On the one hand, this is just a tiny step in what will need to be a much larger process before it potentially leads to mass improvement in food-security. (Needs to be published somewhere where people will care about it; if that publication is successful, needs to be given some bigger trial runs to confirm that it doesn't have secret nasty downsides; if confirmed to be in-fact-the-improvement-it-seems-to-be, needs to be popularized in a well-aimed manner, to make its potential beneficiaries actually take advantage of it. And all of this contingent on its being in fact as good as hoped; the failure of the second step, in particular, would sink the whole thing.) On the other hand, this is the sort of tiny step whose long-run returns are potentially really huge if they in fact pan out. That potential return seems worth tossing some money at to help it have better-rather-than-worse odds of passing the first hurdle.
Researching low-input traditional agricultural techniques.
Longer description of your proposed project
Some 2 billion people are living today as subsistence farmers, barely growing enough food to feed themselves, and often not enough. My aim is to validate techniques used by past Native American farmers, using intercropping with minimal chemical inputs, which contemporary reports and some recent research claim was highly productive, needed no chemical inputs, and eliminated soil erosion.
I hope to provide techniques to improve food security for 2 billion people! I am not inventing anything new. I am providing evidence that certain techniques invented by Native American farmers and in use by them through the 1800s were actually highly productive, sustainable, low chemical input, and are within the financial reach of modern subsistence farmers.
Researchers are in strong disagreement as to the level of productivity that early, pre-colonial Native Americans achieved, with yield estimates varying by over 600%. I have already achieved results validating the higher productivity numbers. I plan to replicate my results in a larger field trial with carefully recorded data on methods, inputs, labor, time, results, and to publish the research in several papers.
I am very unhappy with the quality of research that has been done to date on the questions of improving low-input, subsistence, and traditional agriculture. The researchers consistently fail to use the techniques that they claim to be studying. Or, they use such small field trials that the results are highly suspect. I suspect that they have too few graduate students willing to do the physical labor involved in peasant agriculture, and are unwilling to do it themselves. Many appear to have little agricultural or even gardening experience, and so don't seem to have a clear understanding of the problems and techniques. Their research is interesting, but unconvincing. Or, they shoehorn modern high-tech inputs into traditional agriculture.
Most current Ag research focuses on promotion of advanced, industrial agriculture emphasizing chemical and mechanical inputs and exotic hybrid seeds. Sadly, these inputs are simply impossible for subsistence farmers to adopt due to the high costs. A middle ground is needed for the 2 billion people currently barely surviving on subsistence agriculture.
Describe why you think you're qualified to work on this
I have worked in Central America with peasant farmers in promoting agricultural improvements, and I personally worked in the type of conditions I am studying. I have been using these techniques for over 30 years. My degree is in agriculture. My 2 co-author's degrees are in Crop Science and Environmental Science. Links to their papers are below, and also to 2 of my gardening posts. One of the links is specifically to a public online post on the three sisters-style garden that I will be replicating for this paper.
Other ways I can learn about you
https://permies.com/t/233039/Fall-prep-spring-sisters-garden
https://hubpages.com/living/Self-Seeded-Gardens
https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/23/17/9809
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666791622000100
How much money do you need?
$5000 to $10,000. Mainly for the costs of submitting to journals. Submission to scientific journals is expensive. All other costs have been covered by me.
Links to any supporting documents or information
This is a link to a paper that tried to do something similar to my current work. Although this is one of the better papers, sadly, the authors failed to actually replicate the techniques they claimed to be studying, invalidating the results. I plan to do better.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/pan.2011.007
Estimate your probability of succeeding if you get the amount of money you asked for
100%. I can do the field trial without any added money, and in fact plan to do it this coming year regardless of receiving any grant. I can publish in a less selective journal without much monetary input. I hope to publish in a higher quality journal so that it gets wider exposure. That takes money for submission.
Jason
about 1 year ago
Can you give us a sense of what kinds of journals you might submit to with $5-$10K in funding, with a lower amount of funding, and with no funding? (Also, I would consider lowering your "minimum funding" if possible at this point; it sounds like a smaller grant would allow you to submit to at least some better journals, so I'm not sure why you'd decline a smaller sum).
Thomas Bridgeland
about 1 year ago
@Jason With scientific journals it's a matter of throwing mud at walls until something sticks. I may have to go through multiple rounds of submission, resubmission, rewrite, rejection, and then start over at another journal.
Thomas Bridgeland
about 1 year ago
Yes Aaron, that is indeed the problem. But, low-quality journals that I can afford to submit to without help are simply not read very much, so the value of submitting to them is low. Thanks for viewing my submission and commenting.
Aaron Lehmann
about 1 year ago
This is fascinating work and I'm excited to see it happen. I think this is a tough one to fund with impact certificates, though, because the marginal impact from providing funding seems relatively low. The prospective grantee expects to do this work whether they receive funding or not, so the main value grants would add is submission to more prestegious journals.
Jason
about 1 year ago
Not sure I agree with that, @aaronl. Thomas doing the work, standing alone, has near-zero value. If the work product doesn't get to people in a position to implement, it is ~ the metaphorical tree in the forest that falls when there is no one to hear it. I think it's fair to consider the additional likelihood / magnitude of impact from better publication placement here.
Thomas Bridgeland
about 1 year ago
@Jason Thank you, Jason. I have multiple avenues for attacking the promotion problem; only one is getting a paper in a respectable journal, though that is my best first step.
Thomas Bridgeland
about 1 year ago
@aaronl Getting a paper published in a high-impact journal is a necessary first step, by providing a level of reliability or trust that blog posts and articles on organic gardening websites does not. I am hoping for a series of papers, covering costs, labor inputs, productivity. That hinges on getting a first publication in a good journal.