A methodology for conducting reconnaissance surveys in Africa

Material Information

A methodology for conducting reconnaissance surveys in Africa
Series Title:
Networking paper
Frankenberger, Timothy R
Lichte, John L
Place of Publication:
Gainesville Fla
Farming Systems Support Project
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
21 p. : ; 28 cm.


Subjects / Keywords:
Agricultural surveys -- Africa ( lcsh )
Agricultural systems -- Research -- Africa ( lcsh )
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Bibliography: p. 12.
General Note:
"October 1985."
Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Timothy R. Frankenberger and John L. Lichte.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact Digital Services ( with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
20827498 ( OCLC )
88620491 ( LCCN )

Full Text
Farming Systems Support Project
International Programs Office of Agriculture and
Institute of Food and Office of Multisectoral Development
Agricultural Sciences Bureau for Science and Technology
University of Florida Agency for International Development
Gainesville, Florida 32611 Washington, D.C. 20523
Networking Paper #10

Networking Paper #10

Timothy R. Frankenberger
University of Kentucky
Dept. of Sociology
S205 Ag. Science North
Lexington, Ky 40546
John L. Lichte
38 Walmar Dr.
Sun Prairie, Wisconsin 53590
October 1985
Networking Papers are intended to inform colleagues about farming systems research and extension work in progress, and to facilitate the timely distribution of information of interest to farming systems practitioners throughout the world. The series is also intended to invite
response fram the farming systems network to help advance FSR/E knowledge. Comments, suggestions and differing points of view are invited by the author or authors. Names and addresses of the author or authors are given on the title page of each Networking Paper.
Networking Papers do not necessarily present the viewpoints or opinions of the FSSP or its affiliates. Readers wishing to submit materials to be considered for inclusion in the Networking Paper series are encouraged to send typewritten, single-spaced manuscript, ready for publication. The FSSP does not edit Networking Papers, but simply reproduces the author's work and distributes it to a targeted audience. Distribution is determined by geography and subject matter considerations to select a sub-group fram the FSSP mailing list to receive each Networking Paper.

Reconnaissance surveys (informal surveys, rapid rural appraisals, sondeos, etc.) are quick, informal, cost-effective surveys that attempt to characterize the farming systems found within a region. These surveys are usually implemented at the beginning of an FSR project to rapidly familiarize researchers with the key constraints facing farmers within a target area. Five distinguishing attributes of such surveys have been identified by Steven Franzel (1984). These included:
1) "Farmer interviews are conducted by researchers
themselves, not by enumerators, as in formal surveys"
(Franzel, 1984:2).
2) "Interviews are essentialy unstructured and semidirected, with emphasis on dialogue and probing for information. Questionnaires are never used; however, some researchers use topical guidelines so as to ensure that they cover all relevant topics on a given subject"
(Franzel, 184:3).*
3) "Informal random and purposive sampling procedures are
used instead of formal random sampling from a sample
frame" (Franzel, 1984:3)
4) "The data collection process is dynamic, that is,
researchers evaluate the data collected and reformulate data needs on a daily basis." (Franzel, 1984:3), (See
Honadle, 1982).
5) "Informal surveys are generally conducted over a period
of one week to two months during the growing season"
(Franzel, 1984:3).
Recently, the role of the reconnaissance survey in farming systems research has incrased in importance relative to the formal survey (Franzel, 1984:3). According to Franzel (1984), this trend can be attributed to the advantages the informal
* There is a difference of opinion as to whether topical
outlines should be used. See Hildebrand, 1981 and Collinson,

survey provides in diagnosing farming systems, such as: "1) the low cost and rapid turnaround **; 2) the emphasis placed on direct researcher-farmer teamwork; 3) its sequential, iterative data collection procedure in which data are evaluated and data needs are reformulated on a daily basis; 4) it facilitates interdisciplinary interaction; and 5) its conduciveness to collection of data concerning farmers values, opinions and objectives" (Franzel, 1984:3).
Despite theseadvantages, reconnaissance surveys do have some shortcomings. First, researchers cannot be certain that farmers interviewed in the survey are representative of most farmers in the region (Franzel, 1984:4). This is due to the way farmers are selected for interviews. Thus, statistical testing is not usually possible (Shaner, Philipp, and Schmehl, 1982). Second, such surveys may not be sufficiently focused to determine the relative importance of factors limiting production opportunities for farmers. Therefore other diagnostic procedures may be required to verify and fine-tune hypotheses generated by informal surveys. For instance, confusing and diff-icult to interpret aspects of the existing system may be investigated through the use of more focused, topic-specific formal surveys.
In spite of these limitations, reconnaissance surveys have come to play a critical role in the diagnostic phase of farming systems research. Therefore, it is essential that the methodology for conducting such surveys continues to be developed
** See the table comparing variable costs in Appendix B.

and fine-tuned as experience with the technique accumulates. The purpose of this paper is to outline a stepwise procedure for conducting such surveys which was implemented by the authors in a recent study in Liberia (Frankenberger, Lichte, Gedeo, Jallah and Sherman, 1984). This procedure should be viewed as a complementary alternative to informal survey procedures previously described in the literature (See Hildebrand, 1981; Rhoades, 1982; Collinson, 1982).
This methodology will be presented as a series of important considerations which the FSR team should address prior to, during and after the reconnaissance survey is conducted. The ultimate response to each consideration will be variable and highly dependent upon the circumstances and setting in which the study is conducted. These considerations are presented in an outline format beginning with the major objectives of the study.
1. DeterMinj khIit ag htbg Qbgt~ivea QJ th& St dy -- This
should be done in collaboration with all participating organizations. and institutions involved or directly affected by the research. This step helps insure that all groups involved understand the goals of the research and that information which is given high priority is collected by the team. Unfortunately, if several organizations and institutions are involved, reaching concensus regarding the objectives will be more difficult. *The following list consists of some of the possible organizations and institutions whose input might be sought in deriving
A) Collaborating institutions (universities, consulting
firms, etc.)
B) AID Washington
C) AID Mission
D) In-country Research Organizations E) Regional Development Organizations

DI. Whotrmine K2h 9u beQ the Participants in the Diagnoti
Research-- The make-up of a reconnaissance survey team will vary from one project to another, depending upon the resources available and context of the research. Useful
considerations for devising such teams are as follows:
A) Minimal Pair -- The minimal pair should consist of at
least one social scientist and one physical/biological
B) Expan on af Tam -- Decisions regarding the expansion
of the team should be determined by:
1) Focus Df the project -- Is the project being
implemented in a wide geographical area or is it concentrating on more than one crop/livestock
2) Envixrnmentalsocio-conmiQ cettinq -- Is the
environmental/socio-economic setting extremely
C) T= Maximum Number of Team gmbers SiLd& beq About Six
-- Six is a good number because it is about all that can comfortably fit into a landrover or land cruiser.
Given the shortage of project vehicles usually available for such survey work, one vehicle may be all that the team can obtain. The team should consist of an equal distribution of social scientists and physical/biological scientists. Other important
considerations in putting together a team are:
1) tnclud f researchers Dn te tem -- Make an
attempt to include at least one or two females on the team. This could help in situations where male researchers are not allowed to interview the females of a household. This is extremely
important in situations where females are responsible for a considerable proportion of the
farm labor.
2) Usl acJ Lenists asn much as poibl -- Teams
should consist of local scientists rather than a number of expatriates brought in from outside.
The maximum number of expatriates on a team should
be about two.
3) Attempt to nlueAn -extensiof.n pers.Zon ntjh.g.t_eM
-- Collaboration between research organizations and extension can be greatly facilitated by including extension personnel early-on in the project. The knowledge which extension personnel

have for an area may provide insights into the constraints which farmers are facing, and such information can be extremely useful to the other scientists. However, care must be taken to insure that biased views on the part of some extensionists don't over-influence the teams
perceptions of the situation.
III. Review f tJa Existing Literature -- Ideally, team members
who are going to conduct a survey are already acquainted with the area to be studied or are familiar with the literature. However, this is not always the case. Thus, it is important for team members (especially the expatriates) to eyiW the existing literate e in-go lntry for at 1 1at &A xeek prior to gi.nsg tD th. fije~. Such literature includes books, research reports, government documents, fugitive papers and any other materials which will help familiarize the team with the area to be studied. Begin this literature search with the AID Mission, local libraries and library at the research
IV. Unilant Backgarund Infozmation from EnealaseahlA Personnel Such as Local Governmglt Officials, Project Personnel, AID Officials, And th er- a ce Restn -When contacting these individuals, be aware of the
A) Etorks.a Knowedgeale People -- Follow-up leads
given by contacted persons regarding other knowledgeable sources. Be aware of the fact that there are networks of knowledgeable people which you
need to gain access to.
B) Inquire About Other Written Materiala From Each Person
Contacted -- Through this process, the team can accumulate a sizable amount of material in a very
short time.
V. Zatain Evia~ an-d L---t- Qf In pmduatiUQn Ima~m tli.
Appropriate Officials-- Maps of the area to be surveyed can usually be obtained from geological survey offices within the capital city. Sometimes updated maps may be obtained from agricultural development projects working in the region to be studied. In addition to maps, it may be useful to have letters of introduction from Ministry officials to facilitate collaboraion with regional officials and to insure access to the study area. AID
Mission personnel may help the team members obtain such

VI. Prior to CnDd1LQtijn thg t Survey Contact the People Wh.Q
Will Use the Results of the study to ElicitTheir Snpport, Data Needs, and t2 Obtain AZ Nch Information About thg Area EXm Them as Possible. This Interaction Will Egl Delineate the Mandate of the essaarch and -Qlitical Limitations -- For example, when working with a research station, contact the administrators, department heads and
other important personnel (e.g., expatriate advisors) to clarify objectives and to elicit information needs. If the team has not been selected or constituted prior to these meetings, the administrators and department heads should participate in the selection process. Criteria for the selection of the members should be discussed with
these research station personnel. (See Step II)
VII. Team Members Sho91d Come Together to Formulate a Topical
Outline to B ILsad in Puidin. lntaiews Prior to Goinsg tQ .th& Field -- (See Appendix A) Important considerations for constructing such a topical outline are the following:
A) Co nsult Oh ,Dical Guiu&s to L912 that Inur
Topical ASr as. AXre Considered -- For instance, if previous sondeos or reconnaissance surveys have been done in the area, these should be reviewed. In
addition, the topical lists put together by Collinson and CIMMYT or outlines used in surveys in other
countries may be worthwhile to review.
B) Use the InformatiQon Obtained from Svcondary Data
Sources to Devise the Tpi1a List -- Topics may be
derived from a variety of sources such as:
1) Written reports
2) Interview with resource persons.
3) information needs DI research personnel
4) Previous knowledge of team members
5) Prior research eXperiance
C) Consensus Should be Reached Among th Team Members on
Every Topic Includd in hbhe OiZline -- This insures that all team members are satisfied with the topics
chosen for the outline.
D) The Developmt of This Topical Outline Can bg a
Crucial Team Liding Exercise -- This process allows each of the team members to express his/her concerns, interests and biases up-front so that every team
member knows the others' views. Although this is a tedious, time-consuming process, the key benefits
derived from this exercise are:

1) It alIN tha tAm to f unction aa s ng e unit aentity;.
2) The disciple inary ganeras o9 gach agmber are
incorporated into the outline;
3) Survey priorities Ar_ established before going
the field;
VIII. The Topical Outline Should b Tested Prior t2 .oing tQ tho .
Field -- This test can be conducted in a village near the research station before initiating the survey. This procedure will allow the team to determine the appropriate manner in which to ask some questions and help them refine
their interviewing techniques. Following this pre-test, tables can be constructed from the topical list which allow for the transfer of data from field notes to a comparative format. These tables have two useful
A) The Tables Allow Continual Comparaison Amnnag
Farmersa Which He1ps Focus the Discuission Between Tam
B) The Tables Provide a Means f0. Immediately Evaluating
r _Checking the Campletenss of t.e Field Notes -However, sometimes team members will not want to pursue all the topics on the list in order to obtain more detailed information on a particular aspect of the system. In such cases, the tables will be
deliberately incomplete.
IX. Target Area Selection -- Often the choice of target area
is made in advance of researcher participation. If there is some flexibility in- the choice of the area, the decision should be made in conjunction with the collaborating institutions (i.e., the research
organization, development organization, USAID Mission, research station administration/researchers, etc.).
Important points to consider when choosing a target area
A) When Considering the Target Area, B& Sur~ to Consider
What fan Be Reasonably Covered in the Tim Allotted -Coverage will be influenced by a number of factors
such as environmental uniformity, technological development, socio-economic conditions,
infrastructural development and access during the rainy season. Compromises may have to be made concerning the amount of time to spend in each demarcated region. The team should plan to spend more time in regions where the agricultural systems are more diverse/variable than in regions where they are
more uniform if this can be determined in advance.

B) The TAm Should Dlrx Schedule, _pecifiying the
Region/Area as W1 ga TQ vel Dis sinP Results
And iritin -- Building in some flexibility in this
schedule is extremely useful.
X. Wh.n tjh Team Arrives in a Region to a Syeyed. It
Collaborative Links And to Elicit Their. Eglp -- Such officials might include regional administrators, regional project personnel, and/or regional extension officers.
These contacts serve two useful purposes:
A) These& Individuals an e Select tgtial Villages
f=r the suryy Rand on The Knowledge DItm .Are.
B) Thi Informatigon D of These Reional Administrators
fan Bg. Elicited During Theag Initial Contacts to Insure that the Survey Results Might Be Useful to Them
-- However, it is important to realize that-the objective of the regional officials may be in conflict with those of the research organization. Thus, it is important for the team to establish its priorities regarding the information it plans to gather even if these are not consistent with the objectives of the
regional officials.
XI. Village Selectin -- There are a number of factors that
should be taken into account when selecting villages for
the survey. These include:
A) Location in Relation t the Base of Operation -- Aside
from using variable direction as a selection criteria, distance from the base of operation should be considered for future on-farm trials. Typically, onfarm trials should be within about one hour's drive
from the local base.
B) Size
C) Access to Roads
D) Institutional Complexity (Infrastructural Development)
E) Ethnic Distribution (Tribes or Sub-Tribes)
F) Prior Contact Df Villag Before thg Survey May = Say
Not be Necssary A nd Advantageous -- For instance, in Liberia, the survey team found that prior contact was not advantageous for it made the team's arrival a political event. In other areas of the world this may not be the case. The resarch team should use its best
judgement on this matter.

xii. UpnAria n tj Vlaet Team ZhudFitMeet
With the Villag-e LAes And Expain to TheAm and Other Villagers E xagn the purpose of the study -- In this initial meeting, the team members can explain who they represent, what the results will be used for and why so many questions will be asked. While the group is
assembled, general inquiries can be directed to them regarding village infrastructure, land tenure arrangements, sources of credit, marketing, typical labor
arrangements and project interventions.
XIII. After the Initial Inuiries With the Assembled Villager,
the Isam Should Split .i IntQ Cra ou. Tf ~ to Qnduct Interviews With Farmers -- If the team members do not know the language, a translator should accompany them. Three important points should be taken into consideration when
conducting these interviews:
A) Interview. 9hold Be Conducted With the Farm Family,
11t Jiust the Male Farmer -- Both the husband and wife should be present for the interview if this is possible. This is because the woman of the farm household may be responsible for a considerable amount of the labor performed in the fields. This is
especially true in most African societies.
B) InterviewZ Should Be Condu ted On the Farm Huseholds'
Fields Aw Froxm the Village -- This is to enable the researchers to see the fields they are inquiring about and to obtain answers and opinions specific to the farm family being interviewed rather than the group consensus. In addition, farm families are more likely to believe that the researchers are committed to helping them if the researchers make the effort to come to their fields. As a consequence, the farm families responses are likely to be more truthful.
However, it would be counter-productive if the team spent all of the time walking to distant fields. Thus farm families should be selected whose fields are less than one hour walking distance.* Using this
interviewing strategy, each pair of researchers should be able to interview at least two farm families in a day. In those situations where only partial interviews are conducted, more farmers can be
C) TAm members Should En. D.rk With.-the Sam& Reg..arch
Partner Exry Day -- (See Hildebrand, 1981b) Rotating team members on a daily basis gives each researcher an opportunityto work with and learn from the other team members. This greatly facilitates the exchange of ideas and helps establish better communication between

team members. Ideally, one social scientist and one physical/biological scientist will be matched up in
each pair.
XIV. After interviews ith rm Families Arg CompLetd for
Selected Villae in A Dmarcated Areat thA AMIAm Mmbers Should Get Together Formulate Hypothes About tjh
arming. System Which Characterize that Rgion -- This procedure helps summarize the important attributes and constraints of the farming systems and provides a basis for comparison when survey work is started in other demarcated areas. The team should reach a consensus for every hypothesis formulated. As with the development of the topical outline, the process can be a crucial team building exercise. This procedure of hypotheses formulation should be done for every demarcated area that
is surveyed.
XV. Once tha Survey in Cmpleted and Hypothes Have Been
Derived for Each Demarated Area General Hy otheses Can be Formulated Which Apply ta All Re ions Surveyed -- These general hypotheses identify farming system
characteristics that are commonly found throughout the surveyed area. This process helps sift out those characteristics which are unique to a given demarcated area. Once again, the team should reach a consensus on
all general hypotheses formulated.
XVI. After the Gpeneral and Specific theses ave Been
Formulated 2n the Attributes and Constraints f th
Exisitinag faming Systema in an Area, th .Team Hmsh should A 1 .Q.o. aemin-Aem-Af ta Ral!J
Alleviate the Identified Constraints -- Team consensus should be reached on all recommendations proposed. In addition to being another team building exercise, this activity gives the team members an opportunity to combine their various disciplinary expertise in formulating
possible solutions. In some cases, the team may be called upon to prioritize these recommendations. However, this
last step may be handled by the research organization.
* Occasionally, the researchers will want to interview farmers
with fields farther than one hour away to see if there are major differences with those fields which are close to the

XVII. The Results DI the Reconnaissance Survey Should Bje Written
fl9 in a Time-Effective Yanner -- Three important points to
consider in writing up the report are:
A) The QnLmat to ha Followd fL DxAgnizing the Report
should bg Devised By the Team Leaders
B) TQ Facilitat& the rit .-up, the TAm Leader Shuld
Assign Ech lmbal a 2=-tion DI thg Report t2 b Written -- When the sections of the report are being assigned, team members should be able to negotiate for the portions they want to write. Flexibility in these
assignments is very important.
C) The Finished Report Should be Attractively Packaged -If the report has an appealing cover and is well printed, it is more likely to be taken seriously and
more likely to be read.
Due to the increased emphasis placed on time-effective diagnostic research techniques in recently implemented farming system projects, reconnaissance surveys hav. come to play a more critical role. The primary objectives of this paper has been to identify the major attributes of reconnaissance surveys and to outline a stepwise procedure for conducting them. This procedure Was based on the methodology used by the authors in a recent study in Liberia. Viewed as a complementary alternative to other informal survey procedures previously described in the literature, it is hoped that this presentation will help further the development and refinement of such techniques. Such finetuning should continue as experience with these techniques accumulates.

Collinson, M.P.
1982 "Farming Systems Research in Eastern Africa: The
Experience of CIMMYT and Some National Agricultural Research Services, 1976-81" Michigan State UniverSity International DevelgMont apg ED (East Lansing, Michigan: Department of Agricultural Economics,
Michigan State University).
Frankenberger, Timothy R., John A. Lichte, Arthur S. Gedeo, John
Kpakolo Jallah and Maran J. Sherman
1984 Farming Syste Research in Three Counties in Liberia:
A Reconnaissance Survey in GrAnd Gedeh. Nimba and BQas Counties September. Supported by the U.S. Agency for International Development Farming Systems Support Project, University of Florida with cooperation from: the Unversity of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, the U.S. AID Mission, Monrovia, and the Central
Agricultural Research Institute, Suakoko, Liberia.
Franzel, Steven
1984 "Comparing the Results of an Informal Survey With
Those of a Formal Survey: A Case Study of Farming Systems Research/Extension (FSR/E) in Middle
Kirinyaga, Kenya" Paper presented to the 1984
Farming Systems Research/Extension Symposium,
Manhattan, Kansas.
Hildebrand, Peter
1981 "Motiviating Small Farmers, Scientists and Technicians
to Accept Change," Agricult.ural Administration, 8,
Hildebrand, Peter
1981b "Combining disciplines in Rapid Rural Appraisal: The
Sondeo Approach," Agricultural Administration, 8, 423432.
Honadle, George
1982 "Rapid Reconnaissance for Development Administration:
Mapping and Moulding Organizational Landscapes," orld
Development, 10:8, London.
Rhoades, R.E.
1982 "The Art of the Informal Agricultural Survey,"
International Potato Center, Lima, Peru.
Shaner, W.W., P.F. Philipp and W.R. Schmehl
1982 Farming Sytems Research and Development: Guidelines
fL Developing Countries, Boulder, Colorado: Westview

1. Village Characteristics
A. Size of Village (either in household or population)
B. Institutional Development
Health. Clinic
Other Government Offices
Access to Roads Access to Water
11. Demographic Characteristics
A. Ethnic Affiliation
Sub tribe
Other Tribal Relationships
B. Composition of Household (who participates jointly on a family farm)
Adults malese, females)
Education of Household Members
111. Farm Characteristics
A. Access to Land (land tenure inquiries)
Swampland Ownership
B. Farm Size (May be determined for rice fields by the amount of seed used.
Fields of tree crops may be determined by number of trees. Some verification of field sizes will be done through measurement, e.g. #1 of 5 gallon tins.)
C. Family Fields vs. Individual Fields.

IV. Cropping Patterns
A. Kinds of Crops Grown (e.g. upland rice, swamp rice, cassava, coffee, cocoa, peanuts, sugar cane, citrus, oil palm, rubber, other intercrops)
B. Sequence of Crops (period cultivated)
C. Length of Fallow
Past and present
Indicators of when bush is ready to be cultivated after fallow (plants)
Different fallowing strategies
V. Crops
A. Upland Rice
Area grown
Site selection
Local-name, characteristics, source, selection criteria
Introduced-name, characteristics, source, selection criteria
Diseases and pests
Inputs used fertilizer, pesticides
Land preparation
Brushing methods, timing,-who, mandays, constraints
Felling of trees I it
Burning and clearing of
Other problems and constraints
Planting methods, timing, who, mandays, constraints, intercrops,
Bird watching replanting
Fencing "
Weeding 2nd weeding,
Harvesting use of weeds
Post harvest "" "
(drying methods, storage methods, threshing methods, milling)
Control of output
Portion marketed income received
B. Swamp Rice (traditional vs. {mproved)
Area grown
Site selection
Local-name, characteristics, source, selection criteria
Introduced-name, characteristics, source, selection criteria
Diseases and pests
Inputs used fertilizer, pesticides

Land preparation (traditional vs. improved)
Brushing methods, timing, who, mandays, constraints
Felling of trees (stumping) it U U
Burning and clearing "
Other problems and constraints
Planting methods, timing, who, mandays, constraints, intercrops,
Bird watching i" replanting
(1st & 2nd)
Fencing "
Weeding 2nd weeding,
Harvesting use of weeds
Post harvest ,,
(rying methods, storage methods, threshing methods, milling)
Control of output :
Portion marketed income received
Linkage with upland rice and other crops
C. Cassava (pure stand vs. secondary crop
Area grown
Site selection
Local-name, characteristics, source, selection criteria
Introduced-name, characteristics, source, selection, criteria
(cooking preparation, leaf characteristics)
Diseases and pests
Inputs used fertilizer, pesticides
Land preparation
Brushing methods, timing, who, mandays, constraints
Felling of trees If "
Burning and clearing it
Other problems and constraints
Planting methods; timing, who, mandays, constraints, intercrops,# of
Fencing it if if cuttings and
Underbrushing i pattern
Harvesting it "
(leaf harvesting, timing relative to rice and rains)
Post harvest t it it "
(storage how long do they leave it in the ground and how long will
it keep out of the ground?)
Preparation techniques
Portion marketed income received
Perception of cassava in relation to rice -Chungry season crop)
Use as animal feed
D. Other Field Crops (pursue cropping pattern questions when appropriate)
Tuber crops (eddoes, sweet potatoes, yams, cocoa yams, other)
Sugar cane (cane juice preparation and marketing)
Groundnuts and other legumes (e.g. cowpeas)
Vegetables (e.g. bitterball, eggplant, okra, pepper melegulata pepper,
tomatoes, pumpkin, watermelon, greens, cabbage, onions,
cucumbers, others)

E. Wild Food
Kinds Names Uses
F. Tree Crops
1. Coffee
Number of years growing coffee
Site selection
Area grown
Local-name, characteristics, source, selection
Introduced-name, characteristics, source, selection
Diseases and pests
Inputs used fertilizer, pesticides
Land preparation
Brushing timing, who, mandays, constraints
Thinning and pruning it t I
Problems and constraints (hired labor)
Planting methods, timing, who, mandays, constraints, intercrops
Underbrushing It t it
Harvesting It if It if
(years from planting, hired labor, period of harvest, cherry)
Post harvest
Pulping methods, timing, who, mandays, constraints
Drying It of If if
Marketing (channels, price, transport)
2. Cocoa (see coffee list)
Site selection constraints (.soils)
Pods (yellow color)
Post harvest
Depoding (method and timing)
Farmer practice (drying or fermenting)
(drying tend to split)
(1 week fermenting recommended then slow drying 3-4 hours a day and stir for 3-4 days then continual drying for 3-4 more days)
Marketing (channels, price, transport)
(price vs. quality if improper drying and fermenting)
3. Citrus (backyard vs. orchard)
Kinds grown (orange, grapefruit)
Site selection
Local-name, characteristics, source, selection
Introduced-name, characteristics, source, selection
- Diseases and pests
Inputs used

Land preparation
Brushing timing, methods, who, mandays, constraints
Felling trees "
Problems and constraints
Planting "" intercropping
(spacing, size of seedling, seedling or bud)
(20 x 16) (5 yr. vs. 3 yr.)
Underbrushing timing, methods, who, mandays, constraints
Harvesting "
(number of years, period of harvest, days can store)
Marketing (channels, prices, transport, days can store before marketing)
4. Bananas and plantain (see citrus list)
How many suckers allowed
5. Mangoes (see citrus list)
6. Oil palm (wild vs. introduced)
Area grown
Site selection
Wild name, characteristics
Introduced source
Inputs used fertilizer, pesticides, etc.
Land preparation
Brushing methods, timing, who, mandays, constraints
Felling trees II "
Problems and constraints
Planting it intercrop
(spacing 30 x 30)
Underbrushing methods, timing, who, mandays, constraints
(Intercropping or cover crop)
Harvest U "
Post harvest
Sale vs. consumption
Oil vs. wine
Marketing (channels LPMC, local, prices)
Fresh fruit
Palm kernels
7. Rubber
Area grown
Site selection
Varieties name, characteristics, source
Diseases and pests
Inputs used fertilizer, pesticides, etc.
Land preparation
Brushing methods, timing, who, mandays, constraints
Felling trees it "
Problems and constraints

(intercrop or cover crop)
(frequency, professional vs. amateur, chemical aids)
Processing latex vs. cuplump (coagulated) Marketing (channels, prices, transport)
latex vs. cuplump
8. Minor & wild tree crops
(see other.tree crops lists)
VI. Animal Husbandry
A. Goats
Husbandry pattern
Feeding practices
(Free vs. controlled)
Diseases, mortality
Role in system
Storage of wealth
Social uses
(reciprocal exchange, feed communal labor, bride price, ceremonial,
religious, status symbol)
Other factors to consider
(prestige differences, taste differences, ownership ethnic,
religious, sexual)
B. Sheep
(.see goat list)
C. Cattle
(see goat list)
D. Poultry (chickens and ducks)
(5ee goat list)
Introduced breeds
Egg sales
E. Pigs
Csee goat list)
F. Food taboos
VII. Wild Game A. Source of Meat
Deer, groundhog, bush hog, monkey, baboon, rat, snakes, lizards, etc.
B. How often wild meat eaten C.importance in diet)
C. Food taboos

D. Cultural values associated with consumption of wild meat
E. Source of income (meat, hides, other animal products marketing)
F. Game population trends
G. Hunting restrictions
VIII. Fishing
A. Traditional Fishing
Fishing patterns
Importance of fish in diet
Fresh vs. dried
Marketing (sales and purchases, penetration of marine fish)
B. Fish Ponds
Annual vs. seasonal
Rice or other crop association
Source of .fingerlings
Feeding patterns
Pond construction
Type of fish
IX. Other Sources of Income
A. Off-farm employment
Seasonal migration (concessions, mining, urban employment)
Local off-farm employment (shops, mills, itinerant trader, government employee) Arts and crafts
Farm laborer
Money sent home from relatives (permanent migration)
Other enterprises
Bride price X. Credit A. Credit association formal)
B. Susu
C. Government loans (projects, Ag. Coop. Dev. Bank)
D. Relatives
E. Cooperatives
F. Other sources
G. Loan terms (time, interest, grace period)
H. Reasons for borrowing (.ocial, production improvements, sickness, home improvement)

XII. Consumption
A. Food preferences
Crops Meat
B. Food habits
Who eats with whom
Number of meals (timing, composition)
Consumption of main meal
Order of eating
C. Recipes (ingredients in main dishes)
D. Seasonality of foods consumed
E. Culturally prescribed foods (infants, lactating women, elderly)
F. Home grown vs. market purchased food
G. Ceremonial foods (occasions and kinds of food eaten)
H. Food taboos
XIII. Material Good Status Indicators (observation)
A. House construction (zinc roof, wall characteristics, type of door and windows) B. Radio/tape recorder
C. Other
XIV. Kuu Labor XT. Community Farms XVI. Other Labor Requirements (village self help) XVII. Project Interventions

A Comparison of Variable Codts of Informal Versus Formal FSR Diagnostic Surveys in Mali*
Formal I year survey Formal single visit survey (3m) Informal survey
3 villages each 200 kms from HQ area 200 km from HQ, 14 villages Hany villages, 200 kms from HQ
3 enumerator, bi-monthly visits 4 enumerators Researchers, 5 weeks full time
16 month turnaround based on 7 month turnaround based on 7 week turnaround
3 enumerators x 40,000 x 12m = 1.440,000 FM 4 enumerators x 40,000 x 5m 800.000 FM
1 controleur x 50,000 x 12 600,000 1 controleur x 50,000 x 6 300,000
3 bicycles x 150,000 450,000
Bi-monthly visits by controleur Enumerator vehicle
750 kms per 3 village tour 300 kms/wk x 12 wks = 3600 kms 468,000
25 1 gas per 100 kms
10 tours separate from researchers
7500 kms 975,000
Bi-monthly tours of researchers Researcher visits Researcher visits
during cropping season
14 tours 28 weeks, 10,500 kms 1,365,000 500 kms x 8 trips =4000 kms 520,000 5 visits x 500 kas 325,000 FM
2500 kms
Per Diem Per Diems Per diem
Researchers Researchers. Researchers
28 wks x 4 days = 112 days 8 visits x 2 persons x 5 days 5 persons x 20 days x 5000 FM 500,000
112 x 3 persons x 5000 FM 1,680,000 80 days x 5000 400,000
Controleur Controleur
40 uks x 4 days = 160 days 90 days x 2000 180,000
160 days x 3000 FM 480,000 Enumerators
Drivers 4 x 90 x 2000 720,000 Driver
49 uks x 4 days 192 days Drivers 20 days x 2000 FM 40,000
192 days x 2000 FM 384,000 170 days x 2000 340,000
Vehicle Maintenance Vehicle Haintenance Vehicle Maintenance
18,000 kas 500,000 7600 kms 210,000 2500 kms 70,000
Field Supplies 300,000 Field Supplies 200,000 Field Supplies 100,000
Computer Operation (6m) 480,000 Computer Operator 240,000
Computer Supplies 150,000 Computer Supplies 75,000
Researcher data manipulation Data manipulated by
3 months x 150.000 FM 450,000 enumerators and controleur
9,254,000 FM 4.453,000 FM 1,035,000 FM
$11,568 $5,566 $1,294
* Lichte & Franzel, 1983