Search

Since 2013 the Netherlands Ministries of Economic and Foreign Affairs has been involved in private companies in research and development (R&D) in developing countries. This in a policy going “from aid to trade”. Especially in upcoming markets, R&D is carried out through Public Private Partnerships. Such partnerships not only include R&D organizations in the two countries but specifically also include businesses in both countries. This was to assure a logical flow of material and knowledge by all parties involved. Half of an R&D project is funded by the ministry and the rest is covered by a consortium of companies that contribute in kind and in cash. The policy is aimed at stimulating business development in developing countries and the Netherlands through cooperation and joint R&D. The paper explains how eleven consortia around potato business opportunities were formed, their R&D need was elicited and R&D projects formulated in the Asian countries China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Bangladesh and Myanmar, and Ethiopia and Kenya in Africa. In common are fact finding and descriptions of cropping systems, yield gap analysis and value chains in each country. Emphases differ with China looking for an integrated system of field operations, India for optimization of storage and processing, Indonesia to reduce pesticide and nutrient inputs, Vietnam for widening the varietal base, Bangladesh for combating late blight, Myanmar for cultural practices that lead to increased yield, Ethiopia where a potato processing unit is being established and Kenya importing seed potato from the Netherlands. Some content information is given as examples to illustrate the approach and some preliminary conclusion are discussed.

Copyright of Arab Water Council Journal is the property of Arab Water Council and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Abstract: The impression that agricultural systems are increasingly vulnerable to unwanted environmental fluctuations has created an urge for robustness in agriculture. However, the meaning of robustness and its relation to sustainable agriculture remain unclear. Considering two related concepts, i.e., vulnerability and stability, this article analyses different conceptualizations of robustness and their applications in agricultural production systems. It is argued that robustness should not be seen as a clear-cut system feature, and that it only exists in the absence of stability and by the grace of disruptions that could possibly harm the system structurally or functionally. The article introduces the term robustness state to refer to an intermediate sphere between vulnerable and stable, in which a system's capacity to cope with both ordinary and occasional disturbances is optimized. We distinguish three robustness states that differ in the degree by which systems are allowed or inclined to follow environmental changes: (1) a state of avoiding exposure, (2) a state of inherent resistance, and (3) a state of response and recovery after being disrupted. In addition to cardinal questions inevitably related to robustness, namely the specification of both system and perturbation, this article discusses the issue in what way a system feature is robust. This issue may help to clarify the actual meaning given to robustness and appears particularly relevant when discussing the desirability of different strategies to cope with aspects of vulnerability. Different rationales behind recent calls to make agricultural systems more robust are discussed with a view to agricultural developments related to sustainability of agricultural practices and the questioned necessity of external control measures. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Conventional Dutch farming systems are constantly improving their technology to withstand disruptive external influences, while organic farming tends to focus on methods that stress conservation of natural and nonrenewable resources. We hypothesize that management styles to withstand disruptive external influences clearly differ in both systems. Conventional farming aims to protect crops and livestock with hands-on solutions, whereas organic farming aims at reducing the consequences of disruptions. To study these two extremes, we compared a conventional horticultural system with an organic dairy system and interviewed the entrepreneurs about their decision-making strategies, dilemmas, and tradeoffs when dealing with undesirable events. To our surprise, all entrepreneurs used a similar set of interventions aimed at maximizing income and minimizing costs. We also discovered that all entrepreneurs tended to aim at both homogeneity and heterogeneity dependent on the level: all aimed for a uniform output of their whole system, while utilizing the genetically defined diversity between individual plants or animals. Based on previous experiences, farmers rely on natural compensation for losses within their system: heterogeneity within their system provides flexibility to accept uncertainty within a certain range. Therefore, we conclude that the societal discrimination between management styles does not represent well-defined differences between conventional and organic farming. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dutch agriculture has undergone significant changes in the past century, similar to many countries in the European Union. Due to economies of scale and in order to remain economically profitable, it became necessary for farmers to increase farm size, efficiency and external inputs, while minimizing labour use per hectare. The latter has resulted in fewer people working in the agricultural sector. Consequently, Dutch society gradually lost its connection to agricultural production. This divergence resulted in a poor image for the agricultural sector, because of environmental pollution, homogenization of the landscape, outbreaks of contagious animal diseases and reduced animal welfare. Although the general attitude towards agriculture seems to have improved slightly in recent years, there is still a long way to go in regaining this trust.In order to keep the Dutch countryside viable, farmers are considered indispensable. However, their methods of production should match the demands of society in terms of sustainability. This applies both to farming systems that are used in a monofunctional way (production only) and to multifunctional farming systems. For researchers involved in development of these farming systems, this requires new capabilities; contrary to the situation in the past, citizens and stakeholder groups now demand involvement in the design of farming systems. In the current paper, it is suggested that, besides traditional mainstream agriculture, other alternative farming systems should be developed and implemented. Hence, Dutch agricultural research should remain focused on the cutting edge of economy and society. Despite all efforts, not all of these newly developed systems will acquire a position within the agricultural spectrum. However, some of the successful ones may prove extremely valuable. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Studies sodium fluxes in sweet pepper exposed to varying sodium concentrations. Role of the phloem in sodium transport; Plant growth and time-course of sodium uptake; Distribution of sodium in plant tissues; Mechanics of sodium removal from the nutrient solution.