Physical and Ecological Weed Management
An eBook scoping proposal.
Charles Merfield. September 2010
|
Physical and Ecological Weed Management |
Due to the slower than hoped progress obtaining major funders(s) for the Physical and Ecological Weed Management eBook, I have launched a fundraising appeal from end users, i.e. farmers, growers and other individuals and organisations who would normally purchase such a book if it was in hardcopy, e.g. agricultural scientists. Please visit the fundraising appeal page for more information.
Introduction and request for feedback
Chemical, physical and ecological weed science and practice
The crux of the proposal is that:
The key aspects of the proposed book are:
The key limits to the book are:
An alternative publication and payment approach
Possible conflicts of interest / independence
This scoping proposal is to gauge the level of interest, funding and other forms of support for the production of a comprehensive manual of non-'chemical' (non-herbicide) / physical and ecological weed management (PEWM) aimed at farmers and growers but of sufficient academic rigour to be of value to the agricultural science community, using a web based publication and payment approach. Feedback should be sent to Charles Merfield at charles@merfield.com, or see www.merfield.com/contact/.
Agriculture is moving from a pesticide / ‘chemical’ based control paradigm to integrated management methods that also use physical, biological and ecological tools in a system based approach.
This change is driven by many factors, but key among these are increasing evolved pest resistance, to pesticides, a decreasing rate of new pesticide discovery and increasing legislative restrictions driven by new scientific evidence of pesticides’ non-target effects.
Of the non-chemical techniques it is mostly physical and ecological weed management (PEWM) approaches that are suitable for farmers and growers to use as immediate, effective and proven alternatives to herbicides.
Many highly successful PEWM techniques have been, and continue to be, developed by organic farmers as well as PEWM scientists. However, much of farmers weed management knowledge is only shared through farmer networks and the grey literature, while most research remains in the primary literature where it is inaccessible to the majority of farmers, i.e., there is limited cross-over of information. There is also an unfortunate amount of PEWM ‘lore’ which is not supported by and/or contradicted by scientific knowledge.
It is therefore considered increasingly urgent that a comprehensive synthesis of PEWM knowledge, grounded in science, is written for farmers and growers, which will also be of use to other interested parties, e.g., the wider agricultural research community including students.
Due to the practical nature of PEWM, PEWM scientists need to have substantial and detailed understanding of real-world farm practices as well as the technical knowledge of their discipline, if they are to provide information that farmers will be able to understand and techniques that are realistically implementable in real-world farming.
The skill and knowledge set of a PEWM and herbicide scientist are therefore as different as an ecologist is from a chemist. Herbicide scientists cannot simply transfer to PEWM without (considerable) re-skilling. A comprehensive PEWM information source would also therefore be of considerable value to herbicide scientists wishing to broaden their understanding of non-chemical practices.
Therefore, the skills and experience needed to create a comprehensive synthesis of PEWM for farmers and growers are in short supply
I have over two decades of extensive practical farming and research experience in PEWM, which has been the principal focus of my career. Key skills include formal training to PhD level and extensive practical experience in botany, ecology and general agronomy plus a natural aptitude and deep intuition of agricultural machinery. I also have considerable experience in agricultural extension and am held in high regard by farmers with whom I have worked.
It is also hoped to use novel publishing and payment approaches for the book using the internet / world wide web (an eBook / eManual) with the aim of dramatically improving farmer and grower access to, and use of, the information, while exploring the potential for alternative publication approaches both for authors and publishers. An indication of the possibilities of this approach is that the precursor [4] to this eBook has been downloaded approx. 100,000 times over ten years.
This scoping proposal is to gauge the level of interest among funding agencies, and agriculturally focused organisations (such as tertiary education establishments, research organisations and societies, and farmer and grower organisations) for potential funding and other forms of support, for a comprehensive manual of non-chemical / physical and ecological weed management aimed at farmers and growers but of sufficient academic rigour to be of value to agricultural science community, using a web based publication and payment approach.
Feedback is requested on your or your or your organisations level of interest and the type of support that could be offered. If sufficient interest and indications of support are received then a detailed and costed proposal for the content, production and publication of the eBook will be produced and sent to interested parties with the aim of them making a commitment to funding and/or support, or where appropriate funding applications will be submitted.
This scoping proposal is to gauge the level of interest among funding agencies, and agriculturally focused organisations (such as tertiary education establishments, research organisations and societies, and farmer and grower organisations) for potential funding and other forms of support, for a comprehensive manual of non-chemical / physical and ecological weed management aimed at farmers and growers but of sufficient academic rigour to be of value to agricultural science community, using a web based publication and payment approach.
Feedback is requested on your or your or your organisations level of interest and the type of support that could be offered. If sufficient interest and indications of support are received then a detailed and costed proposal for the content, production and publication of the eBook will be produced and sent to interested parties with the aim of them making a commitment to funding and/or support, or where appropriate funding applications will be submitted.
Feedback should be sent to Charles Merfield at charles@merfield.com , or see www.merfield.com/contact/ for full contact information.
Industrial agriculture, which has been the dominant form of agriculture in the developed world for the last sixty or so years, is considered to be on the cusp of significant change, e.g., The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. Two key production factors are responsible for much of industrial agricultures achievements: (1) the use of fertilisers, particularly synthetic nitrogen fertilisers, to increase yields and (2) pesticides (in the broad meaning) to manage pests such as weeds, fungi, insects etc. However, both of these factors are facing increasing difficulties. Leaving aside fertilisers, pesticides are facing a long-term downward trend in their effectiveness and availability due to three key factors:
The evolution of pesticide resistance is now widely documented and is an expected outcome of the theory (law) of evolution. The decreasing number of new pesticide discoveries, while lacking a theoretical explanation, is also well documented. The changing legislative i.e., political environment is in comparison far more complex: it is driven by many issues including those outside the remit of science such as ethics and philosophy. Some of the changes are based on science such as the growing evidence of harmful non-target effects of pesticides. Others are based on philosophical concepts such as whether risk management or the precautionary principle are the best framework to use for regulating pesticides. Current legislative trends are almost exclusively towards restricting the use of pesticides already in existence while creating a higher entry barrier for the decreasing numbers of new pesticides developed. Extrapolating these three key factors indicates the availability and effectiveness of all pesticides, including herbicides, will decline for the foreseeable future.
The reduction of pesticide / herbicide options is becoming increasingly critical in weed management. The following quotes from two key weed scientists illustrate the situation. Jon Marshall editor of the worlds leading weed science journal ‘Weed Research’ writing in the editorial of the celebratory 50th edition said:
“In my view, this has led to the misconception that weed science is easy and, more importantly, it has all the answers. As those of us in research understand, current threats mean that we do NOT [original emphasis] have all the answers. This is particularly the case in Europe where we are losing active ingredients and demands for the environment require significant adjustment in agriculture, perhaps even so far as to what I call a POST-HERBICIDE ERA [emphasis added].” [3]
Dr Anne Thompson, Head of Development and Registration at Dow AgroSciences, speaking on behalf of the agri-chemical industry at ‘The Future of Weed Research’ conference in London, 2008 said:
“Please tell the farmers there is no cavalry coming over the hill.” [pers. comm.]
“She pointed out that 75% of global market is taken up by only six modes of action, and the last significant new mode of action was introduced in the 1980s. There are few new products in the pipeline. There is a ‘discovery dilemma’: a long residual life, good soil mobility and activity in soil are desirable for weed control but a short residual life, low water solubility and high soil absorbtion are desirable environmentally, hence it is very difficult to find new ai’s that perform well in both areas.”[2]
The weed science community, including the section responsible for the development, production and sale of herbicides, is increasingly clear that herbicide options are decreasing and that alternative weed management approaches are required, on farm, now, not tomorrow.
The experience among farmers and growers (farmers and growers will henceforth just be referred to as farmers for brevity) is that their herbicide options are decreasing. Some are already in the position of having no effective, legal and economically viable herbicides and are therefore desperate for effective alternatives. This is especially acute among specialist crop producers such as vegetable growers. Even those farmers who still have a good range of herbicides to choose from are increasingly aware of the need to broaden their weed management strategies, even if this is just to maintain the effectiveness of existing herbicides for longer.
The agricultural pest management disciplines are moving (at varying speeds) from a pesticide dominated to an integrated approach. Integrated pest management including integrated weed management (IWM) can be viewed as the integration of four fundamental sub-approaches:
Industrial agriculture has been dominated by chemical weed management (CWM). In comparison, organic agriculture, which has eschewed xenobiotic pesticides, has been almost totally reliant on physical, biological and ecological weed management. Biological weed management (BWM), while it can be very effective, is generally outside the capabilities / resources of individual farmers to implement / manipulate, though they can benefit from BWM that is implemented by others (it is more commonly used against exotic weeds at a regional level). This means that it is mostly physical and ecological weed management (PEWM) techniques that farmers can implement themselves as alternatives to CWM. Fortunately, due to the large expansion of organic agriculture over the last three decades PEWM techniques are now quite extensive and mostly thoroughly ‘field-proven’. As much of this development has been achieved by farmers and machinery manufacturers as by scientists, it is therefore of a highly practical nature.
Agricultural science is unusual among scientific disciplines in that the main implementers of its results are not other scientists or post-graduate trained experts, but farmers who are generalists with a preference for practical / empirical activities rather than specialists with abstract and theoretical skills. Most farmers do not have tertiary education (NZ is an exception). The scientific literature, which is the normal route for dissemination of research output is therefore wholly unsuited to communicate agricultural science to the people who have to implement it. The sociology of agricultural extension is clear; farmers need material that is specifically created for them, i.e., tailored to their learning styles and experience, to ensure maximum understanding, and successful implementation of the information and knowledge contained in extension materials.
PEWM science, unlike herbicide science, requires detailed knowledge of farming practices to ensure solutions produced by scientists can be realistically implemented on-farm. This can be illustrated by an comparison of the fundamentals of CWM and PEWM.
In CWM, herbicide rates and application techniques for a given crop and weed flora can be determined by research from pot and plot experiments without much knowledge of practical farming issues as the recommendations are mostly a simple formula of herbicide type, its dilution and application. To put it another way, herbicides are a ‘reductionist’ tool, i.e., (in most cases) their use needs little consideration of what farming activities have gone before and little consideration needs to be given to what will happen afterwards. Herbicides can be stupendously effective, in that a few well chosen herbicide applications can result in exceptionally low weed populations within crops, without the need for any other weed management techniques.
In comparison, PEWM has to be much more holistic / system based because few individual physical and ecological techniques can achieve the level of weed management that herbicides can. The metaphor is PEWM uses ‘many-little-hammers’ compared with the ‘sledge-hammer’ of herbicides. This means that a multitude of physical and ecological techniques must be used to achieve overall weed management, with each technique often interacting with the effects of others, both mutualistically and antagonistically. The success of PEWM is therefore highly context specific, dependent on a multitude of factors such soil properties, crop and weed morphology and size, the weather, and the capabilities and availability of a wide range of machinery. A PEWM scientist therefore needs to fully understand all these factors. They therefore need to not only be a weed expert, they also need to have a good understanding of real-world agricultural practice. Therefore, the skill set of a PEWM scientist is very different from a herbicide scientist, as different as an engineer is from a chemist and a chemist from an ecologist. It is therefore not possible for a herbicide scientist to move into PEWM science without (considerable) re-skilling.
In-turn, farmers need only limited knowledge to implement effective herbicide based weed management as creating an effective herbicide program mostly involves looking up in agrichemical manuals which herbicide(s) work for a given crop / weed combination and how to apply them. In short herbicides, due to most of the technical knowledge residing with the herbicide chemist, their reductionist nature and ‘sledge hammer’ effectiveness, have made weed management exceptionally easy for farmers. In contrast, as noted above, PEWM being a broad-based, many-little-hammers approach, requires farmers to have a much larger and deeper understanding of the mechanisms that underlie PEWM so they can adapt the many tools required to each weed management task. For example, farmers need a good understanding of the lifecycle, morphology and growth habits of all of the common weed species across their whole farm for PEWM, while for CWM they only need to be able to identify which weed species have emerged in the current crop. In other words the knowledge required to implement PEWM has moved from the chemist to the farmer. This means that a key role of a PEWM scientist is to facilitate knowledge and skill development among farmers, as scientists are the key / only people with the ability to both access and fully understand the knowledge held within the primary literature and translate it into a form that is accessible and implementable by farmers.
My personal experience from implementing, researching, and teaching PEWM over two decades in the UK, NZ, Ireland and the USA is that even organic / ecological farmers realise they have a large PEWM information and knowledge gap and therefore have a strong desire for more and better PEWM information. Among industrial farmers, knowledge of PEWM is generally very limited, but their there is a growing realisation that this is an area they need to urgently understand. The impression among scientific PEWM colleagues is similar (e.g., the above quotes from Drs Marshall and Thompson). In addition, the small amount of sociological research undertaken on organic cropping farmers information needs, found that weed management information is nearly always the top priority by the considerable majority of farmers. It is therefore concluded that there is a very significant information gap on PEWM for farmers.
However, there is very limited collated, let alone synthesised, knowledge on PEWM. Nearly all of the tens of books / secondary literature on PEWM have been written by scientists for scientists or tertiary agricultural science students. Of the handful written for a farming audience, nearly all are targeted at organic farmers and many have a hostile attitude towards herbicides, making them unsuitable for a general farmer and grower audience which may wish to continue using herbicides as part of an IWM system. There is also an unfortunate amount of weed management ‘lore’ present in the grey literature, which is not based on science, or worse, is often in conflict with scientific knowledge, i.e., it is plain wrong, for example, there are entire books based on the premise that there is a direct correlation between soil nutrients and weed species and that by getting soil nutrient ‘balance’ ‘correct’, weeds will no longer be a problem.
The conclusion is there is a significant and urgent need for a comprehensive synthesis of PEWM knowledge for farmers and others involved in weed management, e.g., general agricultural scientists.
It is therefore increasingly urgent that such an information resource is created.
However, as the above discussion indicates, creating such a recourse is not a simple matter and the approach required is very different from chemical / herbicide based weed management books and information.
The following is a broad outline of the book. The creation of a detailed outline requires a considerable amount of literature research and consideration in itself, i.e., reviewing other weed management books and review / overview papers to finalise the best structure.
Sociological research shows that books are one of farmers’ less preferred sources of information. A large printed manual may also be too costly for smaller scale farmers, who are considered to be most likely in need of PEWM information. However, a single comprehensive and cohesive reference is considered the best way of providing the information that farmers need. This is an unfortunate dilemma. It is hoped that an using an alternative publication / distribution approach using the world wide web / internet (an eBook / eManual), and a donation payment system will at least, be a partial solution to this conundrum, and at best, a significant success. A standard printed book will still be the fall-back position should this approach fail.
An example of the potential of internet published agricultural information is the first incarnation of this eBook: ‘Organic Weed Management: a Practical Guide’ [4]which still consistently achieves over a thousand downloads a month from my website (approx 15,000 per year, some 100,000 downloads since first posting). This is despite it being a decade old, aimed at organic farmers not all farmers, it is only 30 pages long and has never been promoted. This indicates that the potential readership for a detailed PEWM eBook, with broad promotion / marketing could be substantial.
It is proposed to publish the eBook in a ‘native’ HTML format, i.e., not as PDFs posted to a website but as a dedicated website that take full advantage of the capabilities of HTML. For example, the use of pop-ups for references, hyperlinks in references to original journal papers, extensive use of images (diagram and photos), hyper-cross-references (i.e., within the book), no requirement for a traditional index as the whole eBook can be searched / indexed by search engines, etc.
The advantages of this are that farmers are increasingly using the web for finding agricultural information as shown by [4] and sociological research. It is hoped that the quality and comprehensive nature of the eBook means they will make it a regular reference source into which to ‘dip’ when they need information. Research indicates that farmers generally have a preference for accessing information in small ‘bites’ related to issues immediately confronting them, rather than reading large amounts of information in preparation for dealing with future issues. At the same time by creating a comprehensive and self-contained eBook it also offers farmers, and other users, the ability to read the content as they would a traditional book, i.e., whole chapters at a time and even cover-to-cover.
It is noted that at present reading large amounts of on-line material is not as effective / efficient / easy as a printed book. HTML is the best option for on-screen reading (far superior to PDF). While technology is rapidly improving in this area, e.g., eBook readers, it is felt that it will still be some time for such technology to be widely used among the target audience. This approach therefore has to be considered to be slightly ahead of its time. It is therefore considered vital that the eBook’s construction and formatting also make it as efficient as possible to print, both for those that prefer to have hard-copy to read and to have to hand, but also to pass onto those who want the information but cannot access the web. The eBook should also be optimised for alternative output techniques such as text-to-speech which will also maximise ease of access for those with disabilities.
There is also the potential to have the eBook printed should sufficient demand occur, though the free availability of the information on the internet (see below), may create a number of issues in this regard.
As part-and-parcel of the web publishing approach it is proposed to use a donation ‘payment’ model.
The donation payment approach is based on donation(soft)ware [7], which is software that is free to download and use (without restrictions e.g., a trial period, limited functionality) but the author asks that if users find the software sufficiently useful they make a donation, often according to both their ability to pay and the value they gain from the software. For example a user than makes very occasional use of the program pays nothing, a regular home user may make a donation of five to twenty dollars, and professional / commercial users may pay hundreds even thousands of dollars.
It is proposed that the eBook would be fully open access (i.e., not-protected / restricted access). Users would be asked to make a donation proportional to what the information / knowledge they have gained from the eBook, has saved them on their farm. Therefore, non-commercial entities, e.g., students, home gardeners, non-for-profit organisations and subsistence farmers would therefore not be expected to pay (though free to make a donation if they wish!). The information could save small scale farmers a few hundred dollars, in which case a donation of a few to tens of dollars would be suggested. In comparison it could save a large scale farmer tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars, in which case a donation in the hundreds or more would be considered fair. Non-farmer users, e.g., scientists, libraries, etc., that would normally purchase such a text book would also be asked for a donation equivalent to what they would be prepared to pay for such a book in printed form.
There are also strong parallels with the economic, psychological and social factors that have created the success of donationware. Testing of the software by users involves no financial risk - so they are far more likely to try it than if they had to pay upfront. The same goes for an open-access eBook - readers can verify the value of the information for themselves, rather than relying on reviews or other third party information, without risking purchasing a book that turns out to be of low value to them. At the same time standard third party recommendations, e.g., friends and book reviews, can still be valuable means by which the eBook’s credibility is established. This turns normal book economics on the head by transferring risk from reader to author, which is in itself is a statement of confidence by the author that the reader will find the information of value.
Donationware authors make the implicit and/or explicit statement that continued availability, development and support of the software depends on continued donations. This crates a feedback loop, i.e., it is a type of market force at work, where authors who create software that users value get more money and so continue support and development, while software that people do not find useful attracts few donations so the author gives up on it. As with software, which is continually evolving / improving, the amount of information on PEWM continues to grow. Unlike hard copy books where updates and new editions required new copies to be printed with the associated costs, an eBook can be updated as new information becomes available and major revisions undertaken at typical intervals for a printed book (e.g., using the same versioning system as software e.g., Edition 1.42). This means that the continuation and improvement of the eBook is directly linked to continued donations, creating a positive feedback system whereby more donations mean faster revisions, expanded coverage and new editions, insufficient donations mean few updates and possible termination of the eBook.
This open-access approach also follows the sprit of open-access scientific journals and approaches such as MIT’s ‘OpenCourseWare’, though their funding structures differ. Wikipedia is a leading demonstration of the potential of the donationware approach (although the authorship structure is completely different). These are considered to be good indications of the potential of the approach for this eBook.
It is however acknowledged that asking farmers for donations for freely available information on the web is a quite different proposition than asking computer users to donate for software. Therefore, there is the clear risk with the donation-eBook model that insufficient users will pay and it will fail. It is because of this potential for the donation funding model to be unsuccessful that external funding and other forms of support are being sort for the first edition. These are to cover the costs of the author and ensure that the eBook is published. If it is successful, then donations will be sufficient to cover updates and new editions and so the eBook will become self-financing. A sufficiently large amount of donations would allow for additional for additional authors to join the project and extend the eBook more than a single author could. A long term vision could be to broaden the eBook from PEWM to a full IWM text, i.e., bring in chemical and biological weed management to create a definitive central agricultural weed management resource.
It will also indicate (n=1!) the possibility for this new approach to farmer information publishing. If successful it would make the approach more attractive for other authors and/or publishers to try in the future. Therefore, funding for this project is also an investment in testing of agricultural donation-eBooks as a concept. Even if the donation-eBook approach is a failure, at least an attempt as been made and lessons can be learned for similar books for farmers in future. Also, If the online model completely fails, there is always the option to terminate web publishing and revert back to a traditional printed book. The content will therefore be available in one form or another.
The production of a comprehensive synthesis of PEWM is a considerable and ambitious project. A guesstimate of the time required is up to two years. This is from the start of the project, through peer review, to the full availability of the website including its promotion and marketing to the target audience.
PEWM as a science effectively stopped during the heyday of the herbicide era, so there is a need to comprehensively review pre-1930s literature to determine what material has been lost from living memory, and if it is sufficiently reliable and of value to be of use today. Initial scouting of dedicated weed management literature indicates that it is unlikely to be a treasure-trove of information, however, it is as important to locate and review the material and state what is and what is not of value, so that an understanding of what was written can be brought in to current circulation so others do not need to look. Pre-1930s agricultural engineering and more general agronomy literature also needs to be reviewed as much pre-herbicide weed science is believed to reside in such publications, as weed science as a discipline along with weed science journals, were pretty much created by the advent of herbicides, so they contain little pre-herbicide weed science. Reviewing the literature may well require visits to libraries with substantial agricultural literature collections to access older items which cannot be removed from the collections. Contemporary PEWM research also needs to be collated and reviewed, as much resides in marginal literature sources, e.g., conference proceeding, farming literature etc. A detailed bibliography of PEWM would be of major value to this re-invigorated field.
Full peer-review is considered essential if the eBook is to be viewed as being academically rigorous. In the European Union the Physical and Cultural Weed Control (PCWC) Working Group of the European Weed Research Society (EWRS) (chaired by Bo Melander) has agreed to assist recruiting members willing to undertake chapter reviews. PEWM scientific contacts in the US would could also be approached. Consideration will need to be given to remunerate reviewers, especially if they devote significant time. The proposed donation model would therefore need to include payments for future reviewers, i.e., a proportion of donations would be reserved for future reviewers.
The technical production of a printed book is a significant task and an area of expertise in itself. The production of an a native HTML eBook has its own challenges and requirements. Computers have turned was a hugely complex task requiring many specialists into a ‘relatively’ straightforward task by taking over many of the tasks, e.g., typesetting. Word processors have had sufficient capabilities for the production of technical books for many years. However, their HTML capabilities while improving are still not as good as purpose built HTML editors. However, HTML was created for the purpose of handling technical written information. This has been considerably extended by XML (eXtensible markup language) making XHTML a purpose built medium for the manipulation and presentation of such technical information.
Extensive use of images, such as photos, drawings and diagrams are considered essential, as they are simply more effective at getting across some forms of information. Farmers with their more kinaesthetic and visual learning styles prefer images to text where appropriate. This is particularly true for machinery, where photos and CAD (computer aided design) type 3D drawings will be vital. The use of the web means that there are no space / printing cost limitations of the use of graphics as there are for hardcopy books. HTML techniques such as the use of thumbnails linked to high resolution images have considerable potential for presenting images in an efficient and effective manner.
A stand-alone domain is considered essential, e.g., www.PEWM.org. Consideration needs to be given to the name and ownership of the domain, e.g., vested in a not-for profit entity such as a university or a weed science society, rather than a private individual. The long term management of the eBook also needs to be considered as part of this process, e.g., if the eBook becomes multi-edition and outlives the original authors as is now occurring for some agricultural manuals and textbooks.
Effective promotion and marketing will be essential to publicise the eBook among the farming and agronomic communities. The farming media and farmer organisations in the UK, Ireland, USA, Canada, NZ and Australia will be targeted with media releases. It is hoped the eBook is of sufficient newsworthiness (due to the topic, and the publication and payment method) that it will garner sufficient interest for the media outlets to feature the eBook in articles etc, rather than note it in passing, e.g., in book reviews. Assistance from librarians will be sort to promote the eBook among institutions as addition of the eBook to library catalogues is considered essential. The plant protection and weed science societies of North America, Europe and Australasia will also be contacted with consideration given to promotion among more general agricultural research societies. It is hoped that the initial promotion among target audiences will create sufficient awareness to break the ‘critical threshold’ of ‘popular’ awareness whereby knowledge of the resource becomes self-maintaining. The nature of the internet, and particularly search engines algorithms, generally means that once the critical threshold is passed awareness is self-sustaining. Even without such promotion the nature of search engines means that such information can rapidly achieve wide and sustained awareness, as evidenced by the continuing downloads of 'Organic weed management: A practical guide' [4] despite only the most limited promotion. .
As the eBook is a collation and synthesis of existing knowledge, not the creation of new knowledge, i.e., new research, the major production requirement and therefore cost is the author’s time i.e., salary. Information access, e.g., online journals, library use, interloans, book purchases, travel, conference attendance, etc. is likely to be the next largest cost. Other costs will include facilities such as office, computer equipment and software purchases and internet access. There are also likely to be third party costs such as reviewers and proof reading / editing.
Like many other manuals in agriculture, a comprehensive and successful PEWM manual will be a ‘labour of love’ (e.g., [1]) rather than a financially lucrative income stream. It therefore requires an author with deep interest and dedication to the topic. PEWM has been the primary focus and passion for the whole of my farming and research career. I initially trained in commercial horticulture and started my career as an organic vegetable farmer before migrating into agronomy while still maintaining strong links and direct involvement in farming. I therefore consider that I have more than sufficient expertise in both practical farming as well as agricultural science to be a bridge between practical farming and agricultural science, and therefore create a scientifically rigorous eBook that is also accessible to farmers.
PEWM also requires a strong skill set and detailed knowledge of botany, ecology and engineering, skills that are often mutually exclusive. I believe I am highly proficient in all three areas. I have formal training in botany and ecology from school through to my PhD which is coupled with extensive practical agronomic experience. While I have no formal engineering training beyond that at agricultural college, my mechanical aptitude is more than demonstrated by the range of machinery I have created / designed, including three that can be considered to be entirely new types of agricultural machine (the direct fired steam weeder, [5], the Four Wheel Hoe and false seedbed tillers) a considerable achievement considering how few truly novel agricultural machines are created. I also have an extensive photo library with over 3000 agricultural photos of which about half are dedicated to weeding, e.g., machinery, crops and weeds.
I also have considerable experience in agricultural extension through my direct work with farmers, undertaking consulting, and also organising and presenting at a wide range of seminars, field days and workshops, in New Zealand, Ireland, the UK and the USA. The feedback I have received, including formal evaluations, has been consistently of the highest order including invitations to ‘farmer only’ events which I consider to be the highest possible accolade!
The production of the eBook clearly requires considerable computer expertise. I have studied and taught computing at 300 level; I am an expert in the use of Microsoft Word and highly skilled in PC hardware, Windows, and a wide range of other relevant software, e.g., bibliographic, spreadsheets, HTML editors etc. I have designed and coded a number of websites including my own personal website and for my own and other businesses. At the same time I will need to upgrade my skills in some areas, mainly HTML 5 and XHTML, especially if I am to make full use of the power of the latter. I will also need to learn CAD to produce quality diagrams and drawings where photos are unsuitable / unavailable.
My concept for this eBook is not new. It has been in gestation for well over a decade, starting with ‘Organic weed control: a practical guide’ appearing as a serialisation in the Canterbury Commercial Organic Group newsletter which was re-written into a single document [4] published on the web and last updated in 2002. In 2007-08 a few rough chapter drafts for the PEWM manual were started but then halted due to other time demands. I now feel that unless I give the writing and completion of this eBook my full attention I will not be able to write it for the foreseeable future.
The business Steam Weeding ltd., trading as www.PhysicalWeeding.com that I co-own with Tim Chamberlain, of Harts Creek Farm, Canterbury, means that, at least in the area of machinery, I cannot be considered impartial and at worse it could be viewed as a conflict of interest. Without divesting myself of the business this cannot be changed. However, as the business is mostly conceptual rather than functional at present, selling it would achieve little as a similar venture could be started up after the eBook is published. While it would be ideal to have a fully independent position from which to write the eBook, (e.g., university tenure) this is not a current reality, so that the best approach is considered to acknowledge the lack of impartiality and strive for objectivity, which can be substantiated by peer review.
It is considered that it is increasingly urgent for a comprehensive synthesis of PEWM information and knowledge be created for farmers, growers and agricultural scientists to underpin and facilitate the ongoing global transition from herbicide dominated to integrated weed management. It is suggested that such a synthesis knowledge source cannot be created without considerable expertise and experience of the topic. PEWM has been the dominant focus and passion of the whole of my farming and scientific career. I believe I have the interdisciplinary expertise to create a cohesive and comprehensive first edition which will provide a framework on which future editions can build. I also feel that it is an opportune time to explore new publishing and funding mechanisms for farmer orientated literature and that the internet / world wide web, is a medium that needs to be tested as an alternative to hard-copy books.
1. Brady, N.C. and Weil, R.R., The nature and properties of soil. 14th ed. 2008, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. ISBN 978-0-13-227938-3. http://wps.prenhall.com/chet_brady_natureandp_14/
2. Froud-Williams, R.J., Notes on a one-day conference ‘The Future of Weed Research in the UK’, in European Weed Research Society Newsletter, Moonen, C., Editor. 2009, European Weed Research Society: Wageningen, The Netherlands. http://www.ewrs.org/doc/EWRS_Newsletter_No_105.pdf
3. Marshall, E.J.P., Weed Research reaches volume 50! Looking back and looking forward. Weed Research, 2010. 50(1): p. 1-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2009.00760.x
4. Merfield, C.N., Organic weed management: a practical guide. 2002. http://www.merfield.com/research/2003/organic-weed-management-a-practical-guide.pdf
5. Merfield, C.N., Hampton, J.G., and Wratten, S.D., A direct-fired steam weeder. Weed Research, 2009. 49: p. 553–556. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2009.00733.x/full
6. Naylor, R.E.L., ed. Weed management handbook. 9th ed. 2002, Blackwell Science: Oxford, England. ISBN 0-632-05732-7
7. Wikipedia contributors. Donationware. [Webpage] 2010 28 June 2010 18:29 UTC [cited 2010 August 9]; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donationware&oldid=370642371