Show simple item record

dc.contributorSenni, Sen_US
dc.contributorPuccioni, Men_US
dc.contributorGrando, Stefaniaen_US
dc.contributorCeccarelli, Salvatoreen_US
dc.creatorMangione, Jen_US
dc.date2006-06-25en_US
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-21T22:31:28Z
dc.date.available2021-07-21T22:31:28Z
dc.identifierhttps://mel.cgiar.org/dspace/limiteden_US
dc.identifier.citationJ Mangione, S Senni, M Puccioni, Stefania Grando, Salvatore Ceccarelli. (25/6/2006). The cost of participatory barley breeding. Euphytica, 150, pp. 289-306.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/13500
dc.description.abstractFarmer participation in agricultural research is increasingly seen as a powerful methodology to increase the relevance of technologies developed to benefit farmers' communities. In plant breeding, farmer participation is considered as a way to increase the probability of adoption of new varieties. However, the higher expected cost of participatory plant breeding (PPB) is seen as one of the main obstacles to its wider adoption. This paper addresses the issue of the different costs to an Institution of running a PPB program or a non-participatory program and uses the barley-breeding program at the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) as a case study. Observations and data collection were carried out during one full cropping season on the cost of the three main components of the breeding program, i.e. the management of the field trials (land and seedbed preparation, planting, fertilizer application, weed control, harvesting, and seed threshing, cleaning, treating and packaging), the travel to farmers' fields or to the research sites, and the human resources (scientists, technical staff, local workers and farmers) involved in breeding activities. We compared two options for the centralized–non-participatory breeding program, differing in the number of sites (8 and 16) used for the on-farm trials, with 160 options for the decentralized-participatory breeding program, differing in the combination of number of sites (from 4 to 16) and number of trials per site (from 1 to 10). The results show that in both decentralized-participatory and centralized–non-participatory plant breeding the cost of managing the field trials is the highest followed by the cost of human resources and that of travel: the contribution of each component to the total cost varies with the various options and the various combinations of the number of sites and of farmers. The comparison of the aggregated costs indicates that in the case of the ICARDA' barley-breeding program there are no relevant differences between the participatory and the non-participatory plant breeding programs. This is largely associated with the fact that the decentralized-participatory breeding program reaches the same level of development of the breeding material 3 years earlier than the centralized–non-participatory breeding program. Depending on the type of centralized-breeding program and on the combination of number of sites and number of farmers per site in the participatory program, the aggregated costs of the participatory program are lower than those of the centralized-breeding program by between 5 and 28%. At the same level of cost of the centralized program, the model of participatory program used in this study generates more information due to the use of more trials at each site. This improves selection efficiency and provides an analytical tool to optimize the number of sites and of farmers per site.en_US
dc.formatPDFen_US
dc.languageenen_US
dc.publisherSpringer (part of Springer Nature)en_US
dc.rightsCopyrighted; all rights reserveden_US
dc.sourceEuphytica;150,(2006) Pagination 289,306en_US
dc.subjectparticipatory plant breedingen_US
dc.subjectcost of ppben_US
dc.subjectBarleyen_US
dc.titleThe cost of participatory barley breedingen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
cg.subject.agrovocbarleyen_US
cg.subject.agrovochordeum vulgareen_US
cg.subject.agrovocfarmer participationen_US
cg.contributor.centerFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - FAOen_US
cg.contributor.centerTuscia University - UNITUSen_US
cg.contributor.centerIstituto Agronomico per l’Oltremare (IAO)en_US
cg.contributor.centerInternational Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas - ICARDAen_US
cg.contributor.funderInternational Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas - ICARDAen_US
cg.contributor.projectCommunication and Documentation Information Services (CODIS)en_US
cg.contributor.project-lead-instituteInternational Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas - ICARDAen_US
cg.date.embargo-end-dateTimelessen_US
cg.coverage.regionGlobalen_US
cg.contacts.ceccarelli@cgiar.orgen_US
cg.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10681-006-0226-xen_US
dc.identifier.statusTimeless limited accessen_US
mel.impact-factor1.895en_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
Disclaimer:
MELSpace content providers and partners accept no liability to any consequence resulting from use of the content or data made available in this repository. Users of this content assume full responsibility for compliance with all relevant national or international regulations and legislation.
Theme by 
Atmire NV