Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T11:26:24.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Producer participatory spring wheat variety evaluation for organic systems in Minnesota and North Dakota

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2008

H.J. Kandel ,
P.M. Porter ,
P.M. Carr  and
S.F. Zwinger
H.J. Kandel*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA.
P.M. Porter
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA.
P.M. Carr
Affiliation:
Research and Extension Center, North Dakota State University, Dickinson, ND, USA.
S.F. Zwinger
Affiliation:
Research and Extension Center, North Dakota State University, Carrington, ND, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: hans.kandel@ndsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Organic producers in Minnesota and North Dakota, USA, indicated that they wanted to participate in hard red spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L. emend. Thell) variety evaluations. The objectives were to determine if a farmer–researcher developed scoring system could be used to rank wheat varieties for yield potential when grown in certified organic fields, identify views of organic producers about on-farm research, and identify the educational impact of the participatory variety evaluation process. Hard red spring wheat varieties were compared for grain yield at six locations on certified organic farms in Minnesota and North Dakota over a three-year period. A scoring system was developed and then used to identify the relative rank of adapted varieties for yield. Producers were asked to rank all varieties on a scale from 1 to 9, where 1 is lowest yield potential and 9 is highest yield potential. Producers were able to distinguish higher producing varieties as a group in 2003 and 2004. ‘Oklee’ a high yielding variety was ranked lowest in 2005. There was a significant linear relationship between producer ranking and yield (P<0.05) even though producers could not pick the highest yielding varieties consistently in the field. The producer survey showed that grain yield, protein content, wheat scab resistance, leaf disease resistance, early seedling vigor, test weight and canopy closure were traits producers valued most in a variety. Heading date, impact on succeeding crops, straw and stubble production were ranked lower. Multi-year variety evaluation on certified organic land was highly valued by the producers surveyed. From an educational perspective, the exercise was successful in that producers had to observe individual varieties carefully in order to come to a consensus producer ranking. The model of participatory research can be used for a variety of field research projects and field days.

Keywords

participatory researchorganic wheatyield ranking
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 228 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Biggs, S.D. 1989. Resource-poor Farmer Participation in Research: A Synthesis of Experiences from Nine National Agricultural Research Systems. Special Series on the Organization and Management of On-farm Client-oriented Research (OFCOR). OFCOR-Comparative Study Paper No. 3. International Service for National Agricultural Research, The Hague, p. 3–37.Google Scholar
2 Joshi, K.D., Sthapit, B.R., and Witcombe, J.R. 2001. How narrowly adapted are the products of decentralized breeding? The spread of rice varieties from a participatory plant breeding programme in Nepal. Euphytica 122:589–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Sthapit, B.R., Joshi, K.D., and Witcombe, J.R. 1996. Farmer participatory crop improvement. III. Participatory plant breeding, a case study for rice in Nepal. Experimental Agriculture 32:479–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Smale, M., Bellon, M.R., Aguirre, J.A., Manuel Rosas, I., Mendoza, J., Solano, A.M., Martinez, R., Ramirez, A., and Berthaud, J. 2003. The economic costs and benefits of a participatory project to conserve maize landraces on farms in Oaxaca, Mexico. Agricultural Economics 29:265–275.Google Scholar
5 Bellon, M.R., Berthaud, J., Smale, M., Aguirre, J.A., Taba, S., Aragón, F., Diaz, J., and Castro, H. 2003. Participatory landrace selection for on farm conservation: an example from the central valleys of Oaxaca, Mexico. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 50:401–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Thiele, G., Gardner, G., Torrez, R., and Gabriel, J. 1997. Farmer involvement in selecting new varieties: potatoes in Bolivia. Experimental Agriculture 33:275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Ceccarelli, S., Grando, S., and Hamblin, J. 1992. Relationship between barley grain yield measured in low- and high-yielding environments. Euphytica 64:49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Van Eeuwijk, F.A., Cooper, M., DeLacy, I.H., Ceccarelli, S., and Grando, S. 2001. Some vocabulary and grammar for the analysis of multi-environment trials, as applied to the analysis of FPB and PPB trials. Euphytica 122:477–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Bänziger, M. and Cooper, M. 2001. Breeding for low input conditions and consequences for participatory plant breeding: examples form tropical maize and wheat. Euphytica 122:503–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Ceccarelli, S., Grando, S., Singh, M., Michael, M., Shikho, A., Al Issa, M., Al Saleh, A., Kaleonjy, G., Al Ghanem, S.M., Al Hasan, A.L., Dalla, H., Basha, S., and Basha, T. 2003. A methodological study on participatory barley breeding II. Response to selection. Euphytica 133:185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Lammerts van Bueren, E.T., Struik, P.C., Tiemens-Hulscher, M., and Jacobsen, E. 2003. Concepts of intrinsic value and integrity of plants in organic plant breeding and propagation. Crop Science 43:1922–1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Lammerts van Bueren, E.T., Wilbois, K.P., Luttikholt, L., Wyss, E., and Woodward, L. 2002. Short Report on the Results of the International Workshop on Organic Plant Breeding Techniques, Driebergen, The Netherlands. Available at Web site http://www.eco-pb.org/09/nl_01_02_report.pdf (verified 26 February 2008).Google Scholar
13 Witcombe, J.R. and Virk, D.S. 2001. Number of crosses and population size for participatory and classical plant breeding. Euphytica 122:451–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Carr, P.M., Kandel, H.J., Porter, P.M., Horsley, R.D., and Zwinger, S.F. 2006. Wheat cultivar performance on certified organic fields in Minnesota and North Dakota. Crop Science 46:1963–1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Zadoks, J.C., Cheng, T.T., and Konzak, C.F. 1974. A decimal code for the growth stage of cereals. Weed Research 14:415–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J.H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed.McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
17 Wortmann, C.S., Christiansen, A.P., Glewen, K.L., Hejny, T.A., Mulliken, J., Peterson, J.M., Varner, D.L., Wortmann, S., and Zoubek, G.L. 2005. Farmer research: conventional experiences and guidelines for alternative agriculture and multi-functional agro-ecosystems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 20:243–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 Courtois, B., Barholome, B., Chaudhary, D., McLaren, G., Misra, C.H., Mandal, N.P., Pandey, S., Paris, T., Piggin, C., Prasad, K., Raj, A.T., Sahu, R.K., Sahu, V.N., Sarkarung, S., Sharma, S.K., Singh, A., Singh, H.N., Singh, O.N., Singh, N.K., Singh, R.K., Singh, S., Sinha, P.K., Sisodia, B.V.S., and Takhur, R. 2001. Comparing farmers and breeders ranking in varietal selection for low-input environments: a case study of rainfed rice in eastern India. Euphytica 122:537–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Ceccarelli, S., Grando, S., Bailey, E., Amir, A., El-Felah, M., Nassif, F., Rezqui, S., and Yahyaoui, A. 2001. Farmer participation in barley breeding in Syria, Morocco and Tunisia. Euphytica 122:521–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 Hanson, W.D., Leffel, R.C., and Johnson, H.W. 1962. Visual discrimination for yield among soybean phenotypes. Crop Science 2:93–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar