conditions in such areas. For example, these information sources do not take into
account the state of the local markets for inputs and outputs, the education levels of
the farmers, nor the availability of resources such as the fingerlings of new species,
high quality feed ingredients, lime or agricultural machinery suitable for the local
farmers’ fields.
When introducing new technologies into rural areas, any modifications must be
based on existing indigenous knowledge (Hoffmann et al. 2009); furthermore,
locally available resources should be used wherever possible and access to essential
resources must be assured to minimize discouraging failures by innovative farmers
who have adopted a particular technology.
In the aquaculture sub-project of the Uplands Program, several modifications to
the traditional aquaculture system were developed and tested, with Table 8.4
showing the level of acceptance of farmers during the action-research pilot trials
for the single modifications. The majority of modifications were made in response
to the problems and needs mentioned specifically by farmers (Steinbronn 2009),
and this approach is broadly in line with the philosophy of participatory innovation
development (Rai and Shrestha 2006).
Modifications were kept simple and were based on locally available knowledge
and physical resources (as was outlined in Sect. 8.5). All developed modifications
were tested on-farm in farmers’ ponds under the supervision of the farmers themselves, and all trials were conducted in pairs of neighboring ponds receiving
water from different water sources. Pilot farmers were selected based on the
water sources of the ponds and the willingness of both the farmers and their
neighbors to collaborate.
Summarizing the trial set-up described in Sect. 8.5, the following key strategies
were combined and tested by farmers as a package for systematic innovation:
1. Reducing turbidity in ponds through the control of water flows and fertilization,
thereby increasing both oxygen production and natural feed resources
2. Lowering the risk of mass mortalities from grass carp disease by improving basic
pond hygiene
3. Introducing semi-intensive polyculture of the common carp with supplemental
feeding, and
4. Keeping daily records of pond inputs and outputs to enable an economic analysis
of pond aquaculture and to estimate basic feed conversions.
A farmer’s willingness to adopt an innovation or modification is, typically,
inversely correlated to the financial or labor inputs required (Reardon 1995), and
also depends on the level of understanding of the farmer, on his or her trust in the
profitability of the innovation and on the innovation being introduced at an appropriate time. Rogers (2003) identified still more factors that determine whether an
innovation will be fostered or whether the probability of its adoption will be
limited. This section focuses on the criteria which were found to be the most
decisive in this context.
Farmers considered low cost modifications aimed at improving their control over
water inflows and lowering the turbidity of the pond as a means of reducing the risk
304
J. Pucher et al.
account the state of the local markets for inputs and outputs, the education levels of
the farmers, nor the availability of resources such as the fingerlings of new species,
high quality feed ingredients, lime or agricultural machinery suitable for the local
farmers’ fields.
When introducing new technologies into rural areas, any modifications must be
based on existing indigenous knowledge (Hoffmann et al. 2009); furthermore,
locally available resources should be used wherever possible and access to essential
resources must be assured to minimize discouraging failures by innovative farmers
who have adopted a particular technology.
In the aquaculture sub-project of the Uplands Program, several modifications to
the traditional aquaculture system were developed and tested, with Table 8.4
showing the level of acceptance of farmers during the action-research pilot trials
for the single modifications. The majority of modifications were made in response
to the problems and needs mentioned specifically by farmers (Steinbronn 2009),
and this approach is broadly in line with the philosophy of participatory innovation
development (Rai and Shrestha 2006).
Modifications were kept simple and were based on locally available knowledge
and physical resources (as was outlined in Sect. 8.5). All developed modifications
were tested on-farm in farmers’ ponds under the supervision of the farmers themselves, and all trials were conducted in pairs of neighboring ponds receiving
water from different water sources. Pilot farmers were selected based on the
water sources of the ponds and the willingness of both the farmers and their
neighbors to collaborate.
Summarizing the trial set-up described in Sect. 8.5, the following key strategies
were combined and tested by farmers as a package for systematic innovation:
1. Reducing turbidity in ponds through the control of water flows and fertilization,
thereby increasing both oxygen production and natural feed resources
2. Lowering the risk of mass mortalities from grass carp disease by improving basic
pond hygiene
3. Introducing semi-intensive polyculture of the common carp with supplemental
feeding, and
4. Keeping daily records of pond inputs and outputs to enable an economic analysis
of pond aquaculture and to estimate basic feed conversions.
A farmer’s willingness to adopt an innovation or modification is, typically,
inversely correlated to the financial or labor inputs required (Reardon 1995), and
also depends on the level of understanding of the farmer, on his or her trust in the
profitability of the innovation and on the innovation being introduced at an appropriate time. Rogers (2003) identified still more factors that determine whether an
innovation will be fostered or whether the probability of its adoption will be
limited. This section focuses on the criteria which were found to be the most
decisive in this context.
Farmers considered low cost modifications aimed at improving their control over
water inflows and lowering the turbidity of the pond as a means of reducing the risk
304
J. Pucher et al.