24 pages, Soybean (Glycine max (L. Merr.) has been a crop of interest to address both poverty
and malnutrition in the developing world because of its high levels of both protein and
oil, and its adaptability to grow in tropical environments. Development practitioners
and policymakers have long sought value added opportunities for local crops to move
communities out of poverty by introducing processing or manufacturing technologies.
Soy dairy production technologies sit within this development conceptual model. To
the researchers’ knowledge, no research to date measures soy dairy performance,
though donors and NGOs have launched hundreds of enterprises over the last 18 years.
The lack of firm-level data on operations limits the ability of donors and practitioners
to fund and site sustainable dairy businesses. Therefore, the research team developed
and implemented a recordkeeping system and training program first, as a 14-month
beta test with a network of five dairies in Ghana and Mozambique in 2016-2017.
Learning from the initial research then supported a formal research rollout over 18
months with a network of six different dairies in Malawi and key collaboration from
USAID’s Agricultural Diversification activity. None of the beta or rollout dairies kept
records prior to the intervention. The formal rollout resulted in a unique primary dataset
to address the soy dairy performance knowledge gap. The results of analysis show that
the dairies, on average, achieve positive operating margins of 61%, yet cannot cover
the fixed costs associated with depreciation, amortization of equipment and
infrastructure, working capital, marketing and promotion, and regulatory compliance.
The enterprises in our sample operate only at 9% of capacity, which limits their ability
to cover the normal fixed costs associated with the business. The challenge is not the
technology itself, as when operated, it produces a high-quality dairy product. The
challenges involve a business that requires too much capital for normal operations
relative to a nascent and small addressable market.
Chris Clemons (author), James R. Lindner (author), Bruce Murray (author), Mike P. Cook (author), Brandon Sams (author), and Gwendolyn Williams (author)
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2018-04-15
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 149 Document Number: D10105
Via online issue. Pgs. 283-252, The purpose of the study was to examine the confluence of agricultural literacy, what it means to
be agriculturally literate, and if a gap between agricultural literacy and being agriculturally
literate existed. Two primary research questions framed this study: 1) How do agriculture
professionals define agricultural literacy? 2) What does it mean to be agriculturally literate? While
the terms literacy and literate are often used synonymously they have important and different
meanings. This study used the Delphi Study Technique for determining consensus. The Delphi panel
consisted of engaged agricultural professionals from seven states. These professions represented
a broad spectrum of agricultural careers and experience. Each panel member was recognized as
a leader in his or her field. The findings indicated that participants did not discern a difference
between agricultural literacy and being agriculturally literate in regards to reading, writing, and
speaking about agriculture. This study supports the conclusion that the terms agriculturally literate
and agricultural literacy are used interchangeably. Agricultural professional may not be aware of
the inherent differences between possessing agricultural literacy and being agriculturally literate.
26 pages., Article #: 113429., via online journal., Aspects of sustainability and social justice deserve special attention in the research and innovation landscape in Europe. In this vein, the inclusion of innovative research and innovation policies, such as Responsible Research and Innovation, devoted to mainstream social outcomes, to deploy democratic governance of science, and to drive innovation into a direction that is ethically acceptable, societally desirable and sustainable are noteworthy. However, substantial efforts are required when it comes to integrate the interactions between renewable energy research and energy and climate policies within responsible approaches. In order to adapt responsible research and innovation approach for the purpose of building an alternative context and assessment approach for sustainable transitions, this paper presents a review of approaches around sustainability and social justice dimensions. The thresholds of this endeavour are detailed in terms of the challenges for the integration, the identification of the inhibitors and facilitators of policy integration and the proposal of the levels for a methodology for this integration. The results show that the different readings and understanding of the contexts and dimensions and the existence of knowledge gaps between policy targets and the outcomes of research and innovation can be considered inhibitors for the integration. In contrast the interlinks between dimensional concepts, backgrounds and rationales appear as facilitators. The innovative contribution of this paper is focused on the contextualization of the dimensions through the use of socio-technical and multi/inter/trans and cross-disciplinary approaches. The authors conclude that the process of introducing a more holistic and alternative approach opens the re-envision of policy elements. Moreover, RRI offers an innovative perspective to the transition approach as well as tools for decision-making and policy processes assessment, in an arena where constant innovation is taking place and new structures, processes and metrics are necessary to guide this process.
traditional knowledge, Evans, cited reference, This article argues that concern with technical knowledge, which is indigenous to disadvantaged rule groups, must go beyond, an interest in extracting fragments of it to make marginal improvements to existing types of R and D project. The main issue must be beats to which such groups are involved in, and have influence upon, the technical change which affects their lives. Arrange a potential uses for indigenous technical knowledge is therefore far wider than those involved in Rand D, and the central concern must be with augmenting the whole spectrum of indigenous capabilities to create, transform and use technical knowledge. This implies there must be a shift from the dominant approach to the rule of technical change, which really seeks to introduce into roll society techniques conceived and developed outside it. Rather, one must seek the technical development of roll society, which enables it more effectively to pursue and control its own path of technical change.
