Tải bản đầy đủ - 0trang
4 Case 4: Developing the new “Rondeel” chicken housing system
J. Bouma et al.
were involved during the entire process and so was the farmers’ trade
union; (v) a large cooperative, showing commercial interest in the new
innovative design; (vi) animal-welfare and environmental NGOs were also
involved during the entire project; (vii) TransForum financed important
activities in the period 2007À2010 and provided continuous support by a
knowledge broker who was not a member of the scientific community but
had worked for an animal-protection NGO, creating a favorable position to
work from. The knowledge broker maintained and initiated interaction
among the various players and guarded overall progress.
4.4.3. Track record of the storyline (Fig. 5)
As discussed, the Ministry of Agriculture commissioned research to design
an innovative system in 2003 (box 1). In 2004, the project “The Keeping
of Hens” was started (box 2) and research until 2006 involved a multistakeholder approach with entrepreneurs (E) and right from the start interaction with NGOs (N). Two-way arrows are therefore shown in Fig. 5.
The design process evolved into a truly innovative open and accessible
design, including: (i) an animal-friendly environment with a relatively
low stocking density, a dustbath and a woodland rim for chickens to roam
into; (ii) a 50% reduction of ammonia emissions and 50% reduction of
energy consumption as compared with traditional systems; (iii) a visitor’s
section where the production process can be observed, allowing direct
Track record of case study 4: the Rondeel (see text).
The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation
contact with consumers; (iv) environmentally friendly packaging of the
eggs, and (v) a design that blends harmoniously into the landscape (van
Altvorst et al., 2011).
A Rondeel stable houses 30,000 chickens and 150,000 eggs will
be produced per week. In 2006 (box 3), a large manufacturer of poultry
systems decided to embrace the design and take part in its development.
But more was needed than the technical design. The ultimate success
required effective marketing, also internationally, and of an innovative
chain design from production to consumption where eggs were to be
sold directly to a major supermarket concern. To realize all of this, much
interaction and development occurred in the period 2007À2010 (box 4)
during the TransForum-funded phase of the project: “The quest for the
golden egg.” A local entrepreneur volunteered in 2008 to lead the first
of—it was hoped—many future Rondeel stables and he received support
from local government. In this period, the Rondeel concept received the
highest three-star quality award from the Animal Protection Fund and an
environmental label (“Milieukeur”) which was helpful in engaging the
supermarket concern and to convince the public that buying Rondeel
eggs (30% more expensive than the regular ones) was a means to express
awareness in terms of the environment and about animal care. Still,
funding of the first Rondeel building remained problematic. Government
and banks were unwilling to provide funds and funds were ultimately
provided by the manufacturer himself as a future investment (Box 5).
The first Rondeel stable was built and eggs are now for sale in a major
supermarket chain. After this, the government ultimately approved guarantee funding for the second and third Rondeel stable to be constructed
elsewhere. In 2011, the second stable was opened and three more are
4.4.4. Flow of knowledge
Figure 5 illustrates that the wicked problem being considered had no
simple straightforward answer and that relevant knowledge was scattered among many disciplines and experts. Creating an innovative and
sustainable egg production system requires multi- and interdisciplinary
K5 research (box 2) involving animal scientists, construction engineers, energy experts, ethics specialists and K1ÀK2 interaction with
various stakeholders, including animal activist and environmental
groups who are highly suspicious of what they perceive as yet another
industrial project. Certainly, the Rondeel concept as presented (box 3)
represents a true interdisciplinary invention. But Fig. 5 also illustrates
that an invention, as such, does not necessarily lead to value capture.
Involvement of TransForum (box 4) included four major workshops
where a wide range of participants discussed practical implementation
in terms of marketing, also internationally, contacts with the media,
J. Bouma et al.
creation of short, innovative producerÀconsumer chains, regulatory
requirements, and finances. Here, the knowledge broker, the project
director of TransForum, and the director of Rondeel played a crucial
role arranging contacts at appropriate times with different specialists,
entrepreneurs, and representatives of NGOs. The exchange of knowledge was dominantly of the K2 type and was technical, administrative,
and entrepreneurial by nature. Simply focusing on processes and social
intelligence would not have been adequate. The large group of participants did have a joint objective, but their frames of reference
differed widely, making facilitation by the knowledge broker essential.
Value capture was only achieved (box 5) because the manufacturer of
poultry systems decided to make a strategic investment (box 4). It is
highly unlikely that value capture would have been achieved without
the actions represented in box 4.
4.4.5. Lessons for knowledge management
Rondeel is a fine example of successful interdisciplinary research,
and it also shows that an invention, as such, is not enough to achieve
connected value development. The research community could argue that
organizational, financial, and commercial aspects are not part of a scientific exercise. Still, without value capture, the invention of the Rondeel
concept would most likely have remained academic and would not have
represented a successful link between science and society as it presently
does. Thus, continued involvement with the value creation and capture
process is important for the scientific community.
It is essential to assemble the right parties at the start of the value proposition process. Combination of various types of knowledge is essential
for solving complex, wicked problems. In this project, researchers were
important for contributing scientific knowledge, the manufacturer
of poultry systems for technical and financial know-how, the NGOs
for public support and the entrepreneurs for their understanding of
the commercial and technical feasibility of the project. Progress is only
maintained when the overall objective, which can be reached in different ways, remains in focus. This requires a clear strategy and an open
mind for different frames of reference, opinions, and societal processes,
taking all partners seriously.
Financial requirements for not only project funding but also
implementation need to be satisfied before effective action can take
place. TransForum has performed a crucial function in this project.
Government agencies, notorious for short-time change and being
risk averse, are often not a reliable source for long-term financial
support that is needed.
The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation
5. Discussion and Conclusions
1. Four case studies from the TransForum portfolio demonstrate that
system innovation in agriculture can be achieved by managing “wicked”
problems associated with sustainable development, applying the method
of connected value development to develop new modes of 3P agricultural
production in three phases of value proposition, -creation, and -capture.
This transdisciplinary approach involves all KENGi partners (knowledge
workers, entrepreneurs, NGOs, and government), each with different
interests, goals, and value judgments. The value proposition phase serves
to define a common solution to the different goals and requires much
more time than is usually provided. Value creation involves integration of
different types of hard and soft data and information into a coherent,
operational design supported by a solid business plan and investment
strategy. The value capture phase represents successful completion and
can serve as an illustration of science contributing to societal developments, supporting claims being made in many strategic research reports.
Knowledge-driven inventions by research, when presented in isolation,
often do not contribute to societal developments because there is no
cocreation of system innovations that lead to new modes of agricultural
production. This may explain part of the knowledge paradox.
2. Persistent entrepreneurs and knowledge brokers played a crucial role
in connected value development in the four case studies. The latter are
most effective when they possess both “hard” knowledge and considerable social intelligence (so-called T-shaped skills) as they function
as intermediaries between the various KENGi partners. They can be
regarded as a new type of extension workers of the twenty-first century (Extension 2.0). But there are major differences with the classical
extension agents of the agricultural era who basically interpreted and
communicated research knowledge to farmers in a linear process.
Extension 2.0 requires initiation and facilitation of complicated interaction processes, as illustrated in the four case studies, involving all
KENGi partners in unpredictable ways. Also, interaction has a different
focus in the different phases of systems innovation. To support the
independent role of knowledge brokers, Extension 2.0 should preferably be independent with separate financing, just like the traditional
extension services in the agricultural era. Aside from knowledge
brokers acting in the overall KENGi context, each KENGi partner
itself needs members with T-shaped skills that can effectively represent
the partner in the overall discussion. They act as knowledge brokers
within their own group and not all members of the group are able or
willing to interact with third parties.
J. Bouma et al.
3. Focusing attention on the scientific community, they would be well
advised to actively participate in case studies on sustainable development, as presented in this chapter, with the objective to demonstrate
the importance of various forms of knowledge when cocreating
systems innovations. This has major consequences for research organization and planning as it implies:
Active participation of all participants, including scientists, in the
entire connected value development process, which often takes years
requiring long-term commitment and funding. This contrasts
with current practices of short-term research projects with limited
funding often focusing on disciplinary knowledge creation only.
Educating knowledge brokers, who may be seen as extension agents
of the twenty-first century and presenting them with good job
perspectives. As discussed above, this aspect has two dimensions
for the science community. First, knowledge brokers are needed
to facilitate connected value development among the KENGi partners.
Second, within the group of scientists also, some researchers with
T-shaped skills should be selected to interact with the other partners
on behalf of the group. These knowledge brokers deserve a solid
position next to their traditional colleagues in the scientific community being engaged with basic, strategic, and applied research as they
are all part of a CSP (Bouma et al., 2008).
Expanding the way scientific research is judged. Publishing refereed
papers in international journals is still relevant for basic, strategic,
and even applied research, but broader criteria have to be applied to
judge research in a transdisciplinary context as exemplified in
this chapter. As stated, knowledge brokers perform an important
function in this context and they should be judged and rewarded
accordingly. Judging criteria have been proposed but have so far not
been implemented (Spaapen et al., 2007).
4. The four case studies show that innovation rarely starts with cuttingedge K5 inventions in the value proposition phase that result in innovation and value capture. Progress in the innovation process depends
on joint learning, obtaining business plans, and organizational
arrangements based on mainly tacit K2 knowledge of various stakeholders, with occasional injections of focused K3ÀK5 research to
solve particular problems where tacit knowledge is inadequate. This
is shown in the four track records of the case studies. Achieving
innovation requires, therefore, activation of the entire knowledge
chain from K1 to K5. The green care case showed that innovative
medical K5 research resulted from practical experiences earlier in the
project. Thus, basic research is linked to practical problems and
this potentially increases its applicability as compared with a purely
The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation
5. There are no simple recipes to successfully manage wicked problems
associated with innovation and sustainable development. The track
records of the four case studies are quite different. However, the case
studies illustrate a successful approach following the connected value
development approach. Detailed case studies, as reported in this chapter,
may serve to point out potential problems and opportunities and
may be used in teaching and education to impart “T-shaped skills.”
Showing developments as a function of time as track records is important because aggregate characteristics of each project cannot adequately
reflect knowledge transfer and questions as to what happened when and
why. Along these lines, the case-study method is followed successfully in
The commitment and hard work of all participants in the case studies is gratefully
Andeweg, K., & van Latesteijn, H. C. (2010). Transforming agriculture: A new approach
to stimulate sustainable development. In Van Latesteijn & Andeweg (Eds.), The
Transforum model: Transforming agro innovation toward sustainable development. Dordrecht,
Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer Verlag (Chapter 7).
Bouma, J. (2010). Implications of the knowledge paradox for soil science. Advances in
Agronomy, 106, 143À171.
Bouma, J. (2011). Applying indicators, threshold values and proxies in environmental legislation: A case study for Dutch dairy farming. Journal of Environmental Science and
Policy, 14, 231À238 (doi:10.1016/j.envsc 2010.12.00).
Bouma, J., de Vos, J. A., Sonneveld, M. P. W., Heuvelink, G. B. M., & Stoorvogel, J. J.
(2008). The role of scientists in multiscale land use analysis: Lessons learned from
Dutch communities of practice. Advances in Agronomy, 97, 177À239.
Bunders, J. F. G., Broerse, J. E. W., Keil, F., Pohl, C., Scholz, R. W., & Zweekhorst,
M. B. M. (2010). How can transdisciplinary research contribute to knowledge democracy? In R. J. in ‘t Veld (Ed.), Knowledge democracy. Consequences for science, politics and media.
Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London, New York: Springer-Verlag.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, H. (1994).
The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies.
Hassink, J., Elings, M., Zweekhorst, M., van den Nieuwenhuizen, N., & Smit, A. (2010).
Care farms: Attractive empowerment-oriented and strengths-based practices in the
community. Health and Place, 16, 423À430.
Hassink, J., Zwartbol, C., Agricola, H. J., Elings, M., & Thissen, J. T. N. M. (2007).
Current status and potential of care farms in the Netherlands. Netherlands Journal of Life
Sciences, 55(1), 21À36.
Hessels, L. K., & Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature
review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37, 740À760.
J. Bouma et al.
Hoes, A. C., Regeer, B. J., & Bunders, J. F. G. (2008). Transformers in knowledge
production: Building scienceÀpractice collaborations. Action Learning: Research and
Practice, 5, 207À220.
Huijsmans, J. F. M., Hol, J. M. G., & Hendriks, W. M. M. B. (2001). Effect of application technique, manure characteristics, weather and field conditions on ammonia
volatilization from manure applied to grassland. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural
Science, 49, 323À342.
Jacobs M. (2006). The production of mindscapes. A comprehensive theory of landscape experience.
Thesis Mansholt Graduate School, Wageningen University and Research Centre,
Jacobsen, E., Beers, P. J., & Fischer, R. H. (2010). Inventions for future sustainable development in agriculture. In H van Latesteijn, & K. Andeweg (Eds.), The Transforum model:
Transforming agro innovation towards sustainable development. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London,
New York: Springer-Verlag.
McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the way we make
things. New York, NY: North Point Press.
Peterson, H. C. (2009). Transformational supply chains and the “wicked problems” of
sustainability: Aligning knowledge, innovation, entrepreneurship and leadership. Journal
on Chain and Network Science, 9(2), 71À82.
Peterson, H. C., & Mager, S. E. (2010). From motivating assumptions to a practical innovation model. In Van Latesteijn & Andeweg (Eds.), The Transforum model: Transforming
agro innovation toward sustainable development. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New
York: Springer-Verlag (Chapter 6).
Regeer, B.J. (2010). Making the invisible visible. Analysing the development of strategies and
changes in knowledge production to deal with persistent problems in sustainable development.
PhD Thesis, Free University of Amsterdam.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.
Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155À169.
Schroder, J. J., & Neeteson, J. J. (2008). Nutrient management regulations in the
Netherlands. Geoderma, 144, 418À425.
Smeets, P. J. A. M. (2011). Expedition agroparks. Research by design into sustainable development
and agriculture in the network society. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen
Sonneveld, M. P. W., Schroder, J. J., De Vos, J. A., Monteny, G. J., Musquera, J., Hol, J.,
et al. (2008). A whole-farm strategy to reduce environmental impacts of nitrogen.
Journal of Environmental Quality, 37(3), 333À337.
Spaapen, J., Dijstelbloem, H., & Wamelink, F. (2007). Evaluating research in context. A method
for comprehensive assessment. The Hague, The Netherlands: Consultative Committee of
Sector Councils for Research and Development (COS).
Thomasson, M. A., Dalgaard, R., Heijungs, R., & de Boer, I. J. M. (2008). Attributional
and consequential LCA of milk production. International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 13, 339À349.
Thomasson, M. A., Dolman, M. A., van Calker, K. J., & de Boer, I. J. M. (2009).
Relating life cycle assessment indicators to gross value added for dutch dairy farms.
Ecological Economics, 68, 2278À2284.
Tress, B., Tress, G., De´camps, H., & d’Hauteserre, A. (2001). Bridging human and natural
sciences in landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57, 137À141.
Tress, B., Tress, G., & Fry, G. (2004). Integrative studies on rural landscapes: Policy expectations and research practice. Landscape and Urban Planning.
van Altvorst, A. C., Eweg, R., van Latesteijn, H., Mager, S., and Spaans, L., (2011).
Sustainable agricultural enterprises. The metropolitan area as an engine for new entrepreneurial
activities. Transforum, Zoetermeer, the Netherlands. 180p. (in press).
The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation
Van Latesteijn, H. C., & Andeweg, K. (2010). The need for a new agro innovation system.
In Van Latesteijn & Andeweg (Eds.), The TransForum model: Transforming agro innovation
toward sustainable development. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: SpringerVerlag (Chapter 1).
Van Mierlo, B., Leeuwis, C., Smits, R., & Woolthuis, R. K. (2010). Learning towards
system innovation: Evaluating a systemic instrument. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 77(2), 318À334.
Van Vliet, P. C. J., & de Goede, R. G. M. (2006). Effects of slurry application methods
on soil faunal communities in permanent grassland. European Journal of Soil Biology, 42,
Wenger, E., Mc Dermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice—A
guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
C H A P T E R S E V E N
Crops Yield Increase Under
Water-Limited Conditions: Review
of Recent Physiological Advances
for Soybean Genetic Improvement
Walid Sadok,Ã and Thomas R. Sinclair†
2. Crop Water Use and Yield: A Framework for Trait Identification
2.1. Transpiration coefficient k
2.2. Harvest index
2.3. Vapor pressure deficit
3. Traits Influencing Water Conservation
3.1. Limited TR and slow-wilting
3.2. Timing of stomatal closure in the soil drying cycle
3.3. Slow leaf area development
3.4. Other possible water conservation traits
4. Traits Influencing Water Access
4.1. Increased rooting depth
4.2. Increased rooting rate
4.3. Decreased root hydraulic conductance
4.4. Other rooting traits
5. Traits for Special Sensitivities: Nitrogen Fixation Tolerance to Drought
6. Concluding Remarks
Due to future requirements for more crop production, there will be greater
needs to increase yields for crops subjected to water deficits. In recent years,
substantial progress has been made with soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) in
understanding the water-deficit limitation on yield using model assessments,
Earth and Life Institute, Universite´ Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
Advances in Agronomy, Volume 113
ISSN 0065-2113, DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-386473-4.00007-5
© 2011 Elsevier Inc.
All rights reserved.
Walid Sadok and Thomas R. Sinclair
physiological investigations, and plant breeding. This knowledge has been
applied in developing higher yielding genotypes. This review examines physiological options and genetic advances made with soybean as possible guides for
studies with other crops. Three approaches exist for minimizing the negative
impact of water deficit on crop production: (1) conserve soil water, (2) access
more water, and (3) overcome special water-deficit sensitivities. Water conservation in soybean has been achieved by exploiting a genotype that has limited
hydraulic conductance in its leaves. A consequence of this trait is that transpiration rate is limited at times of high vapor pressure deficit resulting in soil water
conservation for use later in the season. Acquisition of more water is most
likely to be achieved by greater depth of rooting or greater root length density
deep in the soil. Although promising genetic variability has been identified,
breeding efforts for these rooting traits are still required. A special sensitivity in
soybean that results in a major limitation in yield is a decrease in symbiotic
nitrogen fixation rate with only modest soil drying. Germplasm has now been
released that results in increased yields due to a capacity for sustained nitrogen fixation with drying soil. This review highlights that soybean investigations
combining physiological investigations, simulations studies, and field-based
phenotyping of traits have resulted in the identification of genotypes with
increased yield potential in water-deficit environments.
Keywords: breeding strategy; nitrogen fixation; phenotyping; simulation;
soybean; transpiration; water deficit; yield
To meet food demands of a growing human population, current soybean worldwide production (about 220 million tons) must increase by a
staggering 140% by 2050 according to FAO estimates (Bruinsma, 2009).
With decreasing availability of well-watered agricultural areas, attempts to
reach such future production levels will require the use of existing or new
cropping areas having limited water supply (Sinclair et al., 2010). Serraj et al.
(2009) reviewed for rice (Oryza sativa L.) the challenges of increasing the
land area and yields in view of water limitations. For soybean (Glycine max (L.)
Merr.), current intensive production systems in major producing areas in the
United States, South America, and China are already experiencing a decrease
in precipitation amounts, which is expected to reach 20% in some regions by
the end of the century as a consequence of climate change (IPCC, 2007).
While accurate projections of future precipitation patterns and their quantitative impact on crop yield is still lacking (Sinclair, 2010), it is critical to the
sustainability of crop production systems to have drought-tolerant genotypes
that can maintain economically viable yields under water-deficit conditions.
Crops Yield Increase Under Water-Limited Conditions
Since 2005, significant progress has been achieved with soybean in
(i) identifying the physiological and genetic basis of traits for water-limited
environments, and (ii) quantifying their impact on yields. These efforts
have resulted for the first time in the release of nitrogen fixation droughttolerant cultivars (Sinclair et al., 2007) and the use of new genetic sources
of “slow-wilting” in soybean in breeding programs (Charlson et al., 2009;
Hufstetler et al., 2007). In each case, progress has been the result of an
interdisciplinary approach involving field-based phenotyping and physiological and genetic dissections. A useful contributor to this progress was the
results of simulation studies based on a soybean crop model incorporating
the direct link between crop yield and available water for transpiration
(Sinclair, 1986; Sinclair et al., 2010; Tanner and Sinclair, 1983). Sinclair
et al. (2005) with sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) and Serraj et al. (2009)
with rice also demonstrated the importance of model assessments in guiding experimental investigations.
In this review, an agroeconomic perspective is presented so that plant
traits resulting in increased crop survival, for example, are not considered.
Under extreme levels of drought threatening crop survival, water availability
will be so low that even with crop survival yield will be very low and the
grower will be economically devastated. Therefore, this review will address
plant traits that can be genetically altered to improve economic sustainability
of cropping systems in water-limited environments. The selection criteria
for these traits for water-deficit conditions include the existence of a quantitative assessment of the possible yield benefits from a trait, an established
physiological basis, and a genetic variability for the trait. The perspective of
this review is an examination of drought tolerance traits in soybean from
an agrophysiology standpoint rather than from a molecular physiology view.
The relevant drought-tolerant traits can be broadly classified into three
strategies that attempt to match key plant physiological functions to water
supply. These are (i) improved conservation of soil water, (ii) increased crop
access to water, and (iii) limited special sensitivities that negatively affect
yield under water-deficit conditions (e.g., nitrogen fixation tolerance to
drought). In the following sections, traits pertaining to each of these strategies are presented and discussed based on their potential benefits on yields
under water-limited conditions, their physiological basis, and breeding
considerations such as the extent of their genetic variability (Table 1).
2. Crop Water Use and Yield: A Framework
for Trait Identification
The early analyses of crop water use by deWit (1958), Fisher and
Turner (1978), and Tanner and Sinclair (1983) established the existence of