Selecting Appropriate Equipment for Small Farms

 G. W. Isaacs
 Chairman, Agricultural Engineering Department
 University of Florida, Gainesville


 Functional and economic requirements for equipment
appropriate for small farms are reviewed. Past relationships
between crop yield level and the degree of mechanization
feasible are noted with the effects of multiple cropping.
Selected examples of equipment for tillage, planting, cultiva-
tion, drip


irrigation, harvesting and post-harvest cooling are presented.
Integrated farming systems analysis as a method of determin-
ing suitable levels of mechanization is recommended. Progress
on the North Florida Farming Systems Research and Extension
Project will be reviewed.


 Mechanization has been widely accepted as one of the
technological developments contributing to the productivity of
modern agriculture. Mechanization has also changed the
character of farm work, removing much of the drudgery
associated with this kind of activity. Despite these positive
characteristics, mechanization is a major cost input to agricultural
production and may have important sociological impacts when it
is applied in particular situations. Much has been written on the
possible negative effects of replacing human labor with higher
levels of mechanization. Those who work in mechanization
research have been praised and at the same time, threatened with
exclusion from public research funding and even with legal action.
 A major study of the physical and societal effects of mechaniza-
tion was recently completed under the sponsorship of the Council
for Agricultural Sciences and Technology with a task force of 23
leading agricultural scientists and engineers (1983). The general
conclusions of this study confirm that application of mechaniza-
tion and other technological developments will continue. The
study concludes further that the societal changes in agriculture
brought about by mechanization are complex and data are not
available to answer directly many of the questions in this area.
 Giles (1975) confirmed the positive effects of mechanization of
production in both developing and developed countries. Figure 1
relates agricultural progress in terms of the yield of major field
crops as horsepower per hectare has been increased. Agriculture
progress in developing countries is summarized by line A-B,
while line C-D represents agricultural progress in the developed
nations. This chart indicates that increases in yield in the
developing countries have occurred with relatively small increases
in horsepower, due apparently to the simultaneous introduction
of better fertilization, pest control, and other technology. In
developed nations, mechanization competes more easily with
other technology in cost returns and is thus used to a greater ex-
tent. This result is not surprising, considering the generally
smaller size of farms in the developing nations and the greater
difficulty of making higher levels of mechanization economically
feasible.
 The requirements for implementing appropriate levels of
technology in small farms has been well stated by Norman and
Hays (1979) as follows:
 1. Technical feasibility,
 2. Economic feasibility,
 3. Social feasibility, and
 4. Infrastructure compatibility.
These requirements apply to mechanization as well as to other
technology. In a few words, mechanization must do the job, pay


VOL. XX-PROCEEDINGS of the CARIBBEAN FOOD CROPS SOCIETY


for itself, be socially responsible, and be compatible with local
conditions.
 The importance of considering mechanization and other
technological developments in the total context of the
agricultural production system has long been recognized. Giles
(1975) stated the need for "'systems that produce more food and
put more people to work productively." The farming systems con-
cept was further described by Norman and Hays (1979) in which
the technical and human inputs are combined to form an effec-
tive farming system. Figure 2 summarizes this approach.
 From the farming systems concept it is clear that mechanization
cannot be considered independently of other inputs. Furthermore,
development of new technology must be based on need expressed
by farmers as well as innovation by scientists and engineers.
 Modern farming systems research and extension programs such
as the one based at the University of Florida are based on needs
perceived by farmers and field staff and are thus "bottom-up"
rather than "top down" programs. Development of technology
without this approach to the farmers' problems can result in inap-
plicable solutions and poor use of resources.
 Cooperative effort by an inter-disciplinary team is important to
the success of farming systems research efforts. Such teams
generally include agronomists, plant scientists, soil scientists,
animal scientists, agricultural economists, and agricultural
engineers. If important members of this team are missing, ap-
propriate emphasis may not be placed on some area of activity.
 Some farming systems research efforts have had very good in-
put from agricultural engineers in the development of ap-
propriate mechanization while others have not. Some programs
are lacking engineering input for a variety of reasons. In a few
cases, they simply may not have been involved. In others, they
may have been involved, but became frustrated in bringing
about significant field application of designs they produced due
to lack of interest by equipment manufacturers.
 There seems to be considerable difficulty in producing small
machines in industrialized nations and selling them in a develop-
ing nation. The high labor costs of manufacturing and the costs
of international distribution bring even a simple machine to
unacceptable costs for a small farmer in a developing nation.
 Manufacturing machines locally seems to be the best answer if
designs can be kept simple and there is sufficient local demand to
support a small industry. An example of a successful design in
this regard is that of Dr. Hannibal Muhtar (1984) at the Interna-
tional Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico. His
design for a waffle-cutter till planter can be produced with com-
mon welders and other metal working equipment in a rural
machine shop.


149