. Singh who did his research in Brazil and John Russell http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00056220/00001 who did his research in Africa among the best). Much of my time in 1984 was spent on finishing and final editing of the state of the art book on analysis and design of on farm agronomic trials that had been initiated in the San Jos conference and used in one of the slide tape modules. It went to press in December. 4 I also completed writ ing a co authored (with Bob Waugh and Chris Andrew) chapter (Farming Systems Research and Extension) of a book sponsored by the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy of the CSRS/USDA and sent it to the book editor. It was finally publish ed in 1989. 5 That this chapter was included in a CSRS/USDA book indicated that FSRE was formally being recognized by the Land Grant 4 Hildebrand, P.E. and F. Poey. 1985. On farm agronomic trials in farming systems research and extension. Lynne Rienner Publishers. Boulder CO. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080557/00001 5 Waugh, R.K., P.E. Hildebrand and C.O. Andrew. 1989. Far ming systems research and extension. Chap. 9 In : Compton, J.L. (Ed.) The transformation of international agricultural research and development. Lynne Rienner Publishers. Boulder CO


32 system. Continued international recognition was evidenced by my being invited to write and present a paper at a Workshop on Agricultural Research Policy and Organization in Small Countries at Wageningen Agricultural University in the Netherlands and co sponsored by the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), one of the International Agr icultural R esearch Centers, in T he Hague. 6 As part of the North Florida FSRE project, John Wake completed his thesis and prepared a poster to present at the annual farming systems symposium at Kansas State University on the Cost of learning new technology. Based o n work I had done in preparing a slide tape set on the economics of small farms we hypothesized that small farms where resources were very limited could not afford to invest in high cost new technology that was difficult to learn to use because if it were not effective the first year, it was difficult for the farm to recover the costs in future years. Larger farms with more resources could afford early losses because they were organized more as businesses and would have larger enterprises in the future to recover any early losses. The research in north Florida supported this hypothesis. Note: later, in 1998 we began to understand that household composition had the same effect as farm size. My travel in 1984 was as follows: January 8 12 to Atlanta for t he annual meeting of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP. Hugh Bunting of Reading University in England was also serving on the External Review Panel of this 6 Hildebrand, P.E. 1985. Researcher farmer linkage for technology and agricultural development. pp. 70 75 In : Agricultural research policy and organization in small countries. Netherland Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Agricultural University Wageningen, Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation an d International Service for National Agricultural Research. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00094298/00001


33 CRSP and we became very good friends. Unfortunately, the CRSP seldom sent us on foreign trips together, but we did meet often in the U.S. February 14 15 to the University of Kentucky to present an invited paper on the Design and assessment of on farm agronomic trials. May 3 12 to Raleigh, N.C. and Lima and Yurimaguas, Peru to review the NCSU Soils Management CR SP Project. Yurimaguas was the site of a long term NCSU project and was continued under the Soils CRSP. Unfortunately, it was also in the area of much violence and later became very dangerous to travel in. August 5 8 to Cornell University to the annual m eetings of the American Agricultural Economics Association. My wife and our daughter went on this trip with me. One morning while eating breakfast in the Holiday Inn, a man came over to the table to talk with me He was Tom Sutton who had been at Colora do State University in Animal Science when I was there and was at the time Dean of Agriculture at the American University in Beirut. He and his wife were also at a meeting at Cornell. Shortly after they returned to Beirut, Tom was kidnapped and held for something like five years. September 9 15 to Wageningen, The Netherlands for the conference on agricultural research in small countries. October 7 12 to Kansas State University for the annual Farming Systems Symposium. This was the fourth annual international farming systems symposium. The symposia had been started by Cornelia Flora and Dave Norman as a one year meeting to bring together people from around the world who were working in farming systems activities. It was such a success that it continued for many years and was a powerful force in helping to shape agricultural research and extension activities. At this meeting, the FSSP also had its third annual meeting during which we prepared a draft format that we we re suggesting should be used for all farming systems reports and articles. This document, the Minimum Data Set was circulated for discussion and we wanted it to be available in time for all papers to be presented in the following symposium


34 to use it. I t was a valuable document that should be used in any kind of article that purports to present applied agricultural research. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00096111/00001 October 14 20 to Michigan State University to review the MSU Bean/Cowpea CRSP project and the Management Office at MSU. Pat Barnes McConnell was the Director of this CRSP and was headquartered at Michigan State where the Management Office was located. This was the fi rst time I had been back to Michigan State since leaving East Lansing after graduating with my PhD in 1959. November 1 4 to Guatemala to review the Cornell/ICTA Bean Cowpea CRSP project. Porfirio (Pio) Masaya was the Coordinator of the Bean Production Pro gram at ICTA and had been a student of Don Wallace who was the Principal Investigator of the project at Cornell. Together they were working on the impact of temperature (which in the tropics is a function of altitude) and day length on common bean maturit y, flowering and fruiting. Their work showed that the conditions at Cali and Palmira, Colombia, where CIAT had the international bean program, were just about optimum for producing beans. The problem was, when CIAT sent their materials to other countries for multi locational trials, the materials that had done very well at CIAT often were dismal failures at the higher or lower altitudes and with days of different length in the other countries. At first, CIAT tried to offset these problems with a tightly controlled protocol that the countries had to follow when planting these so called multi locational trials. At ICTA we had fought these controls because it meant the conditions under which the beans were being evaluated were far from what Guatemalan farme rs would be able to duplicate. Therefore, the trials that were using ICTA resources would do little for Guatemala. November 12 15 to Raleigh N.C. for the annual Soils CRSP meeting. The Chair of the Permanent External Evaluation Committee of this CRSP was John Coulter, a great big Irishman, who had spent many years living and working in Asia and at the time was head of agricultural research at the World Bank, stationed


35 in Washington, D.C. He and I did travel abroad on many occasions and usually were roomm ates when there was not sufficient space for us to have our own rooms. December 8 15 to Botswana to review the Colorado State University Bean/Cowpea CRSP project. Pat Barnes, the Director of the CRSP also went on this trip, and David Norman was one of the resident scientists on loan from Kansas State University to Colorado State. It was on this trip that I first saw the multi oxen teams hitched by heavy chain to the farm equipment. These teams are quite common in southern Africa. Unfortunately, I did no t get to see any of the Kalahari Desert in Botswana nor the wild animal areas in the northern part of the country, but even where there is enough water (and not too much) for agriculture, there are many wild animals around. The experiment station has 8 fo ot high fence around it to keep out the kudu! When I was returning from this trip I had quite a long wait in a very crowded airport in Johannesburg, South Africa and had finally found a corner table where I could sit to work on my trip report. Just as I was getting settled, someone called my name and invited me over to their table. They were from Colorado State University and working on their contract in Swaziland. Needless to say, I didn t get my trip report done in Johannesburg. During 1984 I worked with 19 graduate students of which seven graduated during the year. Seven of these students were from the Food and Resource Economics Department and the others were from Agronomy, Geography, Soils, Anthropology, Food Science, and Agricultural Education an d Communication. I also worked with a former graduate student from Anthropology (Dwight Schmidt) 7 on a synopsis of the progress on the north Florida FSRE project. This was to be used as a background 7 Schmidt, D.L. 1984. Synthesis of North Florida farming systems project, University of Florida, 1981 1984. University of Florida, Gainesville. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00056159/00001/2j


36 document for a domestic FSRE conference that was held on campus in September Eight ox team in Botswana pulling a plow. 1985 This was a year of travel including two trips to Asia and one to Europe, but none to Africa or Latin America. The first trip was through Hawaii to Indonesia in May for the Soils Management CRSP evaluation of the joint Hawaii/North Carolina State project in Sumatra. During this trip I presented seminars both at the University of Hawaii and in Indonesia on the value of on farm research. The CRSP project in Sumatra was in a humid tropical forest area that the government of Indonesia had made into a large c olonization project to help alleviate the crowded conditions on the densely populated island of Java where the capital, Jakarta, is located. Except for the people and the nature of their houses and other buildings, the area looked very much to me like the upper Amazon area of Colombia and Ecuador. I stayed with Carol


37 Colfer, an anthropologist and old Indonesia hand (and part of the University of Hawaii contingent), and who was (or became) the Chief of Party for the Soils CRSP in Indonesia. This was a tru e innovation and one the Soils CRSP (Tropsoils) should be very proud of. Carol really knew Indonesia and the people and helped the technical scientists comprehend the situation of the colonists. I slept on Carol s screen porch and could hear all the night sounds of the village. Besides all the animal sounds there were many made by the people themselves. The neighbors beside her were celebrating a birthday or something and they had music made by drums that was truly fantastic. One night the neighbors acro ss the street were setting up a set of loud speakers so the whole village could help them celebrate a birth. The speakers were pointed right at Carol s house so I was evacuated to the house of another CRSP scientist and his wife about a half mile away. On this trip I flew from Honolulu to Singapore via Hong Kong on Singapore Air Lines, truly a great airline. Carol met me in Jakarta and after a night s rest we flew Garuda (Indonesian) airlines from Jakarta to Padang on Sumatra. From there we took a very i nteresting jeep trip over the mountains and down into the colonization area, formerly occupied by orangutans, and the village of Sitiung where the CRSP team lived and worked. O n the way we passed the Winrock sponsored experiment station in a lovely and pl easant area in the mountains. Jack Traywick had apparently at least partly designed the beautiful buildings, but he was not there at the time. I had first met Jack when he was working in Panama. The second trip to Asia was to China where I had been invit ed to present a paper at the International Multiple Cropping Systems Conference at Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Nanjing (the Nanjing Agricultural University). My wife, of The Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences was a co sponsor of the conference. Not having been to China before, I really did not know what to expect. But in many instances, I did not expect what I saw. China appeared to be a booming economy in rapid trans ition. Free enterprise was widely evident and its effects were


38 being felt. Farm land was assigned to families or groups who had quotas to meet. But their surplus was theirs to do with what they wanted. The country had been able to begin producing surpl us rice, so there was rapid diversification into other, higher valued crops and into feed and fiber crops. Townships (formerly communes) were also diversifying into rural industry that was employing 20% of the workers in some areas we visited. Private en trepreneurs were able to hire workers and many were making excellent profits. Purchase of non essential consumer products was rising rapidly. Western suits, new colorful clothes for women and children, and cameras were widely observed. Most people appea red to be content with the changes even though there were still a number of state imposed constraints. Most families were limited to one child. People could not move from a rural township to a city (and add to the population pressure there). It was just not allowed. The practice and advancement of science in China received a severe blow during the Cultural Revolution as did many of the symbols of their cultural heritage such as the Great Wall and the Forbidden City. The latter two were being reconstru cted. The Chinese scientists who participated in the conference had been able to effectively practice their profession only during the previous six years or so. Conspicuous by their absence were mid career scientists. Older scientists and their young gr aduate students were the only ones who presented papers. When the conference was over, we caught a train to Shanghai. The sun came up on us en route At the Shanghai airport we were again with PanAm. It was nice to get home. We watched the Tuesday eve ning sunset while awaiting the PanAm flight, non stop Tokyo New York, in the Tokyo airport. The flight was in the short version of the Boeing 747 equipped for long hauls and took us over the polar route. That is, up along Korea and Russia then to Alaska, across Canada, and into New York. We woke up as the sun was coming up over the coast al range in Alaska, on the same Tuesday morning as we had when we left the interior of China almost 24 hours before! The flight was 13 hours


39 long After we landed, we s aw the sun go down on the same Tuesday, once again. That was a long and exciting day and it really was good to be home again. 1986 My graduate student load increased to 24 in 1986, of which five had Farming Systems assistantships (O Connor, PhD in FRED; Russell, PhD in Agronomy; Singh, PhD in Soils; Fiebig, MS in Agronomy; and Niles, MS in Agronomy). All but one of the 24 had farming systems minor s The students were majoring in: FRED, Latin American Studies, Agronomy, Soils, Sociology, Agricultur al Engineering, Poultry Science, Anthropology, Agricultural Extension Education, and Human Nutrition. Eleven of the 24 were Americans. Foreign students were from El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Bangladesh, Honduras, Guatemala, Nepal, and Zaire. Enr ollment in the farming systems course was 18 and there were 15 students in the tropical farm management class. It was quite obvious that there was tremendous interest in farming systems among graduate students, both foreign and American, and that the prog ram was having a strong effect on campus. With my international activities, it was hard for me to keep up with the North Florida project, and because the management of the funds had been shifted to Agronomy and Tito French, it was not necessary that I be involved continuously. However, I did main tain contact with them and was involved with graduate student s doing their research in the project. During 1986, however, in a move that appeared to be smooth institutionalization of the North Florida Farming Systems Project, the IFAS administration decide d to move the funds and management from Agronomy on the campus to the Director of the Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Live Oak where Mickie Swisher, the multi county farming systems extension agent was also located. I viewed this move favora bly. However, as soon


40 as the Director of the Center in Live Oak had control of the funds, he began to create his own projects and financed them with the farming systems funds. There was nothing that those of us who created the program could do. The fund s were his and he somehow had autonomous authority to use them as he wanted. Whether or not this was what the administration had intended, it had the effect of killing the North Florida Farming Systems Project. IFAS, specifically the Dean for Resident Ins truction and the Director of International Programs were interested in increasing the number of short courses and special training programs, and many of these were based on FSSP activities. In 1986, I organized and was the main presenter of a three week i nternational farming systems short course in Gainesville that had 13 persons enrolled from 8 countries. Also in Gainesville, we had two short courses for U.S. university personnel who were involved in farming systems projects abroad. One was for SECID (a consortium of universities in the southeast) and the other was for Washington State University. I had been editing a set of readings I used in the farming systems course and that was being used in many of the FSSP short courses. In 1986 it was published as a book. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00072280/00001 Although in 199 8 the book went out of print, I continued to use many of these readings in my courses. Also, we developed what could be used as an in clas s S ondeo based on materials from our work in the Las Cuevas watershed of the Dominican Republic. In cases when it was not convenient to travel into the field to do a S ondeo, we used slides and a set of questionnaires that had been taken in the DR from wh ich farmers (people who were familiar with Las Cuevas or similar situations) could respond about specific family and farm situations. It worked surprisingly well and was used on a number of occasions, both in short courses and in my farming systems cour se. I also developed a training unit on economic analysis of on farm trials that I used in my tropical farm management class and that also became part of the FSSP training materials.


41 On farm research with animals had been neglected and was becoming a conc ern to me. One of the students I was working with (Tom Fattori, a PhD student in Poultry Science) initiated a simulated on farm experiment as part of his dissertation research. He was working with broilers on the university experiment station. In one of the broiler houses, he set up a number of different environments by using shade and ventilation combinations. 8 It worked very well. During this year we had an historic conference on the campus. Organized by anthropologists: Susan Poats, Associate Dire ctor of the FSSP; Marianne Schmink, Associate Professor of Latin American Studies and Co Director of the Women in Agricultural Development Program (WIAD); and Anita Spring, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Associate Dean of the College of Liberal Ar ts and Sciences, the course treated gender issues in farming systems research and extension. It was historic for a number of reasons, but mostly because it was the first time that a conference did not involve militaristic confrontations of feminists with the establishment, but treated how gender issues could better be incorporated into development work. The term gender analysis and its use in development began to displace the term gender issues The term issues connotes confrontation while analysis connotes understanding and utilization. Attendees included some of the most important people in gender: besides the organizers, Rosalie Norem, Janice Jiggins, Dianne Rocheleau, Patricia Garrett, Maria Fernandez, Anne Ferguson, and Jean Due. The conferenc e and the book that resulted made significant positive impacts on development. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/UF00076562/00001 8 Fattori, T.R., F.B. Mather and P.E. Hildebrand. 1990. Methodology for partitioning poultry producers into recommendation domains. Agricultural Systems 32:197 205.


42 Moving definitions of Recommendation Domains At that conference I contributed a pa per with Peter Wotowiec and Susan Poats http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00076562/00001 In earlier work I had argued that recommendation domains were homogeneous groups of farmers, or farmers with homogeneous syst ems ( The concept of homogeneous systems and its usefulness in the 1986 book of readings and in the 1981 article in Agricultural Administration on the Sondeo ). We had thought that one could identify these homogeneous systems during a S ondeo and that they would be convenient means for developing location specific technologies. The premise on which the selection of a homogeneous cropping or farming system is based is that all the farmers who presently use it have made similar adjustme nts to a set of restrictions which they all face and that, since they made the same adjustments, they must all be facing the same set of agro socioeconomic conditions (Hildebrand, 1981). This idea recognized the diversity of farming systems within a sing le geographic area, but was still based pretty much on the idea that the homogeneous systems (and therefore, recommendation domains) could be recognized during a S ondeo, even though refined from time to time. In the gender issues paper, we carried the co ncept of diversity further. We argued that different fields on a single farm could be in different recommendation domains, or that women s fields or parts of fields could be in separate domains from their husbands fields. We also tried to clear up some confusion by defining three different kinds of domains. Research domains were areas in which institutes or teams focused their research and consisted of a relatively wide range of environments and farming systems. Their delineation was based mostly on bi ophysical (and sometimes political) delineations Recommendation domains were based on the response of a specific technology to the agro socioeconomic conditions found on farms. The third kind of domain was the diffusion domain, or interpersonal commu nication networks through which newly acquired


43 knowledge of agricultural technologies naturally flows. My definition of recommendation domains was to undergo yet another redefinition in a few more years. In part because the farms and technologies with w hich farming systems practitioners work were low input, I was asked to serve on a National Research Council (NRC), Board on Agriculture Committee on The Role of Alternative Farming Methods in Modern Production Agriculture. This committee was looking int o alternatives to the high input kind of technology that was then pretty much the accepted or conventional technology used in the United States, but was being recognized as a contributor to the declining quality of our own environment. The deliberations r esulted in a book published in 1989. 9 Some of the other committee members were: John Pesek, formerly head of the Agronomy Department at Iowa State University and also President of the American Society of Agronomy (ASA); Kate Clancy from Syracuse Universi ty; Dick Harwood who would shortly be going to Michigan State University after being in a number of positions including at IRRI; Bill Heffernan, University of Missouri; Glenn Helmers, the other agricultural economist, from the University of Nebraska; Willy Lockeritz, Tufts University and soon to be Editor of the American Journal of Alternative Agriculture; Bob Miller, head of Soils at North Carolina State; David Piment e l, the ecologist from Cornell; Cal Qualset from the University of California at Davis and who would become President of the ASA; and Ned Raun, formerly of The Rockefeller Foundation and whom I knew in Colombia and at the time was Winrock International s representative in Washington. The Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress aske d the FSSP to prepare a paper for them on Farming Systems 9 National Research Council. 1989. Alternative agriculture. Committee on the role of alternative farming methods in modern productio n agriculture. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.


44 Research and Extension: Status and Potential for Low Resource Agriculture. Susan Poats, Dan Galt, Chris Andrew, Lisette Walecka (now Staal), Ken McDermott and I worked on it and submitted it in D ecember, 1986. 10 I was appointed to the Editorial Board of the Elsevier journal Agricultural Administration and Extension that was interested in publishing farming systems articles. After a couple of years this journal folded into Agricultural Systems an d continued publishing farming systems articles with me as a member of the Editorial Board. I declined an invitation from ICRAF, the International Center for Research in Agroforestry headquartered in Kenya, to participate in a workshop on the design and an alysis of on farm agroforestry research to be held in India. I also declined an invitation by ICRISAT, the International Center for Research in the Semi Arid Tropics headquartered in Hyderabad, India, to participate in a farming systems workshop at their headquarters. I declined these as well as an FAO activity in the Ivory Coast simply because I was too busy with the graduate students, the courses and the other activities. However, I did go in February to IITA, the International Institute for Tropical A griculture in Ibadan, Nigeria, for a strategic planning session on their program, and in July to Niger for a project review for the Soils CRSP. As part of this last review, we visited the ICRISAT Sahelian Center in Niger, so I did get to part of ICRISAT. 10 Poats, S., D. Galt, C.O. Andrew, L. Walecka, P.E. Hildebrand and J.K. McDermott. 1986. Farming systems research and extension: Status and potential in low resource agriculture. Submitted to O ffice of Technology Assessment, Congress of the U.S. Washington, D.C. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/UF00056190/00001


45 1987 In all its wisdom, USAID decided that farming systems was not working and that they had to shift their focus to sustainable agriculture. It did not occur to the bureaucrats who ma d e these kinds of decisions that sustainability was a concept and that the best way to generate sustainable agriculture was through the use of farming systems methodology Thus, just at the time there was a tremendous momentum built up around the world for agricultural development programs using farming syst ems methodology, and after AID had invested only about $8 million of the original $10 million estimate, the FSSP was terminated by AID in 1987 after five years of effort. One of the legacies of the FSSP was a four volume set of training documents that wou ld continue to be used and requested for at least another decade as people began to realize that farming systems methodology was, in fact, very useful if not critical for efforts at creating sustainable agriculture in very diverse situations around the wor ld The other legacy was an active training unit headquartered at the University of Florida. The institutions affiliated with the FSSP agreed that Florida should continue to be the center of farming systems training activity and to call upon others as de mand required. Without the FSSP structure, we needed something more formal than just the International Programs office of IFAS to support continued and, hopefully, even more active training activity and began the process of creating a training division in IFAS. Chris Andrew and I wrote a white paper on the topic that was to serve as a basis for the new effort. That farming systems training was in demand was reflected by my own participation in courses. In July I taught a four day short course in Gainesvi lle in English on Design and analysis of on farm trials to 20 participants from the Bean/Cowpea and Sorghum/Millet CRSPs. In October and November I taught a three week concentrated version of my regular farming systems course in Gainesville in Spanish t o 21 participants from ICTA, DIGESA and DIGESEPE, all from Guatemala. In addition to


46 these, I offered my regular courses in spring semester. There were 36 students in the farming systems course (the largest enrollment in the history of the course, and re ally too many students ) Only four of the total in the course however, were from FRED. This was becoming an established pattern as the FRED graduate program pushe d its students more and more in to theory and quantitative methods and did not provide them t ime n or incentive to get involved in practical applications such as farming systems There were 12 in the course on tropical farm management. My graduate student load increased again in 1987 to 31 of which nine graduated during the year. Again, all but one of the 31 had a farming systems minor and seven of them were on farming systems assistantships (Fattori, PhD in Poultry; Bannister, PhD in Agroforestry; O Connor, PhD in FRED; Russell, PhD in Agronomy; Singh, PhD in So ils; and Fiebig and Niles, both MS in Agronomy). After serving seven years on the External Evaluation Panel of the Soil Management CRSP, I was rotated off in 1987. However, I made two trips for them prior to leaving. In February I made a 12 day trip to the University of Hawaii and Indonesia, going again to the Sumatra site. Duane Acker, formerly President of Kansas State University and then a Deputy Administrator for USAID accompanied us on this trip. In September I made an 11 day trip to Ithaca, NY ( Cornell) and Brazil. On this trip was the only time I was in Rio de Janeiro and we overnighted at Ipanema at a hotel recommended by the CRSP people stationed in Brazil. I panema really is a sight worth seeing. Most of this trip was spent in and around Br asilia in the Cerrado region. I was still on the Bean/Cowpea panel and traveled to East Lansing, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico for them. This was also my only time in Puerto Rico. To me the culture was an exasperating combination of Latin and North American. I could probably get used to it, but it somehow did not feel right to me at the time. However, I did get to see a large part of the island as Jim Beaver and I drove from San Juan to Mayaguez and back.


4 7 I also made another very interesting trip to Guatemala in 1987. The purpose was to create a Cooperative Agreement between Rafael Landvar University and the University of Florida. Chris Andrew and Jack Fry (with Susanne, his wife) accompanied me on the t rip. Jack was the Assistant Dean of Agriculture for graduate programs and always a strong supporter of the farming systems training program. We dealt with Mario Martnez, then Dean of Agriculture at Rafael Landvar and who had formerly been the Gerente G eneral of ICTA when I worked there. One day we rented a car and I took Jack, Susanne and Chris on a trip to the Salvadoran border and through the La Barranca area where I had spent a lot of time when I lived in Guatemala. Jack and Susanne were concerned about getting too close to the Salvadoran border and I said not to worry. There was a lake a couple of miles before we got there and I would stop. What I didn t realize was that the lake had dried up and there were crops planted where it had once been. So I drove right past it and up to within about 100 yards of the border before I realized where we were. We stopped and turned around, but at least they got a glimpse of El Salvador. On the way back we turned off to go into the La Barranca area where we had done so much work with the small farmers who farmed in the rocks After showing them the general area I stopped at the house of the Guerra family with whom we had worked closely. Doa Blanca was home and when she recognized me she came running out an d gave me a big hug. We stayed quite a while visiting. It was good to see her again. After six years at Kansas State University, the international farming systems symposium moved for three years to the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. Among other things, this provided me an opportunity to get acquainted a little bit with the Ozark area of the U.S. Fayetteville was a small college town and in the middle of October the leaves were turning. They had a nice conference center and altogether, this pro vided an excellent location for the symposium. I chose to drive there because it also offered me an opportunity to see much of Alabama, Mississippi,


48 Louisiana and Arkansas, areas that I had not had the chance to see before. Even though 1987 seemed like a relatively slow year, my training activities brought in a total of over $200,000. This provided the administration with incentive to help us create an I nternational T raining C enter to provide support for the activities that we were undertaking with no org anized support. 1988 1994: International Training D uring 1988, international farming systems training activities increased, but we were not successful in getting a training center operating. On an ad hoc basis, I conducted two short courses and was involved in two other activities that could have been managed through such a center. Following a preliminary trip and seminar with Marianne Schmink to Rio Branco, capital of the western state of Acre, Brazil, we organized and presented a three week short c ourse there in June and July. For the preliminary visit in February, Marianne had invited most of the organizations involved in development in this Amazonian area to the seminar. We (Marianne in her perfect Portuguese and I in Spanish and a little bit of Portuol ) first discussed what farming systems involved and then what the participants thought the approach might be able to do for them and their development and conservation efforts in the region. As a result of the seminar, and with the support of t he Ford Foundation in Rio de Janeiro, it was decided to present the short course. In 1987, the Ford Foundation in Nairobi had contracted us to create a shortened version of our four FSSP training manuals and translate them into Portuguese for use in the African Luzophone countries (mainly Mozambique and Angola). We used this manual in the Acre course but took along our translator (African Portuguese) so we could convert it into a Brazilian version. The changes were made during the short course and the B razilian version was also printed. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/UF00083017/00001 Besides Marianne and me,


49 Ken Buhr of the UF Agronomy Department also participated as a trainer. Ken had spent two years in Braz il and spoke very good Portuguese. The Ford Foundation had invested in two months of Portuguese training for me in Gainesville prior to the short course. For the course my Portuol was understandable if not spectacular, and I was able to understand about 85% of what was said. Included in the course were seven students from the University of Florida who obtained three course credits for it, and 27 Brazilians from 12 Brazilian university, development, extension and research organizations. Some of the Braz ilians who were hoping to come to UF for advanced degrees also obtained three course credits at UF for their participation in the short course. Jack Fry again facilitated this process. There were enough people in the course that we were able to divide the m into three groups for conducting S ondeos. One group went into an Indigenous (Indian) area along a river, another into the rubber tappers reserve, and a third into a colonization project. This activity was conducted during the second week of the short course. The hand written reports were completed during the second week as well. During the third week of the course, while the participants worked in on farm research design and analysis, several secretaries typed the documents and they were proof read i n the evenings. At the end of the third week, all three bound and very useful reports were delivered at the closing banquet. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054660/00001/1j This was really impressive and crea ted a great deal of enthusiasm for conducting S ondeos among both the participants and the governmental and other organizational representatives present. As a direct result of this short course, a non governmental organization (NGO) was created in Acre for agroforestry research and extension activities. It was called PESACRE. Research in Portuguese is pesquisa and seemed to me to come from the idea of fishing around. PESACRE has been very successful and in 1998 celebrated its 10th anniversary. We have had a number of very good graduate students associated with PESACRE and several faculty have been involved with it.


50 I also had a graduate student in Manaus, on the Amazon River north of the state of Acre. B.K. Singh, one of the farming systems assistants and from Nepal, was doing his dissertation research in conjunction with the Soils Management CRSP (Tropsoils), EMBRAPA (the Brazilian national research organization) and EMATER, the national extension organization. When B.K. originally came to Florida w e anticipated he would work with Ken Sayre of CIMMYT on research in Mexico. Ken had known B.K. in Nepal and suggested he come to Florida for farming systems However, that prospect for research fell through and after several months of negotiation with Tr opsoils (originally thinking of his working on the Cerrado out of Brasilia), we arranged for him to work with them in Manaus. Walter Bowen (later to become director of International Programs in IFAS at UF) who had been with Tropsoils in Brasilia was also in Manaus and worked with B.K. Following the first seminar in Rio Branco, I stopped in Manaus on my way home to visit B.K., Walter, Tropsoils, EMBRAPA and EMATER. I also visited B.K. s site on the Rio Preto da Eva about 80 kilometers north of Manaus. Th e work B.K. did was eventually to become an important training document as well as a chapter in one of my books. Also, after a number of months of negotiation, this time with IITA in Nigeria, we arranged for another farming systems assistant, John Russell to do his dissertation research in northern Cameroon working in sorghum and millet cropping systems. John had a two year contract with IITA. Part of his work for them was his dissertation. His research would also form part of a chapter of a book (Adaptability Analysis) that he and I would jointly author. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00072042/00001/2j Another of my graduate students, Richard Piland, working on a Master s degree in Latin American Studi es and for whom I was Chair, was conducting his thesis research in the Ben Biosphere Reserve of Bolivia. Searching and arranging for research opportunities for my graduate students abroad was a time consuming, but necessary part of my job in my mind. Aft er a number of phone calls and letters, I was able to arrange with George Wilson of the Jamaican


51 Agricultural Research Foundation, an agreement by which we could send a number of graduate students to Jamaica to conduct research the F oundation considered ne cessary. (I had met George during a trip to Nigeria when he was a scientist working with bananas at IITA.) They would pay research expenses and a minimum stipend for living expenses, help get the students set up in their communities, and the research wou ld have to be approved ahead of time by George and the Foundation. Because the money George had available came from the Jamaican Agricultural Research Foundation, we were able to circumvent much of the bureaucracy normally associated with this type of arr angement. After we agreed on a budget for a specific project and student, George would simply send me a check for the estimated pre travel expenses, I put it in my personal account, and then we purchased whatever it was the budget called for. The student took receipts with him/her and that settled the account. After the student arrived in Jamaica, the Foundation picked up the expenses. All together, we were able to send three Master s students to Jamaica on this arrangement coming from Vegetable Crops, Entomology and FRED. By 1988 the farming systems minor had become the largest among graduate students in the College of Agriculture (Jack Fry, Assistant Dean for Graduate Programs, personal communication). In 1988 there were 28 graduate students currently enrolled with a farming systems minor and 34 graduate students had already graduated with the minor. I served on many, if not most of their supervisory committees. Also, in the 1988 89 academic year, 18% of the graduates in the College of Agriculture r eceiving advanced degrees had taken my farming systems methods course I was serving on 27 graduate student supervisory committees and graduated eight of them during the year. Yet the Food and Resource Economics Department was so narrow in orientation th at they had not given me tenure until 1986 and I was still not a member of the doctoral research faculty (DRF) even by 1988. I was probably the only non tenured full professor until 1986 and no one with whom I served on supervisory committees


52 could beli eve I was not on the DRF. Neither of these factors particularly hindered me in what I was doing, although it did effectively block me from being able to chair a PhD supervisory committee in FRED. Most PhD students in the department, however, had been mol ded into theorists by the time they were really interested in a major professor anyway. But I was embarrassed for the department more than anything else. Also reflective of the nature of FRED was the fact that of the 27 students on whose committees I serv ed, only two were in my own department. The others came from Latin American Studies (2), Animal Science (2), Soils (4), Agroforestry (1), Sociology (1), Agricultural Engineering (1), Agronomy (10), Anthropology (2), and Vegetable Crops (2). Twelve were f oreign students and the others predominately former Peace Corps Volunteers who wanted to return to countries, regions or activities they had been doing while in the Peace Corps. Much of the work I did as Coordinator of the F arming S ystems Program was admin istrative in nature, yet because I did not have an administrative position, while it was acknowledged, none of that effort was ever formally evaluated. Nor was serving on supervisory committees, except as chair, evaluated adequately. For example, I serve d on the committees of all four students who were working abroad on their research, but was the chair only of one, a Master s student, and that one was majoring in Latin American Studies, not FRED. So the work and time involved in setting up their oversea s research program was never really considered in faculty evaluations. Edgardo Moscardi, an Argentinean, worked with the FSSP and had been attached to FRED while he served on the University of Florida project in Ecuador. He later became the Director Gener al of the Argentinean national agricultural research and extension organization, INTA (later he was the IICA representative in Colombia and in 1998 was named Executive Secretary of FONTAGRO, a foundation for agricultural research with a $200 million endowm ent and headquartered at the InterAmerican Development Bank in Washington, D.C.). While he was the DG


53 of INTA he asked me to come to Argentina to present a series of seminars to INTA personnel scattered in several experiment stations in the northern part of the country. I did this on a two week trip in August. INTA had (or hired) a plane with two pilots who flew me around to four separate stations during that period. Edgardo was trying to incorporate a national farming systems program in INTA and wanted me to discuss the methodology of both Sondeos and on farm research and extension. It was a very interesting trip for me, giving me an understanding of Argentina and allowing the sampling of the superb Argentinean beef and wine. In 1988 I made one last trip for the Bean/Cowpea CRSP, to Costa Rica for the annual evaluation meeting. Following this meeting I was rotated off after eight years of service on their External Evaluation Panel. One of my biggest regrets was not being able to see and interact with Hugh Bunting on a regular basis. My farming systems methods course had an enrollment of 21 students from 12 departments (only one from FRED). The other course, Managing Farms in Tropical Areas, a senior level course, had only 10 student s and most were graduate students from other departments. Following Spring semester when the latter course was taught, I decided to change it to Economic Analysis in Small Farm Livelihood Systems, and make it more of a companion course to the farming sys tems course. Students interested in farm management could get th at in the regular farm management course in FRED. There was no need for a separate tropical course on this topic. But there was definitely need for a course on small farm livelihood systems There was a tremendous need for persons working in agricultural or economic development to understand the nature of these peasant or family farms that differ so much from larger and purely commercial farms. Besides the short course in Acre, Brazil, I also provided a three day short course with John Lichte (a private consultant and frequent FSSP collaborator) for 14 participants in Fayetteville, Arkansas following the annual International Farming Systems


54 Symposium. Ten of the participants were from Ind ia, three from Nepal and one from Cameroon. The Indians and Nepalese were part of the Ford Foundation and FAO farming systems program that George and Nancy Axinn worked with in those countries and included university researchers and administrators from In dia, and government researchers and administrators from Nepal. The Cameroonian was sponsored by UF. He was with the Agricultural University Center in Cameroon where UF had a team working on a USAID contract. I also participated as a trainer (not lead t rainer) in a short course offered for a group from the Philippines and sponsored by USAID. We had originally been requested to organize this short course, but because our UF Training Center was missing a Coordinator (that is, not yet functional), we ask ed one of the farming systems network collaborators to undertake it. Personnel from UF participated in the portion of the course held in Gainesville. Following the end of the FSSP, most of the people and organizations that had been involved decided to keep a post FSSP farming systems network with UF charged with most of the training. I served on the Steering Committee for this new network that reported its deliberations on the creation of an international farming systems association at the annual meetings in October. At the personal request of the Deputy Director of USAID in Guatemala, I helped develop a proposal for training 15 to 30 college level students from that country who were to study for one year in the United States. We were able to put together a program that was very much to their liking, but they were unwilling to approve the budget required for that type of program. We found this all too often, particularly when working with AID. They wanted a Cadillac program but on a Model T budget. As pa rt of our training materials, the Hildebrand and Poey book was translated into Spanish in its entirely during the year. 11 11 Hildebrand, P.E. and F. Poey. 1989. Ensayos agronmicos en fincas segn el enfoque de s istemas agropecuarios. Editorial


55 I sponsored two people taking sabbatical leaves during the year. One was Tim Bembridge from Fort Hare University in South Africa. His main interests were the extension aspects of FSRE. The other was Malik Ashraf from IITA in Nigeria. Both were active in farming systems work. Malik stayed on beyond his sabbatical and participated in a number of activities with UF. We authored a joint paper for the 1989 farming systems meetings at the University of Arkansas. 12 1989 At the ninth annual International Farming Systems Symposium, held for the third year at the University of Arkansas, the Association for Farming Systems Research Extension (AFSRE) was created and I was elected the founding President. This was the same grou p that had been associated with the FSSP, augmented by new participants who were attending the symposium. The association, global in scope, was . organized to promote the development and dissemination of methods and results of participatory on farm s ystems research and extension. The objective of such research is the development and adoption through the participation by farm household members -m ale and female -of improved and appropriate technologies to meet the socioeconomic needs of farm families; adequately supply global food, feed and fiber requirements; and utilize resources in a sustainable and efficient manner. This statement, which says it so well, was authored by John Caldwell from Virginia Tech. John had also been an editor of the FSSP four volume training series and was one of the very active Agropecuaria Latinoamericana, Inc. Gainesville FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/UF00054330/00001 12 Hildebrand, P.E. and M. Ashraf. 1989. Agricultural sustainability as an operational criterion. Ninth International Farming Systems Symposium, Fayetteville, Arkansas. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00065559/00001


56 persons in farming systems. Later he would also be elected a President of the Association. The AFSRE also took over responsibility for organizing the annual symposia; continuing publication of the FSS P Newsletter, which in the interim we had called the FSRE Newsletter, and became the AFSRE Newsletter; and creating and publishing a journal, the JFSRE. http://uf dc.ufl.edu/UF00071921?td=Journal+=Farming+=Systems+=Research Extension After three years at the University of Arkansas, Michigan State University graciously offered to host the next three symposia. So I was once again involved with Michigan State, my alma mater. Every time I was at Michigan State, whether with the Bean/Cowpea CRSP or AFSRE, I was able to see Glenn Johnson, my major professor. I really looked forward to these visits. Also in 1989 I was nominated for the Chair of the International Division of the American Society of Agronomy John Nicholaides and Pedro Sanchez, both from North Carolina State and with whom I had worked in the Soils CRSP, made the nomination saying they thought the membership of the International Division ought to be ready for an economist to chair the committee. John, who later would become Dean for International Agriculture at the University of Illino is, and Pedro, who later would become Director General of the International Center for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya, had said since the 1976 meetings in Lexington, Kentucky, that I was the only economist they knew who ha d chlorophyll in his veins. I expect that was one of the reasons they put up with me on the External Evaluation Panel of the CRSP. The emerging concern with sustainability was evidenced by three papers I presented in 1989. Two were at the farming syste ms symposium ( Farming systems research/extension and the concepts of sustainability with Chuck Francis, http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080875/00001 and Agricultural sustainability as an operational criterion with Malik Ashraf http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00065559/00001 ), and one at the Agronomy meetings


57 ( Agronomy s role in sustainable agriculture: Integrated farming systems 13 ). Chuck Francis and I had also present ed a paper on the subject in the 1988 farming systems symposium, Farming systems research and extension (FSRE) in support of sustainable agriculture. 14 In the 1989 paper Chuck and I argued: A more sustainable agriculture will not be achieved just becaus e society desires it. Means must be derived for efficiently achieving the diversity of location specific technology necessary to support it Our point was that farming systems methods are cost and time efficient for helping achieve diversity and therefore sustainability. In our paper, Malik and I presented . an approach to evaluating the implications associated with attempts to influenc e sustainability in such a way that 1) agricultural productivity (the agricultural system), 2) environmental survivability (the ecological system), and 3) human population and income changes (the human system) are all involved. We used linear programming of a typical farm system in the Ijaye area in the derived Guinea savanna of southwestern Nigeria as an example. One sustainability equation accounted for the proportion of a farm that remains in bush fallow each year. The other treated the use of extern al chemical inputs (fertilizer). We concluded that sustainable agriculture in the Ijaye area, facing an ever increasing human population, will not be an agriculture free of chemical use, a t least with the kinds of technology known at the time, and average farm size would have to remain above about 2.25 ha (average farm size at the time, including fallow land, was 7 11 ha). The Agronomy 13 Published in 1990 in the Journal fo r Production Agriculture (3:285 288). 14 Francis, C.A. and P.E. Hildebrand. 1989. Farming systems research and extension (FSRE) in support of sustainable agriculture. FSRE Newsletter 2:4 5. Gainesville FL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080876/00001


58 Society paper is a good summary of my thinking at that time. Permit me to quote the majority of it: The world is beco ming a smaller place. Phenomena which only a few decades ago we may never have known about are today transmitted live and instantaneously around the world via satellites. It is, perhaps, a quantum leap from farming systems to planetary systems. However, to put into perspective the relationship between sustainability and farming systems, we need to make at least most of the leap. Concern with sustainable agriculture, and by extension, sustainable development, did not originate only in Florida, for example where we are contaminating the ground water with agricultural chemicals and wastes nor in the High Plains of Texas with the depletion of the Ogallala aquifer. It has been influenced powerfully in recent years by the burning of the Amazon rain forest, th e desertification of the Sahelian region in Africa, and by the denuded hillsides in Haiti. The concern spans the globe, if not the planetary system, and is directly related to the pressure put on this planet's natural resources by a burgeoning human popul ation These phenomena are being reported widely by all forms of media. Who amongst us has not seen articles about the depletion of the tropical rain forests in everything from the New York Times to our local newspapers, the Scientific American or the Ec onomist? And it may be surprising how many of us have heard of Chico Mendes, the rubber tapper from the western Amazon rain forest, who was killed because he headed a group trying to protect part of the rain forest as an extractive reserve. Sustainable A griculture The term `sustainable agriculture' is difficult to define because it means different things to different people at different times. For example, it is possible to think of sustainability in such terms as economic, political, social, cultural, i nstitutional, and ecological. Yet many people use the term sustainable agriculture, so it apparently is intuitively comprehensible. For this reason, let me raise some questions about the sustainability of several farming systems without defining the term but to put into perspective some of the difficulties associated with its use.


59 Is the farming system of a rubber tapper who collects rubber and Brazil nuts from wild trees on perhaps 250 hectares of Brazilian rain forest and produces crops or pasture on only a few hectares sustainable? Or is the farmer in a colonization project in t he same rain forest developing a more sustainable system? What about the small farmers in Peru and Bolivia who produce coca leaves for the incredibly lucrative illegal drug market? Is their system sustainable? What about citrus producers in Central or S outhwest Florida where tourist attractions and urban concentrations are expanding explosively? Or the small grain and livestock farming systems in the near desert, rainfed areas of Morocco? Or, for that matter, the mixed farming systems found in north Fl orida or the corn/soybean cash grain farms in the midwestern US? Most of these systems have something in common. They are in a state of flux and changing, or subject to change, quite rapidly. For example, in the Brazilian Amazon, as the rubber tappers or ganize and break the hold of the traditional rubber barons, they begin to produce more of their own food and may sell a little surplus. They also need animals to provide their own transport. Hence, slowly their holdings begin to look more like some of th e colonists in the same area who tend to farm more land, and would like to become cattlemen, but also harvest the wild rubber and Brazil nut trees left standing on their 50 hectare holdings. In turn, the colonists are always tempted to sell their cleared land to the larger ranchers, who, most people argue, have a farming system that is not sustainable with present technology. Sustainable agriculture, therefore, is not a constant state. Nor, as some would argue, is it a return to a former state. Similarly it is not necessarily low input. There have probably been more grain combines and square straw balers sold in Morocco in recent years than in the United States! If we consider biological sustainability as the length of time a particular system can be m aintained, then we must consider that chemicals can substitute for rotations or fallow, at least for some time. The coca farmers use chemicals and probably have systems that are biologically sustainable for a number of years. However, given current event s, they may very well be concerned with the short term economic sustainability of their systems. The ranchers in the Brazilian rain forest are becoming concerned with the political sustainability of theirs. And farmers in the United States and Europe are becoming concerned with the ecological sustainability of their farming systems. Farming Systems and Technology Adoption The concepts of sustainability aside, it should be obvious that farming systems, themselves, are very complex. Individual


60 farming systems result from combining the resources and time available to farm managers into a set of enterprises and activities that provide for the needs and desires of the farm families (or corporate or government entities) who control the re sources. The set of enterprises that form a farming system results from the environment within which the farms operate. On family farms (as opposed to corporate or government farms), this environment is influenced as much by socioeconomic factors, such a s competing family needs for available cash, as it is by biophysical factors such as soils and climate. The environment in an individual field is also influenced by socioeconomic, as well as biophysical factors. For example, a field that is prepared and planted late usually provides a poorer environment for a crop than an otherwise identical field that was prepared and planted on time. It is for these reasons that farms and fields vary a great deal from one another. Over the last few decades, in industri alized countries farmers were able to use technologies that could overcome these field and farm differences. These technologies were broadly adaptable because many of our farmers had the resources and the capital to be able to dominate the natural compone nts of their environments with irrigation, chemicals and/or mechanization. Furthermore, our agricultural policies, supported for many years by the philosophy that farmers "should get big or get out," encouraged wide adoption of this kind of technology. R ecently, with rising concerns for a more sustainable agriculture, there is pressure to reduce the use of fossil fuels, the amount of irrigation water, and off farm produced chemicals. Policy makers are beginning to change the incentives that encouraged th e use of broadly adaptable technologies. These factors will influence the kinds of technologies farmers will be able to use. In the future, new technologies will have to conform with the environments where they will be used, not dominate them. This mean s there will be an increasing need for location specific solutions to emerging farm problems. These, then, are the challenges to agronomy in the future. Institutional Setting


61 Agronomists ply their trade today in an institutional set ting that has responded to the same forces that molded farm environments over the last few decades. Associated with environmental changes affecting farms and farming over this time period has been an institutional drift toward specialization. Many agrono mists work in a Land Grant university or similar setting with research and extension, as well as teaching responsibilities. Beginning, perhaps, in 1962 with the publication of Everett Roger's Diffusion of Innovations the definition of clientele began to shift from that which was the basis of the establishment of the Land Grant system. We started to look at who was adopting the new technologies being produced. We called them "innovators" or "early adopters" as opposed to the "laggards" who did not adopt the technology. We studied the characteristics of the adopters and began to consider them as the clients for whom we developed more technology. This created a drift toward technology requiring heavy capital inputs, often one of the characteristics of the innovators and early adopters. One of my colleagues reminded me recently that in north Florida, many of these innovators had the least sustainable systems during the last decade and a high proportion no longer farm. As technology became more sophisticate d, researchers and extension workers became increasingly specialized. Increasing specialization created communication problems as each specialty developed its own vocabulary. In agriculture, this specialization, or narrowing of focus away from the whole farm and toward its components, fomented a drift away from farmers as the primary clientele group. Specialized agronomists, an increasing number without farm backgrounds, were less able to communicate with farmers who were unable to understand the special ized vocabulary. As a result, the new clientele group for those in the Land Grant system became their own peers -the only persons with whom there was easy communication. The most evident manifestation of this orientation is the emphasis on journal articles rather than technology adoption as a criterion for professional advancement. A more subtle result is that much research is designed to have a high probability of statistically significant results, therefore more readily publishable. Practical significance takes a back seat, as does research directly applicable to solving farmers' problems Perhaps even worse this situation foments a proprietary attitude toward data, and even genetic material, inhibiting collaborative efforts. The pressure is particularly great on young faculty needing tenure and promotion who almost inevitably take the least risky alternati ve to a sustainable job! The Dilemma


62 The dilemma facing agronomists in a world increasingly concerned with sustainable agriculture is that they face a need to solve urgent, location specific problems in an institutional setting that places more emphasis o n journal articles, and therefore the statistical significance of obscure results, than on the importance of the results to the industry. If that were not bad enough, it is becoming increasingly obvious that in sustainable agriculture it is necessary to w ork collaboratively in multidisciplinary teams, in an institutional structure that rewards persons so highly specialized they have difficulty communicating, sometimes even with persons in the same discipline or department. Agronomy's Role in Sustainable A griculture Agronomists are in the front line in the battle to create a more sustainable agriculture; an agriculture that meets our needs, but is kinder to the environment and reduces the drainage on non renewable resources so it will not jeopardize the pot ential for future generations to satisfy their needs. To accomplish this task will require some shifts in methods, habits and incentives that have been built up over several decades. Many agronomists will need to return to the farm. Because of the locati on specificity of farm and field environments and the need to formulate solutions more in tune with these environments, it will be necessary to carry out first conditions, problems, needs and desires in order to understand thes e environments. These assessments should provide orientation for research and extension programs so investment in them is more effective and efficient. Because sustainable technology will be less able to dominate environments but will need to fit into th em, we will encounter more treatment by environment interaction in our experiments than we are used to. This will make it critical for much more research to be carried out on farms and under farm conditions than in the past. Simply moving experiment stat ion conditions to a farm will not suffice -the purpose of on farm research is to help us understand and work with real farm environments and variability. Research must be designed to help us understand environmental interaction and farm to farm variabil ity so we can make recommendations for specific environments. This approach will also have a positive impact on biodiversity, a priority of many concerned with the loss of genetic variability. Research must also be designed so farmers can help evaluate r esults, not just observe results in a demonstration. Well designed on farm research can serve demonstration purposes, but most demonstrations serve poorly for research. Closer contact with farmers and on farm research will require that agronomists work mo re closely with persons from other disciplines including economics, anthropology and animal science,


63 as well as horticulture and pathology. Multidisciplinary on farm research and extension will require more than simply having joint projects. Failures of multidisciplinary efforts frequently result because teams are organized more as committees that meet occasionally to `coordinate' efforts but in which crop work is left to agronomists, surveys to anthropologists and desks to economists. In these cases the re is not a single identified product but rather several products or reports purported to be concerned about the same problem. Agronomists should work with anthropologists and economists to assure that these social scientists have an adequate understandin g of the crop components of the farming systems. They in turn will help assure that agronomists understand the human elements and their impact on the crop systems. Animal scientists need to interact with both the social and plant scientists to assure an adequate understanding of plant/animal interactions and the interactions of these components with the human element. Close multidisciplinary team collaboration will help assure that relevant problems are researched and appropriate evaluation criteria are utilized in the analysis and interpretation of data. Evaluation criteria will be more location specific than we have become accustomed to with the use of kg ha 1 as a universal (although not necessarily universally valid) criterion. A criterion such as k g of a product per ha of forest destroyed may have meaning in the rain forest, but not in south Florida where gallons of milk produced per unit of phosphate leached would be more appropriate. On farm research has a number of benefits that cannot be achie ved with fixed location station research. It can help us avoid the selection of technologies that perform well under controlled conditions but fail or perform poorly under real farm conditions. More important, it can help us avoid rejecting technology wh ich might do well under farm conditions but does poorly in the superior environments we create for research purposes on experiment stations. In this case, farmers may never have the opportunity to evaluate it! Also, if we know farmers are watching and ev aluating our research, we are more apt to use evaluation criteria that are important to them and not only criteria that are important to us as researchers. With the selection of a wide range of environments, it is often possible with appropriate design an d analysis, for example, Modified Stability Analysis (Hildebrand, 1984) to reduce substantially the number of years of testing required before recommendations can be made or plant material named and released. And during the testing, on farm research can b e used for demonstration as well as evaluation purposes. Administrative structures and professional evaluation procedures will need to be modified to reflect new responsibilities and methods if agronomists are to accept this role in sustainable


64 agriculture. On farm research does not preclude publishable results nor publishing. But because the orientation for on farm research is development and testing of technology for sustainable agriculture, less time is available for the tasks associated wit h publishing. Multiple authorship can also be a problem particularly in multidisciplinary teams and when priority for professional advancement is placed with single author articles or there is concern with "senior authorship." The most appropriate audien ces for many articles are not necessarily those who read the mainline professional journals. Choices may have to be made between readership and disciplinarity. Travel budgets will have to be increased, but these costs can often be offset by the investmen ts farmers make in on farm research. Farmers usually provide land, machines, labor and other inputs for research that interests them. This can be a significant savings compared to station research. Provision should be made to provide Principal Investiga tor status to multidisciplinary teams instead of to individuals. This provides more assurance that participation in a team effort will reap at least as much reward as individual effort. In closing let me repeat a statement made by Congressman George E. B rown (1989, p. 103) at these meetings last year: Sustainability is a useful concept for focusing agricultural research because it captures a diverse set of concerns about agriculture as an economic system, an ecological system, and a social system. Agron omy's role in sustainable agriculture is pivotal. As problem solvers, agronomists face a new and rigorous challenge. The world's human population is burgeoning. The technologies developed over the past few decades, as successful as they were in feeding the world, are consuming resources and contaminating the environment at rates that promise doom for future generations. We must use all our scientific capacity and innovative genius to devise new, more sustainable farming systems. We must continue to fee d the world. But in doing so, we must find ways to do so with less destruction to the earth's biosphere which is home to us all. 15 E nrollment in the farming systems course in the spring was 18 but there were only 7 in the farm management class. It was ob vious that the course number of the latter (senior level) was not attractive to graduate students, many of whom could not include a 15 Hildebrand, P.E. 1990. Agronomy s role in sustainable agriculture: Integrated farming systems. Journal of Production Agriculture 3:285 288. http://ufdc.ufl .edu/UF00081547/00001


65 non graduate course in their minimum course requirements. I began thinking about making it into a graduate level course. We were successful, finally, in getting the International Training Division of IFAS created in the office of the Dean for Academic Programs with Ellis Matheny from Entomology as Director on a half time basis. I was on the Faculty Advisory Committee for the Division. As part of the activities of the Division, Marianne Schmink, Ken Buhr and I (as lead trainer) presented another short course in Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil. This time the title of the course was research and extension methods in agroforestry systems. There were 41 participants including three from UF. All participants received two graduate credits from UF. Again, main funding came from the Ford Foundation, Rio de Janeiro. On the way to Rio Branco I went through Manaus to visit B.K. Singh and presented a seminar (in Portuol) to about 50 research and extension persons. The topic was analysis and design of on farm research. I also presented a one day segment of a short course in Jamaica to 25 participants who were also interested in analys is and design of on farm trials. Funding was from the Jamaican Agricultural Development Foundation. In Gainesville I was involved in a four day short course for several government officials from the Philippines, including one Sub Secretary of Agriculture The University of Nebraska had a major technical assistance project in Morocco and asked me to evaluate their progress and help them move into an on farm research phase. This was more of a challenge because beyond being able to order food and sort of ge t around, I did not (and do not) speak French (nor Arabic). As a result of a one week trip to Morocco, INRA (the Moroccan research institute) and Nebraska requested that I put together a budget for a short course the following year. I worked with 27 gradu ate students during 1989, of whom 5 graduated. By this time a total of 42 graduate students had graduated with the farming systems minor and 25 more were actively working on it a total of 67! 1990 After leading the International Training Division (ITD) for one year, Ellis Matheny resigned to go to IRRI in the Philippines to work in their training program. Not having another interested candidate, I agreed to take the responsibility on the condition that I be given a post doc position to teach the farmin g systems course in


66 Spring Semester of the 1990 91 academic year. Sandra Russo, who had taken one of the early farming systems courses and was heavily involved in the WIAD program on campus, took the position. She was a forage agronomist, thus also invol ved in animal science, and had several years of experience in Africa. The other reason I agreed to take this position was because Lisette Walecka, who had been the Training Coordinator for the FSSP was the Training Coordinator of the ITD. She was respons ible for most of the day to day activity in the ITD. I took over duties of the Director in mid year. For the year, the ITD sponsored seven short courses with total fees of $241,552, of which $57,620 was transferred to nine IFAS units (Agricultural Enginee ring, Agronomy, Citrus County Extension, Editorial, Entomology, Forestry, FRED, International Programs, and the Agricultural Research and Education Center (AREC) in Quincy, Florida ) To my knowledge, no funds had ever been directly transferred to departm ents from this type of activity before. Preparing proposals for funding represented a significant investment of time for the personnel (Director, Coordinator and Secretary) of the ITD. Several were prepared in 1990 including one for $473,000 for the first year of a training program in Poland. The project would have involved about nine faculty during the first year with additional faculty required in future years. Unfortunately we were not successful in getting it (mostly because our strength was in the t ropics, not temperate climates). However, we did have several faculty with connections and projects in Poland at the time. Prior to assuming the position of Director in mid year I had 17 students in the farming systems course and 10 in the farm management course. Nine departments were represented in the farming systems course and five in the farm management course. In addition, in June, I taught a two week short course on farming systems methods ( S ondeo and on farm research) in Settat, Morocco at the INR A station. Teaching with me were Mimi Gaudreau, a soil scientist and consultant, and Pam Pozarny, a PhD student in Anthropology at UF, both fluent in French. At this writing (1998) Mimi is Chief of Party of an AID contract in Madagascar and Pam is with t he United Nations Development Program in Rwanda following two years there with AFRICARE.


67 Persian wheel well in Morocco I was working with 33 graduate students in 1990 and seven of them graduated during the year. At this time only six of the 33 were wo men. One of the students who graduated, Carlos Parera from Argentina, did his horticulture thesis on sweet corn and the supersweet gene sh2 (shrunken 2). As a result of this thesis, I decided to change the crop I had been using for simulated on farm rese arch in the farming systems courses (including the short courses when applicable) from radishes to sweet corn. The radishes had always taken five weeks to be ready to harvest and required a lot more space and time both in producing and harvesting. With t he sweet corn, for which we evaluated only emergence (up to about two inches in height) we could be in and out of the field in 10 days to two weeks depending on time of year and soil temperature. And each plot with only 25 seeds was only a meter square. The sh2 corn required a near perfect environment for germination and emergence so I was comparing it with some standard varieties such as Golden Cross Bantam and Silver Queen. It worked very well because I was able to obtain land right on the main campus with both open sun and shade from trees. This was combined with irrigation and rainfed situations. Later, at the urging of university vice president for IFAS, Mike Martin, I published the procedure. 16 16 Hildebrand, P.E. 2005. Simulated on farm research: a 15 day class exercise. NACTA Journal 49:31 33.


68 I was invited to a planning meeting at the National Re search Council in Washington in November for the proposed Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management (SANREM) CRSP project. When I got back to the campus I contacted possibly interested faculty to advise them of the proposed project and then had a series of meetings with a combined total of about 45 faculty from all across the campus. By year end there appeared to be a great deal of interest in making a multiple department, multiple college, multiple center proposal that would provide for a strong collaborative effort in sustainable development on campus as well as a significant source of funds for research. The group was convinced that even if we did not finally complete the proposal, or if we were not successful with funding, the process would provide us with a useful product -enhancing the University s capability to carry out multidimensional research in a strongly collaborative effort. In 1990 I had three students in Jamaica under the agreement I had negotiated with the Jamaican Agricul tural Research Foundation, and in May I went there with Christy Gladwin to visit them. Christy was on the committee of Carolyn Tierney, for whom I was Chair. This was an interesting trip for a number of reasons. Traveling with Christy always is exciting George Wilson had arranged for us to rent a car and it was the first time in many years that I had driven on the left hand side of the highway. It was more stimulating the scary. The three students were working in a scallion producing area in a remote part of south central Jamaica and all three were working on that crop. Mac Davis (Horticulture) was studying the grass mulch system the farmers used. Steve Cook (Entomology) was studying one of the main insect pests of scallion, and Carolyn was studying the farmers production system as a whole. Most of our time was spent with Carolyn and her linear program. Because there was no place for us to stay in their village, the students had located a guest house for rent on the beach near a small, even more is olated village. It came with a cook/housekeeper and was in an ideal setting. We spent a couple of days at the guest home working on the program. Later, Christy, Carolyn and I drove to Montego Bay on the north side of the island, spending one night befor e Christy and I returned to Kingston, turned in the car and returned to Gainesville. It was a very good introduction to the country. Professor C.R.W. Spedding of Reading University in England was considered one of the founders of systems modeling in agric ulture and held the Chair of Agricultural Systems at


69 Reading. He was also a founder of the journal Agricultural Systems on whose Editorial Board I sat. I was honored to be one of 13 eminent colleagues invited to contribute a paper to an international symposium to mark his retirement in September. Two other colleagues were Barry Dent of Edinburgh University and Editor of Agricultural Systems and Gordon Conway of the Ford Foundation, New Delhi and who w ould be made President of The Rockefeller Foundation in 1998. My old friend from the Bean/Cowpea CRSP, Hugh Bunting attended many of the sessions and one evening gave me a ride back to our hotel. My paper on farming systems became Chapter 6 in the book, Systems Theory Applied to Agriculture and the Food Chain which was also the name of the symposium. The book was published by Elsevier who is also the publisher of the journal. 17 Because several of the members of the Editorial Board were in Reading for th e symposium we also had a Board meeting while I was there. Much to my surprise, but also bringing great satisfaction was being elected Chair of the International Division of the American Society of Agronomy The Chairs are responsible for planning the annual meeting. My term began October, 1991. 1991 From serving on the committee to select the Women in Agricultural Development (WIAD) assistantship recipient in 1990, I became a co coordinator of the WIAD program with Sandra Russo in 1991. This progr am was becoming very active with a seminar series and a training program. My FRED office became the secretariat and RoseMary Espaillat, my secretary, the secretary. Training activity in 1991 was negatively impacted by Desert Storm and associated USAID tra vel restrictions. I did, however, participate in a short course in Nicaragua in March that was funded by FINIDA (the AID agency of Finland). Van Crowder, Tito French and Carlos Parera were also trainers in this course that had 30 participants from the Nicaraguan Extension Service. The course was held at a motel across the street from the airport. The hotel workers were on strike during the course, so we 17 Hildebrand, P.E. 1990. Farming Systems Research Extension. Chapter 6, In : Jones/Street. Systems theory applied to agriculture and the food chain. Elsevier Science Publishers, Ltd. England, United Kingdom. pp 131 143


70 and the participants were the only guests. They did maintain minimum services for us so it was not too bad. Van later became the FAO representative in Nicaragua. Even though training slowed somewhat in 1991, the ITD sponsored seven short courses for a total contract amount of over $250,000. Of this amount, some $55,000 was distributed to seven IFAS u nits (Agronomy, Editorial, Entomology, FRED, Forestry, Vegetable Crops, and the Suwannee County Extension office). Courses were conducted in Nicaragua, Brazil and Gainesville. In addition, we prepared training proposals including courses in or for: India Morocco, Burkina Faso, Ghana (2), Honduras, Pakistan, Costa Rica, Nigeria and Egypt. Five unsuccessful proposals had been submitted for El Salvador, Haiti, Brazil, Poland and Singapore. As Director of the ITD, I joined the Association for International Agricultural Research and Development (AIARD) and attended their annual meeting in Washington, D.C. in June. D uring this period, Van Crowder and I worked with the Agricultural Education and Communication Department (AEC) to create a new M.S. degree with a concentration in farming systems IFAS communication people had recently been merged into the former Agricultural Education and Extension (AEE) Department and Van was one of the persons who were shifted. Prior to this time there was no one in the old AE E department who was qualified in farming systems (except that the Chair of the department, Carl Beeman, had been on the North Florida Farming Systems Project Advisory Committee). With Van being in the department it made a natural fit for a new farming sy stems degree. We proposed both a thesis and non thesis M.S. degree. First, we felt that it had to be a Master of Science degree to carry appropriate weight in other countries (the Master of Agriculture non thesis degree was not appreciated). We argued t hat we needed both kinds of M.S. degree because some foreign students were on a firm, fixed two year limit to obtain a Master s degree and we could not guarantee one if the student were to do a thesis. For the non thesis degree, the student would have to do at least three credits of supervised research, but this could be in any field and under the supervision of only one faculty member, not the whole supervisory committee. The report, not being a thesis, would not have to go through the graduate school ap proval process, also saving time. But for those students who had the time, the thesis, which was also valued in most countries, could be done. The department already had a thesis and non thesis Master s degree, so we requested a specialization or conc entration in farming systems. This


71 meant that it could be approved by the Graduate Council of the University of Florida and not need to go to the Board of Regents as would have been the case for a new Master s degree program (i.e., a farming systems major ). In getting approval of the new degree, we had the support of the Dean of the Graduate School, Madelyn Lockhart, who had told me earlier that the farming systems minor was one of only two in the whole university that warranted the honor of being c alled a minor. The other was a geriatrics minor in the medical school. To support the graduate activity, we had a strong farming systems seminar series in which graduate students, faculty and visitors shared farming systems experiences from throughout th e world. I was also supporting the WIAD seminar series from my office. This complemented the farming systems seminars very well and many people actively participated in both. The WIAD program also organized a six part training session for UF faculty to help them better incorporate gender issues and analysis in their courses. For one of these sessions, I reorganized one of the original FSSP slide tape sets (The small scale, limited resource family farm as a system) with a graduate student from Forestry ( Todd Johnson). Vice President Zachariah had authorized me to make a world wide announcement of the farming systems assistantship program, soliciting qualified candidates. In 1991 alone, RoseMary my secretary, and I responded to 167 letters from 35 countr ies from interested persons Even though we were able to provide assistantships only to a very limited number of students, this provided a tremendous amount of exposure to UF and our farming systems program. In 1998 I was still receiving letters requesti ng information on the farming systems assistantships for which we had not had funds for a number of years. During the short course in Morocco the previous year, I had met the biometrician from Nebraska, Walter Stroup. I immediately liked him because he un derstood and supported Modified Stability Analysis! He agreed to provide documentation (that eventually turned out to be both a paper and a video) to support the procedure. Later, he, Chuck Francis (also from the University of Nebraska) and I would write a paper for a book chapter which supported Modified Stability Analysis. 18 This was presented as one of three papers I co authored for the 1991 Agronomy meetings. 18 Stroup, W.W., P.E. Hildebrand and C.A. Francis. Farmer participation for more effective research in sustainable agriculture. Chapter 12 In : Ragla nd, J. and R. Lal. 1993. Technologies for


72 Chuck Wood (from Sociology and who would become Director of the Center for Latin American Stu dies in 1997) and I spent a lot of time in 1991 as Co Principal Investigators for the SANREM CRSP proposal that we and about 45 other faculty worked on during the year. Unfortunately, we were not successful in our efforts (the University of Georgia won th e competition). However, we did pioneer an administrative structure for such a complex, multi college project by setting up the mechanism for being housed in the office of the Dean of the Graduate School rather than in IFAS, the office of the Dean of Libe ral Arts and Sciences, or other location. Although my travel was minimized by the ITD duties at home, I did go to the University of California at Davis where I presented an invited paper, Farming Systems Research: One Methodology for Systems Research at a conference on Agricultural Systems: Incorporating Environmental and Social Concerns. Following the conference I led a two day workshop on the analysis and design of on farm research for research and extension faculty from the University of California. By this time, personal computers were widely enough available that I used them rather than hand held calculators for data analysis. Several were available in the room we used for the workshop and I had one with a projector so the whole group could see w hat I was doing. Other things I did to keep busy in 1991 included serving on the Executive Committee of the Center for Latin American Studies, the Faculty Advisory Committee for the Certificate in Tropical Agriculture, and as c o coordinator of the WIAD p rogram. These in addition to being Coordinator of the Farming Systems Program. Also in 1991, a milestone, I was finally appointed to the Doctoral Research Faculty!!! 1992 In 1992 I hit a new high in number of graduate students, 35, of which seven were women (20%). I also hit a new high in sustainable agriculture in the tropics. American Society of Agronomy, ASA Special Publication No. 56. Madison. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00053919/00001/2j


73 number of graduate students graduated, 11, or about one in three. I had an enrollment of 18 in the farming systems course from 10 major s plus one special student (a visiting scientist from India). I offered the former farm management course as a special topics course at the graduate level as Economic Analysis in Small Farm Systems and had four students (from four majors) enrolled. By 19 92 some 64 graduate students had completed a farming systems minor and another 16 were working on the minor. The visiting scientist was C.B. Singh, a senior scientist from the Dairy Research Institute in India, who came to UF funded by Wageningen Universit y in the Netherlands by way of Winrock International to take my regular farming systems course and to work with me on data analysis using some of his former research data. As part of the data analysis he wanted to do linear programming. In working with h im we set up a dairy goat situation as an example, based on his data. Over the years I have modified that original set of exercises and continue to use the goats in my economic analysis class and in short courses. A newer version of the exercises was c o authored with two graduate students: Abib Arajo (Brazil), and Elena Bastidas (Ecuador) The 2008 version is authored with another, Victor Cabrera (Peru) In a previous year, the USDA had advertised for someone to offer a short course for them in farming systems. One had been offered at the University of Arizona before. I was against bidding for the course at the time because the USDA wanted to dictate too much of what would be included, and they were not willing to pay commensurate with what they wante d. However, other faculty were interested and willing to do it for the reduced budget (reduced from what I would have insisted on) and we did do the course. However, the other interested faculty got involved in other activities (probably because they f inally realized they would not be properly remunerated) so the task of principal trainer for a course I had not wanted fell on me. This was a one month course offered in July and August. In February I traveled for two weeks to South Africa where I presen ted the keynote address at the inaugural Southern Africa Farming Systems Conference and to consult with the Southern Africa Development Bank on needed shifts in agricultural research and extension programs under the envisioned new governmental arrangements with the end of apartheid. The Bank funded the trip and Ted Stilwell was my host. When I arrived in Johannesburg after a 17 hour flight from New York on South African Airways, I went first to Ted s home for a shower and lunch. To my surprise,


74 Jerry Eck ert was also there. Jerry was a long time farming systems hand from Colorado State University and was working in southern Africa at the time. This trip was right before the referendum when the South Africans were to vote on apartheid and I was a bit conc erned with the timing. However, it was really an exciting time to be there. Everyone I met, white or black, was enthusiastic about getting apartheid behind them and joining the world. They really felt very isolated. Among others at the conference w as J acques Faye who had been the Executive Secretary of the West African Farming Systems Research Network (WAFSRN) and was currently working with CIRAD in Montpelier in France. Dave Norman was also there. South Africa had an excellent agricultural research an d extension program associated with the Whites Own Department of Agriculture. They served some 55,000 large scale white farmers who used some of the most modern technology anywhere. There were something like 20 other Departments of Agriculture in the country serving the 1.1 million black, small farms in the homelands. But they had little or nothing to work with individually nor as a group. The thought was that all these departments would become one and that persons from the former Whites Own Departm ent would have to service the 1.1 million black farmers as well as the 55,000 whites. And they simply did not know how to cope with this large number of small farmers. A farming systems approach seemed like the only hope. One of the things that had alrea dy been organized was the creation of emerging farmers, who were black farmers organized into commercial operations. One I saw was a five hectare banana farm. Another was a one hectare leather fern farm under plastic screen. In both cases, there were large commercial firms associated with them to do the marketing. Besides the tremendous investment involved with each individual farmer, this simply did not seem to me to be the way to go. While my hosts in the Department of Agriculture were attentive, I do not think they were very enthusiastic with my suggestions. However, some of Mandela s people were at the farming systems conference and they were very attentive to what was going on. So it looked like the farming systems approach would be important i n the new South Africa as well as Southern Africa in general. On the weekend break while I was there, Ted and I visited Kwazulu, one of the homelands, where I met Howard Beck. He worked very hard to improve the agriculture in this homeland. Part of what he was involved in was providing services, from tractors to


75 seed to fertilizer for the small farmers in his area. This seemed like a much better approach. After visiting him, we were able to spend an evening and the next day in Kruger National Park. Thi s is a very well run park and has an excellent array of animals. I very much appreciated the time Ted took with me on the whole trip. Women on a path in Kwazulu Bongo in Kruger National Park I was also invited to present a paper in Chapingo, Mexico at the Autonomous University. They had a conference on Agroforestry for sustainable development and my paper was


76 called Farming Systems Research for Agroforestry Extension. This paper which I did with four former graduate students was later published in Agroforestry Systems. 19 In this paper we argued that knowledge of farmers evaluation criteria plays an important role in the analysis of on farm research data and in the dissemination of the re sulting technology. Research conducted by the four students in Brazil, Costa Rica, Haiti and Kenya was used as examples. I had been having discussions with Bellows, Campbell and Jama as a group for a number months in which we discussed the commonalities emerging from their apparently very different research situations. I returned to Settat, Morocco in September to present another short course, this time on analysis and design of on farm research. Working with me in this course were former student John Ru ssell (PhD Agronomy) who was at the time working in Zanzibar, and current student Debbie McGrath (PhD Forestry), both fluent in French. In this course, where there were about 25 participants from both research and extension and some of the Moroccans who h ad taken the first course were acting as assistant trainers. We split the participants into two groups: those who wanted to work with computers (predominately the research group) and those who wanted to use hand held calculators (predominately from extens ion). The extension people did not have access to computers and did not know how to use them. The researchers predominately did, on both counts. It was interesting because the two groups (computer vs. calculator, not research vs. extension) competed wit h each other to see who could finish exercises first. As often as not, the calculators won! My message with Modified Stability Analysis has always been that computers are not necessary. Analysis can be done on the ground with a stick if necessary. Debb ie stayed on in Morocco after the course ended looking into possible dissertation research topics and collaborators. However, she finally opted for Brazil where she collaborated with PESACRE the organization that we helped create in Rio Branco 19 Hildebrand, P.E., B.K. Singh, B.C. Bellows, E.P. Campbell and B.A. Jama. 1993. Farming systems research for agroforestry extension. Agroforestry Systems 23:219 237.


77 1993 In 1992, the Association for Farming Systems Research Extension recognized a number of regional chapters: 1) Asia, 2) Southern Africa (which has effectively become Southern and Eastern Africa), 3) Europe 4) Latin America and 5) North America It was gen erally decided that the global association would meet in even numbered years and the regional chapters in the odd years. At the University of Florida we decided to host the first North American chapter symposium in 1993. I was Chair of the Overall Organi zing Committee, and Terry Kelly, my PhD graduate student was the official Coordinator. RoseMary Espaillat, my secretary, was the official secretary of the symposium and did an outstanding job both before and during the conference. This was a major undert aking that took up a lot of our time during the year. We decided that we should have several farmers attend and were able to obtain funding from the Kellogg Foundation for this purpose. We had farmers and ranchers from several states including Oregon, Mo ntana, Pennsylvania and Florida. Ray William formerly with UF and then with Oregon State, had begun story telling sessions in some of his work and we also incorporated these in our program. They have proved to be extremely popular. The farmers (or ot hers) get together with an interested group, usually in the evenings, and tell the stories of their farms. At our symposium, David Norman also told his story. Although I missed it, I was told that it was a big hit, and I am sure it was. At this symposium I presented a paper on how to create multiple extension messages from a single set of on farm trials using adaptability analysis. 20 This I think was an important contribution toward a method to maintain diversity by permitting recommendations for very dif ferent biophysical conditions and socio economic situations if they have been included in the design of the trial. I emphasized coordinated on farm trials because farmers had to agree on a minimum number of common treatments to be included on each farm or field in the trial. Individual farmers can opt to have other treatments on their own farms, but these treatments would not be included in the adaptability analysis. 20 Hildebrand, P.E. 1993. Targeting technology diffusion through coordinated on farm r esearch. Food and Resource Economics Staff Paper SP 93 25. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00081830/00002


78 In working with so many graduate students (I was involved on 37 supervisory committees in 1993) I began to see us accumulating a really vast amount of knowledge on sustainable development based on their research. It occurred to me that we should try to compile a synthesis of all this work. Too often, when theses were finished they either jus t stayed on the shelf or else the results were published in diverse journals. This way, the whole of their (and our) work was never seen except by someone who worked with so many of them and attended many seminars. I had worked with four of my graduate s tudents (two from Soils and two from Agroforestry} on the paper that was published in Agroforestry Systems 21 I thought this kind of effort could be expanded to include many more of the students. The IFAS administration decided that the International Train ing Division should be paying its own way and not need to depend on support funding from IFAS. As a result, we began a transition, moving the ITD back into IFAS International Programs which we had been successful in getting it out of about five years befo re. Over the 4 1/2 years that we were under our own Director (of which I was Director for 3 1/ 2 years), the portfolio was nearly $1,000,000 with $210,000 returned to the individual units (mostly departments). In 1992 when we were fully operational, we ha d a portfolio of $310,000. We had been able to get 33 faculty involved in short courses. Three graduate students had been course coordinators, eight served as trainers, and another eight had served as program assistants. I thought the program was an exc ellent outreach activity for IFAS. It brought us tremendous international exposure and helped recruit a number of outstanding graduate students. But IFAS was in the process of decreasing international involvement and the decision was made. In 1993 the university finally began to consider the creation of a new college that would be based on multiple disciplines all working on natural resources and the environment. This was similar to an approach that I and a group of faculty had been working on for several years. Within FRED, several of us had begun working on a Concentration Cluster that would free us from the rigid disciplinarity that then existed in the department. We began to see the new college, the College of Natural Resources 21 Hildebrand, P. E., B. K. Singh, B. C. Bellows, E. P. Campbell and B. A. Jama. 1993. Farming systems research for agroforestry extension. Special issue of Agroforestry Systems, Volume 23, Nos. 2 3. Directions in Agroforestry: a Quick Appraisal. http://www.springerlink.com/content/lt064715h5249n76/fulltext.pdf


79 and E nvironment (CNRE) as the best option because our department was not at all receptive to making the kinds of changes we felt were needed. My international travel in 1993 involved only two trips. One to Managua, Nicaragua to participate as a trainer for a s hort course on gender analysis in FSRE activities funded by FINNIDA, the Finnish AID agency. I also went to Jamaica to evaluate the Jamaican Hillside Agriculture project. We had several students working in this project. Also in 1993 the revision of th e methodology book that Chris Andrew and I had been working on was published. 22 1994 1997 : Conservation, Development and Food Security I n the 1994 annual evaluation reports from the faculty, the Chair of the department asked for a statement of what we considered our most significant efforts during the year. In my statement I said: My most significant efforts have been toward increasing the multi and inter disciplinarity of systems research and study. This has come about from my activities related to: 1) managing the new Agricultural Systems Panel for the National Research Initiative/Competitive Grants Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture during its first year of existence ; 2) agreeing to chair the task force for creating a graduate curriculum on Sustainable Development for the new College of Natural Resources and Environment at UF; and 3) working with the large number of graduate students in the a) farming systems, b) agroforestry, c) WIAD, and 4) Tropical Conservation and Development Programs on campus. During 1994 I was working with 41 graduate students (6 of whom graduated during the year). These students were majoring in 12 different departments (Ag Education and Communication, Ag Engineering, Agronomy, Anthropology, Mass Communication, Dairy Science, Forestry, FRE, Geography, Latin American Studies, Soil Science, and Wildlife). All told, they were working on research in 12 countries: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, C osta Rica, 22 Andrew, C.O. and Peter E. Hildebrand. 1993. Applied agricultural research: foundations and methodology. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055232/00001


80 Cuba, Ecuador, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Korea, Peru and St. Lucia. Eighteen of them were working for a farming systems minor (another 71 graduate students had graduated with the minor for a total of 89!). Enrollment in the farming systems cou rse continued to be strong (12 students) but the economic analysis course had dropped down to 4 students in the spring semester. During the year I decided I had to change it to a graduate level course and begin teaching it in fall semester. Many graduate students wanted to take it, but because it was a senior level course they did not do it. In 1994 the first students graduated with an M.S. degree in Agricultural Education and Communication with the Concentration in Farming Systems: Jos Garcia, James Gli sson, Donna Rieper and Lynne Schreiber. Seven others were enrolled in the program. The Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources advised me that he would fund only one more farming systems assistantship and then would terminate the program. T he program had brought a tremendous amount of worldwide attention to the farming systems program and the University of Florida. At a time when academics, extension and research were finally moving towards a systems approach, I felt that terminating the as sistantship program was very short sighted. Obviously the Vice President and I disagreed on this point. Nevertheless, I felt the assistantship program had been highly successful. ICTA in Guatemala had created an International Council and had asked me t o serve on it. In 1994 I traveled to Guatemala for of meeting of the council. Also in 1994 I spent a month in Tanzania, contracted by the Government of the Netherlands to serve on a team to evaluate their farming systems program in that country. On the latter trip, I left Gainesville on Tuesday, September 13, overnighted on Delta to Zurich where I had a 10 hour layover and then caught SwissAir to Dar es Salaam arriving after landing first in Nairobi and getting a great view of Kilimanjaro from the air as the sun came up (Thursday, September 15). In customs I was met by two people from the Dutch Embassy who were waiting to accompany me on a charter flight to Mwanza on the shores of Lake Victoria. I was on the ground only fifty minutes before being airbor ne again, this time in a six passenger, twin engine Piper. I had to put whatever I took to Mwanza in my carryon bag because there was not space and weight for my checked bag. This was taken by the driver back to the Dutch embassy where I would connect wi th it in about 10 days. On this


81 trip we crossed Lake Victoria on a ferry to Bukova. I also flew to Mtwara near the Mozambique border. On our way to check out some of the work of the Bukova team. 1995 The change in the economic analysis course from a senior to a graduate level course and from s pring to f all semester was a success. In spring semester, taught under the temporary number of AEB 6933, I had 7 students (compared with only 4 the previous spring semester). Then I taught it again in fall seme ster under its new permanent number (AEB 5167) and I had 15 students in the course. I incorporated gender analysis as well as food security considerations. I was beginning to concentrate more and more on linear programming in the course and many students began using it as the basis for the analysis of their thesis and dissertation research. I was convinced that with the increasingly common availability of desk top computers or even laptops in remote areas, linear programming with spreadsheet software was becoming very feasible. A few students in the class were able to use data already collected, but many more used it as a means to help them determine what data they needed when they went to the field. Students in the course were coming from many departme nts, both in IFAS and across campus but very few from my own


82 department were taking it. This reflected the still very rigid stance in the department on theory and quantitative economics with little tolerance for applied work. About this time I began working with Elena Bastidas who had finished a B.S. in FRED and was working on the M.S. degree in Agricultural Education and Communication with a concentration in farming systems. Both she and her husband, Diego Luzuriaga were Ecua dorians and Zamoranos and both were outstanding graduate students at UF (Diego in Food Science). Elena was my assistant trainer for two summer short courses in 1995. One was economic analysis, based on linear programming, and the other on analysis and de sign of on farm research. One of the students in both courses was Mamadou Lo from Senegal who later got the farming systems MS degree in AEC. Elena and I also worked on a proposal for a short course in Helsinki that fell through and for one in Cuba invo lving on farm research and prepared all the materials in Spanish when the contractor said that I was too old to be an FAO consultant (FAO was paying for the course). So that course did not materialize either. We were going to use the new book, Adaptabili ty Analysis that John Russell and I had written and was sent to press in 1995. 23 Mamadou Lo, Dean Jack Fry, Elena Bastidas and me at a closing ceremony for one of the short courses. 23 Hildebrand, P.E. and J.T. Russell. 1996. Adaptability analysis: A method for the design, analysis and interpretation of on farm research exte nsion. Iowa State University Press. Ames. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00072042/00001


83 At the North American AFSRE conference in Ames, Iowa, I had volunteere d to set up an electronic network for all participants from the meeting. I thought I would be able to even get the farmers who had computers but did not have access to email on the net using the FRED 800 phone number. I did get this set up and did make i t possible for farmers to use our 800 number to get free email (but not other web) connections. This proved to be very popular. The people at Oregon State used the list as well for their farming systems conference in 1997. In addition to the North Ameri can net, I also created a farming systems net for campus use, the FSNET. This was not a list server but rather just a mailing list on my computer. I forwarded announcements on seminars, classes, jobs, etc. to both graduate students and faculty who were i nterested in the topic of farming systems. This has proven to be very popular and useful and is still ( 2011 ) in full operation with many now around the world on it Also during the year I had been meeting with a group of students interested in expanding the concept of agricultural sustainability beyond the farm. We held periodic seminars on Community Sustainability and I also created a COMSUS network for this group. Although this group, itself, was not sustainable the idea of meeting on a regular basis with a diverse group of graduate students on specific topics did persevere and has been very useful. My secretary, RoseMary Espaillat and I both won awards in 1995. RoseMary won the Superior Accomplishment Award which is offered annually to persons who are outstanding in staff and support positions. I have always strived to have a competent secretary, and it is always a struggle to keep one once I have one. RoseMary was a trained and experienced bilingual (Spanish/English) executive secretary and the wife of a student in Agronomy working on both a Master s and a PhD degree (fortunately for me because this meant she was able to stay with me about seven years). Over time, and as computers began to take over many of the tasks formerly handled by secretaries, the department began to lose secretaries. This meant that two or more faculty began to share a single secretary. As this process progressed, there was much pressure on me because I still had my own secretary. It didn t make any difference t o those who were jealous that their pool secretaries spent much time with little to do and that RoseMary was always busy with a list of tasks and priorities lined up. I guess they just did not understand how a secretary was a member of a productive team. RoseMary and I


84 worked together in a very productive relationship. Without her our office would not have been able, for instance, to become the secretariat of the 1) Women in Agricultural Development Program, 2) to manage the FSRE assistantships, 3) to or ganize the Farming Systems library, ( http://ufdc.ufl.edu/?c=fao1&s=ifsa& ) 4) coordinate the Farming Systems seminar series, 5) host the North American AFSRE Symposium, and I would not have been able to mana ge the tasks of the 6) d irector of the International Training Division. Some excerpts from her letters of nomination follow: In all of my encounters with RoseMary, she has been the epitome of efficiency and helpfulness. Her abilities to do any task requ ested of her, find anyone or anything you may need, turn around a document (in either Spanish or English) in record time, schedule appointments and meetings, take on extra assignments, learn new skills, teach staff, faculty and students what she has learne d, and maintain a cheerful demeanor throughout is truly extraordinary. Visitors to the University, as well as everyone who comes to Dr. Hildebrand s office, are made to feel comfortable and welcome. Certainly Ms. Espaillat s ability to work in two languages and cross culturally is an asset that serves the University in the broadest context as she readily shares those skills to help with visiting dignitaries and new students. I have known Ms. Espaillat in several capacities, including when I chaired the NAFSRE symposium last year and over the years for both the Farming Systems and WIAD programs. Ms. Espaillat is simply an excellent secretary, dedicated professional, and loyal Gator. If something needs to be done for any of these programs and activi ties, then RoseMary does these things and they are done correctly. It has been my good fortune to have worked with RoseMary many times. Not only is RoseMary always willing to help, epitomizing cooperation and positive attitude, she is willing and eager to learn. I have instructed many people in the use of electronic communications in the last several years and no one has learned and applied the information as quickly as RoseMary. Importantly she is always willing to help others and share skills with o thers. RoseMary has repeatedly taken it on herself to prepare how to do it guides and teach skills in mini short courses.


85 Last year, RoseMary took the initiative to computerize the listing of the Farming Systems library housed in Dr. Hildebrand s offic e. A few months later, when we wanted to start a departmental reading/reference room, RoseMary volunteered several hours of her time to teach another employee how to use the library software. Her support of this effort was a key to the successful launchi ng of the departmental reference/reading room. It should be quite obvious that a secretary like RoseMary is a powerful force in making her supervisor more productive. Much of what I have been able to do over the years has been due to having (and usually keeping) good secretaries. Also in 1995, I won the Alpha Zeta Professor of the Year award which was truly a surprise for me because I had always associated it with undergraduate teaching. It turned out that a large group of my graduate students submitted the nomination and were successful. I very much appreciated the award. But it wou ld not have been possible without the excellent graduate students and secretarial support I had over the years. 1996 In my 1996 annual evaluation report I made the following statement in an attempt to better convey to my Chair and the upper level admini stration of IFAS the nature of what I was doing, and perhaps an understanding of why students from so many different departments were interested in farming systems. Farming systems professionals, important participants in agricultural and sustainable deve lopment activities, work in the world of forests, farms and rural communities as well as that of commerce, governmental and non governmental organizations, international organizations and multinational companies. They often act simultaneously as functiona ries, advocates and community members. For them research is a tool, not an end. It is used to help diagnose sources of problems and conflicts and search for appropriate solutions. Primary data and first hand knowledge of the poorly understood circumstan ces of the clientele are critical. Many at the moment are working in remote areas on the important interface between wildlife and natural resource protection and conservation, and agricultural and economic development. Their multidisciplinary training


86 ne cessarily requires people skills, participatory techniques, gender analysis, a capability to communicate with persons in many fields and cultures, a comprehensive understanding of development, and, of course, expertise in some primary socioeconomic or bio physical field. Most of my time in 1996, besides my classes, was with graduate students. As a reflection of the interest by graduate students in farming systems, my graduate student load swelled to 46 in 1996 and a new major (Political Science) was among them. Of these, 19 graduated during the year! Sergio Ruano who had been with me in ICTA in Guatemala was working as a consultant to the Centro Maya in the Petn of Guatemala. Through him I managed to negotiate for three students (two graduate students and a senior honors student) to work with them during the summer on different aspects associated with the Maya Biosphere Reserve. Also in 1996 I worked with Christina Gladwin and other faculty from UF on a proposal that we submitted to the new Soils CRSP. I was a member of the committee to screen the proposals (at North Carolina State University) for this program. Our project was selected for support, but initially with no funding! However, during the year Christina did manage to get a minimum level of f unding so we initiated activities during the year. 1997 My graduate student load dropped a bit to 39, but it did not mean I was working any less with them. In spring semester, Marianne Schmink and I set up a seminar type non course on gender analysis and had about 15 students involved. They were taking from zero to three credits apiece, depending on what they wanted to contribute and accomplish. We couldn t decide what to call it so called it simply Juanita. Don t ask me where that came from! The non course generated a great deal of interest among students, both those involved and others who were not in it. In fall semester, I agreed to continue the idea, but with a theme based on food security, that had come up repeatedly during the previous semester. Again, there were about 15 students involved, not all the same from the previous Juanita. From this non course, Juanita II, we generated a number of papers around the theme of food security among small holders based on the research experience of the students (and some faculty) who were participating. Many of


87 these were using linear programming analysis and had taken, or were taking concurrently my economic analysis class. We decided we ought to do two things wi th the papers we were working on. First, we submitted a proposal to the Southern Africa Farming Systems Association who were going to host the 1998 global AFSRE symposium. We suggested that we put on a half or whole day special session on food security. Also, we thought we should be able to end up with a book on the topic. We were seeing a lot of similarities among a highly diverse set of small farm livelihood systems. All were extremely diverse and depended on this diversity for sustainability and foo d security. The seasonal needs for cash and food drove the systems and household composition dictated the relative capabilities to meet them. Two students went to Guatemala to work with the Centro Maya: A.J. Shriar, a PhD student in Geography; and Christy Vollbracht, a senior honor student in Wildlife. A.J. was doing preliminary research for his dissertation and Christy doing her honors thesis. This was my first time working with an honors student and I was very much impressed with her and the honors pro gram. Her thesis involved methods of storing maize. I went to the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, in early March to review their farming systems program and help them move from conceptualization to an action program. March in Ontario is cold, an d I, of course, had no warm clothes so they had to loan me a coat for the duration of my stay. John Smithers picked me up at the Toronto airport with the coat and I gave it back to him when he dropped me off again at the airport. Later in the year I went to the University of Georgia in Athens (my first trip to Dawg town) to help them design the second phase of the SANREM (Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management) CRSP Bob Hart, one of the old farming systems hands, was the Director of t he CRSP. I had known Bob since I was working in El Salvador and he was in Honduras with a CATIE program. I was very pleased in 1997 to receive the University of Florida and College of Agriculture 1996 97 Graduate Teacher and Advisor of the Year Award. El ena Bastidas and several other graduate students took advantage of the first year this award was offered to submit my nomination. They were as happy as I was when I won. Besides Elena, other students involved in the nomination included Mamadou Lo from Se negal; Mike Dougherty, an American; and Abib Arajo from Brazil.


88 In November, the biennial North American Association for Farming Systems Research Extension symposium was held in Oregon, the only state of the lower 48 I had not yet been in and leaving only Alaska One of the graduate students in the farming systems concentration in Ag Education and Communication had a poster accepted and she and I went to the meeting. Angela Snyder had done an excellent job with her linear programming term paper in my eco nomic analysis class and this was what she prepared for a poster. The symposium was held in a resort (Resort at the Mountain) near Mount Hood. We flew out on Saturday for the lower fares and were able to tour the area on Sunday before the meetings began.


89 1998 2003: Food Security, Household Diversity and Sustainable Livelihood Systems I n s pring s emester, 1998, I continued working on the idea of a food security book with the group of graduate students and faculty. We met about twice a month to contin ue discussing ideas and improving our comprehension of the topic. Around the world, these small holder systems are very diverse and there is great diversity within each system. The most important strategy appears to be diversity. This is important because it reduces the risk of depending on a single source in any particular season for food or cash and it is necessary so that seasonal demands can be met. But the capability of any household to meet these demands depends to a large extent on the compo sition of the household I n households with only two adults and one to several small children, it is very hard for the adults to adequately feed the many mouths while at the same time caring for the children at home. When children are older, households b ecome relatively well off with several persons able to work in production activities or help with household reproduction activities. In particular, if a person is away from the hearth hold (not living in the household) but sending money back to the househo ld as remittances it provides an opportunity for the household to begin to accumulate wealth such as more land or oxen, or engage in such activities as soil conservation that produce longer term gains at the expense of short term expenses. This also make s it more feasible for a household to begin exploring and learning to use new technology, a topic we explored nearly 20 years before in John Wake s thesis. I contacted Lynne Rienner who had published a couple of my earlier books and she expressed an inter est in publishing it. I had been negotiating with a donor who wanted to send a senior Bangladeshi scientist to UF to take my economic analysis and farming systems courses. Originally they wanted it done in two months (November and December) as special cou rses. However, they did not want to pay the price of one on one courses. Eventually they decided to send him in spring semester as a registered non degree student when I was teaching the farming systems course and I agreed to provide him a special topic s course over the economic analysis material. After I decided to do this, I announced it on my farming systems network on campus and


90 ended up with six other people taking the economic analysis course even though I had just finished teaching the course in fall semester. It was in the 1997 98 academic year that I began using a computer in class on a frequent basis. Also, the students began using a computer for making their presentations in class. This required a laptop computer and portable projector. Th e department had these and usually they were available. However, as I began to use them on a regular basis in class in fall semester, I finally obtained my own laptop and later a projector. This equipment is particularly useful in teaching linear program ming. The students were grasping the material much more rapidly than previous classes and I was fully convinced they w ould all be using the technique in their own research and future careers. In 1998, several UF faculty and a number of graduate students w ere involved in the second year of our participation with the Soils Management CRSP. Christy Gladwin was the UF Principal Investigator. We planned on having several graduate students in the field over the summer and fall. In order to do this, of course, planning starts many months before. We were supposed to have our money from USAID, by way of the University of Hawaii by February or so. However, the delays were incredible and we sent students overseas in the summer with little real financial support. On the CRSP we had students in Malawi, Uganda, Ethiopia, Senegal and Mali. In addition, I had students in Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia and Guatemala. With the exception of the one in Bolivia, all were working with small holders and all, including t he one in Bolivia, were using linear programming in their theses and dissertations. They were majoring in Forestry, Geography, Latin American Studies, Agricultural Education and Communication, and Anthropology. All were working on the interface between c onservation and development and most included food security concerns as a major consideration. In order to keep the courses going, the book progressing (albeit slowly), the farming systems seminars active and keep up with my graduate students, I needed hel p in the office and was fortunate to be able to have Elena Bastidas as a graduate assistant. She moved into my office (taking the inner office where I had been when I still had a secretary) and I was in the larger, outer office where RoseMary had been. E lena and her husband, Diego, were both former Zamoranos and both working on PhD degrees. I was Elena s major professor so it worked out very well to have her in my office. She had been working with me on several short courses


91 and was super organized. In an interesting aside, Elena had a baby in December 1997 so she and Diego immediately began actively living the kind of household stress we were talking about in our food security work. The University of Florida was involved with EPCOT in Disney World, and the World Bank in a program they called International Communicators. The World Bank funded the communicators from several countries to come to Epcot during their annual spring Flower Festival and create typical farm scenes from t heir home countries or areas. They would give presentations periodically during the day. These communicators came to UF one day for lunch and to get acquainted with the departments relative to their individual disciplines. I hosted two, Tet Lopez from th e Philippines and Francis Sumba from Kenya. Both were agricultural economists. Later in May, as their guests, I went to EPCOT to see their presentations. Another communicator who had been to UF at the lunch was Amy Gough, a US representative. She was l ater admitted into the farming systems program in AEC and beg an in spring 1999. Also in May, I attended the 25 th anniversary celebration of ICTA in Guatemala where I had worked in the 70s. This was a major, three day celebration with lunches, banquets, a dance and many talks. I had been invited to give the keynote address on the first morning following the address by the Minister of Agriculture. Although my title was grandiose, The Political and Economic Situation over the Last 25 Years, I talked mostl y about what the impact of ICTA had been on agricultural research and extension methods in the world since ICTA was established 25 years before. 24 There was a great difference between the Minister s talk and mine. His reflected the current development line of competition, efficiency, comparative advantage, export and commercialization. It also was in line with ICTA s new direction of responding to research needs of companies (mostly multinational) or organizations that could pay for it. The Minister sim ply wrote off the campesino population which in 1998 probably numbered more than the total population of the country in the 1970s when I was working there. He indicated that the small holders who were too small to commercialize were not part of his portfo lio. Rather they were a social problem for some other Ministry. Believe it or not, this was similar to my thinking 4 0 24 http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00065469/00001/2j (Spanish) http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00065469/00002/2j Eng lish


92 years before when I finished my PhD degree The Minister was just going to ignore half of Guatemala s population who produced at least half of the food the country consumed. I argued that ICTA had to continue working for the small holders to help them increase the production of their basic foods. The kind of technology they need is very different from that needed by the commercial produc ers of export products and there was no other entity in the country that could or would produce it. Thinking only in terms of productivity per unit of land as the Minister had iterated, was not appropriate for the small holder producing food for the famil y and a little to sell. Their scarce st resources often are their own labor particularly in critical times of the year such as planting and weeding, and cash which is needed for much more than purchasing inputs from the market. ICTA s methodology originally was developed to help this kind of producer. Most campesinos were not able to attend meetings to organize themselves to request funds because they were already fully employed just trying to feed their families. In a letter to the Gerente Gener al of ICTA following the celebration (May 22, 1998), I suggested that if the Ministry was not going to provide funds for ICTA to serve these people then ICTA should look to the social funds the Minister said were responsible for them. I made my first t rip to Monterrey Tech in Monterrey, Mexico in July and was very much impressed with it. They have excellent funding support and appeared to have used the money very well. One of their professors was getting a PhD degree from Monterrey Tech and had spent a year at UF as part of his program. Jim Jones from Agricultural Engineering at UF was serving as his major professor and I was also on his committee. Another external person was from California and the other members were from Monterrey Tech. We held th e oral part of his qualifying examination there and worked with him on his research proposal. Traveling with Jim offered us a time to get better acquainted (even though we worked on several committees together, we had never had time to socialize). One res ult of the trip was my agreement to work with him on a NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) research project he had with the University of Miami and Florida State. They were modeling the ENSO phenomenon known as El Nio and La Ni a and modeling the effect on crops from these climatic deviations. Jim was working on the possibility of making recommendations to farmers on how to change their cropping practices when these variations are predicted. NOAA decided that they should get t he


93 farmers involved by 1) finding out what they thought, and 2) trying out some of the recommendations in on farm trials. Jim agreed to fund an assistantship for fall semester and I managed to get Angela Caudle to take it. She was one of the students who had been in the Petn in Guatemala earlier in the year. She began working in Alabama and Georgia and a bit in Florida. I thought it might work to have my farming systems class use this topic for the class S ondeo exercise in the farming systems course in spring semester. We were able to continue funding Angela as well. In November I agreed to serve on a committee to review the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa working with the former d irector of the Indiana Agricultural Experiment Station at Purdue, the current d irector of the Cooperative Extension Service for New Jersey at Rutgers, and Lorna Butler, a long time friend and farming systems extension person from Washington State. Lorna headed up the group. D ennis Keeney was the d irector of the Center and former President of the American Society of Agronomy. He and I had worked together on a chapter for Mike Collinson s book on the History of FSR. 25 Coincidently, (I think) both Lorna and I had been nominated (possibly by Dennis) for the endowed Chair for Sustainable Agriculture that had just been created at Iowa State. Dennis and the Center had done an outstanding job of trying to bring an integrated, systems perspective to research in the very reductionist I SU College of Agriculture and the endowed Chair could help their efforts considerably. The Chair would have been a challenge, but I decided that living in Iowa was not for me In particular, I had just signed up (July 1) for the State of Florida DROP pro gram. My retirement rate was set at that point and the money was paid into a fund to accumulate while I continued working (and making my regular salary) for up to five years more. But at the end of five years I had to retire Then my retirement income w ould continue and I would have access to the fund that had built up in the meantime. Lorna did apply and got the position. Late in 1997, Chris Andrew had been approached by a person at Kansas State University who had the idea of nominating me, Mike Collinson and David Norman for the World Food Prize. 25 Hildebrand, P. and D. Keeney. 2000. Agronomy and FSR a reluctant marriage? Chap. 10.3 IN: M. Collinson (Ed.). A history of farming systems research. CABI Publishing. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00091275/00001


94 The nomination would be in 1998 for the 1999 prize. He and Elena Bastidas worked very hard on it, particularly toward the end of 1998 (the nomination was due December 31). Also helping in the process were Marianne Schmink and Chuck Wood from the Center for Latin American Studies. The recently named President of The Rockefeller Foundation (Gordon Conway) officially made the nomination (which had to be made by an institute, not an indivi dual). Gordon had been a long time member of the farming systems association and worked in farming systems activities mainly in India for many years. The idea of the nomination was that the three of us, all farm management agricultural economists, had been among the founders of farming systems which was having a worldwide impact on food production. 1999 The last year of the millennium turned out to be busy, interesting, exciting and sad as well. The excitement did not involve the World Food Prize which we did not win. However, Gordon Conway, the President of The Rockefeller Foundation, requested permission to re nominate us for the 20 00 prize, which, of course, we all agreed to. Rather, our family took two great vacations, I took on a second job at the university, and my international travels began to increase again. Let s start from the beginning and leave the sad part for later. In December, 1998, the Rector (President) of the Escuela Superior Politcnica del Litoral (ESPOL) in Guayaquil, Ecuador, took advantage of being in Gainesville to visit his daughter (Elena Bastidas, my graduate student), to meet with then d irector of Interna tional Programs, Peter Hartmann. The Rector was interested in a strategic alliance with the University of Florida with specific interest in development of the small scale farmers in the part of Ecuador where ESPOL was located Hartmann sent him to see me and we began a very productive relationship. The first activity was a one week short course that Elena and I presented at ESPOL in March, during Spring Break. Participants in the course included not only people from ESPOL but also a number of other en tities and private individuals interested in the development of the Santa Elena Peninsula and the Guayas River Basin. The course was an introduction to farming systems research and extension methods. We did a one day S ondeo exercise during the course in an area of small rice farmers north of Guayaquil. It was an eye opener to most of the participants who


95 had absolutely no idea of what it was to be a small farmer nor how they struggled just to feed themselves and survive They changed from having an impr ession of small farmers as just being lazy and spending the days in their hammocks to one of an industrious group eager to improve their livelihoods but facing a nearly insurmountable barricade of constraints that required outside help to overcome. As a r esult of the course, work began on creating a formal cooperative agreement between ESPOL and UF. L. to R. Elena Bastidas, me, Ing. Victor Bastidas, Rector of ESPOL During the trip I was invited by the Rector to attend a ceremony in May in which ESPOL was going to award an honorary degree to the President of the InterAmerican Development Bank, the IDB. I was unable to attend but with the Vice President s blessing we sent Larry Connor, Dean of Agriculture Emeritus, and Rich Beilock (from FRED) to represent UF and to further look into the benefits of creating a cooperative agreement with ESPOL. They came back very enthused and recommended that we proceed. At the same time, work began on two joint proposals for activities to be submitted by ESPOL f or funding. These were oriented both toward the development of the peninsula and basin and for joint research and teaching. In April, Mike Martin, the new Vice President of UF for Agriculture and Natural Resources (and head of IFAS) asked me if I would co nsider a half time appointment as d irector of International Programs in the Office of the Vice President. As had most of the faculty, over time I had become disenchanted with the IFAS Office of International Programs. Faculty, like I was for that matter, were doing their own thing internationally, but little was


96 happening through International Programs and there was no coordinated effort at an IFAS wide program. Because Mike Martin was dedicated to enhancing the international activities and image of IFAS I decided to do it. This meant I would be replacing a full time position on a half time basis in addition to doing what already amounted to a very heavy full time job thus I took on two full time jobs! My appointment was to begin mid June. Earlier in the year, a group of six graduate students and I (part of the group working on the food security book) decided we would submit a set of joint papers to be presented at the North American AFSRE meetings to be held at the University of Guelph in Ontario. We proposed to make a single one hour presentation in which we would take turns rather than to make seven separate presentations. The planning committee at Guelph was somewhat skeptical, but finally agreed on our plan so we began working on this presentatio n shortly after I started as director. As a result of the Sondeo we had done in the farming systems course in spring semester for the NOAA project, http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054657/00001 I had agreed to fiel d a team of students in the two week break between summer and fall semesters (August 8 21). Eight students were involved (from anthropology, agronomy, agricultural extension, natural resource management, forestry, geography and community development), all having taken the farming systems course before. The field interviews with extension personnel from all over the state were conducted between August 9 and 18. Each two person team had a car and traveled from Key West to Pensacola. Every other night the team met to discuss their previous days interviews. After these meetings the teams were changed. The report structure was discussed and agreed to by the team members as a whole. Responsibility for writing drafts of the sections of the report was taken by two person teams that began working on them following the last day of interviews. The entire S ondeo team worked together to edit and produce the final report. As the group discussed each section, changes were made to the document. Conclusions and rec ommendations were written collectively by the


97 whole team at the time of editing. 26 It was very well received by the consortium of universities working on the NOAA project (U of Miami, Florida State and UF), and because of it, more work of a similar natu re was included in the following proposal submitted to NOAA in 2000. In September I took John Gordon, my FRED Chair, to Ecuador on his first trip to a developing country. There were several purposes of the trip. One was to acquaint John with the whole concept of working in a developing country. A second was to review the UF project on privatization of extension being run by Kamal Dow (a FRED faculty member) in Quito. A third was to acquaint me and John with the Santa Elena Peninsula and the Guayas Riv er Basin where we were planning to work with ESPOL and meet many of the key players involved, both public and private. Another was to sign the cooperative agreement that had been signed by the UF Vice President, Michael Martin, prior to our trip. A fifth was to plan for future action under the cooperative agreement with ESPOL. And last but not least, ESPOL and UF jointly were going to present a research proposal to Ecuadorian organizations for funding to work in ESPOL s area of responsibility. Finally on October 4 Lisette Staal came to work for me in International Programs as assistant director. I had requested this position several months earlier and it had been approved, but it took many weeks to move through the system. Lisette had worked in the FSSP in the early 80s and had been involved with international activities at UF ever since. She had also been my assistant director when I was director of the International Training Division of IFAS several years earlier. Her arrival made a big difference in my hectic life even though she was working only half time. On October 13 I made a rapid trip to Veracruz, Mexico with John Gordon and Dan Cantliffe, Chair of Horticultural 26 Hildebrand, P.E. (Ed.), A. Caudle (Coordinator), V. Cabrera, M. Downs, M. Langholtz, A. Mugisha, R. Sandals, A. Shriar and K. Veach. 1999. Poten tial use of long range climate forecasts by agricultural extension agents in Florida. Staff Paper SP 99 9. Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/?b= UF00053842


98 Sciences, to visit Chris Andrew who was nearing the end of a one year sabbatical at the University of Veracruz in Xalapa. Chris had had both a productive and a frustrating year in Xalapa. He got a lot of things done, but many things moved much slower than he thought necessary. There was potential for UV to become a second main program of IFAS (along with ESPOL in Ecuador) but it appeared that it would require the full time presence of someone from UF in Xalapa. Chris had worked with a former student, Rey Acosta, but Rey was too involved in UV activities and politics to be an effective UF representative. Following two very full days, we were concerned that Hurricane Irene would interfere with our return to Orlando via Mexico City and Houston, but we had only intermittent rain on the drive from Orlando to Gainesville. Two days later I wa s off to the North American AFSRE meetings in Guelph, Ontario, with six of my UF graduate students. I rented vans to get us from Gainesville to Orlando; for the round trip from Buffalo, N.Y. to Guelph; and from Orlando to Gainesville. The students were a great bunch and we had a lot of fun. We arrived early enough in Buffalo to be able to stop off at Niagara Falls on the way to Guelph and stopped again on the return trip, both times on the Canadian side. The Guelph group: Elena Bastidas, Heather McIlvaine Newsad, Amy Sullivan, A.J. Shriar, me, Victor Cabrera and Maxwell Mudhara.


99 For our joint presentation, I introduced the topic, Diversity: The challenge of limited resource farming and natural resource conservation in the tropics. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/IR00000665/00001 I argued that diversity is found within each farm, among farms within communities, and among communities Because of this diversity, a necessary strategy for these farmers, it is very hard for them to adopt the kind of broadly adaptable technologies designed by industry for commercial or corporate farmers. The first student, A.J. Shriar, a Canadian PhD student in geography, covered the broader topic of land use and food secur ity, drawing on his research in the Petn of Guatemala. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/IR00000666/00001 His conclusion was that on a broad scale, household economic constraints and poor market conditions limit m ore widespread adoption of alternative practices that could intensify agriculture and reduce pressure on the land. Heather McIlvaine Newsad, an American PhD student in anthropology, looked at food security, ecotourism and conservation in two ethnically di fferent communities in the Ecuadorian Pacific Coastal tropics. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/IR00000667/00001 She concluded that different styles of natural resource management reflected current cultural, socio economic, and gender differences within and between the two communities. Maxwell Mudhara, a PhD student in Food and Resource Economics from Zimbabwe, looked at the relationship between household composition and food security among small holders in his cou ntry. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/IR00000669/00001 He concluded that the availability of family labor differs with the household and plays an important role in determining the ability of different households to meet food security requirements. His study also showed that the gender of the head of the household and stage of family development are critical to the composition and performance of the household. Amy Sullivan, an American M.S. student in Agricultura l Education and Communication (AEC) with a farming systems specialization discussed differences in strategies to alleviate food security stress between neighboring communities in southern Senegal. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/IR00000668/00001 Ethnically different, women s motivations, as dictated by cultural norms, influenced how the households reacted to stress. Elena Bastidas, a PhD student in Food and Resource Economics from Ecuador, presented an altern ative framework for participatory research taken from the joint efforts of all of us. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/IR00000670/00001 The approach recognizes the need

PAGE 100

100 to maintain biophysical and socioeconomic di versity in order to address the needs of limited resource farmers and at the same time is able to generalize findings of location specific research. The approach includes the use of Adaptability Analysis and Ethnographic Linear Programming. This latter i s a term Christy Gladwin gave to our use of participatory and ethnographic methods to obtain the information and data for linear programming analysis. Finally, Victor Cabrera, also a farming systems student in AEC and from Peru, presented a case study sho wing how household diversity within a coastal community in central Peru requires diverse extension approaches. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/IR00000671/00001 His study was based on linear program models of 65 se parate households. Based on these he was able to aggregate his findings for the area while maintaining the perspective of diversity It was a good example using most of the methodology we were developing. 2000: Participatory Linear Programming? D urin g a family vacation at Crescent Beach (St. Augustine) I was reading the A. Scott Berg biography of Charles A. Lindbergh. Following the end of World War II, Lindbergh was becoming concerned about the misuse of the power of science and technology. Airplane s, with which he had been a leading figure and contributor for many years, not only had the advantage of bringing people closer together, but also allowed a much more rapid and widespread destruction in war. He was particularly alarmed when he viewed the destruction of the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With the advent of rockets, the dangers were even more significant. He was concerned that, in worshiping science man gains power but loses the quality of life (p. 484). Later, Lindbergh wrote an essay aimed at breaking that grip of a scientific materialism whose values and standards will lead to the end of our civilization (p. 484) This man, who had devoted his life to science and technology, began to bel ieve that an overemphasis on science weakens human character and upsets life s essential balance (p. 520). Reading these thoughts made me reflect on some of the frustrations I have had over the years regarding the worship of science by many of the scie ntists I have worked with. How often have I heard the phrase it has to be good science meaning that if it is not statistically significant, it has no value? Dependence on

PAGE 101

101 this credo leads to the highly controlled experiments that have little value on l imited resource farmers fields. It also leads to the use of scientists criteria to judge the value of a technology rather than the criteria of the users or farmers. If it leads to a significant increase in yield, it is a good technology to some of th ese scientists, regardless of whether or not farmers are able to use the technology. The fact that farmers cannot use their good technology is not the fault of these scientists in their minds but of others who are not providing the farmers with the con ditions needed to benefit from the yield increasing technology (policies, infrastructure or Extension) The dangers of this approach were made evident in the late 1990s with the rapid emphasis on biotechnology, particularly by the large, multinational comp anies who were controlling many of the critical agricultural input supplies. The worse potential abuse was the terminator gene controlled by Monsanto. With this gene inserted into its commercial seed, the seed would produce a crop the first year it was planted, but seed saved from that crop would not germinate This forced farmers to continuously purchase seed from the company. In a country like the United States where most farmers did purchase their seed every year this was not a lethal constraint on farming. However, Monsanto wanted to market its terminator gene in the Third World where most farmers (especially the small farmers) do save their seed year after year. Had Monsanto been successful, it would have resulted in famine over much of the worl d in but a few short years. Fortunately, even the International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR system) came out strongly against this particular technology and Monsanto, at least for a while, did not market it. A good business or profit motive combined with science was what had motivated Monsanto s move to market the terminator gene in its seed corn. The same combination has also been responsible for the standardization of many crops resulting in the loss of diversity in the g ene pool available to farmers. It is good business for companies to produce widely adoptable technologies. This reduces the number of products they have to manage, increases volume of individual lines, and allows them to reduce the necessary margin to be profitable. When I was on the livestock judging team in my junior and senior years at Colorado State University the ideal beef animal was short and blocky. As breeders began to select for this type and as semen from desirable bull types became widely available, this rapidly induced a wave of dwarfism in Hereford cattle.

PAGE 102

102 Fortunately, enough genetic diversity was still available to rescue the breed before it was too late. In their 1998 book, World Hunger: Twelve Myths, Lapp, Collins and Rossett in the section on Slashing and Burning the Tropics (pp. 49 51) argue that much of the deforestation is caused not by small holders but by loggers, ranchers and tree plantations. These large scale activities are promulgated by those with power nationally and int ernationally. They further say that this kind of development redistributes wealth upward. The benefits provided by the forests biological diversity, water catchments, soils, rivers, fertile land for gardening under forest fallow systems, as well as ene rgy sources for labor intensive local industries are available to all, including even the poorest with no market power. But commercial plantations, logging, and ranching liquidate such benefits in favor of those accruing mainly to existing elites and to affluent groups, largely foreign interests. Permanent, broadly distributed benefits are exchange d for temporary, highly concentrated ones. By concentrating international (as well as national) research resources on broadly adoptable technologies that depe nd on modifying the environment to satisfy the requirements of the technologies rather than modifying technologies to meet the contingencies and constraints of the diverse biophysical and socioeconomic environments of small holders, the process is similar Arguing that little response can be achieved under the difficult conditions of small holders (as was originally done by ICTA in Guatemala) or that good technology is a technology that increases yields whether or not it can be used by the multitude of small holders (as is done almost universally by researchers and research organizations) is also tantamount to a distribution of wealth upward. We must learn to work with the great diversity under which small holders struggle and upon which they depend for the livelihoods. Over the years I have been working closely with anthropologists and my graduate students and I have developed a methodology that has helped anthropologists quantify much of their qualitative data. The same methodology helps reduce the quantity of data needed and in this way makes the research process more efficient. This methodology, which includes the use of Ethnographic Linear Programming, is running into some opposition from many of the professors with whom I work at UF. Some of the m (from FRED) say we should not create a new term (LP is in the literature, but not ELP). Others question whether it

PAGE 103

103 represents good science. The arguments are that if it is not already in the literature, and/or if as an average it is not statistically significant, it is not real. In many ways this is the same argument used against farming systems methodology. Incorporating the human factor reduces the legitimacy of the science to them making it unacceptable. I recall again the statement I heard when biological scientists visited the early on farm trials in Guatemala on farmers rocky and steep hillside fields: This looks just like something a social scientist would do. That is, incorporating the farmers real conditions and the human factor reduce d the scientific value of the research in their minds. Over the years, this feeling has been moderated somewhat, but it is still evident. Not only is it necessary to account for the human element, but it is critical to account for socioeconomic as well as biophysical diversity, especially at the small farm level During the last years of the 20 th Century, it was becoming clear in our work with food security, household diversity and sustainable livelihoods that one of the most important factors leading t o failed programs and projects in the developing world was the failure of those creating the programs to account for the socio economic diversity found in limited resource, farm family households and the impact household composition has on the capabilities of these families to accept or respond to proposed changes The tendency to use averages based on massive statistical surveys mask s this diversity found not only among villages, but also among households within seemingly homogeneous villages. An averag e household inevitably has adolescents as well as young children and the parents are approaching middle age. It is a period in the lives of many families when they can begin to obtain a little wealth, impossible in newer families when all children are youn ger requiring the near full time attention of the mother. This prevents her from helping in the food production activities in the fields so the male is overly burdened just providing for a young family. Adolescent females can relieve the mother of some o f these household burdens freeing her to work in the fields while adolescent males can help the father in the fields, forests and bush. Young unmarried men and women in the family also can earn cash from off farm activities that make significant contribut ions to the well being of the family. Probably only 40 60% of the families in any village have the capabilities of the average family This means that the other 40 60% of the families will not be able to take advantage of a project whose changes are ba sed on the capabilities of the average village family Because they cannot, they are made

PAGE 104

104 relatively worse off than before. Often successful project evaluations are based on what one or a few of the families with more household resources were able to d o to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the project. One of the problems in working with all the diversity that exists is that it is difficult to generalize from it. Averages give the impression of generalizing, but simply mask diversity. M y graduate students and I began working on a methodology to overcome this problem It incorporated what we were calling ethnographic linear programming. We gave ELP this name because it uses information taken with ethnographic methods to incorporate in the linear programming models This added information makes the model much more realistic. However, up until the end of 2000, most of the models we created were based on ethnographic data taken in the field before returning to Gainesville to create the mode ls even though students were beginning to take lap top computers to the field with them. We knew that it would be much better to create the models in the field while working with the farmers and let them participate in the model development process. In t his way, when discrepancies are noticed in the models, the reasons can be detected with the participation of the farmers, themselves, rather than being based on the student s knowledge and recall after returning from the field. This method of creating rea listic farm models could then warrant the name, participatory linear programming Diversity can be incorporated in the methodological process by modeling a number of differ ent household s with variable composition based on a single base model that reflects the commonalities that do exist in a community. For instance, people who farm by hand all use essentially the same kinds of practices in their fields. Those who use animal traction do the same. I t is not necessary to model each individual household. Types of households can be modeled, or a sample of real households can be modeled using the same base model. This is what Victor Cabrera did in his MS thesis. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00091272/00001

PAGE 105

105 The model for incorporating diversity in development. It is based on the Sondeo, developed with ICTA in Guatemala, Ethnographic Linear Programming, developed with anthropolog ists at UF and Adaptability Analysis (formerly Modified Stability Analysis) developed in Guatemala and my early years at UF. The rewards and the frustrations of working in international development were evident as a result of a short course in Nicaragua i n January. Elena Bastidas, Victor Cabrera and I presented the one week course on Adaptability Analysis to about 20 people from INTA, the research organization, and other organizations in the country. During the course it became evident that many of the p eople in it had taken a course we had offered 12 or so years before when we called it Modified Stability Analysis (MSA) the earlier name for the methodology. Furthermore, they had been using MSA ever since the first course! Because of this, much of what we had to do in the present course was to convert their thinking from stability to adaptability, rather than teach the methodology, itself. The other important aspect of the course was that we used computers rather than the hand held calculators we used in the first course. Maria Cruz, one of the old hands in IFAS International Programs and who was originally from Nicaragua, had gone ahead on vacation but joined us for the short course. She was the coordinator of the Nicaragua project in International Programs. While there, she and I had the opportunity to meet with the

PAGE 106

106 Minister of Agriculture ( MAGFOR ) Officially he was considered my counterpart or partner in the USAID project we had with Nicaragua because I was director of International Programs i n IFAS. B ut even then, the U.S. ambassador in Nicaragua would not let anyone meet with the ministers of state without his permission and without a member of his staff present. We managed to get both and held what appeared to be a useful meeting. Unfortunately, a short while l ater, the minister was let go for another person who would be the second of several ministers we would have as partners in the year and a half left in the project, one of the frustrations of international work. The other had to do with our post course fol low up evaluation. W ithin six months following the course, of those who had been in it almost all had been transferred into positions where they would not be able to use what they had learned in the course. In February, I took eight faculty members from IFAS and one graduate student to Ecuador to conduct a two week S ondeo with our counterparts from ESPOL. Elena Bastidas, my graduate student, was our coordinator and facilitator. The faculty members included Bill Brown, Asst. Dean for Research; Mary Duryea, Forestry; Don Maynard, Horticultural Sciences from the Bradenton REC; David Zimet, Food and Resource Economics from the Quincy REC; Dorota Haman, Agricultural and Biological Engineering and Co PI on the pro ject with ESPOL; Richard Beilock, Food and Resource Economics ; and another Co PI on the ESPOL project, Jack Rechcigl, Soils Science and assoc. director of the Bradenton and Ona RECs and me. On the first night in Guayaquil, we met with 28 of the country s m ain agricultural empresarios or businessmen, many politicians including two former vice presidents of the country (one of whom was the president of the organization that combines characteristics of the TVA and Corps of Engineers in the U.S. and the other was the rector of the University of Guayaquil), other university representatives, foundation representatives, and miscellaneous other people. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the collaboration we were initiating between UF and ESPOL and to listen to the concerns and expressed needs of those attending. ESPOL had arranged to have a professional facilitator to lead the discussion. During the two week period we covered the area from Quevedo in the upper reaches of the Guayas basin to Salinas on the tip of the Santa Elena Peninsula. We finished a report within a month that was mainly written by the UF people, but with input

PAGE 107

10 7 from the ESPOL people who were with us. This report served as the basis for continuing collaboration between the two entities. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00056179/00001/ Based on the potential shown in the report, our vice president, Michael Martin, named an ESPOL Action Team to help formulate policy and generate interest among a wid er number of IFAS faculty regarding collaboration with ESPOL. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054322/00001/ In May, five faculty from ESPOL returned the visit. This team, headed by the dean of the Faculty of Mec hanical Engineering and Production Sciences Eduardo Rivadeneira visited Gainesville, and the Bradenton and Ona RECs and had the opportunity to talk with a large number of faculty and administrators. Vice president Martin hosted a reception on Monday eve ning that was attended by many of the department chairs in IFAS, all the deans and many other faculty. It was obvious that there was a lot of enthusiasm for working with ESPOL in the kind of arrangement we were developing. March was a busy month. Both as director of International Programs and as a friend, I hosted the E.T. York distinguished lecturer, Don Plucknett who came to town for a week. This was in the middle of a series of six thesis and dissertation defenses. Three of these were M.S. degrees fro m the farming systems specialization in Agricultural Education and Communication (Amy Sullivan whose thesis was done in Senegal, Paul Litow who did his work in Guatemala, http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054865/00001 and Andrea Snyder Anderson who did hers in Malawi), one was an M.A. in Latin American Studies (Raphael Pierre who did his research in Haiti) and two were PhD dissertations in Anthropology (Amanda Stronza who did her res earch in Peru and Heather McIlvaine Newsad who did her work in Ecuador). http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00065472/00001 Two other students gave farming systems seminars (Arthur Mugisha from Wildlife on Uganda and Carl Pomeroy from the farming systems specialization in AEC on the Dominican Republic) and another had a PhD oral examination for admission into candidacy (Richard Fluke from Entomology and Nematology who was going to do his research in Puerto Rico). I h ad been in all but two of those countries: Uganda and Haiti. In August, Ramn Espinel from ESPOL visited us in Gainesville for a couple of days. As a courtesy professor in FRED, we were able to secure for him full access to the UF libraries from Ecuador. This, it seemed to me, was an exceptionally useful feature of our relationship with ESPOL. In October, our vice

PAGE 108

108 president Mike Martin, the associate dean for academic programs Jane Luzar and I went to Ecuador for a three day visit to ESPOL. Mike and Jan e were able to meet many of the important agricultural people in the country and visited most of the Santa Elena Peninsula. In a very impressive and formal ceremony celebrating the 42 nd anniversary of ESPOL, Mike signed a 2+2 agreement whereby their stude nts who complete two years at ESPOL can complete a UF bachelor s degree in Gainesville in two more years. Jane and Ramn had been working on this agreement for a few months and it was very important to ESPOL. One of the witnesses of the signing of the doc ument was the vice president of the country, Pedro Pinto. At noon on our last day in Ecuador, Mike, Jane and I, along with Victor Bastidas, the rector, and members of the ESPOL Board of Directors planted trees on the campus to initiate a ceremony that ESP OL hoped to carry out when visiting dignitaries are on campus. Early in January of the next year there was an article in El Universo, the Guayaquil newspaper, with a picture of the first lady of the country planting a tree there as well. Me planting a tree at ESPOL As a result of the trip, Mike was very much impressed with the potential, not only of our cooperative agreement with ESPOL,

PAGE 109

109 but also with this type of cooperative effort in general. He was becoming convinced, if he was not already, that th is was a better way to enhance international opportunities for our faculty than trying to win large USAID projects that often involve few if any faculty. Following his return to campus, Mike wrote a memo to Chuck Young, president of UF: As you may know, a small UF/IFAS delegation (Jane Luzar, Peter Hildebrand and I) recently made a visit to ESPOL, a sister institution in Ecuador. During our visit, we met with ESPOL s Rector, other administrators, faculty and students. We also formalized a 2 plus 2 undergraduate degree agreement which will bring ESPOL students to UF starting in the fall of 2001. (See attached) This partnership should bring strong, dedicated internat ional students to our campus. It also opens opportunities for our students to study at ESPOL and for faculty exchanges and other interinstitutional collaborations. ESPOL represents a particularly good partner for UF in general and UF/IFAS in particular fo r several reasons. First, our programs align nicely. ESPOL s students are well prepared to successfully participate in our programs. Their institution is fully supportive. Second, ESPOL is a relatively young institution (42 years old). They, like us, ar e still growing, developing and creating their traditions. Thus, we have numerous opportunities to support both institutions commitment to globalization. Third, Ecuador faces significant economic development and environmental quality challenges. This par tnership offers us the opportunity to learn and to make a real difference. While our initial efforts will focus on providing improved human resources to Ecuador s agriculture/agribusiness sector, the relationships with ESPOL can evolve into a much broader range of activities. Fourth, while we have significant interaction with institutions in Central America, we have not been as active in South America. The ESPOL partnership can serve as a springboard for forging other linkages with So uth American universities and organizations. Fifth, ESPOL has a high quality faculty. They will be strong colleagues for our faculty and will serve our students well as we enlarge this partnership. For example, Ecuador has a fairly advanced aquaculture s ector and ESPOL s faculty provide critical support to producers. In Florida, we are working to develop aquaculture. The ESPOL faculty can assist in strengthening our aquaculture faculty, potential students and our service to our state emerging aquacultur e industry. Sixth, this partnership holds the promise of attracting significant external funding. A proposal for a joint project has

PAGE 110

110 already been submitted to a multinational agency. Others will most assuredly be forthcoming. In summary, we have launched a very meaningful partnership with ESPOL. We believe it will offer a number of opportunities for IFAS and other UF units to enhance their international profile. We ll keep you posted as this relationship evolves. To wrap up the ESPOL relationship for the year, Mike and President Young invited Victor Bastidas to sit on the stage during UF graduation ceremonies for Victor s daughter and my PhD student Elena Bastidas in December. President Young introduced Victor and the rest of Elena s family who were s itting in the front row of the VIP section. It was a very nice gesture. I continued to be amazed at the difference in the two kinds of international activity we were involved in. The direct AID and BID funded projects mostly were problems or involved very few faculty or students. Kamal Dow s privatization of extension project in Ecuador and funded by BID (The InterAmerican Development Bank) was doing well, but involved only him so far as permanent faculty or graduate students wer e concerned. The AID funded privatization of research project in Panama was an almost complete disaster. In two and a half years no research had begun. A lot of money was spent on administration, including UF s part, but by the end of 2000, two and a h alf years into the project, only one project had been approved and that in mid December. This was a very poorly conceived project and the subcontracts (and apparently the informal agreements) my predecessor had written with a company in Panama and AGRIDEC in Miami were not workable. The AID funded project in Nicaragua was moving along, but we had problems with the prime contractor in Washington in allowing us to shift funds from travel to salary. A decision that should have taken a day or two stretched i nto several months. Ultimately this will have been a decent project. Finally, the AID funded project in Egypt had problems from the start when the prime contractor (a Washington beltway bandit) and the Egyptian hosts changed the nature of the project fro m research to technical assistance without our participation. This not only cut down on the interest of our faculty but also allowed the prime contractor to bypass us (and the University of California as well) and use their own people. When this contract ends we will have utilized only a fraction of the funds we were allocated. This, of course, cuts down on faculty participation in that country.

PAGE 111

111 During 2000 we won a subcontract to work in Haiti. A group of faculty was very interested in the project so we worked with them on the proposal and won. Faculty interest, of course, was in research both for faculty and for graduate students. This was clearly stated in our proposal. However, from the initiation, it was clear that the prime contractor was interes ted in t echnical assistance and no long run research. We apparently had been used again so that a Washington firm could win a contract with our name on board and then change the nature of the work to suit themselves no matter what our proposal had said. This was confirmed by the end of the year when the firm (DAI) notified us that there would be no long term research involved and our subcontract, which still had not been written, would involve only short term technical assistance! I don t know if it was sadder or more amusing, but another situation occurred in 2000. The farming systems specialization with an M.S. degree in Agricultural Education and Communication was a very popular degree program and provided most of the theses from that department. A couple of years before they had applied for and received approval of initiating a PhD degree program. Interestingly, two of the first students in the program came to UF because of the farming systems possibilities. This created a prob lem because the department had little expertise in farming systems and had lost those few faculty who had any experience with it. The chair of the department asked me if I would consider an affiliate professorship in their department. After consulting wi th my own chair and the dean for academic programs I agreed to do it. Their faculty then voted on it and I was accepted. This supposedly meant that I would then be able to chair both M.S. and PhD degree supervisory committees there which was also stated in the letter I received from the dean of the Graduate School notifying me of the appointment. Most of the previous M.S. degree students in the farming systems specialization had desired this from the beginning but the department had resisted it. However the department had other ideas. They did not want me to chair committees -only serve on them. But this I had been doing all along anyway so there was no change. When she heard of this, the dean suggested we consider moving the farming systems specialization from the department to the college level. This had a number of advantages. It would immediately broaden the number of faculty who could chair the supervisory committees and thus broaden the farming systems base in the college. It would

PAGE 112

112 als o allow the college to give greater exposure to the program. But the downside would be a reduction in the number of graduate students in the AEC department. The department fought the idea and we decided not to pursue it further. So the fact that I was t hen an affiliate professor in AEC had changed nothing!

PAGE 113

113 2001: The World Trade Center Towers Are No More I had two sets of contract trainees during the year and both were with us on September 11. The first was a senior Bangladeshi sci entist from the Farming Systems program of the Bangladesh Agriculture Research Institute, BARI, who came the end of July for a six month post doctoral study. He was interested in both the Ethnographic Linear P rogram analyses of small farm systems and in o n farm research (Adaptability Analysis). Whether it was from the stress of September 11 or something else, he suffered from recurring chest and back pains during much of the time between September and December when he left. For this reason he was not abl e to get into Adaptability Analysis (although he did take home the book) but did get very much involved with the linear program modeling and the class. It was interesting to see him struggle with the idea of abundant land in some of the African and Latin American farming systems and compare them with the systems in Bangladesh. In his linear program, he used fractions of land measures and even square meters in some cases for different kinds of land. He even used roofs of houses for growing crops. Unfortu nately, because of his illness he did not get around Florida very much except going to airports in Orlando and Tampa to check on his return. However, I did take him on a tour of Alachua County one Saturday. He was amazed that so much land ( whether in tow n or in the country) in yards was used for nothing but grass -a nd it was not even grazed. But his presentations to the class and to a farming systems seminar were of great interest to the other students and also put their systems into perspective. The sec ond group (two persons) of contract trainees was from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (one working directly for the Corps and the other a contract consultant to the Corps ) They were also interested in the linear programming analysis methodology. Jim Jo nes from Agricultural Engineering had met Elly Best (the one working directly for the Corps) at a meeting a couple of years before and suggested she might benefit from spending a few weeks with me in Gainesville. After a couple of

PAGE 114

114 years of negotiation, sh e and the consultant finally came on September 9. They were to spend three weeks, but because of their anxiety to get back home following the WTC attacks, they left after two weeks. However, they worked very hard during their time in Gainesville, attende d class, made two presentations to the class, and left with working models. They were modeling a part of the Mississippi River navigation system in a lake in Illinois where they were considering additional works to increase the navigation capacity. But t hey also had to take into consideration wildlife uses of the lake, fishing, private boating, marinas, etc. They also had an interesting system to model and the class benefitted from them as well. In working with both the Corps people and the Bangladeshi ( Mustaque Ahmed), Victor Cabrera was an indispensable help. Victor had finished an M.S. degree in the Agricultural Education and Communication Department with a farming systems concentration a couple of years before and had been working back in Peru prior to returning for a PhD in the College of Natural Resources and Environment. He could really make computers talk and both the students and the trainees loved him. Besides the trainees, the ustainable Li velihoods group on campus asked me (in February) to make a presentation to them on the use of linear programming to analyze livelihood systems. This was a group of faculty from a number of departments on campus. We were able to get farming systems as an official concentration in the College of Natural Res ources and Environment graduate curriculum. This was a milestone for two reasons. First, it already existed in Ag Education and Communication at the master s level, but the department had essentially ceased using it and had not incorporated it in their n ew PhD program. Secondly, all other concentrations are based on departments. For example, there is a Food and Resource Economics concentration and an Anthropology concentration. So it was a milestone to get the farming systems concentration approved.

PAGE 115

115 I continued with a heavy graduate student load, working with 23 of them and serving as major professor for seven. Of the total, nine graduated during the year. The students came from several departments, including Forestry, Food and Resource Economics, Ag ricultural Education and Communication, Latin American Studies, Anthropology, Entomology and Nematology, Horticultural Sciences, and the College of Natural Resources and Environment. Besides the U.S., they came from 10 other countries: Malawi, Botswana, Ethiopia, Venezuela, Paraguay, Brazil, Ecuador, Zimbabwe, Haiti and Argentina. Their names, in no particular order were : Tim Sulser (grad uated ), Paul Thangata, Lin Cassidy, Christy Grier, Gebre (grad uated ), Kelly Payson, Amy Gough (grad uated ), Amy Sulliva n, Leo Ortega, Joe Warnick, Norman Breuer (grad uated M.S.), Kevin Leach, Kim Langedyk (grad uated ), Noemi Porro, Robert Miller (grad uated ), Aly Dagang, Elena Bastidas (grad uated ), Mark Drew, Richard Pluke, Frank Merry (grad uated ), John Bellow, Steve Church, Maxwell Mudhara, Rafael Pierre ( graduated and returned for PhD), Elio Jovicich (grad uated ), and Kristin Davis. Several former students returned for a visit, including: B.K. Singh who was a professor at EARTH University in Costa Rica; Firmino Mucavele, a dean at Eduardo Mundlane University in Maputo, Mozambique; Reinhold Muschler, a department director at CATIE in Costa Rica; Rob Gilbert, who was coming into an assistant professor position at UF after spending several years in Africa; Joe DeVries, the Rock efeller Foundation Representative in E. Africa; William Odenya, a professor at a university in Kenya; Miguel Altieri, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley; and Mike Bannister who for years ha d been living and working in Haiti. Other visitors to the farming systems program included: Vern Ruttan, emeritus professor from the University of Minnesota; Doug White (CIAT Peru); Howard Shapiro (M&M Mars); Jorge Chang, director of FUNDAGRO in Ecuador; Felipe Manteiga, director of Agricult ure for USAID; former DG of IRRI, Swaminathan; Jorge Marcos, an anthropologist from ESPOL;

PAGE 116

116 Leonardo Corral (PROMSA in Guayaquil); Ramn Espinel from ESPOL; Manual Arca, INIA Peru; and Jorge Calderon, CENAIM Ecuador. 2002: Back in the Saddle Again A fter several months of not traveling, only partially related to September 11, all of a sudden it started again. My first trip, in February, was to Ohio State University to participate in a w orkshop on No Wheat System: Ex periences from the Rice Wheat Consortium and the USA. I was invited to present a paper because of my interests in small farms and not, obviously, because of my knowledge of what the Rice Wheat Consortium was doing in South Asia. After reading the materi al sent to me I called my paper ( and PowerPoint presentation http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00000208/00001/1j ) Technology for Small Farms: The Challenge of Diversity. Two things stood out in my mind. One was that the no till aspects essentially required power that small farms normally did not have (although I understand that animal traction is increasing even in Bangladesh). But the no till aspects largely required mechanized power. Secondly, there was the tendency to try to homogenize or de diversify the farming systems they were working with. This, of course, was particularly true in the collaborating U.S. systems, mostly in Arkansas and Louisiana. Norman Borlaug (the Nobel Prize winner) was the featured speaker and, naturally, he was espousing his Green Revolution technologies, which depend on having adequate resources. The following week Borlaug and I both participated in the 1 st Henry A. Wallace Inter American Scientific Conference on Globalization o f Agricultural Research, in CATIE, Turrialba, address was very similar to the one he gave at Ohio State. I titled mine: Global Research Challenges: Including Small Holders in

PAGE 117

117 Rural Development http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00082715/00001 In both this address and the one at Ohio State I stressed that the number of people living in rural areas in many countries of the world was still increasing at the turn of the century even though the percent of the total population of those countries living in rural areas was declining. People had b een lured to sleep by the percentage figures and had not considered that the number of small farmers was still increasing. Thus, I considered that the global research challenge was including the small holders in rural development. After my address, Norma n told me it was interesting but he did not say he thought I was right in my concerns. My host at CATIE was Reinhold Muschler, a former student (Agroforestry) and professor at CATIE. Among other things, we made a quick visit one morning to his finca ne ar Turrialba. It is situated on a hill with a great view. The day after the conference at CATIE I went to EARTH where we were working on enhancing the number of interns from EARTH we hosted at UF. Among others I met with was B.K. Singh, another former s tudent (Soils) who was one of their founding professors. I use material from his dissertation (done in Brazil) in my courses and shortcourses and in the book: Adaptability Analysis http://ufdc.ufl.ed u/UF00081797/00001/42j I also had lunch with five of their former, and one present, students all of whom would like to come to UF for advanced degrees. They were a great bunch. In March, I visited one of my PhD students (Amy Sullivan) in the Commonwealth of Dominica in the Caribbean who was conducting a training program for the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. She had previously done a similar training in St. Lucia, also for FAO. She used these experiences for her dissertati on in Interdisciplinary Ecology. In April I went to Florence, Italy, to attend the European Farming Systems conference. Then in June, I went to Guayaquil, Ecuador for a month. During my stay in Ecuador, I taught a two week graduate course at the Universit y of Guayaquil, hosted four Food and Resource Economics faculty from UF, met with the

PAGE 118

118 Gender, Environment, Agriculture and Participation (GEAP) study abroad course from UF for which I was the professor of record, and twice visited an hacienda that the owne r was considering donating to ESPOL (our sister university in Guayaquil) and UF. Later in July I taught a two day short course at a facility of Columbia University in Palisades, NY. In November I was hosting the 17 th International (Global) Farming Systems (IFSA) Symposium in Orlando This was the organization for which I had been founding president. Even though there were many problems of people obtaining visas and funding as a result of 9 11 it was a very successful event. Several of my graduate student s presented papers and posters, and other participants came from such diverse countries as Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and the Netherlands. Dave Norman, me and Mike Collinson, all ag economists and three of nference in Orlando in 2002. This was only the second time all three of us had been together. I continued as director of International Programs, teaching two courses, and h ad a heavy graduate student load. During the year I was involved with a total of 23 graduate students, was the

PAGE 119

119 major professor of 8 (1 M.S. and 7 PhDs) and graduated a total of 8 of them. 2003 ? Retirement, Sort of I receive d a nice surprise and honor early in the year. The InterAmerican Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture, IICA, headquartered in San Jos, Costa Rica was celebrating its 60 th anniversary. As part of the celebration they selected 60 Americans (from the U.S.) who have made outsta nding U.S. contributions to On February 1, Maria and I went to Washington, D.C. for the reception to be held February 4 th in the Hall of the Americas of the building housing the Organization of American States at 17 th and Constitution on the National Mall. Many of the honorees were deceased and of those living, only 15 were able to attend. I was asked to make the formal ac ceptance or response for all 60 honorees. However, I was only told about 20 minutes before I had to do it. As a result I was not able to concentrate on what the new director general of IICA, Dr. Chelston W.D. Brathwaite, had to say. I thanked IICA for a ll of us and said I would like to accept the honor in the name of all the campesinos of the world whose numbers are still increasing even though as a percentage of the total population they are getting fewer. I indicated that even though the honorees had contributed to enhancing agriculture globally, we still had not sufficiently accepted the challenge of working for these people who daily struggle just to survive. Quite a few people congratulated me on a statement from the heart and thought it was just r ight. Maria said it was too short! However, stagger and stutter. In the publication they provided, this is what they said about me:

PAGE 120

120 Hildebrand, who directs the international programs fo of Food and Agricultural Sciences, joined the UF faculty following 15 years of living abroad and working on development programs. He developed many of the ideas that are the foundation for the farming systems research and extension methodo logy, and he was the founding president of the global Association for Farming Systems Research and Extension, which is now the International Farming Systems Association (IFSA). farm livelih ood systems, and tropical conservation and development pioneered participatory research techniques and narrowed the gap between research and farmers in developing countries Also honored were such well known people as Henry Wallace, Norman Borlaug and Geor ge Washington Carver. This is me delivering the acceptance address in the Hall of the Americas at the Organization of American States. On my right is Dr. Brathwaite, Director General of IICA. On my far left is Felipe Manteiga, a former Gator and was then the IICA representative in Washington, D.C.

PAGE 121

121 In late March, Ramn Espinel from ESPOL informed me as director of International Programs that the government of Ecuador, and specifically the Ministry of Agriculture wanted to know if ESPOL in partnershi p with UF/IFAS would take over one of their principal experiment stations, Pichilingue. This was an interesting proposition for a number of reasons, not the least of which was because UF had been involved in the establishment of the station in the 1950s a nd had a sporadic relationship since. The Ministry of Agriculture was interested in the station being used to help small, limited resource farmers as a primary effort. This, of course, was what farming systems was all about so it was of particular intere st to me as well. In early April, I met with a group of department chairs, deans and the vice president, Mike Martin, to discuss the idea that Pichilingue become formally associated with UF/IFAS. Mike authorized me to put together a group of IFAS faculty members to go to Ecuador for a week to look into the possibilities and potential. After a few false starts putting together a team, besides me, Bill Brown, asst. dean for research; Van Waddill, director of the Homestead TREC; Roger Natzke, professor of a nimal (dairy) science and soon to be director of International Programs; and Frank Chapman, professor of fisheries and aquatic sciences left on May 19 and returned on May 23. On May 29 and 30 I attended the Board of Directors meeting of the Peanut CRSP in Griffin, Georgia. While I had served a total of about 15 years on the External Evaluation Panels of the Soils and the Bean/Cowpea CRSPs, I had never been involved with the Board s of Director s so it was an interesting experience. Many of the people serving on the Board were my counterparts at other universities and some were deans or associate provosts. Our UF/IFAS representative on the Board was Mary Duryea, assistant dean for research. She was unable to attend and asked me to go in her place. Five years previously (in 1998) I agreed to get into a UF retirement incentive program called DROP This meant that my

PAGE 122

122 retirement pay started at that point, but was put into a type of IRA account while I continued working and collecting my regular salary. I continued to get raises as well, but my retirement rate was already set. At the end of five years I had to retire. I was hurried into this program because I was over 65 at the time they initiated it and had only about 30 days to decide to get in or to never have the chance. During the five year period I tried on several occasions to get out of it, but the vice presid not want to open that gate and I suppose he was right, that a lot of people in my same situation would have wanted out. So I officially retired on July 1, 2003 even though I still had an active research program via my g raduate students and there was still a demand for my classes, which no one else was equipped to teach. The big change for me at that time was giving up one of my two full time jobs the directorship of International Programs. This lifted a big load off my shoulders and allowed me to spend much more time with my students and teaching the other full time job my time on campus much more relaxed! I g o t to the office closer to 7:00 than to 6:15 and le ft early afternoon unless there were meetings later in the day. I tr ied to take off on Fridays as well. I spen t extended time with my students and was able, with them, to complete a number of articles that were in various stages, some for the last couple of years. keep working, even if for free. First the department tried immediately to get me out of my office. Second, the university infrastructure immediately deleted my name from the UF and IFAS electronic directories (they did this to all retiring faculty unless and until they were given emeritus status). Third, they took my fall course off the course schedule. Fortunately, they let me stay on email! I managed to get the fall course (economic analysis in small farm livelihood systems) back on the schedule an d after advertising it via email I had 12 students enroll in it. A couple of other people sat in on the course and participated in most activities. It turned out to be one of the best classes I had had. When it came

PAGE 123

123 time in the fall to register for the spring courses I discovered that they had also taken that course (farming systems) off the books. I managed to get that one back on late and had only four students enrolled. The pressure was kept on to get me out of my office. I finally managed to get a small office assigned and was able to put two of my graduate students in a small communication closet with no windows along with most of my library and files that I did not have room for in the new office. I managed to find two other graduate students of fices in a vacant office that had been International Programs. But that was only temporary. In December, Richard Pluke (PhD Entomology) defended his dissertation on IPM control of the cabbage looper (diamond back moth) in Puerto Rico. http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0002941/pluke_r.pdf Besides doing excellent laboratory, station, and on farm research to show the effectiveness of IPM to control the DBM, he also developed an ethnographic linear program b ased on a typical cabbage farm in Puerto Rico. He showed the constraints to adoption of IPM under existing conditions and what kinds of things would need to be done in order to make it attractive to the small cabbage farmers of that island. This was very well received by the entomologists on his committee. 2004 When I was about ready to cancel the spring farming systems course, the students who were enrolled came to me and asked if they got more students in it would I teach it. I agreed and they came up with two more so I had six enrolled. In addition, three of my own students (Tita Alvira, Alfredo Rios and Victor Cabrera) attended. The first two participated in the Sondeo and the sweet corn trial. Also for the sweet corn, Kibiby Mtenga from Tanzan ia, who had an incomplete from the year before, participated in the trial. For the S ondeo, we assessed the South East Climate

PAGE 124

124 Consortium website that was under construction. It t urned out to be a good course and the students were great. Humphries, S., Y. Gichon, F. Rossi, J. Barham, D. Alvira and A. Rios. 2004. Assessment of the format, content and potential uses of the AgClimate website and crop yield assessment tool by extension agents in north Florida. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00000216/00001 Over the last five or six years I became more and more involved with the activities of the Florida Climate Consortium (UF, FSU, Miami) and now the South East Climate C onsortium (added were Georgia, Auburn and Alabama Huntsville). In March I attended, along with Victor Cabrera and Norman Breuer, former students of mine who were employed by the University of Miami, a NOAA/RISA conference at FSU in Tallahassee. Most peop le were meteorologists and climatologists. Our contribution was bringing in the end users (farmers) of the improved methods of forecasting seasonal climate variability. This was an important s. Former student, Heather McIlvaine Newsad arranged for a special presentation at the Society for Applied Anthropology meetings in Dallas later in March. She, Elena Bastidas, Victor Cabrera, Diana (Tita) Alvira and I combined to make a joint presentati on. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00100339/00001/ Amy Sullivan, who also delivered another paper, summarized ours. This, again, emphasized the highly diverse smallholder farm sector and treated participation and advocacy of the sector. I had not realized that all these years I was an advocate for the smallholder farm sector! I had thought of advocates as those marching around with signs and yelling. This meeting also gave us an opportunity to get together on t he book on smallholder economics that we are trying to write. We were able to pretty well outline what we thought we needed in the book and who should be working on various sections. From Dallas, Victor and I headed for Porto, Portugal for the European farming systems meeting via Boston and Paris, meeting

PAGE 125

125 up with Norman Breuer at the Boston airport. Victor had submitted an abstract on his North Florida Dairy model and Norman on his dissertation work in Ecuador and both were accepted. I paid for the tri p for all three of us out of funds from the Division of Continuing Education that I had earned with short courses I had given in the past. While in Portugal I met with Clive Lightfoot, current president of the global IFSA and a group of people from Europe who were trying to plan the next global IFSA meeting which was to be held in Europe. They were having trouble coming up with a location and the meeting would probably be held in the spring of 2005. FAO in Rome was a possible location. On May 28, Victor Cabrera (PhD in Interdisciplinary Ecology), for whom I was major professor, defended his dissertation http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0005581/cabrera_v.pdf Victor had created a very complex model of north Florida dairy farms to assess nitrate pollution into the Suwannee River system and the Florida aquifer. He combined animal models, plant models and economic models to simulate actual conditions on the farms and then also created a linear program to look at ways to optimize the farm management practices to reduce nitrate loss and maintain profit. All this was done with close participation of stakeholders at all levels: state regulatory agencies, dairy farmers, the water management district, extensi on agents and UF researchers in the different fields. In May, both Percy Peralta (M.S. in Interdisciplinary Ecology http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0006555/peralta_p.pdf ) and Kristin Davis (PhD in A gricultural Education and Communication with a farming systems minor http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0006340/davis_k.pdf ) defended their research. Percy did his research in Peru and Kristin in Kenya.

PAGE 126

126 2005 I had been working on doing a Sondeo in Ecuador for a couple of years and finally the funding came through (two presidents and seven ministers of agriculture later) so we scheduled it for th e second week of May. Elena Bastidas (a former student) and I were going the week before to organize it and make sure all logistics were arranged. Going through two presidents and so many ministers was only part of the travail of the Sondeo. I went fr om Orlando to catch a COPA flight to Guayaquil via Panama. The Guayaquil airport had been remodeled since I had last been there so I was looking forward to arriving. However, even though the building and some of the equipment were new, the procedure was not. It was a complete zoo. Added to the problems were that the American Airlines flight arrived late and we arrived early, so there were two plane loads of us trying to get through immigration and customs at the same time. Also, ESPOL had always met me at the VIP lounge after immigration so I did not have to wait in line for my baggage and have it checked. But unfortunately, they no longer subscribed (or whatever it is they did) to the lounge, so I also had to wait to do that part. Oh, well, that is l ife in the tropics! Monday and Tuesday Elena and I worked on getting materials, including maps, for the Sondeo. On Wednesday we were planning on going to Pichilingue where the Sondeo was to be held so we could get a feel of the area and talk with the peo ple from the station who were going to be part of the Sondeo team. transportistas traffic on the road we were going to take but thought it would more delay us than stop us. WRONG! The first and second blockag e we were able to get around but the third one, not far from the station we could not. We looked at our topog raphy maps and thought there would be a way around by backtracking a few kilometers. When we got to the town where that road took off, the first person we asked about it said the road was OK, but it was

PAGE 127

127 dangerous. We asked him what he meant by dangerous and he said there were robbers who would stop us and rob us. So we decided to ask another person who fully collaborated what the first one had said. We called the station and after a few calls back and forth decided that it would just be best to return to Guayaquil as it was then about 11:00 and we were becoming worried about the time it might take us to get back. On the way back, w e hit anothe r road block that we could not get around, but fortunately, there was a road just a kilometer or so back that Edwin (from ESPOL and who was with us) knew about. We asked about it and it seemed to so we decided to take it. In th e small town we came to we asked a motorist coming toward us and he told us how to get to the road to Guayaquil. Because of the heavy rains that had recently ended, we also had to go through some flooded areas. That was the first time I saw horses wading and feeding on floating feed (see picture). We finally got back to Guayaquil about 1:30, having spent six hours and not getting to the station. Frustrating! The rest of the week was spent on getting more materials and information for the team and Elena an d I put together the presentations we would make Monday morning to the whole team in Pichilingue. On Sunday after several false starts, we finally left Guayaquil and arrived at the station just before dark. The rooms we had been told we would have were n ot available but we did find housing for everyone. Also, the dinner that was supposed to be prepared at the station (they have a very nice dining room) was not prepared so we all went into town (Quevedo) for dinner. The four people from the Pichilingue st ation were not there, but this offered an excellent opportunity for the four from UF and the four from ESPOL to get acquainted.

PAGE 128

128 Horses grazing on floating vegetation On Monday morning breakfast was ready for us at 7:00, as scheduled. They had set up a special table in the dining room for us (with flowers!) and instead of going through the cafeteria line, they brought our food to the table. Breakfast was very good as were all the meals they served us throughout the week. The whole team met at 8:00 and we started introductions, to each other and to the Sondeo methodology. Ramn Espinel discussed the history of the project and why we were there (to begin a program to w ork with smallholders). There was some discussion about this and about what constituted smallholders, but it was important that all understood what it was we were supposed to be doing After lunch the four teams of three took off for the field for their first interviews. After dinner the whole team met to share and process the to spend about 10 minutes on their thoughts about the methodology. Most thought it was working very well and the

PAGE 129

129 c onversations with farmers were very open and sincere. Ramn, in particular, spent several minutes on one of his interviews. Elena methodology. It was a good beginning. Then we got dow n to the interviews, themselves, and Elena suggested another 10 minutes for each team before we opened it up to a general discussion. There was just too much for each team to say, so a minimum of a half hour was spent on each team with an abundance of inf ormation forthcoming. Again, the teams were very enthused with what they had found. However, it was quite obvious that there was a definite bias towards farmers larger and better off than the target farmers. We wanted farmers who had less than 5 ha but in one case they interviewed on e just outside of Quevedo who had 19 ha and was a professor at the University of Quevedo! We On Tuesday after a full day of the teams in the field, we asked each team to get together and put just the cream of what they found that day on flip charts so that we could discuss the major points and not the details of the visits. This worked pretty well and we were beginning to see some major points coming out. It was obvious that the reg ion is not very homogeneous, just like the rest of the country. Near the foothills of the Andes there is good fertility and water and people are very highly diversified. Going toward the Pacific, it gets drier, but strangely, there are water problems bot h of too much in the rainy season and too little in the dry season. On Wednesday, with the teams in the field for another full day, Elena and I worked on an outline for the report based on what we had learned from the conversations on Monday and Tuesday. We felt this was the only way we were going to be able to get the report drafted by Friday evening. That night we worked until 12:30 in the morning! People were getting excited about the report. We assigned sections of the report to individuals and they said they wanted to stay in on Thursday morning to write their sections. On Thursday morning Elena and I went with one of the station team members who had scheduled a meeting with a group

PAGE 130

130 of smallholders and had not been able to cancel it. So Elena and I finally got to do a bit of field work! As soon as everyone was finished we started working on the conclusions by going down only the section headings. It turned out to be easier to also think about recommendations at the same time because some people h ad them embedded in their conclusions. We did not finish but had a good start when we finally stopped late at night (after dinner). On Friday we were working hard on the conclusions and recommendations when the INIAP people, including the national direct or for research, asked if they could come to our meeting. I said, sure, but they would not be able to say anything because it was a working session. They decided to wait until lunch (scheduled at 1:30) to talk with us. During lunch they said they wanted to have a meeting with us so we all went back to our conference room and spent about an hour and a half of our fast disappearing time with them. They finally left and we finished up about 6:00. Elena then had the task of getting the whole report put tog ether so we could make CDs of it to leave with INIAP and ESPOL We had earlier in the morning sent out the body of the report to make copies (Pichilingue could not do that for us!) so we had that to work with as well. The director asked if he could keep o ne of the copies so we let him have it. He listened to what conclusions and recommendations we had at the time and then made some comments where he thought we were wrong. It was interesting that after they left, the people in our group said he just did n ot know what he was talking about. So they had really gotten into the Sondeo and taken ownership of the report http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/IR00000457/00001 Our celebration dinner was at 8:00. We had rum an d whiskey and another excellent meal. I went to bed about 10:30 because I had not had much sleep the last few nights, but the others stayed much later. There was no question that the team had come together. We left the station the next morning after ano ther great breakfast and goodbyes to all the people at the station. I got back to Gainesville on May 15 and had more time than usual to be at home because I did not have any classes over

PAGE 131

131 the summer and most of my graduate students were overseas doing their research. Of my own advisees, all five were abroad in 1) Peru, 2) Namibia and Botswana, 3) Guatemala and Mexico, 4) Cuba, and 5) Kenya and Ecuador. Others with whom I was working closely were in the Philippines, Tanzania and Brazil. All together I was w orking with 17 graduate students at the time. I had to move my UF (FRED) offices once again. This To get to it you went into a short hallway between the elevator and communication closet that also had graduate students in it! My space was like a graduate student cubicle and there were five of us in the room (a former head of the USDA/ FAS, a former dean, a former department chair, a f ormer distinguished professor, and me ) Fortunately, none of the others use d so it was almost like a private office. However, when new students come in to see me they must have had to wonder about it. Also, there was no room for my farming systems library which had been in a former storage and communication closet and in which the department had put two graduate students. The department said I would have to move out the library but that I could have the space for my own graduate students. So I had to rent self storage for everything from my old office and the library. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization ( FAO ) in Rome ha d been interested in digitizing my farming systems library, but they needed the material alrea dy digitized. I had received an estimate from IFAS Communications that they could do it for $10,000, but that amount of money was not available. I got in contact with the UF digital library and they were interested and had some funds. I had talked about going to the global farming systems (IFSA) meeting in Rome in 2005, but finally decided not to go. Also there were about 10 other UF representatives who were thinking about going, but in the end only Maria DiGiano, a current

PAGE 132

132 student, and Maxwell Mudhara, a former student, were able to get there. aa I did make one other trip in 2005, to Miami, for a meeting at the University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences (RSMAS). I was working as a consultant for them assigned to the SouthEas t Climate Consortium for conducting Sondeos and other studies evaluating the applicability of seasonal climate forecasts. The meeting was the week that Hurricane Wilma was forecast to hit the region so we were glad to get out before that happened. All of the University of Miami was closed for a full week after we left including the Monday it hit and the rest of the week. 2006 The UF library did agree to digitize my farming systems library. We mov ed it from storage to the digital library work rooms in Library East in March. I t took a while to go through my library and all the other files to sort out what should be digitized and what (many student records, etc.) should be shredded. It took several w eeks for me and several months for the library to finish the process, but eventually the entire library was to be available on the Internet for anyone to access at: http://web.uflib.ufl.e du/ufdc/UFDC.aspx?c=fao1&s=ifsa& N ormally things in the UF library system are available only to those with a UF address, so this was a huge breakthrough. I underst ood from John Dixon that both FAO (in their farming systems website) and the CGIAR would ad d links to the library! The materials should also be accessible via search engines such as aa Amazon. Her paper was from the thesis. http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0014393/digiano_m.pdf

PAGE 133

133 Google. In May I went to Wageningen in the Netherlands for the meeting of the European chapter of IFSA. Also attending was David Wilsey, one of my PhD students who had a paper accepted. Wageningen has a university that is globally well known for its international agricultural development work. On one of the days we had an excellent field trip. I chose the one that emphasized the new move to shift agriculture from purely production to environmental friendliness as well as tourist friendly. It was very interesting to see how this was being done. It is also something that is beginning to happen in the rest of Europe as well as in the U.S. In June and July I spent two weeks in Guatemala. I used the time to visit ICTA to see what reports I might be able to get that were not already in my library or that might have been lost. I had a good visit with Thelma Guerrero, one of my former secretar ies Roberto Bosarreyes, my former driver, and with Ast o lfo Fumagalli who had been both gerente and subgerente of ICTA during the time I worked there. I also had a very good meeting with the new gerente ICTA went through many years of bad times that started with the gerente who would not renew the visas of the expatriates -the cause of my leaving Guatemala in August 1979. All but one or two of the many gerentes that were named by succeeding governments had no ide a what ICTA was or why it was formed in the first place. Many of the administration were mostly interested in what money they would be able to get out of the organization. The donors stopped funding anything except special projects and other projects wer e funded by multinational business es some of their products to legitimize them. Employees had little to do so became lazy and many joined a union that gave them work late and le ave early and did. It appear ed that the new gerente who ha d only been in office about three months, would try to do something to get ICTA back into shape, but he ha d many hurdles to jump. In our

PAGE 134

134 discussion, it appeared to me that he ha d some very good id eas, if not the same as the original ideas that those of us who founded the institute had over 30 years before He had no idea i f there were any documents still around from the work we had done but asked the librarian to help us and also one of the engine ers who knew me (and was still there) to help. Of course the librarian had no idea what kind of reports to look for, either. After talking with both Astolfo and Thelma, we learned that there had been lots of work done to save the material from Socioecon oma pushed by Thelma and one of the gerentes who had been with ICTA from the early years. Thelma called the doc Rescate Thelma agreed to go back to ICTA with me the second week and we FOUND Rescate! There were 23 volumes, each about an inch thick, that added up to 46 pounds. The gerente was not in but his secretary got him on his cell phone. He gladly gave me permission to take it all to send to Florida on the basis that I would return it after it had been digitized. The UF li brary had also asked me to get his written permission to publish it electronically and he said, certainly. He asked me to write him a letter on the letterhead of UF making the request and he would respond when he returned to the office. I had the letterh ead in my computer so was able to write the letter with the help of his secretary. She officially received it and gave me a copy. We repacked Rescate in a box we bought at Office Depot, called UPS and the same day they were on their way. Nearly beat me home! Things had sure changed from the time when I worked t here. The University of Florida was able to get a graduate student into Cuba to obtain primary data from them about their livelihood system. Vanessa Harper, my M.S. student in Interdisciplinary Ecology, spent about four months over a two year period in that country and was able to have fairly extensive interviews with 15 limited resource farm households that comprised her thesis. http:/ /etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0017890/harper_v.pdf These farmers not only have to produce a large number of different crops and some livestock but also have become entrepreneurs to be able to market

PAGE 135

135 what they need to sell to get cash for what they need to buy. Pu rchasing what they need is also very complicated. Ken Buhr, formerly of the UF Agronomy Department, wrote me the following in an email about Africa in 2006 : Just got back from four weeks in Uganda/Kenya. Of the many observations, there are a couple that I wanted to share with you: 1) everywhere I went, people were complaining about the "hostile weather," which meant dry weather in the region of Uganda where Save the Children worked, and 2) there is a fuelwood crisis on the horizon. The hills of Kenya tha t used to be covered with acacias are all but barren with occasional mango trees, and gullies are frequent. The river that one of the students who took a couple of my classes was using for irrigation was rich chocolate colored. He said that 70 80% of t he cooking fuel is coming from charcoal the reason the acacias have been cut. It is common to see piles of poly bags of charcoal ("black gold" or "tree in a bag") along the road. It is a matter of time, a few years maybe, when there won't be any more t rees to cut for charcoal. I am listening to see who has a suggestion of what is going to happen then. Already, "cooking time" factors into what people are growing and buying for the soup pot. About th at same time I was in Guatemala. On a trip in the Hi ghlands, we began to see areas of the mountainsides that looked like a large hand had scraped fingers down large areas. This is a combined effect of two things: 1) people are cutting trees higher and higher up and on steeper and steeper slopes, and 2) hur ricane hold on those slopes and many small streams turned into large landslides. We went to the village of Panabaj on Lake Atitlan, just south of Santiago Atitln. This village had been i nundated with mud from two of these slides that came down off the volcano Tolimn. People from Guatemala City said they could not understand why people in the countryside were so dumb as to cut trees on the slopes of the mountains. What they did not unde rstand is that the villagers in these areas have no alternative There are

PAGE 136

136 increasing numbers of people in the country and nothing for them to do if they were to go to the cities. Many try migrating to Mexico and the U.S. and a few succeed. Some go to t he cities and eventually join gangs that are creating many problems with various crimes. Those who remain in the rural areas must clear land to plant corn and beans, and cut firewood to cook with just in order to live The only available land is higher u p and on steeper and steeper slopes Even though the fields are farther away from roads so they are not so visible, their numbers are still increasing. It was sadly interesting to me to listen to educated Guatemalans deride the Guatemalan campesinos for be ing so dumb that they would keep cutting trees on the mountains and volcanoes. There is a parallel between Guatemala and Kenya/Uganda where Ken Buhr was. It seems to me that uncontrolled human population growth and a direct consequence of it involving wa ter (sometimes lack of it and sometimes too much of it) and sources of fuel are going to overwhelm much, if not most of the world in the not too distant future. Even in the U.S. there are beginning to be problems with overpopulation and water. In Colorado this year, which is a drought year, cities are fighting farmers for water, and farmers who pump from the underground aquifer have to fight with farmers who have historic surface water rights. In Florida, over populated south and central Florida is lookin g to north Florida for more water. North Florida feels it does not have surplus water and its population is also rapidly increasing. In fact, in 2006, another PhD student with whom I was working finished his dissertation trying to ascertain how much wate r the Suwannee River drainage had that might be available (under present demands in the same drainage).

PAGE 137

137 Top photo shows the land slides. Bottom photo is part of Panabaj with Tolimn volcano in the background where more land slides are visible. The lower one was one of the two that hit Panabaj. A recent (2006) article in Agricultural Economics, a Output Diversification on Farm Income in Central American

PAGE 138

138 conservation technologies and by the level of diversification t his is that they believe that the adoption of the technologies and diversification into non food crops caused incomes to rise over the ten year period studied. We know from our ELP models that the farmers with more resources (those with higher incomes) we re the ones who were able to adopt the technologies and diversify into other (non food) crops. Thus, the cause and effect are the other way around! Granted the variables they studied are related, but they did not understand the livelihood system suffici ently to ascertain the error in their work! The size of the sample from the two countries (Honduras and El Salvador) was 678 farmers. The use of these large numbers obviously did not lead them into correct conclusions. 2007 During the year, four of t he graduate students on whose committees I participated graduated. Jim Barham, PhD, Interdisciplinary Ecology did his research in conjunction with CIAT in Tanzania. http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE001 9544/barham_j.pdf Kibiby Mtenga from Tanzania, PhD Ag Ed and Communication did her research in Malawi. http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0021162/mtenga_k.pdf Tirhani Manganyi from South Africa, PhD Ag Ed and Communication did her research in her home country. http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0021601/manganyi_t.pdf Lauren Justice, MS, Interdisciplinary Ecology did her research in Jamaica. http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0021174/justice_l.pdf And one of my own students, Carolina Ribeiro, from Brazil completed her M.S. degree in Interdisciplinary Ecology doing her research in Brazil. http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0021342/ribeiro_c.pdf

PAGE 139

139 Along with IFAS International Programs, Food and Resource Economics, ESPOL in Ecuador and an organization in Bangladesh, I participated in a proposal for a CRSP project. The project involved the pelleting of urea into briquettes to be used in patty rice. This technology had been very successful in Bangladesh and we proposed to introduce it into Ecuador. We were not successful with the CRSP proposal, but moved forward with a proposal just in Ecuador with ESPOL. Funding looked favorable. It was to involve Sondeos, on farm research (Adaptability Analysis), development of a small industry to manufacture the pelleting machines and extension efforts. Se veral Ecuadorean M.S. students would be able to get their theses from the project. My spring farming systems course had eight students. Because there was a staging area for a new building where we used to plant sweet corn for simulated on farm trials (Ad aptability Analysis), we used the ethnobotany garden area. One of the students in the class managed that area and volunteered it. It worked fairly well but was not completely satisfactory so I decided not offer the course in the spring of 2008. The clas s Sondeo once again involved the SECC. Rather than again ask farmers how they were using the seasonal climate forecasts, we decided to find out how they were making decisions. This turned out to be fairly interesting. There were many dynamic things happ ening at the time including the push for ethanol, pressure on migrant labor and larger and some smaller. But again, farmers were much surer of making any decisions based on weather forecast s (a few days) rather than seasonal climate forecasts (several months). My fall class on Ethnographic Linear Programming had 10 students and turned out to be very good (and fun). Four of the 10 students use the Kefa book on a Zambian village upon which to base their models, but each one modeled something completely different. One was looking at the production of ornamental fish as a possible new activity. Another assessed the Heifer International program and its effect on households with different kind s of

PAGE 140

140 composition. A third looked at the potential for agroforestry activities to improve soil fertility. The fourth looked at means of hiring labor, especially by women heads of household. One main source of funding for the m was by making beer, done by women, and trading it for labor. Another looked at the potential for bullock power in northern Ghana where he intends to conduct his dissertation research. One looked at the potential for soil improvement practices in a Kenyan community where she had been Another was assessing the effect of hurricanes on an area in Mexico. One looked at the livelihood system of displaced indigenous people in Guatemala. Another looked at the effect of improved transportation in the Darien area of Panama. And finally, o ne looked at the potential for CO 2 accumulation on medium sized farms in the Brazilian Amazon. This year was busy so far as publications were concerned: Thangata, P.H., M. Mudhara, C. Grier and P.E. Hildebrand. 2007. Potential for agroforestry adoption in Southern Africa: improved fallow and green manure adoption in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Ethnobotany Res & Appl. www.ethnobotanyjournal.org/vol5/i1547 3465 05 067.pdf Thanga ta, P.H., P.E. Hildebrand and F. Kwesiga. 2007. Predicted impact of HIV/AIDS on improved fallow adoption and rural household food security in Malawi. Sustainable Development 15:205 215. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.323/pdf Cabrera, V.E., S.S. Jagtap and P.E. Hildebrand. 2007. Strategies to limit (minimize) nitrogen leaching on dairy farms driven by seaso nal climate forecasts. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 122:479 489. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T3Y 4NJX40Y 1 1&_cdi=4959&_user=2139813&_pii=S0167880907000953&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_lis t_item &_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2007&_sk=998779995&wchp=dGLzVlb zSkWB&md5=7d7f6e40ca3262499afe870ee1d65843&ie=/sdarticle.pdf Alderman, P., J. Bost, N.E. Breuer, T. Gill, D. Graves, P. Hildebrand, E. Livengood, M. Mishkin, D.R. Ward and D. Wilsey. 2007. Farm ing systems and farmer decision making in Columbia and Suwannee Counties. SECC Technical Report Series: SECC 07 002. Gainesville http://www.seclimate.org/pdfpubs/SECC_07_002.pdf http://www.seclimate.org/pdfpubs/SECC_07_0 2.pdf

PAGE 141

141 Breuer, Norman, Victor Cabrera, Guillermo A. Baigorria, Peter E. Hildebrand and James W. Jones. 200X Potential adaptations to seasonal climate forecasts by Florida beef cattle producers. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. Submitted August 2007. Breuer, N.E, V.E. Cabrera, K.T. Ingram, K. Broad and P.E. Hildebrand. 2007. AgClimate: a case study in participatory decision support system development. Clim atic Change. Cabrera, V.E., N.E. Breuer and P.E. Hildebrand. 2006. Participatory modeling in north Florida dairy farm systems: a method for building consensual environmental sustainability using seasonal climate forecasts. Climatic Change. One of my PhD students, David Wilsey and I each submitted abstracts for the 2008 European IFSA symposium in France and both were accepted for full papers. Mine (with Dave as co author) was based on the class Sondeo report: Farmer Decision Making in the Fa ce of Rapid Change in Columbia and Suwannee Counties, Florida http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00000271/00001 Sustainability Transformation from Supply Chain Integration: Quality in Natural Resource Pr oduction Systems as a First Step toward Eco Labeling? w as based on part of his dissertation and I was co author. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/IR00000673/00001 So we planned a trip to France for 2008. 2008 M y MALAS (Master of Arts in Latin American Studies) student, Ricardo Mello from Brazil, had his paper accepted for presentation at Yale's Student Chapter of the Annual International Society of Tropical Foresters' Conference The paper was the one he did fo r my fall class and I encouraged him to submit it. I was a co author acceptable form for publication. I also, of course, worked with him on his PowerPoint presentation. The title was: Mod eling

PAGE 142

142 Effects of Climate Change Policies on Small Farmer Households in the Amazon Basin, Brazil Afterwards they encouraged him (us) to submit it as a paper for the journal Sustainable Forestry. As I had expected, I cancelled my spring class (Farming Syst ems Research and Extension Methods). Partly, at least, my name, it was difficult for students to find. Also, I had run out of land to do the simulated on farm trial with sweet corn. S o in a way, I was glad not to have to do it. However, two of my students still wanted all or parts of it, so I gave it to them as a special We worked our way through the Adaptability An alysis book that John Russell and I had written and that worked well for the on farm research aspect. Only one of them was able to participate in the Spring Break Sondeo, however, so I had to figure out what the other one could do to get that credit. But the demise of the farming systems course also meant the end of the farming systems minor (open to all graduate students) and the farming systems concentration open to all graduate students in Interdisciplinary Ecology. That was about all that was left of the farming systems program at UF and when I finally quit working that will end it. I had two students who were doing their research (one M.S. and one PhD) in western Kenya. Neither was there when the violence broke out following the presidential electio n and the M.S. student finished her field research and did not need to return. However, the PhD student needed to return at least once more and things had settled down before he returned in the summer. All together, I was working with 17 grad students as of June 2008 and four were PhDs. They were working in Kenya (2), Brazil (2), Peru, and Mexico.

PAGE 143

143 Maria, our daughter Annie and I left for Paris on July 1 to spend some time there before going to the European farming systems conference in Clermont Ferrand July 6 10. We met up with Dave Wilsey and his wife, Heather at the train station in C F. Also attending from UF was Wendy Lyn Bartell. Here is a picture of the three Gators at the conference. Following the conference we spent some time in Provence, Cannes and Nice, returning home from Nice on July 15. Maria, Annie and me in Cassis in July 2008

PAGE 144

144 On July 23 I left for Guayaquil, Ecuador with Walter Bowen, the associate director of IFAS Intern ational Programs. Joining us later from UF were Pilar Useche, an assistant professor in FRED and her PhD student, Paul Jaramillo. Walter had formerly worked in Bangladesh where they had developed a new means of inserting small bricks of urea into the soil in paddy rice fields. This improved the productivity of the urea and reduced the escape of nitrogen into the atmosphere. We had written a proposal to see if this might be an appropriate technology for the rice farmers in the littoral north of Guayaquil. We conducted a Sondeo along with eight people from ESPOL, faculty and students, the week of July 27. I returned to Gainesville on Sunday August 3. My fall Economic Analysis class had five students, from Interdisciplinary Ecology, Agriculture and Biological Engineering, Forestry, and Agronomy. One modeled the Kefa community from the textbook, one farms in Mali where she had spent two years, one farms in an area in Costa Rica connecting two reserves, one farms in India looking at more conservative uses if irrigation, and one looking at incorporating green chopped forage in north Florida dairy rations. As usual, it was a great mix. Tom Gill, my PhD student in Interdisciplinary Ecology who had returned from his summer in Kenya was the teaching assi stant and he did a great job. In December, Dave Wilsey who had been at the farming systems meetings in France in the summer, graduated with his PhD. He was already an assistant professor at the University of Minnesota. Following is a list of some of the students with whom I have been involved over the years and what they are doing as of 2008. The list is not exhaustive but is an indication of what and where they are.

PAGE 145

145 John L. Wake graduated MS in FRE 1984. I was his chair. He is an Associate Broker spe cializing in listing and selling homes in the greater Scottsdale, Arizona area. John worked as an economist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Washington D.C. and as an Agricultural Attach at the American Embassy in Paris before returning to Arizona in the early 1990s. Bruce Dehm graduated with an MS in FRE inn 1984 and I was his chair. He is president of Dehm Associates, LLC in Genesso, NY, a dairy consulting service. William Fiebig graduated in 1987 with an MS in Agronomy and I served on his committee. He is technical advisor at the Food Security Unit of the Save the Children Federation, Inc. and a farming systems agronomist with thirty years experience. He was an agricultural offic er with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations from 1998 to 2002. Peter Wotowiec graduated in 1987 with an MS degree in AEC and I was on his committee. He is a consultant with Partners of the Americas. Tom Fattori graduated in 198 9 with a PhD from Poultry and I was his co chair. He is with the RAMP/FAO Afghan Poultry Production Project, of Chemonics International. Jonathan Dain graduated in 1990 with a MALAS degree and I was on his committee. He is professional skills coordinato r, Tropical Conservation and Development Program, Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Florida. Carlos A. Parera graduated in 1992 with a PhD degree in Horticulture and I was on his committee. He is a senior researcher with the Instituto Nacional de Tecnologa Agropecuaria, Estacin Experimental Agropecuaria San Juan, in Argentina.

PAGE 146

146 Thomas Samkyi graduated in 1993 with an MS degree in FRE. I was his chair. He is now Head of Business Development and Appraisal, Tanzania Investment Bank Ltd. Terry C. Kelly graduated with a PhD in FRE in 1995 and I was his chair. He is a senior lecturer in farming research systems and organics at Massey University in New Zealand. Jennifer Scheffee graduated in 1995 with an MS degree in A EC and I was her co chair. She works with Helen Keller International Grace Morillo grad uated with a MALAS degree in 1998 I was her chair She is the Interim National Director of UCU (A sister organization to InterVarsity Christian Fellowship) in Col ombia. UCU works on the campuses on 8 Colombia cities. Heather McIlvaine Newsad graduate d with a PhD in anthropology in 2000. I was on her committee. She is associate professor of anthropology, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Western Illinois University, Macomb. Amanda Stronza graduated with a PhD in anthropology in 2000. I was o n her committee. She is an assistant professor in the Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences at Texas A and M University. Elena P. Bastidas graduated with a PhD in FRE in 2001 and I was her chair. She is assistant professor, Conflict Analys is and Resolution, Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

PAGE 147

147 Maxwell Mudhara graduated in 2002 with a PhD in FRE. I was his chair. He is currently a professor at the University of KwaZulu Natal in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. He works in the Centre for Environment, Agriculture and Development, Farmer Support Group. He is al so the Prolinnova Provincial Coordinator for KwaZulu Natal P aul Thangata was the first PhD in SNRE in 2002 and I was his chair He is a Research Fellow with IFPRI stationed in Ethiopia. Vanessa Slinger graduated with a PhD in Geography in 2002 and I was on her committee. She is an assistant professor of geography at Kennesaw State University in Georgia. All of her work to date has been focused on natural resource management and ecotourism in developing countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. N orman E. Breuer graduated with a PhD degree in SNRE 2003 and I was his chair. He is associate research scientist, University of Miami and courtesy assistant research scientist in the Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department at the University of Florida. He works with the Southeast Climate Consortium. Richard Pluke graduated in 2003 with a PhD in Entomology and I was on his committee. He is Senior Agronomist/ Entomologist Virgin Islands He has more than 10 years of experience in agriculture. He is currently managing Fintrac's Tropical Training Center in the Virgin Islands.

PAGE 148

148 Victor Cabrera graduated with a PhD in SNRE in 2004 and I was his chair. He joined the University of Wisconsin Madiso n dairy science department as an assistant professor and extension dairy management specialist. He came from New Mexico State University, where he developed whole dairy farm decision making models that factored in information about cattle, crops, soils, climate, and economics. Cabrera's appointment is 70 percent extension, so he spend s most of his time providing assistance to extension staff working with dairy producers state wide. Kristin Davis graduated in 2004 with a PhD in Agricultural Education and Extension and I was her co chair. She is a Research Fellow with IFPRI stationed in Ethiopia. Her current research interests include the role of farmer groups in agricultural innovation systems, participation and poverty in relation to farmer groups, and pluralistic extension systems in Africa. Amy J. Sullivan graduated with a PhD in SNRE in 2004 and I was her chair. She is a post doctoral fellow for land and water productivity at the International Water Management Institute stationed in Pretoria, South Africa. James Barham graduated in 2007 with a PhD in SNRE and I was on his committee. He is an economist with the USDA Marketing Services Branch. Christina Storz grad uated in 2008 with an MS in SNRE with a joint law degree. I was her chair. She is a law clerk at United States Army Corps of Engineers in the Jacksonville, Florida area. David Wilsey graduated with a PhD in SNRE in 2008 and I was his chair. He is an Educator and Assistant Professor for Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Minnesota,

PAGE 149

149 Cloquet MN. He had this position for a few months before graduating. 2009 During the fall class, the students indicated they had friends who would like me to teach the class in the spring. I said that if they found at least six to take it then I would teach it, since I was no longer teaching the farming systems course. I made arrangements for a classroom at the time I usually teach. There were six registered the first day and ultimately seven were taking the course! Their ELPs and pap ers involved situations in Tanzania, Botswana, an extractive reserve in Acre, Brazil (2), India, Germany, and one using Kefa in Zambia. Two were Brazilians, one from India, one from Germany and three were Americans. Tom Gill is finishing a PhD in Interd isciplinary Ecology and I am his chair. He has accepted a project associate position in International Programs at Penn State University but they are allowing him to stay in Gainesville until after their baby is born and will let him return in September to defend his dissertation. Tom will be working on developing new projects in Africa. 201 0 2011 In May I escorted two of my PhD students to graduation: Tom Gill who did his research in Kenya and Alfredo Rios who did his research in Peru. Alfredo is now in extension at Ohio State University. In December I was to escort two others, one my own and one on whose committee I served. My student was Abib Araujo who did his research in Brazil. The one on whose committee I served was Maria Morera who did her research in escort her. However, at the last minute because of my nose surgery they had to find other escorts.

PAGE 150

150 As of fall 2011 I am still chairing two PhD students (Harry Pellish doing research in Kenya, and Miramanni Miskin doing her research in Mexico) and one MS student, Liz Gregg doing her research in the Amazon area of Peru). I am also on a few committees. My ELP class has seven students from the US, China, Colombia, Ecuador and Haiti. Though this story is not finished, I will close in 2011 with Fort Myers, Florida. This is our daughter Annie as I escort ed her to the ceremony. Part of

PAGE 151

151 My wife and me leaving the ceremony. The Gulf is in the background.

PAGE 152

152 The happy couple, Michael and Annie Hughes.

PAGE 153

153 EPILOGUE I guess I ce rtainly have not been fenced in! Not only did I stretch the limits of agro socio economic research particularly in the developing world, but I travelled widely and worked professionally in many of the 49 states in the US where I have been and in most of t he countries in the world I have lived in or visited. My graduate students have also done research in several countries I have not had the opportunity to visit. Places in the U.S. where I have lived: Brush, Boulder and Fort Collins, Colorado; Riversid e, California; Lansing, Michigan ; College Station/Bryan, Texas; Arlington, Virginia ; and, of course, Gainesville, Florida for the last 3 2 years with my lovely wife Maria and beautiful daughter Annie I have also been in all the states of the United States except Alaska, but I have flown over Alaska as well. Countries and cities besides the U.S. in which I lived and worked professionally: Lahore, Pakistan (2 years); Colombia (3+ years in Bogot and 2+ years in Cali); San Salvador, El Salvador (2+ years); and Guatemala City, Guatemala (5+ years). Other countries in which I worked professionally, in alphabetical order by continent: Africa: Botswana, Burkina Faso, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, and Tanzania. Asia: China and Indonesia. Europe: France, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain. South America: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela. NorthAmerica,Central America and the Caribbean: Canada, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Panama. Countries in which I have had the opportunity to travel as a tourist (some solely as a to urist and some besides working

PAGE 154

154 there): Afghanistan, Aruba, Austria, Curacao, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Monaco, Portugal, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, The United Kingdom, Vati can City and Zimbabwe. Countries in which I landed in the airport but did not leave it: Belize, Cape Verde, Ethiopia, Haiti, Lebanon, and Turkey. Planes I can remember flying on Ford Trimotor DC3, DC4, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10 Comet, Trident, VC10 Boeing 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767 Concorde (Air France) A300 Air Bus (Various versions) Single Otter, Twin Otter, Beaver Fokker F27 (turbo prop), F28 (jet) Cessna 152, 172, 406 Ilyushins (Russian jets) (2 in China) Beechcraft 99, Queen Air, King Air Brazilia n made twin jet Two different kinds of helicopters Piper Apache Canadair CRJ 50 (4 engine, 50 passenger commuter jet) Airlines I remember having flown on Air Afrique Air France Air Malawi Air Zimbabwe Alitalia ALM (Antillean) American American Eagle ASA (Delata Connection) Avianca (Colombia) Avianca Air Taxi Aviateca (Guatemala) Braniff British Airways BOAC CAAP (China)

PAGE 155

155 Cathay Pacific (Taiwan) Continental COPA (Panama) Delta East African Airways Eastern Frontier Garuda (Indonesia) Iberia (Spain) KLM (Dutch) Lacsa (Costa Rica) Lloyd (Bolivia) Lufthansa (Germany) Mideast (Lebanese, I think) PIA (Pakistan) Pan A m Norstrum (Air France) Northwest Royal Ceylon Airlines (Sri Lanka) SAA (South Africa) SAHSA (Honduras) SAM (Colombia) Satena (Colombian military) Singapore Airlines Swiss Air TACA (El Salvador) Tanzanian Airlines TAP (Portugal) TWA United US AIR Varig (Brazil) VASP (Brazil) Viasa (Venezuela)

PAGE 156

156 My airline routes over the years.

PAGE 157

157 PUBLICATIONS and PAPERS Peter E. Hildebrand BOOKS Andrew, C.O. and P.E. Hildebrand. 1977. Planificacin y ejecucin de la investigacin aplicada. ICTA, Guatemala. Andrew, C.O. and P.E. Hildebrand. 1982. Planning and conducting applied agricultural research. Westview Press. Boulder, CO. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055232/0000 Hildebrand, P.E. and F. Poey. 1985. On farm agronomic trials in farming systems research/extension. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. Boulder, CO. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080557/00001 Hildebrand, P.E. 1986. Perspectives o n farming systems research and extension. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. Boulder, CO. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00072280/00001 Hildebrand, P.E. and F. Poey. 1989. Ensayos agronmicos en fincas segn el en foque de sistemas agropecuarios. Editorial Agropecuaria Latinoamericana, Inc. Gainesville, FL. Andrew, C.O. and Peter E. Hildebrand. 1993. Applied agricultural research: foundations and methodology. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Hildebrand, P.E. and J.T. Russell. 1996. Adaptability analysis: A method for the design, analysis and interpretation of on farm research extension. Iowa State University Press, Ames. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00081797/0000 1 OTHERS 1958 Hildebrand, P.E. 1958. The linear programming approach in farm management analysis. Agricultural Economics Mimeo No. 729. Michigan State University. East Lansing. 25 pages. Hildebrand, P.E. and E. J. Partenheimer. 1958. Socioecon omic characteristics of innovators. Journal of Farm Economics. Vol XL No. 2. pp 446 449 http://chla.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer idx?c=c hla;cc=chla;rgn=full%20text;idno=5033566_4120_002;didno=5033566_4120_002;view=image;seq=0264;node=5033566_412 0_002%3A4.35 1959 Hildebrand, P.E. 1959. Farm organization and resource fixity: modifications of the linear programming model. Agricultural Econo mics Mimeo No. 769. Michigan State University. East Lansing. 78 pages. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00082034/00001 1960 Parker, C. A. and P.E. Hildebrand. 1960. Linear programming for profitable farming. In s ervice education workshop for teachers of vocational agriculture, Corpus Christi, Texas. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00081524/00001 1961 Hildebrand P.E. 1961. Cost of producing lamb and wool on Edwards Platea u sheep ranches. The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. MP 553. College Station. 6 pages. 1962 Hildebrand, P.E. 1962. Discussion : Interregional competition in beef Proceedings. XXXV Western

PAGE 158

158 Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting. WAEA. Reno, Nevada. pp 46 47. Hildebrand, P.E. 1962. Factors affecting the profitability of rootplowing in west Texas. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. College Station, Texas. Hildebrand, P. E. 1962. Discussion: Aspects of management of concern to the basic researcher. Proceedings. WAERC Farm Management Research Committee. Denver, Colorado. pp. 73 74. 1963 Hildebrand, P. E. 1963. A proposed regional model for agricultural adjustment in the west. Proceedings. XXXVI Western Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting. WFEA. Laramie, Wyoming. pp 112 117. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080623/00001 Walker, O., P.E. Hildebrand and R. Krenz. 1963. Procedural guidebook for production economics. Research contributing to GP 5. 1965 West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority, and Tipton and Kalmbach, Inc., Engineers. 1965. Salinity control and reclamation programs, Project No. 4. Upper Rechna Doab. Lahore, Pakistan and Denver, Colorado. (Contributed as Chief Economist). 1966 West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority, and Tipton and Kalmbach, Inc., Engineers. 1966. Salinity control and reclamation programs, Pro ject No. 5, Lower Rechna Doab. Lahore, Pakistan and Denver, Colorado. (Contributed as Chief of Planning). 1967 West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority, and Tipton and Kalmbach, Ing., Engineers. 1967. Regional Plan Northern Indus Plains. \ I n \ Vol. II, Economics, Appendix B. value of water in the northern Indus Plain. Lahore, Pakistan and Denver, Colorado. Hildebrand, P.E. 1967. An analysis of INCORA and the Law of Agrarian and Social Reform with reference to their impact on investment in private land. USAID. Bogota, Colombia 1968 Chacon, P.J, and P.E. Hildebrand. 1968. Report of farm machinery supply practices and problems in Colombia. USAID. Bogota, Colombia. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080848/00001 Hildebrand, P.E. 1968 Informe sobre el estudio del impacto de fertilizantes y pesticidas en la produccin y productividad de cultivos comerciales en Colombia. USAID. Bogot, Colombia. Hildebrand, P.E. 1968. La incertidumbre en la oferta de insumos como restriccin para el desarrrollo agrcola en los pases en desarrollo. Departmento de Economa Agropecuaria. Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario. Bogot, Colombia. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00095085/00001 1969 Mao, S.W., P.E. Hildebrand and C.N. Crain. 1969. The interdependence of economics and hydrologic criteria in planning water resources development Society of Mining Engineers. Tra nsactions Vol 244. AIME. pp 15 24 http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080639/00001 Lopera, Jorge P. and P.E. Hildebrad. 1969. La brecha en la productividad agrcola en Colombia. Boletn Departamental No. 3. Departamento de Economa Agrcola. Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario, Bogot, Colombia. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00072 228/00001 1970 Hildebrand, P.E. 1970. La incertidumbre en la oferta de insumos como restriccin para el desarrolllo agrcola en los pases en desarrollo. Revista Colombiana de Economa Agrcola Vol. 2., No. 1.

PAGE 159

159 Asociacin Colombiana de Economa Agrcola. Bogot, Colombia. pp. 37 40. 1971 Escobar, G., J. Gomez, O. Patio, A. Gallo, and P.E Hildebrand. 1971. Anlisis econmico de la ceba de novillos en confinamiento. Informe No.6. Departamento de Economa Agrcola. Regional No. 5. Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario, Palmira, Colombia. Gallo, A.C. and P.E. Hildebrand. 1971. Anlisis econmico de la ceba de novillos en pastoreo rotacional. Informe No. 5. Departamento de Economa Agrcola. Regional No. 5, Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario, Palmira, C olombia. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054658/00001 Gallo, A.C., P.E. Hildebrand and A. Warren. 1971. El cuidado de patos khaki campbell para huevos. Hoja informativa No.8. Departamento de Economa Agrcol a. Regional No. 5. Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario, Palmira, Colombia. Hildebrand, P.E. 1971. Un diseo experimental para mejorar recomendaciones en fertilizacin. Informe No. 2. Departamento de Economa Agrcola, Regional No. 5. Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario. Colombia. Hildebrand, P.E., E. Santos and A. Warren. 1971. Cuntas ponedoras por jaula? Pp. 10 15, Revista Agrcola ESSO No. 5. Esso Colombiana S.A.

PAGE 160

160 Hildebrand, P.E., E. Santos and A. Warren. 1971. La productividad y la rentabilidad de ponedoras en jaulas sencillas, dobles y triples. Informe No. 4. Departamento de Economa Agrcola, Regional No.5. Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario, Palmira, Colombia. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00095625/00001 Lopera. J.P. and P.E. Hildebrand. 1971. La brecha en la productividad agrcola en Colombia. \ El Agro \ (Suplemento Agrcola y Ganadero de "La Patria"), Manizales, Colombia, February 27. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00072233/00001 Lopera, J.P. and P.E. Hildebrand. 1971. Divorcio entre la tcnica y los agricultores. \ El Agro \ (Suplemento Agrcola y Ganadero de "La Patria"), Manizales, Colombia, A bril 3. Rincon P. and P.E. Hildebrand. 1971. Anlisis econmico de la fertilizacin nitrogenada en pasto peludo (Braquiaria decumbans). Hoja Informativa No.7. Departmento de Economa Agrcola, Regional No.5. Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario, Palmira, C olombia. 1972 Andrew, C.O. and P.E. Hildebrand. 1972. Planificacin y ejecucin de investigacin aplicada. Departamento de Administracin Agrcola. Direccin General de Economa Agrcola y Planificacin. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadera. San S alvador, El Salvador. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080893/00001 Hildebrand, P.E. 1972. Anlisis agroeconmicos mediante superficies de respuesta. Departamento de Administracin Agrcola. Direccin General d e Economa Agrcola y Planificacin. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadera. San Salvador, El Salvador. 1973 Barona, M.T., A. Gallo y P.E. Hildebrand. 1973. El pltano en los Departamentos de Cauca, Valle del Cauca y Quindio Divisin de Investigacin, Departamento de Economa, CNIAP. Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario. Palmira, Colombia. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054725/00001

PAGE 161

161 Pea, E. y P.E. Hildebrand. 1972. Anlisis eco nmico de fertilizacin en cinco hortalizas en San Andrs. Departamento de Administracin Agrcola. Direccin General de Economa Agrcola y Planificacin. Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadera, San Salvador, El Salvador. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054302/00001 1974 Hildebrand, P.E. and E.G. Luna. 1974. Unforeseen consequences of introducing new technologies in traditional agriculture. The future of agriculture: technology, policies and adjustment. XV international conference of agricultural economists. Oxford Agricultural Economics Institute. Oxford. pp 508 509. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00075671/00001 Hildebrand, P.E. 1974. Anlisis econmico de fe rtilizacin de caa de azcar. Departamento de Economa Agrcola. Centro Nacional de Tecnologa Agrocuaria, (CENTA). Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadera. San Salvador, El Salvador. Hildebrand, P.E. and E.C. French. 1974. Produccin de pepinos u tilizando tallos de maz. Departamento de Economa Agrcola, Centro Nacional de Tecnologa Agropecuaria (CENTA). Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadera, San Salvador, El Salvador. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00073332/00001 Hildebrand, P.E. and E.C. French. 1974. Un sistema salvadoreo de multicultivos. Departamento de Economa Agrcola. Centro Nacional de Tecnologa Agropecuaria (CENTA). Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadera. San Salvador, El Salvador. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00075670/00001 1975 Andrew, C.O. and P.E. Hildebrand. 1975. We call it research. Staff Paper No.9. Food and Resource Economics Dept. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054843/00001 Hildebrand, P.E. 1975. El papel de socioeconoma rural en el Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologas Agrcolas ICTA. Hildebrand, P.E. 1975. Sistemas de produccin agrcola y proyectos de reforma agraria. Presen ted at the 9th Annual meeting of the Presidents of Agrarian Reform Institutes of Central America. ICTA, Guatemala. Hildebrand, P.E., E.C. French, M.A. Barahona, A.E. Chacon, and J. Biber. 1975 Manual para la siembra de multicultivos. Departamento de E conoma Agrcola, Centro Nacional de Tecnologa Agropecuaria (CENTA). Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadera. San Salvador, El Salvador. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055291/00001 Reiche, C.E., P.E. Hildebrand and Sergio Ruano. 1975. Evaluacin de algunas variedades de sorgo (maicillo) en pequeas medianas fincas de oriente de Guatemala. Pp 329 372. \ IN \ Programa cooperativo centroamericano para el mejoramiento de cultivos alimenticios (PCCMCA) Vol 11. San Salvador, El Salvador. 1976 Andrew, C.O. and P.E. Hildebrand. 1976. Planning and conducting applied research. MSS Information Corporation. New York. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055253/00001 Busto Brol, B., O. Caldern and P.E. Hildebrand. 1976. Evaluacin de la aceptacin de la tecnologa generada por ICTA para el cultivo de maz en el parcelamiento "La Mquina", 1975. ICTA, Guatemala. ht tp://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00066737/00001/ Busto Brol, B., O. Caldern and P.E. Hildebrand. 1976. Registros econmicos de produccin con

PAGE 162

162 agricultores colaboradores del parcelamiento "La Mquina". 1975. ICTA, Guatemala. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00081574/00001 Hildebrand, P.E. 1976. Generating technology for traditional farmers: a multidisciplinary methodology. Prepared for presentation at the conference on: Developing economies in agrarian regions: a search f or methodology The Rockefeller Foundation Conference Center, Bellagio, Italy. August 4 6, 1976. ICTA, Guatemala. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00081824/00001 Hildebrand, P.E., C.E. Reiche and E. Samayoa. 1976. Ensayo de sistemas de cultivos de ladera para pequeos y medianos agricultores: La Barranca, Jutiapa, 1975. \ IN \ Informe Anual 1975 1976. ICTA, Guatemala. Reiche, C.E., P.E. Hildebrand, S. Ruano and J. T. Wyld. 1976. El pequeo agricultor y sus sistemas de cultivos en ladera: Jutiapa, Guatemala. \ IN \ Informe Anual 1975 1976. ICTA, Guatemala. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055935/00001/ Zimet. D.J., C.O. Andrew and P.E. Hildebrand. 1976. The economic potential for increasing vegetable production in the Zapotitan district, El Salvador. Economic Report 78. Food and Resource Economics Department. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida Hildebrand, P.E. 1976. Multiple cropping systems are dollars and "sense" agronomy. Chapter 18. \ IN \ American Society of Agronomy. ASA Special Publication No. 27. Madison, Wisconsin. pp 347 371 http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF0005 5920/00001/ 1977 Andrew, C.P. and P.E. Hildebrand. 1977. Planificacin y ejecucin de la investigacin aplicada, Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologa Agrcolas (ICTA), Guatemala. 132 pages. Busto Brol, B., O.A. Caldern and P.E. Hildebrand. 1977. Reg istros econmicos de produccin de maz con agricultores colaboradores del parcelamiento "La Mquina", 1976. ICTA, Guatemala. De Len Prera, C., J.T. Wyld and P.E. Hildebrand. 1977. Alcances geogrficos de los sistemas de cultivos en el rea piloto d el ICTA, Regin VI, 1975. ICTA, Guatemala. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055934/00001/ Duarte, R., P.E. Hildebrand and S. Ruano. 1977. Tecnologa y estructura agro socioeconmica del minifundio del occidente de Chimaltenango. ICTA, Guatemala. Godinez, L.H., L.M. Pando and P.E. Hildebrand. 1977. Registros econmicos de produccin con agricultores colaboradores en el sistema ma z sorgo y cultivos de maz y sorgo solo, en plano, Asuncin, Mita, Jutiapa. 1976. ICTA, Guatemala. Hildebrand, P.E. 1977. Generating small farm technology: an integrated, multidisciplinary system. Proceedings, 12th West Indian Agricultural Economics Conference, Caribbean Agro Economic Society. April 24 30, 1977. Antigua. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055921/00001/ Hildebrand, P.E. 1977. Socioeconomic considerations in multiple cropping systems. An i nvited paper prepared for the Round Table Discussion on Agricultural Production Systems. XVI Annual Reunion of the Board of Directors, Instituto Interamericano de Ciencias Agrcolas (IICA), Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, May 18. ICTA, Guatemala. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055923/00001/

PAGE 163

163 Hildebrand, P.E. and D. Cardona. 1977. Sistemas de cultivos de ladera para pequeos y medianos agricultores, La Barranca, Jutiapa, 1976. ICTA, Guatemala. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055937/00001/ Hildebrand, P.E., S. Ruano, T. Lpez, E. Samayoa and R. Duarte. 1977. Sistemas de cultivos para los agricultores tradicionales del occidente de Chimaltenango, ICTA, Guate mala. Lpez, J.T., S. Ruano, R. Duarte and P.E. Hildebrand. 1977. Registros econmicos de produccin con agricultores colaboradores del occidente de Chimaltenango, 1976. ICTA, Guatemala. L. Ortiz, P.E. Hildebrand, and L.M. Pando. 1977. Registros econmicos de produccin en: maz frijol sorgo, maz sorgo, maz frijol, y maz solo, en ladera, rea piloto ICTA, Regin VI, 1976. ICTA, Guatemala. 1978 Duarte, R. and P.E. Hildebrand. 1978. Tecnologa y estructura agro socioeconmica del minifundio de Totonicapan, 1977. ICTA, Guatemala. Hildebrand, P.E. 1978. An integrated approach to the improvement of farm production systems. Presented at the seminar on the improvement of farm production systems. Sponsored by the Club du Sahel Bamako, Mali, Feb.20 March 1, 1978. ICTA, Guatemala.

PAGE 164

164 Hildebrand, P.E. 1978. Motivating small farmers to accept change. Prepared for presentation at the Conference on: integrated crop and animal production to optimize resource utilization on small farm in developing countries. The Rockefeller Foundation Conference Center, Bellagio, Italy. Oct 18 23, ICTA, Guatemala. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055922/00001/ Hildebrand, P.E. and S. Ruano. 1978. I ntegrated multidisciplinary technology generation for small, traditional farmers of Guatemala. Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology. Mrida, Mxico. April 2 9. ICTA, Guatemala. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055925/00001/ Ruano, S., M.E. Chinchilla and P.E. Hildebrand. 1978. Evaluacin de la aceptabilidad de la tecnologa generada para los cultivos de maz y trigo en Quetzaltenango, ICTA, Guatemala. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00065179/00001/ Ruano, V.M. Pacay and P.E. Hildebrand. 1977. Evaluacin de la aceptacin de la tecnologa generada por ICTA para el cultivo de maz en la regin I. 1975. ICTA, Gua temala. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00065178/ 1979 Chinchilla, M.E, and P.E. Hildebrand. 1979. Evaluacin de la aceptabilidad de la tecnologa generada para los cultivos de maz y ajonjol en el parcelamiento de M quina, 1977 1978. ICTA, Guatemala. Chinchilla, M.E. and P.E. Hildebrand. 1979. Evaluacin de la aceptabilidad de la tecnologa generada para el cultivos de maz en Quezaltenango, 1977 1978. ICTA, Guatemala. Hildebrand, P.E. 1979. Summary of the sondeo methodology used by ICTA. ICTA, Guatemala. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055845/00001/1j Hildebrand, P.E. 1979. The ICTA farm record project with small farmers -four years of experience. ICTA, G uatemala. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055847/00001 Hildebrand. P.E. 1979. Generating technology for traditional farmers -the Guatemalan experience. Prepared for presentation in the symposium on socioeco nomic constraints to crop protection, IX International Congress of Plant Protection, Washington, D.C. August 5 11, 1979. ICTA, Guatemala. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055849/00001 Hildebrand, P.E. 1979. I ncorporating the social sciences into agricultural research: the formation of a national farm systems research institute. Report of a five year tour of duty. ICTA, Guatemala and the Rockefeller Foundation, New York. Hildebrand, P.E. 1979. Rapid rura l appraisal. Comments about multidisciplinary team efforts. A conference held at the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. Brighton: BNI 9RE. 1980 McDowell, R.E. and P.E. Hildebrand. 1980. Integrated crop and animal production: making the most of resources available to small farms in developing countries. A Bellagio Conference. The Rockefeller Foundation. New York. 78 pages. Hildebrand, P.E. 1980. "FSR and national agricultu ral development". Proceedings, USDA/USAID Farming Systems Research Symposium, Dec. 8 9. Washington, D.C. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00073343/00001 1981 Hildebrand, P.E. 1981. Motivating small farmers, scie ntists and technicians to accept change. Agricultural Administration, Vol 8, No. 5, pp 375 383.

PAGE 165

165 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiImageURL&_cid=273248&_user=2139813&_pii=0309586X81900157&_check=y&_o rigin=browse&_zone=rslt_lis t_item&_coverDate=1981 09 30&wchp=dGLbVlS zSkzV&md5=ef9f9b8a63d622481e2d28dc2b1b6bff/1 s2.0 0309586X81900157 main.pdf Hildebrand, P.E. 1981. Combining disciplines in rapid appraisal: the sondeo approach. Agricultural Administration, Vol 8, No. 6, pp 423 432. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiImageURL&_cid=273248&_user=2139813&_pii=0309586X81900376&_check=y&_ origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDate=1981 11 30&wchp=dGLbVlt zSkzk&md5=6f158ff8ed61127fb01b9d8f42b04e28/1 s 2.0 0309586X81900376 main.pdf Hildebrand, P.E. 1981. "Role, potential and problems of farming systems research and extension: developing countries vs. United States". Proceedings, Farming Systems Research Symposium "Small Farms in a Changing World" P rospects for the Eighties", Kansas State University, November 11 13. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00094294/00001 Hildebrand, P.E. 1981. Toward an agrosocioeconomic methodology. Paper presented a the didactic seminar on "the role of sociologists in the field among other professions" at the 76th annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. Toronto, Canada. 1982 Hildebrand, P.E. 1982. Farming systems research: issues in research strategy and tec hnology design: discussion. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 64, No. 5, pp 905 906. Hildebrand, P.E. 1982. Motivating small farmers to accept change. Chapter 7 IN : Shaner, W.W., P.F. Philipp and W.R. Schmehl. Readings in farming systems r esearch and development. Westview Press. Boulder, Colorado. pp 100 109. Swisher, M.E., P.E. Hildebrand, E.C. French, G. Clough and J. Dean. 1982. Algunas consideraciones en el desarrollo de tecnologa apropiada para fincas pequeas. Hildebrand, P.E. 1982. FSR/E and the land grant system. Draft. University of Florida. Hildebrand, P.E. and S. Ruano. 1982. EL SONDEO. Una metodologa multidisciplinaria de caracterizacin de sistemas de cultivo desarrollada por el ICTA. Folleto t cnico 21. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00072339/00001 1983 Hildebrand, P.E. 1983. The farming systems approach to technology development and transfer. Water Management Synthesis II Project. International Irrigation Center. Utah State University. Utah. 68 pages. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00081823/0000 1 McDowell, R.E. and P.E. Hildebrand. 1983. Farming systems, including animals. Chapter 7. IN : Whyte, W. F. and D. Boyton. 1983. Higher yielding human systems for agriculture. Cornell University Press. Ithaca and London. pp 90 100. Hildebrand, P.E. 1983. Caractersticas econmicas de las fincas familiares de escala pequea y recursos limitados: implicaciones para la tecnologa. Hildebrand, P.E. 1983. El concepto de "sistemas homogneos" y su utilidad. Hildebrand, P.E. and R.K. Waugh. 1983. Farming systems research and development. FSSP newsletter,

PAGE 166

166 Vol 1, No.1. First quater 1983. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00071908/00001/4j 1984 Hildebrand, P.E. 1984. Modified stability analysis of farmer managed, o n farm trials. Agronomy Journal Vol.76. pp 271 274 Hildebrand, P.E. 1984. Summary of FSR/E participation, activities, products and time frame. Farming Systems Support Project Newsletter. Vol 2, No.1. pp 4 5. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00071908/00004/4j Hildebrand, P.E. 1984. On the non neutrality of scale of agricultural research. 1985 Hildebrand, P.E. 1985. Research/farmer linkage for technology and agricultural development. IN Proceedings of Workshop on Agricultural Research Policy and Organization in Small Countries. Wageningen, The Netherlands. Sept. 12 14, 1984. 17 pages Hildebrand, P.E., E. Martnez and R. Ortiz. 1985. Generalized organization of FSR/E regions and f ield team. Farming systems Support Project Newsletter. Vol 3, No.2. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00071908/00009 Hildebrand, Peter E. and Federico Poey. 1985. Evaluating on farm research. FSSP Newsletter, Vol 3 No.3 http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00071908/00010 Hildebrand, P.E. and S. Kearl. 1986. "Impact of a nationa l farming systems program: Guatemala's Institute of Agricultural Science and T echnology, ICTA". Farming Systems Support Project Newsletter. Vol 4, No.4. Fourth quarter. pp 12 14. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00071908/00015/12j Hildebrand, P.E. 1986. Forward. In : Jones, J.R. and B.J. Wallace (eds.). Social science and farming systems research: methodological perspectives on agricultural development. Westview Press. Boulder, Colorado. 1987 Poats, S., D. Galt, C. Andrew. L. Walecka, P. E. Hildebrand and K. McDermott. 1987. Fut ure Directions for FSR/E. Farming Systems Support Project Newsletter. Vol 5, No. 3. pp 5 8. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00071908/00018/5j Poats, S., D. Galt, C. Andrew, L. Walecka, P.E. Hildbrand and K. McDermott. 1987. Should FSR/E move towards greater inclusion of interhousehold issues, gender issues and non farm income generating activities?. Farming Systems Support Project Newsletter, Vol 5, No.3. pp 11 12. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00071908/00018/11j Poats, S., D. Galt, C, Andrew, L. Walecka, P.E. Hildebrand and K. McDermott. 1987. Relationship between FSR/ED and single commodity research programs. Farming Systems Support Project Newsletter, Vol 5, No.3. pp 9 10. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00071908/00018/9j Hildebrand, P.E. 1987. Review: The economics of tropical farm management by J.P. Makeham. Am J Agr Econ 69:717 718 Wake, J.L. and P.E. Hildebrand 1987. The learning curve and the transaction cost of learning by doing: a case study of two technologies in north Florida. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 69:1097 1097 1988 Wotowiec, P., S. Poats. and P.E, Hildebrand. 1988. Research, recommendation and diffusion domains: a farming systems approach to targeting, Chapter 6 In : Poats, S., M. Schmink and A. Spring. Gender

PAGE 167

167 issues in farming systems research and extension. 1988. Westview Press, Inc. B oulder, Colorado. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00081675/00001 Hildebrand, P.E. 1988. Technology diffusion in farming systems research and extension HortScience 23(3):488 490 Wake, J.L., D.F. Kiker and P .E. Hildebrand. 1988. Systematic learning of agricultural technologies. Agricultural Systems 27(3):179 193 Hildebrand, P.E. and R. Piland. Inventory of shortcourses and university courses related to farming systems. Food and Resource Economics, U niversity of Florida. 39 pages. O'Connor, J.D., C.O. Andrew, and P.E. Hildebrand. 1988. Agricultural technology development and FSR/E: past problems and new directions. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080890/ 00001 Francis, C.A., and P.E. Hildebrand. 1988. Farming systems research and extension (FSR/E) in support of sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of Farming Systems Research and Extension Symposium 1988. University of Arkansas. Pp 391 394.IA http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080876/00001 1989 Hildebrand, P.E., S. Poats and L. Walecka. 1989. (Translated by Miguel Proenca). Introducao a pesquisa e extensao de sistemas agropecuarios. IFAS. University of Florida. 98 pages. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055299/00001 Waugh, R.K., P.E. Hildebrand and C.O. Andrew. 1989. Farming Systems research and extension. Chap. 9 In Compton, J.L. (ed). The transformation of international agricultural research and development. Lynne Rienner Publishers. Boulder. Colorado. Hildebrand, P.E., and M. Ashraf. 1989. Agricultural sustainability as an operational criterion. Presented a the Ninth Annual International Farming Sys tems Symposium, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, October 8 11, 1989. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00065559/00001 Francis, C.A., and P.E. Hildebrand. 1989. Farming systems research/extension and the conce pts of sustainability. Presented at the Ninth Annual International Farming Systems Symposium, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, October 8 11, 1989 http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080875/00001

PAGE 168

168 1990 Fattori, T.R., F.B. Mather and P.E. Hildebrand. 1990. Methodology for partitioning poultry producers into recommendation domains. Agricultural Systems. 32:197 205 Hildebrand, P.E. 1990. Agronomy's role in sustainable agriculture: integrated farming systems Journal of Production Agriculture. Vol. 3. No. 3 (July September). pp 285 288. Hildebrand, P.E. 1990. Farming Systems Research Extension. Chapter 6, In : Jones/Street. Systems theory applied to agriculture and the food chain. Elsevier Science Publishers, Ltd. England, United Kingdom. pp 131 143. Hildebrand, P.E. 1990. Modified stability analysis and on farm research to breed specific adaptability for ecological diversity. Chapter 13 In : Genotype by environment interaction and plant breeding. Louisiana State University. Baton Rouge, LA. pp 169 180. S.H. Angell, E.C. French, P.E. Hildebrand, W.G. Blue and E.B. Whitty. 1990. Field fertilizat ion trials of four selected spices. Paper presented at the Caribbean Food Crop Society meeting, July 1990. Puerto Rico. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00075674/00001 Niles, W.L., French, EC and Hildebrand, PE; et al. 1990. Establishment of Florigraze rhizoma peanut (arachis glabrata benth) as affected by lime, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium and sulfer. Soil Crop Sci Soc FL 49:207 210 1991 Fattori, T.R., P.E. Hildebrand and H.R. Wilson. 1991. Response of broiler breeder females to feed restriction below recommended levels. Economic Analysis. Poultry Science. Vol. 70. Pp 489 498. Ahmed, N.U, P.E. Hildebrand and V.R. Carangal. 1991. Dual purpose legumes in the rainfed lowland ri ce bases system in the Philippines. IRRI research paper series number 146. IRRI, Philippines. Stroup, W.W., P.E. Hildebrand and C.A. Francis. 1991. Farmer participation for more effective research in sustainable agriculture. Food and Resource Econo mics Department staff paper SP91 32, September 1991. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00053919/00001/2j 1992 Hildebrand, P.E. 1992. The FSRE approach: the meaning and value of FSRE to promote agricultural produ ction and the welfare of rural families. Keynote speech presented at the Southern African Farming Systems Research Extension Conference "Farming Systems Research Extension in the 1990s: its relevance as a practical approach to solving the problems faced by farmers in Southern Africa. Johannesburg, RSA, February 25 27. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00080657/00001 Hildebrand, P.E., W.T. Bowen and T.C. Kelly. 1992. Testing modified stability analysis with biop hysical process models. AFSRE symposium 1992. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00082699/00001 1993 Hildebrand, P. E., B. K. Singh, B. C. Bellows, E. P. Campbell and B. A. Jama. 1993. Farming systems research fo r agroforestry extension. Special issue of Agroforestry Systems, Volume 23, Nos. 2 3 Directions in Agroforestry: a Quick Appraisal. Hildebrand, P.E. 1993. Steps in the analysis and interpretation of on farm research extension data based on modified stability analysis: a training guide. Food and Resource Economics Department Staff Paper SP93 11. May 1993. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00055298/00001/

PAGE 169

169 Russell, J.T., P.E. Hildebrand, and C.K. Hiebsch. 19 93. Making the most modified stability analysis: finding the "best fit" and determining specific adaptation to recommendation domains. Florida Experimental Station, Journal Series R 03513. Field Crop Research Journal. (Accepted). http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00081536/00001 Hildebrand, P.E. 1993. Targeting technology diffusion through coordinated on farm research. Prepared for presentation at the Association for Farming Systems Research Extension North American Symposium on Systems Approaches in North American Agriculture and Natural Resources: Broadening the scope of FSRE. University of Florida, Gainesville. October 12 16, 1993. Food and Resource Economics Department Staff Paper SP93 25. November 1993. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00081830/00001 Andrew, C.O., P.E. Hildebrand, and A. Fajardo. 1993. Agricultural research policy in transition: institutional barriers to merging the trade and environmental agendas. Prepared for presentation at the American Society of Agronomy meetings, November 7 12, 1993. Food and Resource Economics Departme nt Staff Paper SP93 26. November 1993. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054793/00001 Stroup, W.W., P.E. Hildebrand and C.A. Francis. 1993. Farmer participation for more effective research in sustainable agricu lture. Chapter 12 In : Technologies for sustainable agriculture in the tropics. ASA special publication 56 http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00053919/00001/2j 1994 Norman, D.W., T.R. Frankenberger, P.E. Hildeb rand. 1994. Agricultural research in developed countries: past, present, and future of farming systems research and extension. Journal of Production Agriculture, Vol. 7, no. 1. 1995 Andrew, C.O., P.E. Hildebrand, and A. Fajardo. 1995. Agricultural r esearch policy in transition: institutional barriers to merging the trade and environmental agendas. p..229 243. In A.S.R. Juo and R.D. Freed (eds.) Agriculture and environment: bridging food production and environmental protection in developing countrie s. ASA Spec. Publ. 60 ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, Wisconsin. Hildebrand, P.E and E. Bastidas. 1995. Steps in the analysis and interpretation of on farm research extension data based on adaptability analysis: a training guide. Food and Resource Economics Department Staff Paper SP95 4R. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054817/00001/1j Hildebrand, P.E. 1995. Book review. Farmer participatory research: rhetoric and reality. By C. Okali,, J. Sumberg, an d J. Farrington: 1994; Intermediate Technology Publications, London. ISBN 18533922529. Agroforestry Systems 30:382 383 1996 Bellows, B.C., P.E. Hildebrand, and D.H. Hubbell. 1996. Sustainability of bean production systems on steep lands in Costa Rica. Agricultural Systems 50(4):391 410. 1997 Gladwin, C.G., K.L. Buhr, A. Goldman, C. Hiebsch, P.E. Hildebrand, G. Kidder, M. Langham, Donna Lee, P. Nkedi Kizza and D. Williams. 1997. Gender and soil fertility in Africa. Chap. 9 In : Buresh, R.J., P. San chez, and F. Calhoun (Eds.). Replenishing soil fertility in Africa. Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy, Madison WI. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00102041/00001 Hildebrand, P.E., D. Zimet and G. Brinen. 1997. Organic agricultural production in north and central Florida: A Sondeo report. Staff Paper SP 97 4. Food and Resource Economics, University of Florida. 1998

PAGE 170

170 Baker, M. Arajo, A.A. and Hildebrand, P.E. 1998. Agroforestry alternatives for the Brazilian Amazon: a case study of farming systems research and extension in Grupo Novo Ideal. Journal of International Agriculture and Extension Education. 1999 Hildebrand, P.E. 1999. Book review: The color of hunger: race and hunger in national and international perspective. By D.L.L. Shields, ed. Transforming Anthropology : The Journal of the Association of Black Anthropolgists. 8:191 192. Baker, M., A. Koy ama and P. Hildebrand. 1999. Korean Natural Farming Association: A comparison of selected performance factors with national farming data. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education. 6:79 85. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00081794/00001 Hildebrand, P.E. (Ed.), A. Caudle (Coordinator), V. Cabrera, M. Downs, M. Langholtz, A. Mugisha, R. Sandals, A. Shriar and K. Veach. 1999. Potential use of long range climate forecasts by agricultural extens ion agents in Florida. Staff Paper SP 99 9. Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2000 Kaya, B; Hildebrand PE and Nair, PKR. 2000. Modeling changes in farming systems with the adoption of improved fallows in southe rn Mali Agr icultural Syst ems 66:51 68. 2001 Jagtap, S.S., Jones, J.W., Zazueta, F., Jackson, J., Beck, H., Hildebrand, P. 2001. Bridging the gap between climate prediction and its application in Florida agriculture. (Technical Report FC UF 2001 1). Agriculture and Biological Eng., University of Florida, Gainesville. 2001. An operational program for applications of climate information: a coo perative venture with th Symposium on Global Change Climate Variations, 14 19 January 2001. Albuquerque, New Mexico by the AMS, Boston, Massachusetts. Letson, D., Hansen, J. Hildebrand, P. Jones, J.W., Floridas agriculture and climatic variability: reducing vulnerability (Florida Consortium Technical Report FS UM 2001 001). Litow, P., M. Baker and P. Hildebrand. 2001. Swidden agriculture in a f orest society: livelihood strategies in the Maya Biosphere Reserve community of Uaxactn, Guatemala. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education (Fall): 49 55 2002 Jagtap, Responding to Stakeholders Demand for Climate Information: From Research to Applications in Florida, Agricultural Systems, 74(3):415 430 Cabrera, V.E., Hildebrand, P.E. 2002. Family dynamics and household welfare in Caete, Peru. FAO, Farming Systems, Agrippa 607_EN. Gough, A.E., C. Gladwin and P. Hildebrand. 2002. Vouchers versus grants of inputs: evidence from University of Florida

PAGE 171

171 Hildebrand, P.E. and A. J. Sullivan. 2002. Small farm l ivelihood systems and food security: addressing diversity. Food and Resource Economics Staff Paper SP 02 7. University of Florida. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054802/00001 Merry, F. D., P. E. Hildebrand, P Pattie, and D. R. Carter. 2002. An analysis of land conversion from sustainable forestry to pasture: A case study in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Land Use Policy 19:207 215 Mudhara, M. and P.E. Hildebrand. 2002. Potential adoption of improved fallows to improve income and food security of diverse smallholder famers in Mangwende CA, Ziimbabwe. FAO Farming Systems, Agrippa 623_EN. Thangata, P.H., P.E. Hildebrand and C.H. Gladwin. 2002. Modeling agroforest ry adoption and household decision making in Malawi. African Studies Quarterly, The Online Journal for African Studies. University of Florida Thangata, P.H., P.E. Hildebrand and G. Hyden. 2002. The impact of poor health on agroforestry adoption and ho usehold food security in Central Malawi. FAO Farming Systems, Agrippa 630_EN. 2003 Alvira, D., Cabrera, V.E., Galindo, S., Haile, S., Mtenga, K., Rios, F., Tripathi, N., Villagomez, J.A. 2003. Hildebrand, P.E. and Sullivan A.J. (eds.). Nutrient management in the Suwannee River Basin: perceptions of stakeholders. University of Florida, Food and Resource Economics Department, Staff Paper Series, SP 04 2 Gainesville, FL. Breuer, N., V. Cabrera, P.E. Hildebrand and J.W. Jones. 2003. Potential response of North Central Florida livestock producers to long term climate forecasting. Food and Resource Economics Staff Paper SP 03 4. University of Florida, Gainesville. Breuer, N., V. Cabrera, P.E. Hildebrand and J.W. Jones. 2003 Potential response of North Central Florida livestock producers to long term climate forecasting. The Southeast Climate Consortium Technical Report Series. SCC Staff Paper 01 03

PAGE 172

172 Cabrera, V.C. and P.E. Hildebrand. 2003. Economic and ecologic asses sment of groundwater nitrogen pollution from north Florida dairy farm systems: an interdisciplinary approach. Food and Resource Economics Staff Paper SP 03 2. University of Florida, Gainesville. http:// ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00053829/00001 Hildebrand, P.E. and V.E. Cabrera. 2003. Modeling and analyzing small farm livelihood systems with linear programming. Food and Resource Economics Staff Paper SP 03 3. University of Florida, Gainesville. Hildebrand, P.E., N.E. Breuer, V.E. Cabrera and A.J. Sullivan. 2003. Modeling diverse livelihood strategies in rural livelihood systems using ethnographic linear programming. Food and Resource Economics Staff Paper SP 03 5. University of Florida, Gainesville. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00000405/00001 Mudhara, M. and P.E. Hildebrand. 2003. Economic assessment of constraints to the adoption of improved fallows in Zimbabwe using linear programming models. Food and Res ource Economics Staff Paper SP 03 6. University of Florida, Gainesville. Mudhara, M., P.E. Hildebrand and P.K.R. Nair. 2003. Potential for adoption of Sesbania sesban improved fallows ion Zimbabwe: A linear programming based case study of small scale farmers. Agroforestry Systems 59:307 315 2004 Cabrera, V.E., P.E. Hildebrand and J.W. Jones. 2004. Modeling the effect of household composition on the welfare of limited resource farmers in Caete, Peru. Agricultural Systems 86:207 222 Hale, J. B. Heberling, E. Jovicih, A. Mugisha, L. Ortega, C. Pomeroy, D. Sano, A. Snyder, S. Stone, G.B. Maiah, P.Hildebrand and A.Caudle. 2004. Farmers use of weather and climate forecasts and effects on farmers of changes in climate. Staff Paper SP 04 3, Food an d Resource Economics Department, University of Florida http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054657/00001 Hildebrand, P.E. 2004. Technology for small farms: the challenge of diversity. Chap. 26 In : Lal, R., P. R. Hobbs, N. Uphoff and D.O. Hansen (Eds.) Sustainable agriculture and the international rice wheat system. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York. Davis, K., S. Franzel, P. Hildebrand, T. Irani and N. Place. 2004. Extending technologies among small scale farmers in Meru, Kenya: ingredients for success in farmer groups. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 10:53 62. Mudhara, M. and P.E. Hildebrand. 2004. Assessment of constraints to the adoption of improved fallows in Zimbabwe using linear progr amming models Chapter 11 In : J.R.R. Alavalapati and D.E. Mercer (Eds.) Valuing Agroforestry Systems: Methods and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London. Thangata, P.H., J.R.R. Alavalapati and P.E. Hildebrand. 2004. Metamode ling agroforestry adoption: Assessing factors influencing adoption of improved fallows in southern Africa using an integrated linear programming and econometric model Chapter 12 In : J.R.R. Alavalapati and D.E. Mercer (Eds.) Valuing Agroforestry Systems: Methods and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London. Cabrera, V.V. and Hildebrand, P.E. 2004. Economic and ecologic assessment of groundwater nitrogen pollution from north Florida dairy farm systems: an interdisciplinary approach. Sixth IFSA European

PAGE 173

173 Symposium of the Farming Systems and Rural Systems Resear ch and Extension. Vila Real, Portugal, April 2004. pp 857 870. Available at: http://home.utad.pt/~des/ifsa/ifsa_6th_eu_proceed.pdf Hildebrand, P. E. a. Schmink, M. (2004). Agroforestr y for Improved Livelihood and Food Security for Diverse Smallholders in Latin America and the Caribbean. Staff Paper Gainesville, Food and Resource Economics Department, IFAS, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00000264/00001 2005 Breuer, N. V. Cabrera, P.E. Hildebrand and J.W. Jones. 2005. Climate based management options for north central Florida beef cattle producers. CIR1476, University of Florida, IFAS Extension. Av ailable at: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/AE289 Cabrera, V.E., Hildebrand, P.E., Jones, J.W., Letson, D., and de Vries, A. (InPress). An integrated North Florida dairy farm model to reduce environmental impacts under seasonal climate variability Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment (2006) 113: 82 97 Cabrera, V.E., N.E. Breuer and P.E. Hildebrand. Accepted. North Florida dairy farmer perceptions toward the use o f seasonal climate forecast technology. Climatic Change (2006) 78: 479 491

PAGE 174

174 Cabrera, V. E., N. E. Breuer, P. E. Hildebrand, and D. Letson. 2005. The dynamic north Florida dairy farm model: A user friendly computerized tool for increasing profits while minimizing environmental impacts. Comput. Electron. Agric. 49:286 308 Cabrera, V.E., P.E. Hildebrand and J.W. Jones. 2005. Modeling the e ffect of household composition on the welfare of limited resource farmers in Caete, Peru. Ag ricultural Syst ems 86:207 222. Hildebrand, P.E. 2005. Simulated on farm research: a 15 day class exercise. NACTA Journal 49:31 33. Breuer, N., G. Canales, V. Cabrera, P.E. Hildebrand, S. Galindo, T. Kulstad, T. Manganyi, M. Morris, L. Ramos, E. Stonerook and D. Toro. 2005. Potential applications of seasonal climate forecasts for water management and extension agent perceptions of wa ter issues in south Florida. SouthEast Climate Consortium Technical Report Series: SECC 05 005, Gainesville FL. Canales, G, B. Coles, C. Cornejo, T. Fletcher, T. Manganyi, K. Owusu, K. Painter, H. Pellish, E. Stonerook, D. Wilsey, P. Hildebrand, N. Breu er and V. Cabrera. 2005. Perceptions and attitudes of smallholder farmers in north central Florida regarding the potential usefulness of seasonal climate forecasts. Food and Resource Economics, University of Florida and the Southeast Climate Consortium. 2006 Manganyi, T., M. Hartmann, P. Hildebrand, M. McGuire and S. Russo. 2006. Learning about smallholder farmers in the southeastern US: the application of Sondeo methodology. AIAEE Cabrera, V.E., Hildebrand, P.E., Jones, J.W., Letson, D., and de Vrie s, A. 2006. An integrated North Florida dairy farm model to reduce environmental impacts under seasonal climate variability Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 113:82 97. Cabrera, V.E., N.E. Breuer and P.E. Hildebrand. 2006. North Florida dairy farmer perceptions toward the use of seasonal climate forecast technology. Climatic Change 78: 479 491 Cabrera, V.E., deVries, A., Hildebrand, P.E. 2006. Manure nitrogen production in North Florida dairy farms: a comparison of three models. J. Dairy Sci. 89, 1830 1841 Harper, V.K., L. Fernndez Granda, P.E. Hildebrand and W.A. Messina, Jr. 2006. Farm household livelihood strategies: Preliminary findings of a case study of fifteen households with limited resources in the Sie rra del Rosario of western Cuba. Cuba in Transition: Volume 16. Papers and proceedings of the sixteenth annual meeting of the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy (ASCE). Miami Dade College, Wolfson Campus, Miami FL August 3 5, 2006. Available at: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/l/IR00000675/00001 2007 Thangata, P.H., M. Mudhara, C. Grier and P.E. Hildebrand. 2007. Potential for agroforestry adoption in Southern Africa: improved fallow and green manure a doption in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Ethnobotany Research & Applications http://www.ethnobotanyjournal.org/vol5/i1547 3465 05 067.pdf Thangata, P.H., P.E. Hildebrand and F. Kw esiga. 2007. Predicted impact of HIV/AIDS on improved fallow adoption and rural household food security in Malawi. Sustainable Development 15:205 215. Cabrera, V.E., S.S. Jagtap and P.E. Hildebrand. 2007. Strategies to limit (minimize) nitrogen leaching on dairy farms driven by seasonal climate forecasts. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 122:479 489. Alderman, P., J. Bost N.E. Breuer, T. Gill, D. Graves, P. Hildebrand, E. Livengood, M. Mishkin, D.R. Ward and D. Wilsey. 2007. Farming systems and farmer decision making in Columbia and Suwannee

PAGE 175

175 Counties. Southeast Climate Consortium Technical Report Series: SECC 07 002. Gainesville, Florida. Breuer, Norman, Victor Cabrera, Guillermo A. Baigorria, Peter E. Hildebrand and James W. Jones. 200X. Potential adaptations to seasonal climate forecasts by Florida beef cattle producers. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. Submit ted August 2007.

PAGE 176

176 2008 Cabrera, V.E., N.E. Breuer and P.E. Hildebrand. 2008. Participatory modeling in north Florida dairy farm systems: a method for building consensual environmental sustainability using seasonal climate forecasts. Climatic Change 89: 395 409 http://www.springerlink.com/content/k370245h603081v2/fulltext.pdf Breuer, N.E., V.E. Cabrera, K.T. Ingram, K. Broad and P.E. Hildebrand. 2008. AgClimate: a case stud y in participatory decision support system development. Climatic Change 87:385 403 2010 Hildebrand, P.E. 2010 An efficient interdisciplinary methodology for designing and testing technology, infrastructure and policy to benefit poor and diverse smallholders in variable conditions in developing countries http://ufdc.uflib.ufl.edu/l/IR00000099/00001 Wilsey, David S. and Peter E. Hildeb rand. 2010. C hamaedorea Palm Frond Commercialization and Certification Considered from a Smallholder Livelihood System Perspective Small scale Forestry DOI 10.1007/s11842 010 9131 1 G ill, T.B 2010. Modeling the impact of HIV/AIDS upon food security of diverse rural households in Western Kenya. Agricultural Systems 103 (2010) 265 281 Breuer, N.E., Cabrera, V.E., Hildebrand, P.E., y J.W. Jones. 2010. Opciones de Manejo Basadas en el Clima para Produ ctores de Ganado Vacuno en el Centro Norte de Florida. Available: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ae468