There are two phases in farmers' evaluation. One,
passive evaluation, is accomplished the year of the
trial. Farmers decide what they think they will do with
the new technology the next year (accept, reject, or
continue experimenting with it). The second phase is
active evaluation. This occurs the year after the trial,
when the farmers actively decide whether or not to use the
new technology, of their own volition, with all the
associated costs and risks.

Passive evaluation

 It is often convenient or necessary for an FSR/E team
to make a formal evaluation of how farmers feel about the
alternatives they are testing during the year in which the
test was made. The purpose is to measure the potential
acceptability or rejection of new technology to determine
whether it may have to undergo further evaluation in FMTs
the following cycle or is ready for wider distribution.
If it is ready, it will be necessary to assure the
availability in the market of any components to be
purchased; or assure that there is a market outlet for the
product. If reaction from farmers is negative, pertinent
feedback to the research team is necessary for
modification of the technology or to recommend its
elimination from further testing. Farmers' passive
evaluation of acceptability can be assessed by a simple
directed survey of some or all of the participating
farmers to ascertain what they think about the
alternatives. The farmers might indicate which of two
tested varieties they consider more resistant to a certain
disease, which resulted in the best yield, which had the
best eating quality or was better for storage, etc. Most
important, perhaps, is whether the farmers think they will
implement the new alternative the following year. It is
also important to ask farmers interviewed why they think
they will or will not use the alternative the next year.
 In the eastern part of Guatemala, ICTA developed an
early, high-yielding, open-pollinated white maize variety
that had performed well in on-farm tests for three years
(Table VII-1). The new material, B-5, was compared with
H-3, a popular, high-yielding hybrid from El Salvador, and
with Arriquin, a local early variety.