Citation
Farming systems approach to research and extension for small farms

Material Information

Title:
Farming systems approach to research and extension for small farms USDAOICD Shortcourse TC 110-20
Portion of title:
USDAOICD Shortcourse TC 110-20
Creator:
University of Florida -- Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville Fla.]
Publisher:
International Training Division, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 v. (various pagings) : ill., maps ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Agricultural systems ( lcsh )
Agricultural extension work -- Research -- Florida ( lcsh )
Agricultural education ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
conference publication ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
A set of journal articles on farming systems projects and extension work bound together.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
"July 6 - August 7, 1992."
Funding:
Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
Statement of Responsibility:
International Training Division, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.

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 (UFDC@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
70323093 ( OCLC )

Full Text
Farming Systems Approach to Research and Extension for Small Farms USDA/OICD SHORTCOURSE TC 110-20 July 6 August 7, 1992
4 i* .
i A,
S International Training Division
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sqiences
University of Florida




THE FOLLOWING SELECTION
HAS BEEN PRINTED WITH PERMISSION DATE: 07/02/92
Author: POATS, SCHMIM{ & SPRING Title: Chapter 6 and Chapter 7
Book: GENDER ISSEM IN FARMING SYSTEMS
RESEARCH AND EXTENSION
Volume: No: Pgs: 73-87,149-169 Copyright Year: 1987
Reprinted by Permission of: Westview Press Inc.
THIS MATERIAL MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER
WITHOUT THE PERMISSION
OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER




edited by
Susan E Pqats, Marianne Schmink, Gender Issues in Farming Systems Susan V P ats, arianne Schmink
Research and Extension and Anita Spring
edited by Susan V. Poats, Ag
Marianne Schmink, and Anita Spring
issues of increasing agricultural productivity for small-scale and the critical role of women in agriculture are brought together A state-of-the-art book. Based on the 1986 University of Florida G ender Issu
-nce of the same title, this volume includes theoretical and Ge s ses i
lological papers as well as case studies examining the topics of rm in t m R research
intra-household dynamics, labor- allocation, and crop and live- "1 1I1 1 R e s ioch
;ystems in agricultural production, research, and extension. a
and Extension
in V. Poats is associate director of the Farming Systems Support '
at the University of Florida. Marianne Schmlnk is associate .or of Latin American studies and was co-director of the Women icultural Development Program, 1984-1986. Anita Spring is '
ite professor of anthropology and associate dean of the College and Sciences at the University of Florida and was the director I
Women in Agricultural Development Program.
. ...*.*,, ..--,.
,.Nn83379- W sve Sneia Stuie in N: ,c .I ,,,r _ic an P'iI
j
Iio
- I l
t I !
....... ....TSRN rl-8],33-73-9 is Westview Snecial Studies in Ai ;( irr gcir, nne and pcri-,




11
Gender, Resource Management and
the Rural Landscape: Implications for Agroforestry and Farming Systems Research
Dianne E. Rocheleau l:
Agroforestry is a form of land use and management familiar to millions of farmers and forest-dwellers throughout the world. Formally, agroforestry is any system of land use in which woody plants are deliberately combined, in space or over time, on the same land management unit as herbaceous crops and animals (Lundgren 1982). This definition applies to a variety of land use systems ranging from very intensive farming to extensive pastoral systems, including: bush fallow farming; management of fodder trees in private or communal grazing lands; planting of trees and shrubs as live fences on farm boundaries for fuelwood, small timber, and other useful pioductsi intercropping of tree cash crops with food, timber, fodder and soil improving crops; intercropping of hedges with grain crops for leaf mulch; home gardens of all types where trees and annual crops are mixed; and many other systems where farmers and herders combine trees with field crops or animals (Rocheleau 1986). In many of these systems women are primarily responsible for planting, tending, gathering, harvesting, processing, and using woody plants, in addition to performing their roles in crop and animal production and consumption within the larger agroforestry system.
Agroforestry systems reflect the prevailing sexual division of labor, skill, responsibility, and control within the larger society. In cases where new systems are introduced, precedents may be set for the sexual division of costs and benefits from new classes of plants or types of work not previously known in the same way. The success or failure of future research efforts to improve existing agroforestry systems or to develop new ones will depend largely on the ability of researchers to serve the social objectives of diverse groups of rural producers and to reconcile or accommodate the conflicts between men and women and between classes of rural clients.




While an overall farming systems approach is an appro- also distinct advantages and opportunities for agroforestry
priate starting point, an effective, equitable approach to within women's separate domains of space, time, activities,
agroforestry requires something more. Among those aspects interests, and skills. Women may also have special knowthat demand a broader approach are the system-wide scope of ledge, rights, and obligations relating to certain catethe topic, the variable scale of the land units involved gories of artifacts (tools), natural objects, and phenomena
(plot to watershed or community), the variety of clients (water, fire, plants, animals).
and land managers, the diversity of activities involved, Agroforestry may impose new demands on women clients
the combination of production and environmental objectives, such as the need to negotiate new arrangements for use and
the time factor required for testing and growing trees, and management of shared lands, labor, or capital inputs, to
the relative ignorance of researchers about the past and learn new skills, and to observe more careful management of
current use of woody plants by farmers and herders soil, water, plants, and animals in existing woodland,
(Rocheleau 1986). These characteristics overlap to some soland, pas, and an s rexi stma
extent with gender and class issues. All of these factors cropland, pasture, or boundary lands. Agroforestry may
combined require a more comprehensive and complex approach also validate women's land and tree use rights or ownerthan might be needed to deal with gender issues in ship, increase production and decrease gathering time, and
crop-based farming systems research and extension (FSreE). council conflicting objectives for shared household or
The problems and opportunities inherent in the gender A few project histories (Hoskins 1979; Scott 1980; Wiff
division of access to land, labor,- cultivated and wild 1984; Jan 1984; Fortmann and Rocheleau 1984) and a wealth
plants, and products present a special challenge to agro- of experience in traditional and evolving agroforestry
foresters. They require specific consideration and pro- systems suggest that rural women and agroforestry programs
grams not yet part of the mainstream approach to agro- hyse uh t at ra womenfand and programs
forestry research and development projects. The implica- have much to gain from a well-informed and well-defined
tions of these differences extend to the content of tech- association. Among the explicit gender issues of relevance
nology designs and social contracts for management as well to women's participation in agroforestry projects are
as to the way that research and development is conducted women's legal status and access to productive resources,
with women clients. Gender based differences in legal sta and the division of space, time, knowledge, and decisiontus, use of and access to space, type of activities, and making.
control over labor and resources, all have a direct bearing This heightened awareness of gender issues has surfaced
on what type of plants can be planted, managed, used and a tie when agroforesters and social foresters are still
harvested, in terms of place, person, purpose, and benefit learning to involve the population at large (FAO 1985) and
(Rocheleau 1987b). to think in terms of "clients" rather than "targets." Much
Whether or not women are considered apart or as a of the action research and organizational experiments
distinct client sub-group within the larger population, the required to find viable rules of tree and land ownership,
terms of their participation will usually be distinct from as well as access to and management by women, can be nested
that of men. This is especially true with regard to the within broader programs based on a land user perspective.
quantity, quality, and terms of access to land. Women's A general land user perspective for agroforestry
access to other productive resources (water, draft power, research and development programs should consider multiple
agrochemicals, labor, information) also differs from men's. uses, multiple users, landscape as a major focus in a
Moreover, women's control over the components (animals, larger context of sliding scale analysis and design, and
crops, trees, shrubs, pasture) and the products (food, consideration of indigenous knowledge as science. In
fodder, fuel, timber, cash, fiber, medicine) of addition to these four conditions for understanding and
agroforestry systems is often subject to rules distinct serving users' interests, the terms of client participation
from those governing men's actions. All of these must be considered. Treating land users as clients is a
differences are expressed in the existence of men's and critical ingredient in the successful integration of users,
women's separate places and activities, in nested concerns into analysis, design, and action. "Clients" macomplementary roles in the same places and activities, or be seen as passive recipients c; seixices or active pati-.
in sharing of interchangeable roles. cipants. Incorporating clients as active participants proWhile these differences may limit the scope and nature duces the best results for development projects and builds
of agroforestry technology and project design, there are local capabilities for continued agroforestry analysis,
design, and management efforts (Rocheleau 1987b).




152 153
An overall land user perspective constitutes a neces- wide range of products, services, and concerns beyond cash
sary but not quite sufficient condition for serving women's crops, livestock, and staple grains.
interests in agroforestry. The explicit acceptance of Beyond their concerns in crop and livestock production,
women as valid clients in their own right would permit the women's responsibility for household water and energy supbroadest participation of women whether or not they are in plies gives them a special interest in the long term mainhouseholds headed by men or heads of their own households, tenance of the natural resource base (soil, water, vegetaand are artisans, processors, merchants, smallholders, or tion). Researchers must pay specific attention to the
landless laborers. history of resource use and condition, and to potential
This is not to say that women's issues should be improvements in soil conservation, watershed management,
absorbed into a single homogenized agenda. There is still and management of range and forest lands (Rocheleau and
a need to disaggregate information, decisions, and action Hoek 1984).
to assure reasonable and equitable distribution of land,
trees and their products, and program costs and benefits to multiple Users
all clients. A land user perspective with equity must deal
with women's relationship to the larger community as well Any program that purports to serve the majority of
as with the very real differences between groups of women, rural people is by definition dealing with a diverse array
based on class, age, ethnicity, and sources of livelihood, of land users, many of whom are women. Even projects speA brief outline of a land user perspective for agro- cifically geared to "target groups", such as farmers, will
forestry research and development illustrates how it can find that their target group may include non-farming land
serve various women's interests. users. Farmers also depend on a number of items they do
A LAND USER PERSPECTIVE FOR EQUITY IN AGROFORESTRY not produce, such as gathered products. Farmers' livelihoods may be inextricably tied to those of gatherers, proMultiple Uses cessors, merchants, artisans, farmworkers, herders, or
forest dwellers.
Within a target group loosely defined as farmers there
Agroforestry is a land use system, not a commodity. it may also be several types of actors, often-women, who
can address a wide range of rural people's priorities for neither own nor manage the farm. Women and children in
fulfillment of basic needs (Raintree 1983). Agroforestry farm households perform such essential operations as paid
practices may apply to cash crops, subsistence crops, ani- and unpaid farm labor, child care, home management, domesmal production, and gathered products, as well as to farm tic and commmercial processing, gathering of goods for farm
infrastructure and to the soil, water, and natural vegeta- household use or sale, and management of livestock and
tion on the site. Among the major needs that are affected household gardens. If all women land users are to be fully
by agroforestry are: food, water, fuel, cash income, shel- served as clients, then agroforestry research and action
ter and infrastructure, savings/investment, and resources must also address gathering, processing, trade and consumpto meet social obligations. tion as well as production processes in the farm household
A land user approach to the development and implemen- and community system.
tation of agroforestry technologies requires design and For example, agroforestry technology design should conevaluation according to a complex set of criteria that goes sider landless men and women, who tend to depend more
far beyond simple economic cost and benefit. heavily on gathering than the population-at-large in many
Considerations of need, preference, and multiple use must farming communities. Whereas wealthier women may gather
be balanced against available resources, required inputs, more on their own land or have easy access to other lands,
risk, and expected yields. landless people and women small-holders share problems of
In rural areas all over the world, women are providers insecure access to shared collection areas. A change in
of a wide range of subsistence goods, including water, the cropping system, a new chemical herbicide, or a change
fuel, food, fodder for confined animals, fiber for handi- in tree species in bush-fallows may have important "side
crafts and other "minor" products of range, forest and effects" on gatherers. Agroforestry technologies can be
fallow lands. As such, they have much to gain from .specifically tailored to maintain or increase the flow of
development approaches like agroforestry that incorporate a "by-products" to particular groups, including women.




A multiple user approach also allows for separation between spheres of activity and control between men and women, between age groups and between classes of houseFIBRE holds. "Management" of specific plants or places may be
9 ANIMAL FODDER subdivided between these same groups. Examples abound of
AIA Othe need for agroforesters to deal with multiple users as
WOD clients even with respect to single tree species. The case
PASTURE Wr of Pananao in the Central Mountains of the Dominican
Republic (see Figure 11.1) illustrates the multiple and sometimes conflicting uses of individual palm trees by men
CRL -------WHOL
TREE and women. The same tree or parts thereof can be used for
CRL9 Rfiber by women, cheap construction wood by men, and animal / feed by men and women.
SCROPLAND In Pananao, the distinct division of control and
cr 9 responsibility over resources and labor extends to spaces
CRL Land activities as well as to plar or spec ific products.
Women's processing activities require products from men's fields, herds, and woodlands. While women control the processing enterprise, they do not manage source areas of raw materials. In this community, some cassava bread enterprises have been severely curtailed by fuelwood shortages resulting from rapid conversion of woodlands to PATIO cropland and pasture by men (Rocheleau 1984). Women's
P I handicraft enterprises also suffered from raw material
PROCESSING ,shortages when swine fever reduced demand for palm fruit
9 for hog feed and men felled the palms for cheap building
CRL materials or cash (E. Georges 1983, pers. comm.).
OREST REMNANTS Agroforestry design in such situations clearly requires
Consultations with both men and women to design agroforestR try practices that address the needs of each group, whether
RL separately or jointly. Agroforestry technologies for multiple users can accommodate separate, fully shared, or interlocking (partially shared) use depending on the compatibility of both the uses and the users.
THE RURAL LANDSCAPE AS CONTEXT AND FOCUS
FIGURE 11.1
The landscape embodies spatially and over time rural PANANAO SIERRA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC people's ideas of their relation to each other and to the
natural environment. Visible landscape patterns and feaThis figure demonstrates the multi-purpose use of land and tures provide an excellent point of departure for detertrees in Pananao assuming that both men and women are mining the spatial distribution of men's and women's dopresent in the household. R = responsibility to provide a mains of activity, responsibility, control, and knowledge.
product thereof to household; 1 = labor input for estab- During the past few years, many societies have experienced
lishment, maintenance or harvest; c = control of resource dramatic changes in the division of space and activity due
or process. to the introduction of cash cropping, commercial logging,
and other enterprises.
Source: Rocheleau, D. (1987a) The process of "landscape domestication" in rural areas
presents a challenge for agroforestry design and practice.




156 157
While this aspect of rural development has been left in the inter-household, and community level. To deal with this
gap between natural resource management, farming systems complexity, a user approach in agroforestry research and
research, and rural women's programs, it is precisely at development must stratify clients by class, sex, household
this level that many rural people integrate trees, crops, composition, and social organization, as it affects access
and livestock with personal and community needs and objec- to resources and spatial patterns of activity and resource
tives. It is also the site of many gender-based land use use.
conflicts. In many areas women are moving rapidly into An example from Bhaintan watershed in the Lower
activities and spaces formerly occupied by men, though Himalayas, Uttar Pradesh State, India (Raintree et al.
often with less security of access to productive resources. 1985) illustrates the role of gender in the interplay
The rural landscape is the drawing board for-integrated between multiple users and landscape units in analysis of
agroforestry diagnosis and design beyond the single farm or agroforestry potentials. The landscape sketch (Figure
the individual plot (Rocheleau and Hoek 1984). Since women 11.2) shows the distinct division in land use and cover
are responsible for collecting water, fuelwood, and other which is closely related to tenure. There is a pronounced
"off-farm" resources, they have a vested interest in the division of use control, and access to specific landscape
planning of the larger landscape. Women's access to off- features, based on sex.
farm lands, woodland and water resources, and gathered The relative share of production (and land use presproducts can be better addressed when landscape is fully sure) from a given area also varies by user group (Figure
integrated into agroforestry analysis and design. 11.3). In turn, the relative importance of particular
Tenure is inextricably tied to the evolution and design areas to each user group also varies. In this case, the
of landscape, and to the place of women's resources and forest reserve is most heavily used by men, yet it is most
interests in the landscape. Land and tree tenure are important to poor women in terms of its relative conparticularly important for tree planters and managers, tribution to their livelihood. While women's harvest from
compared to annual cropping that is more ephemeral or the forest may be "minor" compared to men's timber offtake,
animal husbandry which is a more mobile enterprise. Where the forest products are major components of women's total
agroforestry designs apply to several categories of land, income. Moreover, poor women's interest in renewable use
land use, and plants in a complex landscape, then tenure and sustained yield may be more compatible with national
assumes even greater importance. and village level objectives for the commons and forest
Community development cycles (settlement, expansion, reserves.
diversification, land use intensification) will determine The potential for commercializing minor forest products
in large part the future availability of landscape niches versus timber resources in the Himalayan foothills is a
for women's agroforestry activities at the community level, good example of this (Surin and Bhaduri 1980). Women are
Oral history and discussions of possible future scenarios already interested and involved in cash enterprises based
with women and the community at large may provide some on gathering, processing, and retailing of many forest
insights into current trends. The choice of agroforestry products, and might be best servri by projects to improve
practices and landscape designs appropriate for rural women and sustain that activity rather chan by planting new
requires their involvement from the beginning in whole stands of trees that will not yield products for processing
community applications as well as in individual farm by women. Since women's enterprises depend largely on
planning. renewable products, this presents an opportunity for an
Within the context of landscape planning and design, a agroforestry system to serve women-as-gatherers, while
diverse array of agroforestry technologies can address a ensuring sustainable, renewable resources.
wide range of land use and production units. These units
may range from small plots to farms, watersheds, communal THE ROLE OF INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE
holdings, and public lands. The managers may be men or
women, acting as individuals/households or as whole ethnic Agroforestry as a "formal" science is in a unique posigroups, cooperatives, communities, or larger political tion to learn from and to improve upon traditional knowunits. Land use planning at multiple scales requires an ledge and practice and to combine forces with indigenous
integrated social and ecological approach to agroforestry experimental initiatives (Rocheleau and Raintree 1986).
that deals with the division of labor, responsibility, The relative ignorance of the research community about
expertise, control, and interests at the intra-household, woody plants used by rural people implies a special need




COMMONS
3 FOREST OFF OFF
a ,FARM FARM
COMMONS REMITTANCE INCOME
COMMONS: CROPLAND
.R RL AC
CROPLAND
FOR WOMEN FOR MEN
IRRIGATED CROPLANDS *
d 9 /'OFF
RLC RL TREES ON TERRACE FOREST FARM
RISERS/BOUNDARY RAINFED FRUIT TREES a REMITTANCE
Cf CROPLANDS CLR
RL C L
RL RC
CROPLAND
FOR POOR WOMEN
FIGURE 11.2
FIGURE 11.3
FAKOT VILLAGE, BHAINTAIN WATERSHED, UTTAR PRADESH, INDIA SOURCES OF LIVELIHOOD (CASH & KIND) IN FAKOT R, L, and C have the- same meaning as in Figure 11.1. (by relative importance to land user).
Source: Rocheleau, D. (1987a) Source: Rocheleau, D. (1987a)




160 161
for ethnobotanical research to identify promising species research plans is illustrated by research on the chitemene
(woody and herbaceous) for agroforestry systems and to system of shifting cultivation in the miombo woodland of
understand what is already known about these plants' inter- north east Zambia. The area is rich i -examples of indiaction with soil, animals, other crops, and their uses, genous knowledge as well as its dynamic application to
ownership, and management. Within the context of such technology innovation.
initiatives, women's knowledge, skills and interests can The classic chitemene system involves the felling and
change the content and approach of future agroforestry harvest of woody vegetation on a 1-5 hectare plot, followed
research and action programs to serve women and the rural by piling and burning the collect' i wood from the entire
population at large better, area on a sub-plot approximately one-fifth of the total
There is a tremendous depth of indigenous knowledge area. The combination of high heat and woody biomass
about particular traditional agroforestry systems under results in higher soil pH and fertility on the burned plot
very site-secific circumstances (von Maydell 1979; (Mansfield 1975). The crop rotation follows a six year
Fernandes and Nair 1986; Flores Paitan 1985; Brokensha et cycle beginning with finger millet, maize, cassava, and
al. 1983; Budowski 1983; Okafor 1981; Weber and Hoskins perennial sorghum intercropped with yams, gourds, pumpkin
1983; Clay 1983). Existing knowledge can span the full and cowpea on the periphery or on termite mounds. Groundrange of design and management considerations: site nuts are planted next, followed by cassava maturation and
selection, preparation and management; plant selection harvest, and two to four years of bean cultivation (Figure
and/or breeding; plant propagation; establishment and 11.4) after which the plot is left in woody fallow for
management; plant combinations and spatial arrangements; several years. Most households maintain at least four
plant-soil-water interactions; pest management; techno- fields in different stages of the cycle so as to produce
logies for processing and use of products; and market the full range of major crops (millet, groundnut, cassava,
conditions at local and regional levels. Men's and women's and beans) in any one year (Stollen 1983; Vedeld 1981; Haug
knowledge of these various aspects of traditional agro- 1981). The long term effects of this system on soil
forestry systems is often quite distinct and may require fertility vary with the length of the fallow with a trend
separate documentation and discussion (Hoskins 1979). toward shorter fallows and sharp declines in site
Existing and potential agroforestry systems include a productivity (Mansfield 1975).
particularly diverse array of species, both woody and An informal survey of the land users in the vicinity of
herbaceous, many of which are wild or only semi- the Misamfu Research Station revealed a wealth of informadomesticated thus far. In cases where agroforestry is not tion and opportunities for collaborative experiments on
well developed as such, the local people may still have a farmer-initiated innovations and farmer-defined lines of
wealth of knowledge about useful plant species, including research. The survey incorporated a user perspective,
source areas of superior parent material, the ecology of which included consultation with both men and w;men land
the plant habitat, compatibility with other plants, inter- users as clients, consideration of multiple uses, multiple
action with animals and insects, growth rate, method of users, and a sliding scale of analysis from region to plot
regeneration, and response to variation in site conditions with emphasis on landscape features and land use at the
and management practice. Women and men will often have farm and community level. The method and content of these
distinct skills and knowledge for use of natural vegetation consultations encouraged people to draw upon and explain
in forests and rangelands. They may each have different specific items from traditional bodies of knowledge, as
knowledge about the same plants and places, or their exper- well as their methods and rationale for developing or
ience may be divided by species or by ecosystem. adapting new technologies (Huxley et al. 1985; Mattson, in
Rural people can also play a key role as consumers in press).
deciding the criteria for the selection and improvement of Several points of information proved to be critical for
agroforestry germplasm and in judging the likelihood of the design of new agroforestry technologies for testing ondomesticating particular species. Women's knowledge as farm or on-station and for agroforestry research planning
consumers and processors of many tree products should at the Misamfu station.
figure strongly in any user-focused program of germplasm First, many farmers are actively engaged in experimenselection and improvement (Hoskins 1983). nation with mounding as a way of incorporating plant bioThe incorporation of both men's and women's knowledge, mass (usually grass, with some tree and shrub parts) into
experience, and experimental initiatives into agroforestry the soil. The mounding of loose topsoil over plant biomass




has been adapted from the grass mounding technology of a neighboring savannah group. It is being tried in permanent or long term plots planted to beans, or beans and cassava, in women's home gardens planted to beans, cassava, fruits, MIOMBO WOODLANDS PERMANENT FIELD vegetables, and specialty crops, and it is used in the
y d 9/latter part of the cycle on chitemene plots to prolong the
useful life of the plot for bean and/or cassava production (Huxley et al. 1985; Haug 1981). Second, women's home gardens are becoming increasingly important for food OMEGARDENS/ production and cash income and are being diversified to
CRL include fruit trees. Some women are experimenting for the
first time with tree planting in such gardens. Mounding, raised beds, and clean tilled plots are all being tried, with a tendency toward mounding in the larger gardens. Women heads of household rely heavily on cassava home PROCESSING 'gardens for food production to supplement what they can buy
MIOMBO WOODLANDS with wages. For women without male household labor for
9 cr chitemene clearing, the home garden, beer making, and
RL RC cassava processing are important alternatives to earn cash
to buy food. most garden experiments reflect a desire to intensify land use on small plots and to diversify CHITEMENE PLOT processing enterprises (Stollen 1983; Huxley et al. 1985).
d) yTwo women farmers' experiments were especially noteRCRL worthy. One woman conducted a trial with low level fertilizer application on a clean tilled plot with millet and 41' cassava, with a partial control (clean tilled, no fertilisi% o-r1 0zer). This trial combined the site preparation technique for monocropped maize with lower fertilizer levels and traditional chitemene crops. The result was increased millet A _"yield, with lower cost and less risk than maize. The woman (ft_ 7 who conducted the experiment wanted millet for home consumption and beer brewing. Another woman planted soybeans on clean-tilled plots for soya milk, prompted by a concern for nutrition and by free seed provided through her daughter's participation in an urban women's program in the
FIGURE 11.4 mining district (Huxley et al. 1985).
Both men and women indicated several important roles of
MISAMFLI, N.E. ZAMBIA woodland and fallowland products in the household diet and
economy (both commercial and subsistence). Woodland and fallow areas are major sources of wild leafy vegetables, This figure shows the Chitemene system in northeast Zambia, and exclusive sources of mushrooms and caterpillars, that
including new practices observed near Misamfu. Note that occuistlycon on te secies anl er pil at
wome cotrolthemillt cop one f svera intheoccur mostly on one tree species, Julbernardia paniculata women control the millet crop (one of several in the (S. Holden, pers. comm.). Caterpillars and wild leafy
intercrop rotation.) R, L, and C have the sane meanings vegetables are major sources of protein and both mushrooms
in Figure 11.1. and caterpillars are important sources of cash income for
Source: Rocheleau, D. (1987a). most households. All three products fall within women's
domain of responsibility as providers and may be processed or sold by them. Timber (men's responsibility), fuelwood




164 165
(women's responsibility), and wild fruits were also cited agroforestry research and action programs must incorporate
as important woodland products, with supply problems and address women's and men's distinct domains of both
occurring mainly near towns and old villages (Huxley et al. knowledge and concern.
1985; Mattson, in press). CONCLUSION
Trees play an important part in the land use system,
including those planted or "kept" in home compounds, fallows, and cropland as well as those found in woodland. A Women's interests in agroforestry research and developconsiderable body of knowledge and experience exists with ment will not be the same everywhere. They will usually be
respect to both indigenous and exotic, wild and domesti- nested within a larger tangle of conflicting and complecated species. Some men had extensive knowledge of exotic 2mentary relationships between and within rural households. fruit tree horticulture, including layering and grafting Whether or not ownership is legally demarcated, most rural
techniques. Both men and women readily identified their people operate in overlapping domains of access and conrespective favorite non-domesticated tree species by use, trol on a variety of resources involving a complex array of
those species in short supply, and those that they would activities and purposes. Technological changes in domains
consider planting now, or in the future in the event of controlled by men may drastically alter the terms of
limited supplies or access (Huxley et al. 1985). Both men access, control, production, and ecological stability on.
and women also provided information on site requirements, shared lands and resources, or in women's separate places
potential for management (tolerance to coppicing, pol- and activities. Aside from the differential effects of
larding), relative growth rates, and relative leafy biomass technology and land use change on men and women, the interproduction for several species that occur in miombo ests of different groups of women may diverge signifiwoodland succession (Mattson 1985; Huxley et KI7I85). cantly. Among the factors that may divide women's
While both men and women knew the miombo woodland ecosystem interests are age, class, household composition, ethnic
well, their experience tended to b-eT-lided by species. group, location, and sources of livelihood.
In spite of the extent of the surrounding woodlands, The proposed land user perspective can incorporate
mayfarmers surveyed were often conscious of relative land women as one of a number of valid client groups and active
lmny ae npoimt omres rvradras participants in agroforestry research and action programs.
lMists basped onr proximityd tou maresfivers and roads This approach can address women's distinct needs, contheir land rights prior to the imminent return of the sritopruiis n neet narfrsr
mining population to their home area. People's decisions technology and land use innovations. Since it is based on
to intensify cropping in place or to expand their cropland a premise of dealing with multiple users and multiple
varied mainly with household composition, village develop- interests in any given place, the land user perspective
ment cycles, and the quality of the village site and ser- clan also accommodate both women's relationship to the
vices. In many cases people were unwilling to move out and larger community and the differences between groups of
away into outlying woodlands, and they chose instead to women within a given community. This approach combines an
intensify production. explicit concern for women's interests with a commitment to
Many women heads of households and sub-households cited address those interests within the larger web of social and
woodland gathering and home garden intensification as their ecological relationships in which they live.
best strategies to supplement household food supply and NOTES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
cash income. As a group they were less able to move into
new woodland areas and they expressed a greater interest in
more intensive use of both woodlands and farmlands. A similar version of this paper was published in
If national programs are prepared to follow the lead of a book edited by H. Gholz,' 1987. Agroforestry: Realities,
rural land users, knowledge of indigenous science and Possibilities and Potential. Boston, MA: Martinis Nijhoff,
users' initiatives may alter national agricultural and in the chapter entitled: The User Perspective and the
rural development policy. Useful information and tech- Agro-forestry Research and Actior Agenda.
niques can best flow from the scientific community to the
rural land users once its known what they already know, and
what else might be most useful to add to their store of
knowledge and tools. A well-informed basis for




REFERENCES
Lundgren, B.
Budowski, G. 1982 Introduction. Agroforestry Systems 1:3-6.
1983 An Attempt to Quantify Some Current Agroforestry Mansfield, J. E.
Practices in Costa Rica. In Plant Research and 1975 Summary of Research Findings in Northern
Agroforestry. P. Huxley, ed., pp. 43-62. Nairobi: Province, Zambia. Supplementary Report 7. Land
ICRAF. Resources Division, Ministry of Overseas
Brokensha, D., B. W. Riley and A.P. Castro Development, United Kingdom.
1983 Fuelwood Use in Rural Kenya: Impacts of Mattson, L.
Deforestation. Washington, D.C.: USAID. 1985 Summary Report on Survey of Farm Level Problems,
Clay, J. Needs, Existing Strategies and Knowledge of Miombo
1983 A Bibliography of Indigenous Agroforestry Woodland Species. Misamfu, Zambia: Zambia Ministry
Systems. Draft, unpublished manuscript. of Agriculture and Water Development SPRP.
FAO n.d. Landscape Analysis of Agroforestry Systems in
1985 Tree Growing by Rural People. Review Draft. Northeast Province. Agricultural University of
Forestry Policy and Planning Series. Rome: FAO. Norway, As. (In press).
Fernandes, E.M.C. and P.K.R. Nair Maydell, H. von
1986 An Evaluation of the Strurture and Function of 1979 Agroforestry to Combat Desertification: A Case
Tropical Home Gardens. ICRAF Working Paper 38. Study of the Sahel. In Agroforestry: Proceedings
Nairobi: ICRAF. of the 50th Symposium on Tropical Agriculture, pp.
Flores Paitan, S. 11-24. Bulletin 303. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
1985 Informe Sobre el Papel de Umari en los Sistemas Department of Agricultural Research, Konink Lijk
de Produccion Agroforestal en Fincas de la Poblacion Institute voor de Tropen.
Indigena y los Mestizos en la Zona de Iquitos. Okafor, J. C.
Manuscript. Peru: University of Iquitos. 1981 Woody Plants of Nutritional Importance in
Fortmann, L. and D. Rocheleau Traditional Farming Systems of the Nigerian Humid
1984 Why Agroforestry Needs Women: Four Myths and a Tropics. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Ibadan,
Case Study. Unasylva 36:146. Nigeria.
Haug, R. Raintree, J. B.
1981 Agricultural Crops and Cultivation Methods in 1983 A Diagnostic Approach to Agroforestry Design.
the Northern Province of Zambia. Occasional Paper Proceedings of the International Symposium on
1, Dept. of Agricultural Economics: Agricultural Strategies and Designs for Afforestation,
University of Norway. Reforestation and Tree Planting, Hinkeloord,
Hoskins, M. Wageningen, The Netherlands, Sept. 19-23.
1979 Women in Forestry for Local Community Raintree, J.B., D. Rocheleau, P. Huxley, P. Wood, and F.
Development: A Programming Guide. Washington, Torres
D.C.: USAID Office of Women in Development. 1985 Draft Report on the Joint ICAR/ICRAF Diagnostic
1983 Rural Women, Forest Outputs and Forestry and Design Exercise at the Bhaintan Watershed in.the
Projects. Rome: FAO. Outer Himalayan of Uttar Pradesh. Nairobi: ICRAF.
Huxley, P.A., D. E. Rocheleau and P.J. Wood Rocheleau, D.
1985 Farming Systems and Agroforestry Research in 1984 An Ecological Analysis of Soil and Water
Northern Zambia. Phase I Report: Diagnosis of Land Conservation in Hillslope Farming Systems: Plan
Use Problems and Research Indications. Nairobi: Sierra, Dominican Republic. Ph.D. Dissertation,
ICRAF. Department of Geography, University of Florida,
Jain, S. Gainesville, FL.
1984 Standing Up for the Trees: Women's Role in the
Chipko Movement. Unasylva 36:146.




169
168
1986 Criteria for Re-appraisal and Re-design: Weber, F. and M. Hoskins
1986 Criteria for Re-appraisal and Re-design: 1983 Agroforestry in the Sahel. Blacksburg, VA:
Intra-household and Between Household Aspects of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
FSR/E in Three Kenyan Agroforestry Projects. In Department of Sociology.
Selected Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Wiff, M.
Farming Systems Research and Extension, Oct. 7-14 1984 Honduras: Women Make a Start in Agroforestry.
1984. C.B. Flora and M. Tomacek, eds., pp. 456-502. Unasylva 36:146.
Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University.
1987a The User Perspective and the Agroforestry
Research and Action Agenda. In Agroforestry:
Realities, Possibilities and Potentials. H. L.
Gholz, ed., pp. 59-87. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Martinus Nijhoff/D. R. Junk Publishers.
1987b Women, Trees and Tenure: Implications for
Agroforestry Research and Development. In Land,
Trees and Tenure: Proceedings of an International
Workshop on Tenure Issues in Agroforestry.
Madison/Nairobi: LTC/ICRAF. Rocheleau D. and A. van den Hoek
1984 The Application of Ecosystems and Landscape
Analysis in Agroforestry Diagnosis and Design: A
Case Study from Kathama Sublocation, Machakos
District, Kenya. Working Paper No. 11. Nairobi:
ICRAF.
Rocheleau, D. and J.B. Raintree
1986 Agroforestry and the Future of Food Production
in Developing Countries. Impact of Science on
Society 142:127-141.
Scott, G.
1980 Forestry Projects and Women. Washington, D.C.:
The World Bank.
Stollen, K.A.
1983 Peasants and Agricultural Change in Northern
Zambia. Occasional Paper 4, Department of
Agricultural Economics: Agricultural University of
Norway.
Surin, V. and T. Bhaduri
1980 Forest Produce and Forest Dwellers. Proceedings
of the Seminar on the Role of Women in Community
Forestry, Dec. 4-9. Dehra Dun, India: Forest
Research Institute and Colleges. Vedeld, T.
1981 Social-Economic and Ecological Constraints on
Increased Productivity among Large Circle Chitemene
Cultivation in Zambia. Occasional Paper 2,
As, Norway: Department of Agricultural Economics,
Agricultural University of Norway.




THE FOLLOWING SELECTION
HAS BEEN PRINTED WITH PERMISSION DATE: 06/25/92
Author: FELDSTEIN & POATS
Title: Chapter 9
Book: WORKING TOGETHER: GENDER ALYSIS IN
AGRICULTURE
Volue: No: Pgs: 240-267 Copyright Year: 1990
Reprinted by Pertission of: Kuuarian Press
THIS MATERIAL MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER




Working Together
S, Gender Analysis in Agriculture
Volume 1
Case Studies
O
Editors
HIIARY SIl, a;>Lb3TEIN AND SUSAN V. POATS
O 0 U
SKUMARAN PRESS




Chapter 9
Zambia
"MtnIntrahousehold Dynamnics and FSR/E in Zambia:
- 9A Case Study of Traditional Recommendation
> 0 0 C) Domain 3 in Central Province
ooo
WCountry Background
Project Background
ARPTActivities
SCHARFindings from Diagnostic ActivitiesRT N. GilI
Study Questions
E
0o Notes
I References
_ Appendix 9-A Activities for Understanding Farmers' Problems in
Order to Produce Acceptable Recommendations < 11N-J .Appendix 9-B Prices, Costs, and Standards in. Mkushi District
0 -0 "
C,0 'G ,- Part 2 Description of the Farming System andi Prob~lems Identified
, 2 (in Working Together, Volume 2)
0 ..
This case was prepared as a basis for discusion rather than as an illustration of either effective or ineffective handling NTSf a roect. E E Part 1 Country and Project Background and Results of Initial D~iagnosis
U U Country Background
W Project Background
t; 0ARPTActivtiL's
.20 Findings froin Diagnostic Activities
Study Questions
Notes
cu References
N~ Appendix 9-A Activities for Understanding Farmers' Problems in
Order to Produce Acceptable Recommendations E .2 :tAppendix 9-B Prices, Costs, and Standards in Mkuslhi District
Nm
Part 2 Description of the Farming System and Problems Identified C- (in Working Together, Volume 2)
This case was prepared as a basis for discus.,Aon rather than as an illustration of either effective or ineffective handling of a Droje-ct.




Zambia: Part 1 Aret, 753.000 kn2. ZAMBIA
Country and Project Background Population 6.44 million (1984 estimate based on 1980 census)
and Results of Initial Diagnosis 43% urban; growth rate 3.1% per year. Density: 7.5 per km2.
Income GDP, 1975: K 1,584 million; 1982: K 3,564 million.
Exports: copper (88%), agriculture (1%).
Resources Mining (31%); agriculture (100%o).
Elevation 1,000-1,300 in.
Rain fall North: 1,000-1,400 mm; south and east: 600-1,100 nn.
Climate Tropical. November-April: warm, wet season, long rains.
Between 1981 and 1984, the Adaptive Research Planning Team (ARPT), May-August: cool, dry winter season (14' to 30 C).
located in the Central Province of Zambia, undertook a number of diag- September-October: hot, dry season.
nostic surveys in order to understand local farming systems and deter- October: short rains.
mine promising agricultural research opportunities. As the time came to Vegetation Woodland savannah.
plan the next season's activities, the team members reviewed what they Currency Kwacha (K). 2.5K U.S. $1 (1984).
knew about the Zambian government's objectives, the characteristics of CENTRAL PROVINCE-MKUStll DISTRICT
the local farming systems, and the farmers' views. Popuation Density: 3 per km2.
Elevation: 1,000-1,200 m.
Rainfall: 800-1,000 mm; predominantly November to April.
Soils: Generally sandy (Sandveldt) soils; pockets of heavier textured
COUNTRY BACKGROUND soils, dambos.
Zambia became an independent country on 24 October 1964. It is a landlocked country, lying on the Great Central African Plateau. It has a tropical climate and vegetation, with three distinct seasons. Like most have a very small share of the jobs in the formal sector; only 8 percent of
part., of Africa, Zambia has experienced unreliable rainfall conditions all employees in 1980 were females. However, in rural areas, women prosince 1978, characterized by late arrival of rain, a short rainfall season, vide on average 60 percent of the agricultural labor.
and inadequate rainfall. Such conditions particularly hurt small farmers According to a 1980 International Labor Organization (ILO) estimate
who depend almost entirely on rains for growing their crops. Small farm- of basic needs income, about 60 percent of Zambia's households were
ers account for most of the maize production, and their drop in produc- considered to have incomes below a basic needs level; of this, 85 percent
tion, therefore, could not be easily absorbed: It led to drastic food short- were estimated to be living in rural areas. Health services in Zambia are
ages, especially for the urban population, and also a drop in the income provided by the government. In 1980 only 15 percent of the total populaof small farmers. tion was outside twelve kilometers' reach of a health institution.
The marketed agricultural production is produced by large-scale Primary schooling has long been compulsory for girls and boys, and
commercial and small-scale commercial and subsistence farmers. The con- women have been particularly encouraged to participate in adult literacy
tribution to marketed maize production (the main staple and cash crop) classes. Girls constituted 30 percent of secondary entrants and 15 percent
by small-scale farmers was 46 percent in 1973. It rose to a peak of 70 per- of university students. The school year runs from mid-January to midvent in the 1976 season, and then declined to 60 percent and 46 percent May, mid-June to mid-August, and mid-September to the beginning of
in 1980 and 1981, respectively. December.
Zambia is the third-most urbanized country in Africa after Algeria and Zambia is characterized by a diversity of cultures and tribal customs,
South Africa. The rural population is sparsely located in scattered settle- with seventy-three tribal languages. Thus there are variations in the genments. The normal pattern of rural habitation is in small settlements and der division of labor, particularly between districts and ecological zones.
hamlets without any large well-nucleated villages. The uneven population Division of labor depends on family structure, traditional and tribal cusdistribution creates serious problems in providing social services. Women toms, as well as the occupation of the household members.




PROJECT BACKGROUND In 1980, MAWD responded favorably to a request by the Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (CIMMYT) East and SouthAgricultural Institutions ern African economics program to demonstrate a set of procedures which
could improve the research program. CIMMYT's demonstration was part
Prior to the 1980s, the organizational structure of the Ministry of of a larger effort to engage in and introduce on-farm research (OFR) to
Agriculture and Water )evelopment (MAWD) in Zambia was characterized the region.1 CIMMYT undertook zoning and problem identification stages
by a top-down flow of information. Both research and extension services in Central Province. Following these demonstrations, MAWD decided to
were provided by the Department of Agriculture. However, each branch reorganize research so that commodity research teams would have a nahad its own substructure which operated independently. tional focus, and farming systems research and extension (FSR/E) an area
Until 1982, research was coordinated from the central research station focus.'This led to the formation of a new adaptive research planning team
Mt. Makulu in Lusaka :nd wa: arried out by the regional research sta- (ARPT) in each province, consisting of at least an economist and an tions and substations. The research was conducted by scientists working agronomist. A research extension liaison officer was assigned to each
on multidisciplinary commodity research teams, with agricultural assis- team. Their explicit objective was to work with subsistence and smalltants in the extension service. The commodities included cereals, tubers, scale commercial farmers in order to increase productivity and improve and oil seeds. There were 230 senior agricultural assistants and 604 agri- family welfare. An ARPT has been established in each of Zambia's nine cultural assistants in the extension service. Of the senior agricultural assis- provinces, each supported by a different donor(s). Since 1981, the United tants, 18 were women, and of the agricultural assistants, 23 were women. States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been working
The agricultural assistants introduced new technologies and information with CIMMYT and MAWD in Central Province.
primarily by selected on-farm demonstrations. The ARPT brought together social and natural scientists who examined
In 1981 the input supply and crop-monitoring functions were shifted the different farming systems in order to plan and undertake adaptive refrom the parastatal National Agricultural Marketing Board (NAMBOARD) search programs. The overall objective of the ARPT was to produce recomto the Central Province Cooperative Marketing Union (CPCMU). It was re- mendations relevant to the needs of Zambia's subsistence and small-scale
sponsible for the distribution and sale of inputs and the purchase of agri- commercial producers in the hope of improving the farmers' output and cultural produce at government-controlled prices. The Agricultural Fi- welfare. The ARPT used the following strategy to reach these objectives:
nance Company (AFC), a quasi-government company, was the major
source of credit for small farmers. 1. Collect information on the different farming systems in Zambia
which would be used to formulate relevant adaptive and applied
Formation of ARPT research programs.
In the 1970s a series of government and external evaluations found that the 2. Undertake adaptive research especially on farmers' fields.
research structure had problems producing recommendations which could 3. Improve the link between research and extension staff, through
be rapidly adopted by the majority of Zambia's subsistence and small-scale the program of on-farm trials.
commerical farmers. Realizing that almost 80 percent of the county's maize
production (which was the principal food and cash crop) was from small- 4. Make information available to relevant institutions, that is, those
scale commercial and traditional, or subsistence, farmers, MAWD officials dealing with extension, input supply, credit, marketing, etc., and
sought ways to make research of more relevance to small farmers. One assist them in preparing projects which would remove particular
strategy was to develop a standard unit of land measurement of appropriate institutional and infrastructural problems facing farmers in different
size for small farmers and make recommendations according to that unit. recommendation domains.
This led to the establishment of LIMA recommendations. A LIMA is approxiniately one-quarter of a hectare (seventy steps by seventy steps), and the The ARPT worked closely with the commodity research teams and
tern lina means "to cultivate" in most of the languages spoken in Zambia. the extension branch. Within this structure, the ARPT supplemented bioFertilizer, planting density, and other recommendations were developed per logical parameters used by the commodity research teams with socioeccLIMA for each province. The weakness of the program was that provincial nomic data to help shape the content of the applied research. The nawide recommendations still were not appropriate for all small farmers. tional FSR/E elfort was coordinated by an ARPT leader in L.usaka, who




also maintained formal linkages with the extension branch and planning census shows that 24 percent of households in Mkushi District are female
divisions within MAWD. CIMMYT had influenced the form and structure headed. This is because their husbands have migrated to urban areas for
of FSR/E in Zambia from conception through regional implementation, wage income. Others are widowed, divorced, or never married but have
and it continued to provide training assistance. children. There is little interaction between male heads of households and
female heads of households because of social disapproval of meetings beCentral Province tween married men and unmarried women.
The contribution of women to the economy comes through their
The location of tile Central Province in relation to the urban markets in work as small-scale farmers, as managers of their households, and as nonLusaka and the Copperbelt has given it a comparative advantage for corn- farm workers. Men do most of the heavy work of field preparation and
mercial agricultural production, and, in the last decade, commercialization in share responsibilities such as planting, hoeing, weeding, and harvesting. the small farm sector has accelerated. As a result, the Central Province ranks Female heads of household undertake the heavy work, hire labor, or get amopg the most agriculturally productive regions of the country in terms of help from male relatives or neighbors. The work load of women without the total volume of maize produced and marketed. Since the early seventies, husbands or with husbands or relatives away from home has increased a few farmers have adopted new crops, particularly cotton, sunflowers, and drastically, while their ability to feed their families adequately has been soybeans. The latter two crops have been encouraged by government exten- affected by the shortage of male labor. Poor women put in longer hours
sion efforts to provide new resources for cooking oil. In recent years, the than their wealthier counterparts since they cannot afford to hire labor. In National Oil Extraction Board has not been able to buy enough groundnuts household management, women undertake food processing and preparabecause of their popularity as a snack food. Research, input credit, extension tion, cooking, housekeeping, and child care, as well as collect fuel, water, and marketing services for cotton and soybeans are provided by the Lint and feed for domestic animals. This work time is shared with children.
Company of Zambia (L.INTCO). Although maize remained the dominant Children start going to school at seven years. School-going children
starch staple and cash crop in Zambia, the Central Province also had the play an important role in farming households. Upon returning from school,
largest acreage of sunflowers, beans, groundnuts, sorghum, and millet. usually about 1 P.M., children change from their school uniforms and, after a
The province has a low rural population density of about three persons snack, join their parents with ongoing activities. Girls will usually go to tile pcr square kilometer, plateau characteristics with a consistent altitude of one wells for water and clean the house and yards. Occasionally they will feed thousand meters above sea level, and a rainfall period from November to chickens and other domestic animals. They may grind mealie meal while
April, which has a long-term avernige of eight hundred to one thousand mil- cooking relish for dinner. During the agricultural season, after completing meters. Most ot the arc., ilmdtl cultivationn has a uniform topography with the household work, girls will join their parents in the field. During the dry sandy (Sandveldt) soils, which are highly acidic, deeply weathered, and of season they will visit friends. After their snack, boys will normally join their low fertility. The exceptions are small pockets of heavier textured soils and parents in the field or take over tending cattle from their fathers. Older boys low-lying drainage areas (dambos). Dambo areas generally are not cultivated also will have responsibility for helping their fathers maintain the fence in the wet season because of their high water table. They are used for dry around the kraals and for helping to construct family houses. and wet season grazing or are fenced for diy season vegetable gardens. Women and men are also engaged in nonfarm activities. Women are
In 1976 there were sixty-six extension camps or extension locations in active in small-scale trade of food commodities and other household Central Province ranging from farmer training centers to school demonstra- products. Over 90 percent of sellers in local markets are women. Men are tion centers. There were sixty-eight extension staff each covering an area more active in cash-crop production and sales, while women are involved of approximately 263 square miles and over one thousand households. in food crop markets. Markets are held frequently in larger villages, particularly after the harvest, and serve as intervillage exchanges. IJsually these
Mkushi District small businesses are self-financing.
In addition to their different labor roles, women and men have differIn the Mkushi District in Central Province, the predominant ethnic groups ent access to assets and income and different financial responsibilities. Each are the Lenge, the Swaka, and the Lamba. In recent years, a small number sex earns and controls income from different crops or activities. Women are
of migrants have moved in and are cultivating land allocated to them by frequently responsible for their own and their children's food and clothing.
village headmen. Most of the family households are headed by men, but Men's earnings frequently go toward the purchase of capital items, inputs
an increasing number of women are now heads of households; the 1969 and so on, and family expenses such as school fees for tile children.




Oxen, used primarily for draft power, are a recent introduction and Figure 9-2
are not part of the traditional social system. They are generally owned by Diagram of a Typical Village in Mkushi District
men, though some are owned by women. Men manage oxen for land preparation and other uses. Women who own oxen have their plowing ...................
done by male relatives or by hiring or exchange arrangements. Some .
farmers hire custom oxen or tractor operators for land preparation. I".". "
Land is readily available and is allocated by the village headmen.
People do not cultivate all the area allocated to them. Female-headed I. "'_,
households have access to land through the village headmen, and, once acquired, they can keep it for as long as they want. Generally, married E.AA A M I 'A
women who prefer to have their own fields acquire land through their % AAA'
husbands or relatives; this also applies to junior males and females. In A A A A
some instances, these assigned plots are part of the general rotation of / AqAAA AAE A
fields farmed by the household.
Inheritance is largely patrilineal. When the head of a household dies,
his or her relatives determine the inheritor, usually a son or nephew, who ".. AV
inherits the responsibility for caring for any dependents. The cultural view '"
is that husbands know what is best for the household.
The common dish in Mkushi District consists of nsbima accompanied by relish (a sidedish made with vegetables or meat). Nsbima is a thick porridge made from maize meal, sorghum meal, millet meal, or cassava .......
meal. The most preferred is made of white maize meal. The common relishes in Mkushi District are boiled beans, meat or chicken curry, and veg- Legend
etables. Groundnuts are used as a substitute for cooking oil in the preparation of vegetables. Nsbima is eaten during lunch and dinner. In Village headman's house Dambo gardens (dry season)
Independent households Cattle kraal
between meals, snacks such as roasted groundnuts, fruits, and roasted or A Housing for children and household dependents Water well (ca. 1.5 km from village)
boiled green maize are taken. Popular beverages are sorghum beer and j Backyard gardens for vegetables River or stream
tnunkoyo Munko)'o is nonalcoholic and is usually made from maize por- Main field for maize, sorghum, and millet 4 Dambo areas
ridge into which the munkoyo root is put, dissolving the porridge into Roads ....... Village boundary
lumps of porridge and liquid. The mixture is sieved and the liquid drunk. It is particularly popular during the cultivation season as it can be taken Notes
to the fields. During the food shortage times, nsbima is taken at dinner. 1. On the average, main fields are about 1.5 km from the village.
During the (lay families depend on snacks, usually roasted maize and 2. Each village has only one kraal for all the cattle in the village.
3. Water wells are located near the rivers although during the wet season
fruits such as mangoes, bananas, and papaya. A diagram of a typical vil- people may use another well close to the village.
lage in the Mkushi District is shown in Figure 9-2. 4. The village boundary is usually determined by the area tribal chief,
although the grazing grounds are communal for all the farmers in the area.
were supported by a rural sociologist and a nutritionist who functioned on ARPT ACTIVITIES a national level. Using a farming systems focus, the ARPT identified problems facing farmers and then concentrated on testing out possible technoThe multidisciplinary USAID and MAWD farming systems research and logical solutions on farmers' fields under the conditions faced by the farmextension team in the Central Province was composed of positions for an ers. The sequence of activities used by the ARPT to understand farmers'
agronomist, an agricultural econor-ist, and a research extension liaison of- problems and to determine acceptable recommendations is described in
licef, which were filled by cxpat. iates and Zambians. While agronomic Appendix 9-A. The three initial diagnostic activities were a zoning survey,
and economic disciplines formed the core of each provincial ARPT, these an informal survey, and a labor survey.




Zoning Survey
In October 1979, in order to identify different recommendation domains in the province, a CIMMYT team gathered information by interviewing E
field agricultural extension staff about agricultural activities in their areas. On the basis of this information, the different domains were delineated. A o :a 0 0
summary of the distinguishing characteristics of the six traditional recommendation domains (TRDs) as determined by the zoning survey is given in Table 9-1. ,
Of the differences that are apparent in Table 9-1, the most notable re- 2
flect the commercialization of agriculture in the farming systems. The -M 0.',
heavy demand for maize in urban areas, in conjunction with the availabil- X 3 A
ity of hybrid seed, fertilizer, and credit at the local level, has facilitated the shift from traditional starch staple crops to commercial production. The 0
ARPT determined that TRD2 was the poorest area, followed by TRD3. The ARPT initiated its research trials in TRD2 during the 1980/81 season, and "0
then proceeded to TRD3. a 0
TRD3 falls largely within Mkushi District and includes an estimated o4 >
eight thousand farm households. It had six NAMBOARD buying points serving some thirteen hundred farmers each. The zoning survey indicated the following distinctive features: 200
E- ~
1. A few farmers in four wards owned cattle, but limited ox-hire was E 0 0 u
reported in only three of these. The floe was the dominant method AV)
of land preparation and the cultivated area was consistently re- 0
ported as between one and two hectares.
2. Sorghum, the major starch staple, was the dominant crop in the"
domain. Finger millet was a secondary starch crop, mainly used for M "
beer. Most wards mentioned some use of maize. A variety of relish
crops was reported, but vegetables, particularly cabbage and rape, .o
dominated the western wards and gave way to pumpkin leaves, U
beans, and groundnuts in the east. Fish was often caught by the r.
farmers themselves, and chickens were also widely used. > >
3. Beer was predominant as a cash source, with temporary labor and E
charcoal also getting frequent mention. Cash sources were varied
and small. Maize was sold by a few farmers in three wards, and ( 0 C
local transactions of sorghum were prominent in three others. .C E S
'1. No hired labor was mentioned in any ward. Four wards reported 0. ".0U ,
uU
input purchases by a few farmers, almost exclusively seed and fer- 9 .
tilizers for growing vegetables. Li




informal Survey stationed in TRD3. The main purpose was to find out tile extent of thle
labor problems revealed in the informal survey. The survey was also exThe informal survey was conducted 12-21 October 1982. The purpose of pected to provide a better understanding of the gender roles. Thle number
thle informal survey was twofold. One objective was to make a sample of workers and areas planted to different crops for each of thle nine finisurvey of the areas to check the characterization of the TRD established in lies are given in Table 9-4. Three of the families owned trained and Uinthe zoning survey. The second objective was to gather information to de- trained oxen and one family owned two cows.
termine the farming systems in use and to help formulate on-farm research trials to overcome production problems. A total of twenty-four randomly selected farmers were interviewed by the ARPT staff in selected FINDINGS FROM THE DIAGNOSTIC ACTIVITIES
areas within TRD3. The survey work was aided by the close cooperation of the extension personnel in the areas surveyed. The informal survey in- Resources for Production
volved group meetings with the selected farmers who were informally asked a variety of questions ranging from agricultural production to social As mentioned earlier, access to land is unlimited. Land is either slashed
organization, including how information was transmitted within an area. and burned (cbitirnene)2 or stumped (completely cleared). The latter is
According to thle informal survey, the characteristics of the small-scale preferred for hybrid maize cultivation. However, cleared and Stumped
commercial farmer are as follows:
Main starch Laple Maize, millets, sorghum, and Table 9-2
cassava 1981/1982 Crop Production (N=24)
Main inputs purchased Fertilizer, seed, and pesticides
Main source of cash Deliberate production of cash- Number of Average hla Av'erage yield/ha
crop surplus for sale, and sale Farmers Cultivated (bags) (kg)
of livestock; some production Maize 21 2.2 11.6 1,044
of new cash crops (cotton, Sunflowers 5 1.2 4.3 215
sunflowers, etc.) Cotton 3 1.2 218
Power source I land and one or two pairs of Sorghum 2 1.2 11.0 990
oxen and oxen hire; possible Groundnuts 2 0.4 13.4 1,072
tractor hire Beans 1 0.8 7.3 657
Labor hired Family, communal, and casual Source: Informal Survey (1982).
Farm size 0.25-5 hectares
Table 9-2 summarizes the crop Production of farmers interviewed Table 9-3
during the informal survey; Table 9-3, sources of cash income in addition Sources of Income Other Than Crop Sales (N=24)
to crop sales. Farmers were reluctant to state how much of their production was sold or stored. Figure 9-3 shows thle pattern of food shortages re- Number of Number of
pomied by these farmers. Source Farmers Source Farmers
Selling beer 11 Selling groceries
Family remittances 7 Hiring out oxen
]Labor Use Survey Selling vegetables 3 Selling bananas
Selling chicken and eggs 2 Working as a blacksmith 1
A supplementary labor survey was undertaken from November 1982 to Selling fish 2 Working as a painter 1
October 1983. A detailed questionnaire was administered to ten house- Baking buns 2 Selling rnunkolu
Working on other farms 2 Operating a grinding mill I
holds in TRI)3 on a daily basis. Thle analysis of the nine completed stir- Selling livestock I Making bricks
veys was finished in 1984. Thle survey was supervised by an ARPT Selling charcoal I _______________economist, while the questionnaires were administered by an enumerator Source: Informal survey (1982). -




FIgure 9-3 05
Pattern of Food Shortages, TRD3 o a o
10ca
9 --- 1 I l l l l I I 8
8 0 d
Number of 7
I louseholds 6Reporting 0 0
Food 5- o a o a
Shortages 4- 0 0_3
2- I I
o 0.0-0. 0. 0.C5
0-- +
I uc66 cooo0 a
Oct Nov Dec Jan Mar Apr May
land is limited. This is because stumping is labor intensive and is mostly performed by male labor during February, March, and April. Cultivated areas.usually consist of one or two major blocks of land with small sub- o o 0
sidiary plots for groundnuts, beans, sweet potatoes, and other vegetables. 2
V
The purchase of hybrid maize seed (SR52 and ZH1) is common; a U
limited amount of vegetable and sunflower hybrid seed is also purchased. "0 IIII
Fertilizer is commonly purchased and used. Recommendations for maize 0 o 0
call for two applications: a basal application at planting and a top dressing when plants are about fifty centimeters tall, after about six weeks' V
growth. Because most farmers are not knowledgeable about pesticides 6 c o a 0 o
and because pesticides are not readily available, their use is limited to very few farmers. The pesticides used are Gamatox for termites, DDT and .o
Sevin for aphids, and Solbur and Endosulfan for cotton insects. U g IIg
o; C
Oxen and tractor hiring constitute the major source of draft power. R 0
Farmers without oxen have access to them once the oxen owners finish E
plowing their land. Almost all the plowing is done by men with teams of = I 1'A 'r I I N roxen, usually a pair of oxen. If the plowing is done by a female farmer's 0 O,
rclaiives, she usually will pay t1,em !-ack in the form of exchange labor. 0
however, most female-headcd hou:seholds depend on hired labor for N AO, i4 i o
plowing, and in such cases payment is usually in the form of cash. Ox- oo
hire is also used for transporting crops from fields to market. 0
The bulk of the labor force is provided by household members, sup- \ f 00 r o o o
r, en o\ rl a\ to en 3 onplcmiented by hired labor during peak labor periods. Payment for hired E o , J i ,o4 V
labor takes the form of cash, mealie meal, exchange labor, beer, or access to oxen. Most communal labor hiring is for labor-intensive activities, D
U
weeding and harvesting, and occasionally for land preparation. A typical In ,4
communal labor day is concluded with a beer party and food festivities. People attend the work parties for several reasons-they enjoy a party : 3.
and they anticipate their own need for extra labor. A farmer is expected -z"0 o roa <1. o -




to attend communal workdays if called upon by a farmer who attended Labor Use and Time Alocatlon for Major Crops
his or her workday. Communal labor hiring is appropriately viewed as a
kind of communal self-help scheme for neighboring villages as opposed Family labor constitutes the major source of labor for farm operations. In
to kinship groups, as people are not necessarily related to one another, peak labor-demand periods this is supplemented by hired labor. Based on
Crop Hlusbandry and Uses a seven-hour day, male adults devote 75 percent of their time to farm operations while the other 25 percent is split up between nonfarm activities
Farmers prefer to eat the traditional maize that is mostly grown by and resting. Adult females divide their time between farm operations and
women in small plots near their houses or in dambos. The traditional house chores such as cooking, fetching water, fetching fuelwood, and atmaize is usually eaten green. Most farmers also grow a hybrid SR52, tending to children. Adult females have very little time to rest during the
which has been pushed by the local seed companies. Much of this is sold, growing season. School-going children devote only 15 percent of their
but some is stored for food. NAMBOARD will only accept hybrid maize time to farm operations; most of the time they attend lessons at school.
because of the inconsistencies in- color of the traditional variety. Farmers From August to October very little goes on; males spend this time relaxsay the hybrid is less sweet when eaten green, but indistinguishable when ing, drinking beer, and. socializing. However, females still devote almost
made into nsbina. The recommended planting period for SR52 is Novem- 50 percent of their time attending to house chores. Fetching water takes
ber 15 to December 15, after which it will have a poor start, up most of their time because most of the nearby wells are dry during
Land preparation for all crops starts in September, just before the this period. Cattle herding is mostly done by male children, while fernale
short, early rains in October, and continues through the end of December. children assist their mothers in house chores.
The surveys showed that some farmers go on planting cereal crops up to
mid-January. The common method of planting maize is dribbling behind Maize cultivation. Maize is often grown on new land, and land
the plow. The spacing for maize is usually seventy-five centimeters be- preparation begins in September. The traditional maize grown in small
tween rows and twenty-five centimeters between hills with an average of plots is planted at the short, early rains in October and is harvested, to eat
two seeds per hill. Sorghum, sunflower, and finger millet are commonly green, during January and February. Hybrid maize planting begins in
broadcast. Other crops such as groundnuts, pumpkins, beans, and so on, November. Over one-third of the farmers reported using second generaAre usually planted in hills on tilled land. tion maize seed, which they selected from the previous generation of hyFor maize and sorghum harvesting begins with stooking, the stacking brid seed. Research indicated this practice resulted in a 30 percent deof sheaves of grain in the field. The cobs or grain heads are later broken crease in yields.
off by hand. Maize is usually stored in bins or sacks. Sorghum and millet Basal fertilizer application is begun in December after full emerare stored almost exclusively in bins, while other crops are stored exclu- gence. The second fertilizer application is made sometime between Jansively in sacks. Crop residues are either burnt, incorporated into the soil, uary and April. Fertilizer application rates in 1982/83 and 1983/84 were
or used as cattle feed. Farmers were reluctant to reveal how much of their 135 kilograms per hectare for basal fertilizer and 140 kilograms per
lI~oddction was stored and how much was sold. When asked how they hectare for top dressing, down from what was reported in 1981 when the
decided how much to store, men responded, "Mother made a decision price of fertilizer was lower. Most farmers reported applying the same rate
and I sold what was left over." of fertilizer to late-planted maize; others applied greater amounts.
Farmers generally weed once, beginning in December and continuInstitutional Problems ing through January and February. Some weeding goes on through April.
A few farmers use pesticides to combat stalkborers and termites, the domFarmers were interviewed about the services provided by agricultural infant pests.
institutions. They stated that access to credit from the AFC was limited Stooking and harvesting hybrid maize begins in May and extends
and very unreliable. Small-scale farmers, who marketed their products to through July. After the maize is shelled and packed, it is transported to
the provincial cooperative and marketing union, said payment was usu- market, some still being sold in September. During the peak labor period,
ally delayed. The inputs supplied by the cooperative were also customar- December and January, farmers are forced to forgo optimal maize manily late. Further, local extension agents have very limited contact with agement (such as early planting and timely weeding) in order to cultivate
farmers; new technology is introduced through selected on-farm demon- other crops. Late planting, however, also results from the lack of draft
strations, which few female farmers attend.
power. Farmers who depend on hired draft power, the majority of whom




are female heads of households, are forced into a situation where they It was observed during the survey that sorghum husbandry is very
have to plant late because the common planting practice is dribbling the poor due to labor constraints. The calendar time for sorghum weeding is
seed behind the plough, the same as that for maize, which is considered a priority crop. In addiFamily labor is almost equally distributed for land preparation (after tion, broadcast method results in random growth so that it is more diffistumping), but planting and fertilizer applications are mostly carried out by cult to weed. Sorghum is weeded two or three times. Sorghum is often
children. Stooking is mostly a job for the husband or wife, while men planted on waste fields without any fertilizer applications. The seed rate
mainly transport the produce from the field. Each family member con- ranges from six to twenty-two kilograms 'per hectare, though the LIMA
tributes almost equally toward the total labor distribution for maize, with a recommendation is for three kilograms per hectare. Farmers select their
slightly higher contribution from the head of the household (see Table 9-5). seed based on the size of the panicle.
Sorghum grows eight to nine feet tall. As the grain matures, bird scar2orghum cultivation. ;,.o1um is the second major cash and staple ing is necessary fr6m February (just before cutting and stacking the
crop, grown by 67 percent of the farmers. Its primary use is for beer sorghum in the fields) through May (when the last of the grain heads are
brewing, though some of it is used for cooking nsbima (porridge). A cut from the dried stalks). Because bird damage contributes to low
ninety-kilogram bag of sorghum will produce beer which sells for K 100. sorghum yields, women spend almost twelve hours per day in the fields
Sorghum is mostly grown by women, and the revenues realized from the scaring away birds. This activity, according to the labor survey, accounts
sale of sorghum beer usually are controlled by them. Married women, for well over 52 percent of the total labor expended in growing sorghum.
however, may consult with their husbands. During this period, women move to the fields for the day and use
Planting and preparing land for sorghum take place at the same time. temporary shelters. The women's activities away from home include
Women broadcast the seed while men plow behind them with a team of grinding maize and sorghum, preparing meals, washing clothes, and makoxen. This takes place from mid-November to early December. Four to ing baskets. In an effort to help their mothers, children sometimes miss
five weeks after germination, when the plants are just slightly below classes at school.
knee-high, women thin out some plants and transplant them into parts of To make beer, sorghum seed is germinated and then fermented for
the field where the density is low; this ensures an even stand. The labor two or three days. Then it is dried and pounded into flour and made into
requirement for planting, therefore, is a summation of the labor for broad- a light porridge which is fermented for five to seven days. The light porcasting and for transplanting, ridge is combined with a freshly made thick porridge of maize and
sorghum and left overnight for further fermentation. The following day it
Table 9-5 is sieved so that a thin liquid remains. After another night of fermentation,
Division of Labor for Hybrid Maize Cultivation (N=9) the brew is ready for drinking. Local laws allow beer selling only on Fridays and Saturdays.
I lusband Wife Children I lired Labor Total
hr/ha % f hr/ha % hr/ha % hr/ha % hr/ha % Finger millet cultivation. Finger millet is grown primarily by
Prep. land 25 33 24 32 26 34 75 10 women. In December and January the seed is broadcast on fiat land and
Plant 26 25 25 24 53 51 104 14 then raked in. Land is not tilled in the conventional manner. Planting and
Fertilize 10 23 11 26 21 51 42 6 raking appear in this report as planting. This activity takes ip 25 percent
Weed 70 30 51 22 87 37 28 12 236 32 of the total labor used for finger millet. Since it is grown on new land,
Stook 23 56 17 42 1 2 41 6
Ilarvest 31 28 27 24 31 28 23 21 112 15 weed infestation is minimal; hence, finger millet is not normally weeded.
Transport Bird scaring (April) and harvesting (May and June) take up most of the
from field 39 84 2 4 2 4 4 8 47 7 labor expended on finger millet (71 percent). Finger millet is mostly used
Thresh and for beer brewing and for cooking nsbima.
pack 18 24 24 32 32 44 74 10
Total 242 33 181 25 221 30 87 12 731 100 Relish crops. Groundnuts, sweet potatoes, and beans (bush beans)
.urte. AItl Lalor Survey (1982/83). are the primary relish crops. Sweet potatoes are mostly grown for home
Note, Ilours per hectare were calculated at the same rate for women, men, and children.
Percents under Husband, Wife, Children and Hired Labor read across (totalling 100 percent); consumption as snacks and also for sale; the leaves of sweet potatoes are percents under Total read down. used as a vegetable, fresh or dry. Pumpkin leaves, too, are used as a veg-




etable, while the pumpkin itself is consumed as a snack, usually in be- STUDY QUESTIONS
tween meals. Groundnuts are a very important relish crop. Dry nuts are 1. Why were the ARPTs created and what are their overall objectives?
ground into flour and are traditionally a woman's crop. They are added to vegetables as an alternative to cooking oil, which is difficult to acquire in 2. What were the objectives of the ARPT activities in TR3?
rural areas. Fresh nuts are boiled and eaten as snacks or are roasted if 3. What are the activities of men and women in agricultural housedry; surpluses are sold for cash. Mt. Makulu Red is the favored nut variety holds and when are they dlone throughout the year?
for cash cropping. Though the price for groundnuts is high on the world market, tile government price is low. Most groundnuts sold are sold pri- 4. What are the resources of men and women and what benefits do
vately though local markets. A persistent problem with groundnuts is they derive from their productive activities? From other activities?
pops" (empty shells). Pops is usually associated with highly acid soils 5. What are the primary constraints facing farmers in TRD3 and what
and the lack of calcium. are their causes?
Rplish crops are usually grown by women in small backyard gardens
or near main fields or in the dambos. Land preparation is the women's re- 6. For two of these problem areas, suggest solutions which might be
sponsibility for these plots. The average size of fields for these crops is tested and criteria for evaluating such tests.
0.07 hectares, with a range of 0.05 to 0.09 hectares. Most operations are 7. Design an on-farm trial based on one of the solutions proposed.
done with a hoe, and most labor used on these crops is expended on (optional)
ridging and weeding. Harvesting groundnuts and sweet potatoes also tends to take up a lot of time. The harvest of dry groundnuts is in two stages: the plants are lifted upside down so that the nuts can dry and the NOTES
nuts are hand-harvested a week or so later. Fresh nuts are dug directly from the ground. Groundnuts are planted from October through January. I. In 1980, when CIMMYT proposed to demonstrate these procedures in Zambia,
farming systems research and extension (FSR/E), as it is known today, was just
The harvest of the first plantings begins in February and continues being recognized. There was great diversity in terminology and procedures among
through June. Groundnuts are stored in August. Sweet potatoes and other the many early practitioners. The CIMMYT economics program operating out of
relish crops are planted January through March. Some cabbage and rape Nairobi, Kenya, was conducting what it called on-farm research. Most of cIMMYr's
on-farm research at this time focused on maize, one of the key commodities of tie
are planted in May. organization headquartered in Mexico. In Zambia, FSI/E was initially called on-l'arm
Beans are grovn by women i i pure stands or are intercropped with research or adaptive research, but by the mid-1980s, the term FSI/E was gaining ac,-e; female-controlled relish crol.s such as pumpkins and groundnuts. ceptance. In this case, the generic term FSR/E is used for consistency among the
Beans are in great demand bringing as much as K 100 for a fifty-pound different case studies in the volume.
bag on the informal market. Tie local varieties of beans produce a mixed 2. "Chitimene" is slash-and-burn shifting cultivation. All growth is cut down and kIe
field burned before cultivation. After the fertility of a field drops, a new field is
crop when sown. White or sugar beans are kept for home consumption; opened by the same method.
red beans are sold in town. Beans have several plantings throughout the rainy season, the first in December. Successive plantings are harvested from April through July. REFERENCES
The hours of labor required for different activities for different crops Adaptive Research Planning Team. 1982. Report of an Informal Survey of Farmers in
Traditional Recommendation Domain #3 of the Mkushi District, Central Province.
per hectare and per average area planted are indicated in Tables 9-6 and Kabwe, Zambia.
9-7. Appendix 9-li provides information on the prices, costs, and standards used by the ARPT in the economic analysis of on-farm trials. After 1983. Final Report of the Formal Survey in Traditional Recommendation' Domain *5
reviewing these surveys, the ARPT team worked to characterize the farm- of Kabwe Rural District, Central Province. Kabwe, Zambia.
ing system, to identify the major constraints and opportunities, and to 1984. Central Province ARPT Annual Report, I July 1983 to 30 June 1984. Kabwe,
plan its research activities for TRD3 for the coming season. Zambia.
1985. Central Province ARIi Annual Report, I July 1984 to 30 June 1985. Kahwe,
Zambia.
n.d. Central Province Trial Progiam: 1984./5 Crop Cycle.




Table 9-6
Crop Labor Activities in Person Hours Per Hectare (N=9)
Prep. Thresh Scare
Landa Plant Fertilize Weed Stook Harvest Transp.b and Pack Birds Shell Total
Hybrid maize 75 104 42 236 41 112 47 74 731
Sorgh...... 60 98 361 701 17 1,345 2,582
(1,237)c
Finger millet 147 19 397 563
Beans 184 499 888 358 433 2,363
Sweet potatoes 851 665 421 1,938
Groundnuts 113 1,600 963 2,676
Source ARPT Labor Survey (1982/83)
ThMe labor requirement for land preparation is an average between ox and hand cultivation. Transportation of produce from fields and, in a few cases, to marketing depot. CNumber in parentheses is total labor requirement less bird scaring.
Table 9-7
Crop Labor Activities in Person Hours Per Average Area Planted (N-9)a
Crop per Prep. Thresh Scare
Avg. Size Landa Plant Fertilize Weed Stook Harvest Transp. b and Pack Birds Shell Total
Hybrid maize 92b 127 51 288 50 137 57 90 892
(1.22 ha)
Sorghum 47 76 282 547 13 1,049 2,014
(0.78 ha) (965)d
Finger millet 19 3 52 74
(0.13 ha)
Beans 11 30 53 22 26 142
(0.06 ha)
Sweet potatoes 43 33 21 97
(0.05 ha)
Groundnuts 9 128 77 214
(0.08 ha)
Source: ARPT Labor Survey (1982/83)
aAreas from Table 9-4.
Rhe labor requirement for land preparation is an average between ox and hand cultivation. cTransponrtation of produce from fields and. in a few cases, to marketing depot. ''Number in parentheses is total labor requirement less bird scaring.




- n.d. Central Province Trial program : 1985/86 Crop Cycle.
Burlisher, Mary E., and Nadine R. Horenswein. 1985. Sex Roles in the Nigerian Tiv Farm Appendix 9-A: Activities for Understanding
Household Women's Roles and Gender Differences in Development: Cases for Planners, no. 2. West Hartford, Conn.: KuImarian Press. Farmers' Problems in Order to Produce
Central Statistics Office. 1984. Zambia Country Profile, 1984. Lusaka, Zambia. Acceptable Recommendations
Chambers, Robert. 1980. Rapid Rural Appraisal: Rationale and Reperloire. IDS Discussion Activity Objective Participants Duration
Paper 155. Brighton, U.K.: Institute of Development Studies.
Collinson, Michael P. 1979. l)emonstrations of an Interdisciplinary Approach to Planning Zoning Group farmers by their ARPT staff interview 3-6 months
Adaptive Research Programmes. Report no. 4. Deriving Recommendation Domains for farming activities into extension workers and
the Central Province, Zambia. Ministry of Agriculture and Water Development in asso- different farming systems. community leaders
ciation with CIMMYT, East African Economics Programme. Survey Study the constraints of each ARPT staff interview 3-9 months
farming system to farmers using extension
Eling, Martin. 1981. Rapid Rural Appraisal as a Tool for Project Identification. Experience understand the farmers' workers as enumerators
with the Rapid Rural Appraisal Method in Mkushi District, Central Province, Zambia. problems and identify
Paper prepared for the United Nations Development Programme and the Food and potential for development.
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Kabwe, Zambia. Research Formulate a program of ARPT staff with com- 2-3 months
Harms, A. G. 1982. Development of the Farming System in Western Part of Mkushi District: priorities applied and adaptive modify and specialist
Results and Prognosis from the Informal Survey. A Discussion Paper. Kabwe, Zambia: research which aims to research team staff plus
Adaptive Research Planning Team. solve the most important provincial ARPT
technological problems committee members
.1983. "Are Small Scale Farmers Getting a Fair Share of Fertilizer?" A )iscussion identified in the farming
Paper. Kabwe, Zambia: Adaptive Research Planning Team. system.
On-farm Test, and, if necessary, ARPT staff with the trial 2+ years
Iludgens, Robert E. 1984. Subregional Issues in the Implementation of Farming Systems Re- trials modify the possible research assistant provided from
search and Extension Methodology, A Case Study in Zambia. Paper presented at the solutions on farmers' fields extension branch
198.4 Farming Systems Research Symposium. Manhattan, Kansas: Kansas State University. under realistic conditions
until acceptable solutions
1988. A )iagnostic Survey of Female Headed Households in the Central Province of are found. The trials are
Zambia. In Gender Issues in Farming Systems Research and Extension, edited by Susan conducted on 3-10 farms
V. Poats, Marianne Schmink, and Anita Spring. Boulder: Westview Press. within the target area.
International Labour Organization Office (11.O). 1981. Basic Needs in an Economy Under Pres- On-farm information about Research extension liaison 1-2 years
sure. ILO/JASPA Basic Needs Mission to Zambia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: ILO/JASPA. tests technological components officer with camp level
or packages which are extension workers
Kaplan, I. ed. 1979. Zambia. A County Study. Washington, D.C.: American University. successful in on-farm trials
are extended by various
Kean, S. A., and W. M. Chibasa. 1982. Institutionalizing Farming Systems Research in Zam- means, on-farm tests/
bia. Discussion Paper. Lusaka, Zambia: Ministry of Agriculture and Water Develop- demonstrations, still within
bent. the target area. The level of
adoption is monitored.
Overholt, Catherine, Mary B. Anderson, Kathleen Cloud, and James E. Austin, eds. 1985. Recommen- Technological components ARPT staff, CSRT staff, and
Gender Roles in Development lrofmycts: A Case Book. West Hartford, Conn.: Kumarian dation or packages which are provincial ARP3T
Press. release adopted by the majority of committee members
, the farmers within the target
bhanner, D. F. ihilip, and Lin t82. e Farming Systems ResearcW aed Lkvlop area are released and
nment, Gaidhelinesfiwr Detiloping Countries. Boulder: Westview Press. extended to farmers
Tripp, R. n.d. Data Collection, Site Selection, and Farmer Participation in On-Farm Expert- throughout the farming
mentation. CIMMYT Economtics Programme Working Paper 8214. system.
Source: ARIP" Annual Report (1984/84).




Appendix 9-B, continued
Appendix 9-B: Prices, Costs, and .rice/Quantity0 PD/hab
Standards in Mkushi District Labor requirement standards
Land preparation with oxen II
Planting maize (separate operation) 15
Price/Quantitya Planting maize (behind plow) 3
Weeding maize with hoe 34
Fertilizers Harvesting maize 16
Urea (46%N) 26.75/50 kg Stooking maize 6
TSP (44% P O) 28.45/50 kg Shelling maize 11
KCL (60% K) 23.75/50 kg Fertilizer application
"X" compound (20-10-5-10) 26.75/50 kg Basal on surface 6
'D" compound (10-20-10-i0) 26.75/50 kg Basal at root level 8
limestone 5.80/100 kg Top dressing (covered) 8
Transport cost 1.00/bag Top dressing (uncovered) 6
Seeds Basal broadcast 6
SR52 maize seed 76.00/50 kg; K 17.10/10 kg Lime application 6
MN752 maize seed 86.00/50 kg; K 19.10/10 kg Insecticide application
ZSV-1 sorghum seed 42.61/50 kg; K 10.25/10 kg Spraying liquid
CCA75 sunflower seed 47.60/50 kg; K 11.25/5 kg Banding granules 6
Carioca bean seed 5.00/kg (est.) D)epreciation on knapsack sprayer 14.50/ha
Local bean seed 2.00/kg Opportunity cost of labor
I herbicides During maize planting 7.50/P1)
Gramoxone (5 I) 12.65/1 Ordinary labor 1.50/PD)
Primagram (5 I) 23.50/1 Output prices
Gesapriin (5 I) 12.10/1 Maize 23.32/90 kg
Roundup (5 1) 53.90/I Sunflower 27.88/50 kg
Custom rates Sorghum 26.90/90 kg
Land preparation by hired oxen 67.25/ha Edible beans 1.50/kg
Land preparation by hired tractor 75.00/ha Groundnuts 33.64/80 kg
Transport to or from depot 5.00/trip
prices in kwacha.
ContinuedI on rtv page bone person-day (PD) is coal to seven person-hours.




Persp ectives on
FARMING SYSTEMS
RESEARCH
and
EXTENSION
Edited by Peter E. Hildebrand
Lynne Rienner Publishers* Boulder, Colorado




CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED SYSTEMS Robert E. McDowell and Peter E. H-ildebrand
The objective of this section is to direct attention to various levels of integration of crops and animals and portray the infrastructural dependence, within selected systems. Eleven systems are identified for Asia, Latin America, and Africa, and
each system is discussed in terms of some of the physical constraints of the region, e.g., climate, soils, elevation, crops and cropping systems, the role of animals, and the panel's assessment of the prospects for expansion of benefits derived from animals.
A standard format was used for ease in comparisons. The box identified as "Market," represents all off-farm activities and resources (except land); hence it includes products sold or labor going off the farm as well as purchased inputs and household items. The "household" is the core of the farm unit. in preparing the models of the systems, labor use, sources of human food, household income, animal feed, and the roles of animals. were the main focus. The solid arrows depictt strong flows or linkages (e.g., more than 20 percent of total income arises from the sales of crops, animals, or household-processed products). Broken arrows (- -)I are used when sales of crops or animals contributed less than 20 percent of household income, the interchange among functions was intermittent, or there was no routine pattern identifiable (Figure 2.3). Family labor applied
on the farm was identified, but off-farm employment or the amount of hired labor was not quantified except generally and is indicated by broken or solid arrows.
For most products there is a iir,,ci. relation to market. absent in cases where little is .old or when the household changes the characteristics of the product before sale (e.g., wool to yarn, milk to cheese, or manure to dung cakes) Household modification is shown by solid arrows from crop or animal products to household to market. Even though all crops require some processing, a distinction was made only when the
household modified or changed an already marketable product.
Fuel is extremely important on small farms. Gathering of wood or other materials often constitutes a significant expenditure of labor, or may represent an important source of income. in each system, the major fuel sources are identified.
The models presented are by no mans all-inclusive. Hundreds of models would be needed to characterize all small-farm systems. However, through am appreciation of the "interaction effects," the rationale of the "whole system" on small farms can be better understood and serve to explain why a single phase of technology, such a new variety of maize, may be rejected by small
farmers.
CROPS/ANIMAL SYSTE14S IN ASIA
Swidden System
The swidden system (Figure 2.3) is employed on 30 to 40 percent of all land in tropical Asia (H-arwood and Price 1976). It




I MARKET celebrate cultural/religious events (De Boer and Veisblat 1978).
A The soils are generally marginal in fertility and on moderate to
I I steep slopes; thereby serious problems often arise with erosion.
Wildlife from forest fallow areas often prey on crops or even on fuel the small animals.
The system has several assets. The usually low population
cons. mt. HUSEOLDpressures permit long-term fallow. Diversified cropping is
already widely practiced; therefore, soil conservation procedures laborr should be acceptable. The constant shortage of labor slows
foo expansion of cultivation and thereby risks of erosion. on the
ritua foodother hand, the system has se ious liabilities, such as po~r
cons mataccess to markets and inadequate power for tillage or transport.
cons. ma. riualIncreasing land pressure due to population growth and expansion
of permanent ranching and timber harvest are causing the fallow COSANIMALS system to break down in many areas (Harwood 1978).
feed The opportunities for positive change are good. Returns
cmlxswine from crops and environmental stability could be improved through
mitrspoultry the use of perennial crops, bunded paddies, terraces, and planned
goats grazing areas in order that buffalo or cattle could be in-----sheep corporated into the system. Use of large ruminants would improve
the opportunity to accumulate capital. These changes would require development of technology and guidance. To achieve these fertility ofamfeed steps will necessitate a shift in attitude on the part of
policymakers, most of whom see the swidden system as it is now wild-animal offamflo(lnte) practiced as wasteful and making little contribution to agrirpedationm alo logtem cultural production.
Humid-upland System
The upland system (Figure 2.4) is widespread over the humid
tropics of Asia. There are well-developed farmsteads with
permanent, cleared fields but with no bunding and no irrigation. Figure 2.3. Swidden farming system in Asiarshifting agriculture The major crops are rice, maize, cassava, wheat, kenaf, sorghum,
low integration of crops and animals (animals free- and beans. Most households have small numbers of several species
roving or tethered) of animals, with swine and poultry dominating. Following these
in popularity are cattle and buffalo. Sheep and goat numbers are normally low. Where tall-growing crops (maize and sorghum) are centers around dispersed settlements employing slash-and-burn cultivated, cattle are kept to utilize crop residues. In rice
technology. A family or household cultivates approximately 2 areas buffalo predominate. Frequently, one or two buffalo or
hectares per year using manual labor, The main implements are cattle are kept for use in land preparation and to provide
hoe and dibble stick. Plant residues are usually left in the transport for crops, crop residues, and to some extent members of
fields for mulch. Each family has pigs and chickens without the family. Swine are tethered or penned, and cattle or buffalo
controlled management (scavengers); thus there is no systematic are tethered at night in order that manures can be collected and
recycling of nutrients, although some manure may be retrieved for to avoid theft. The manures are frequently composted with crop
certain crops around the household. After two to four years of residues. Poultry are usually free-roving.
cropping, there follows an extended fallow period. There is Fuel is not yet a severe problen in many of the humid-upland
little animal/crop competition since the fields are ordinarily systems but is becoming increasingly so as more and more forests
several hundred meters or more from the village. Fuel is a are cleared.
relatively minor problem in this system because of low population The farm infrastructure' is variable, developed for some
densities and the presence of forest or fallow. areas but extremely limited for others. Land tenure and social
Farm infrastructure is low, i.e., few capital inputs and services are also variable. many upland areas are distant from
services are rendered from outside the village. Mutual as- markets.
sistance within the village is the main source of aid. There is The land ranges from rolling hills to steep slopes. The
no systematic plan for sale of livestock nor identifiable pattern soils have moderate fertility, and in general drainage is good.
of service use for animals. Most sales of animals are for Erosion hazards are classed as moderate. The rainfall is seaemrgency needs, with the greater proportion being consumed to sonal and erratic within the rainy season, thus periods of
40 41




MARKET ______ -concentrates in animal production, and there is somae potential
for on-farm self-sufficiency in power (gasohol, biogas, and animal draft) based on conversion of sweet potatoes and cassava.
f uel Lowland Rice System
HOUSEHOLD
The lowland rice system (Figure 2.5) is characteristic ot
laborabortraditional small-farm operations in the river valleys, first and fertlityfeedsecond terraces, and coastal areas of Asia, including southern
China. These areas have at least three months of rainfall abo',u f ood200~ m 'and a dry season of two to six months. Length of dry
season is a major factor in feeding animals. The areas are
tropical (frost free). Population density is high for both CROP ANIALShumans and animals. Rice is the major crop, followed in
wheatfeed wineimportance by garden vegetables and food legurre crops. The usio
ricemulh bedin poutryof fertilizer and manures assures high crop yields. Rice is
corn- Att milled in the villages; therefore, rice bran and other
basvm rie pot buffalo by-products are available. Rice bran has a good level of crude
sorgum pwerprotein (12 to 15 percent) and a significant amount of oil or
kena t ---- rtfat; hence, rice culture/livestock integration adds to the
intensification of this farming system (Maner 1978).
10. Animals provide income and manure as well as fuel in south
Asia (Figure 2.5). The major species are cattle, buffalo off frm frest(swamp-type or carabao) swine, chickens, ducks, and geese. The
bovines are kept to utilize crop residues and to supply manure and power for tillage and transport. old draft animals are sold for mat. Rice by-products and cut grass are utilized for swine feeding. The pigs are sold for additional income. The ducks and geese feed on grains lost during harvest and on insects and weeds Figure 2.4 Humid-upland farming system in Asia, permanent crop- in and around the irrigation canals. most of the eggs and mat
ping, moderateintegration of crops and animals (ani- from chickens, ducks and geese are consumed within the household
mals tethered or herded) or in the immediate community. The farms are small and
fragmented, which makes for difficult control of grazing animals.
As a result, the larger livestock are confined and hand-fed, moisture stress are frequent, which permits collection of manures. Another reason for tethAmong the assets of this system are some possibility for ering or confinement is security, as theft of animals is a
multiple cropping, excellent potential for crop/ animal inte- problem. Animals, especially the buffalo, are a strong feature
gration, good potential for small-holder dairying with crop of the cultural system (ritual) (Barnett 1978).
rotation, and feasibility of cooperative production and mar- Because of high population pressures, no land is available
keting. Rice is milled at the village level; therefore, rice for producing fuel. The high rate of use of manures on crops
bran and other by-products are available for supplementary also precludes this as a source of fuel. Hence, in this system,
feeding of animals. Some of the current limitations to increased the primary source of fuel is kerosene purchased at the market.
output are inadequate or absent credit and animal health The assets of the lowland systems are numerous. Multiple
services, insufficient power for tillage (Duff 1978), and limited cropping can be expanded to reduce dependence on a single crop
access to markets. In addition, farms are often so geo- (Riley 1978). Farmers are experienced in the care of an- imals.
graphically fragmented that much potential for grazing is lost. Labor for use in livestock production is plentiful during long
Considering the assets and liabilities, the potential appears periods. Irrigation serves to reduce risks in cropping; thus
good for change through increased cropping intensity, especially farm capital is relatively easy to accumulate on the farms.
of fodder crops for animal feeding; increased animal holdings in There are certain restrictions to expansion of crop and
order that farmers could have scheduled outputs for marketing; livestock production. For example, the nutritive value of straw
expanded farm infrastructure; extended use of draft power; and of the new, high-yielding varieties of rice is lower than in the
larger milk supplies. traditional varieties (McDowell 1978). The low feeding value of
With time, the upland areas of Asia promise to meet a rising straw may require supplementary feed for draft animals or their
demand for milk and meat through greater crop/animal inte- work efficiency will be low. Multiple cropping reduces the
gration. amount of grasses and weeds traditionally cut and fed to animals.
Integration on small farms will minimize the need for feed
49 A




MARKET MARKET
ffe farml
HOSHL HOUSEHOLD
-Iilt feed I I-- - -IFg C rstl mat I piberae c p, I
, | ritual r tu transportl
CROPS ANeMALS CROPS I-,-- I feed ANIMAL
rig e ..fwadrc steednAi, emnn cpping levzel inronofps and amlsnlerd
hih inegatonofcrp~sbe andanDel(nia- scI-d chn
vegetables d)ealwIewhI mulch post catl
pulses and ulcpn potatoes pores tevuo
chack-peas eased uer ofes buffalo in manure
mung beans m fi anur oduction i chickens
miling awa frm te vllaes. Thi ma stmulte eveopmnt nduckprucrsiit --in oarder ntora oderetehgsntcs
of large cia l t ortios wc o d m iab r as
tf farm: off farm: forest
Figure 2.6. Central American highlands, permanent cropping, highFigure 2.5. Lowland rice system in Asia, permanent cropping, level integration of crops and animals (animals herdhigh integration of crops and animals (animals con- ed or confined)
fined)
use of forage legumes.
irrigation and multicropping may increase the value of
labor to such an extent that interest in livestock will decline 3. Adopting a multidisciplinary approach to maximize farm
(Harwood 1978). increased use of pesticides and herbicides in income.
multicropping my limit fish and duck production in rice paddies. Increased mechanized harvesting w ay rause shifting of rice 4. Supplying market assistance to small-scale swine, chicken,
milling away from the villages. This may stimulate development and duck producers in order to overcome the high unit cost
of large commercial livestock operations which could monopolize of marketing small numbers of animals.
markets.
On the whole, the intensity and efficiency of crop/livestock 5. Offering credit and extension services on a year-round basis.
(nonruminants) production are higher on small farms in the lowlands rice system than in any other system described in this
report {Maner 1978). Even so, there is good potential for CENTRAL AMERICAN HIGHLANDS SYSTEMS
change. For example, fertilizer costs could be reduced by
cropping of legumes on residual moisture in rice paddies. The There are a number of coon features of the traditional
legumes would complement low-quality rice straws for livestock farming systems of the highland regions (>4,500 m elevation) of
feeding (Javier 1978). other approaches which could be used to Central America (Figure 2.6). The highlands have an annual
bring about institutional change include: rainfall of 1,200 to 2,000 mm, most of which falls from April to
November. The rainfall and temperature conditions allow the
1. Securing land tenure to encourage accumulation of animals. choice of alternative food- and cash-crop enterprises. Fluctuations in temperature (two to six months of frost, depending on 2. Introducing long-term technology for animal production, e.g., elevation) often restrict or inhibit maximizing the utilization
44 45




of the precipitation. In general, soil fertility is not
limiting, but topography is.
Areas cultivated per family are usually small (1 to 2 ha),WHA with cultivation done by hand or animal power. Maize is theMAZ primary crop, but because local varieties need nine months orGRS
more to reach maturity, the maize is intercropped with two to PT
five other crops. Some diversified farms practice rotations. MIETE
Livestock on a typical farm might consist of one or twoWHA
pigs, four to five sheep (in higher areas), and one cow. In FRSED AD FU
addition, there would be approximately one horse per three farms.WHA Except during the dry or cold seasons, animals are tethered to avoid crop damage. Womnen and children are involved in both U.MAIZE
livestock and cropping enterprises. Men often work off-farm to BUSH ~ supplement incomes, and the women and children must carry on the MAIZE WHEAT BEANS DEN MAIZE
major tasks (Hildebrand 1978). There are many landless laborers FWHEAT
in the highlands. many of them farm small plots through an __arrangement with a landholder and in return will then provide him with labor.
Because of poor roads and/or distance to market, fertilizer
costs are high, thus recycling of nutrients through composting is important to the system. Many farms have a "compost pit" where Figure 2.7. Land use of small farm typical of western highlands
animal manures and crop residues are mixed. Materials are of Guatemala
frequently gathered from off the farms to increase the amount of compost. Livestock feed sources are largely from unfarmed areas (fallow, forests, or communal grazing) and cut forages, e.g.,SPCFCMALAREXPE
maize leaves. Terraces are used to reduce erosion and to SEZFCSALFR XML
conserve water in a number of areas. Grass areas on the slopes Teojcieo hsscini ofrhrilsrt
of the terraces are a source of livestock feed. Wool from the Thika e objetvens of th saeto is tofrter illusreate
sheep is of poor quality; nevertheless, it is used to weave "lirnaes" or ee"a the cmlxtofarmalvlinarde sy to inefase
clothing and handicrafts, which are sold (Fitzhugh 1978). Pigs awnde iss o the copext of ar a ne l-ar tnag sysem the fastrm
are marketed at 9 to 12 months, Milk is used mainly for home underandiscussiontisain anre ne insatenano in theni wety
consumption or made into cheese, Calves born on the farm are highlnds ofGuatla where th co nsutingteside Ciei
kept to maturity (4.5 to 5 years) before sale. Livestock may gtinon a l fgioars.(CA scnutng etnie ivsi
play only a minor role in family nutrition, as the primary foods g Tn onr sml arms. hnaerg nte utml hglns
are maize and beans. There is a high degree of interdependence ith a rm is2 argerthan035h avee rnte ingasa hiolans;.
between farm families and their livestock, especially since ithog has l 5.25 pha of wiec0.35 nohaapren td grssan frest.s
recycling of animal and crop wastes is such a major aspect of the Altnhoh al atps of exletocarse nt repreistd he am hs
system (Diaz 1978). bareen chose od as cnrxaple beaudlsete k relionships tamon the
With increasing population pressures and the resulting cmrkext, e hoehl, cos an salvestock owell ade orte te
deforestation, fuel is becoming a more severe problem, icmlexitis ofeifes mones a u smlarm. inldogs hae noauete
Lack of capital, size of farm, limited access to additional fainlded ni er previous moes, butin ar n inclu e here cuethre,
land, and tenure status are all constraints in the highlands famdiy considersoth dog ase hain aerstroncole. inpthes utre
section eonual a ilaboit e of s laor als farms ap sold, and they do consume a significant part of the food produced
coraint seaoia adeb ilabi it nc frlao rke and lckme of on the farm. The bee is the other animal found on the farm that
adequraite acce rad 1978).Dsacfrmakeanlcko has not been mentioned before; although bees are not too carmon
adeqateacces radswill limit ability to sell fresh productsasafrenrpisoeamsnalaesofGtmlad
like milk. Meat production and wool are less dependent on ae atfametrrssm am n l ra fGaeaad
infrastructure. hae The m i rp r azatpeo enlclycle
There is some potential for further diversification in the Tio hae main copsaeo maiz, whatyp ano atbean l oycaed i
cropan prysutei waz edould roid opotnitesed foradiionalf smaller amounts are fava or European broad beans, locally called
lieock poduction Tol rinnin shertuing and preervtionaof haba ( Vicia faba ); fruits, vegetables, and medicinal herbs for
woolswould iprovetin quality gi ern and increaseio saes teas or medicines. The primary livestock enterprises are cattle
woolwoud iprov qulit an inceas saes.for milk, swine, and chickens. one-fourth of the farm surrounds
the house (Figure 2.7), and the rest is scattered in various parcels. Two-thirds of the land is owned and one-third is rented from relatives. Land rent is half the value of the crop after
46 4




MA...W.EAT MARKET
STOER ISAW
vq axs a ..s... F
%IT.E HOUSEHOLD e F
pATT! C.f ,k to
SWINEA
ZZ -1 I I I L.A. 201 C-. 95 "'
CROPS C-.... 400 C .
i +IN
Figure 2.8. Family living quarters and animal keeping facil- ANIMALS
ilities on farm in western highlands of Guatemala .. 1. ,0O
(See farmstead and fruit in Figure 2.7) .deducting all costs. On the farmer's own land, he produces 75 ..
percent of the maize, beans, and fava, 80 percent of the _-._____ .
wheat, and 63 percent of the potatoes. Only 30 percent of the
forest and grasslands are owned by him. On the land surrounding -I
the house, including some forest land, a portion of all the crops cultivated are represented. The farmstead (Figure 2.8) contains H"l IN
several sheds for livestock and for forage and wood storage (both firewood and lumber). One bedroom of the house doubles as a weaving room for making sweaters, and another bedroom doubles as a carpentry shop.
The distribution of labor, sale of products, purchases and sources of food for the Guatemala highland farm are shown in Figure 2.9. The farmer works 75 percent of the time on the farm and 25 percent off the farm. His wife works half time on the Figure 2.9. Distribution of labor, income (sales of products or
farm and half time off the farm. This latter situation is also off-farm labor), and purchases from exogenous
not very typical of the region. Of the seven children, two work sources for small crop/livestock farm in western
off the farm full time and are not counted in the farm picture, highlands of Guatemala (Numbers are percent of
although they do consume eggs and send some money home. The total of that item
other five, who are in school, work on weekends making sweaters and furniture. percent is sold. Small amoUnts of whey are sold and consumed,
About 80 percent of the labor for the crops comes from off but most is used to feed the pigs (60 percent) and the dogs (35
the farm. Of the family labor, most of it (43 percent) is used percent). All the cream removed from the milk is consumed in the
in the various activities within the household, including gath- household.
ering firewood, about 20 percent is expended on animals, and There is usually one sow that has a litter of six to eight
12 percent on the crops. Excluding the two children who work pigs at approximately six-month intervals. Two of the pigs are
full time off the farm, about 25 percent of the family labor is kept on the farm for fattening, while the rest are sold in the
used off the farm. market or to other farmers at the time of weaning. The only meat
The family at present has three cows, of which one or two produced for the household from two pigs is 2 to 3 kg each six
are in production at 6ne time. A small proportion of the milk is months when the fat pigs are sold and butchered. This amount
sold, but most of it comes into the household, where 10 percent represents 3 percent of the total pork produced on the farm and
is consumed fresh and the rest is used to make cheese and whey. about 10 percent of the pork meat consumed by the family.
Of the cheese, 20 percent is consumed in the household and 80 The family maintains both laying hens and young chickens.
48 49




All the old hens are sold for meat, and 58 percent of the young RFERENES
chickens are sold when they weign 1 to 2 kg. The feathers from
chickens killed on the farm are used to make artificial flowers M.L. Barnett. 1978. Livestock, rice and culture. Paper
as a household industry (20 percent) or composted to make presented at Bellagio Conference, reprint available from
fertlize (80percnt).The Rockefeller Foundation. fertilizer (80 percent).
Maize is the basic food staple of the family diet, and 20
percent of the wheat is consumed. (Most of the wheat grown in A.J. De Boer and A. Weisblat. 1978. Livestock caponent of
the highlands is marketed, but some is consumed in this small-farm systems in South and Southeast Asia. Paper
pt island isea.) markemaizerodued, but sn is i ts presented at Bellagio Conference; reprint available from
particular area.) Of the maize produced, 40 percent is fed to The Rockefeller Foundation.
the pigs, 20 percent to the chickens, 10 percent to the dogs, 19 H. Diaz. 1978. Integrating an animal component into an agripercent is consumed in the household, 10 percent is sold at the cultural development project. Paper presented at Bllagio
end of the year when there is surplus, and 1 percent is used for culturee rent p ro te atkeller
seed. The maize stover is fed to the cattle. The parts rejected Conference, reprint available from The Rockefeller
by the cattle (lower part of the stalks) is mixed with manure to
produce compost. The same procedure is followed with the wheat B. Duff. 1978. The potential for mechanization in small-farm
straw. Potato vines are fed to livestock unless they were production systems. Paper presented at Bellagio
fumigated shortly before harvest, in which case they are left for Conference; reprint available from The Rockefeller
incorporation into the soil. Foundation.
Of the vegetables, a wild turnip that grows as a weed in the
maize (recently mixed with broccoli, which is allowed to reseed P.A. Fitzhugh. 1978. Role of sheep and goats in small-farm
itself) is sold, consumed or fed to the animals. It is sold for systems. Paper presented at Bellagio Conference; reprint
human consumption and consumed id the house when the leaves are available from The Rockefeller Foundation.
young but fed to the livestock when the leaves are older.
Recently, a small garden patch was established with cabbage, R.R. Harwood. 1978. Cropping systems in the Asian humid tropcauliflower, carrots, and radishes, of which half is consumed and ics. Paper presented at Bellagio Conference, reprint
half is sold. available from The Rockefeller Foundation.
Besides providing deciduous and other fruit, the fruit
orchard also provides herbs for medicines, which account for 25 R.R. Harwood and F.C. Price. 1976. Multiple cropping in troppercent of the medicine used by the family. ical Asia. In Multiple cropping, R.I. Papendick et al.,
The forest (including the grasslands) provides leaf mulch, eds. Madison, Wisc.: American Society of Agronomy.
half of which is used for compost on the farm and the other half
as payment for gathering the mulch. The forest also provides P.E. Hildebrand. 1978. Motivating small farmers to accept
firewood and pinecones for fuel and raw materials for making change. Paper presented at Bellagio Conference; reprint
implement handles and lumber. The lumber, which is sawed by available from The Rockefeller Foundation.
off-farm labor, was used for building the house, and is used for
constructing sheds, furniture, and boxes for seed potatoes. E.Q. Javier. 1978. Integration of forages into small farming
In addition to purchasing candles as a source of light, the systems. Paper presented at Bellaglo Conference; reprint
family buys ocote, which is a special pitch-pine kindling used available from The Rockefeller Foundation.
for starting fires. They buy cloth to make about 50 percent of
their clothes and purchase the other half ready-made. Wool yarn J.H. Maner. 1978. Nonruminants for small-farm systems. Paper
is also bought for making sweaters, of which 7 percent is used presented at Bellagio Conference; reprint available from
for family needs and the rest sold. Food items wnich are The Rockefeller Foundation.
purchased include tomatoes, garlic, onions, peppers, beans
(Phaseolus vulgaris), coffee, sugar, chocolate, riceflour, R.R. McDowell. 1978. Are we prepared to help small farmers in
oatmeal, cooking oil, lard, noodles, etc. developing countries? J. Animal Sci. 47:1184-1194.
Even though scine piloy (beans) is produced on the farm,
yields are presently insufficient for food needs. Bush beans J.J. Riley. 1978. Land, water, and man as determinants in
(Phaseolus vulgaris) are being tested as a means of decreasing small-farm production systems. Paper presented at
dependence on purchase. Bellagio Conference; reprint available from The Rockefeller
The farm operation described is a very complex system. A Foundation.
wide variety of activities are carried on to maximize resource
utilization and reduce risks. Due to the tedious balance of the
system, interventions intended to produce change must be
carefully evaluated; otherwise serious imbalances will be created.
51
52







THE SONDEO: A TEAM RAPID SURVEY APPROACH Peter E. Hildebrand
Several characteristics are critical to an efficient and functioning multidisciplinary effort: first, those concerned must be well trained in their own field; secondly, they need a working understanding of -- and must not be afraid to make contributions in -- one or more other fields. Team members must not feel the need to defend themselves and their field from intrusion by others. Working together, all members of the team should view the final product as a joint effort in which all have participated and for which all are equally responsible. That means that each must be satisfied with the product, given the goals of the team, and be willing and able to defend it.
Perhaps the most critical characteristic required to achieve success in a multidisciplinary team is this identification with a
single product in which all participate. The product can be complex and involve a number of facets, but it should result from the joint effort of the whole team and not contain strictly identi~iable parts attributable to individual team members. Failures of multidisciplinary efforts in agricultural institutions frequently result because teams are organized as comittees that meet occasionally to "coordinate" efforts, but in which the crop
work is left to the agronomists, the survey to the anthropologists, and the desks to the economists. In these cases there is not a single identified product but, rather, several products or reports purported to be concerned with the same problem.
THE SONDEO: A TEAM RAPID SURVEY APPROACH
The Sondeo is a modified survey technique developed by the Guatemalan Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology (ICTA) as a response to budget zestrictions time requirements, and the other methodology utilized, to augment information in a region where agricultural technology generation and promotion is being initiated.
In order to understand the methodology, it is first necessary to understand how ICTA is organized at the regional level. Each of the regions in which the Institute functions has a Regional Director who is the representative of the Director General of the Institute and of the Technical Director. Within the region, each area in which work is being carried out is in the charge of a "sub-regional delegate," a technician who has a minimum amount of administrative responsibilities. All the technicians, from whatever discipline or program, who work in the area are responsible to him. This multidisciplinary team is usually comprised of some or all of the following: plant
breeders, pathologists, a socioeconomist, and approximately four general agronomists who are the Technology Testing Team. This group, backed up by the national coordinators of programs (corn, beans, etc.) and support disciplines socioeconomicss, soil management) are responsible for orienting and conducting the
93




small) experiment station in the area, farm trials, tests by questionnaires are used; so farmers are interviewed in an
farmers of promising technology, evaluation of the acceptability informal manner that does not alienate them. At the same time,
of the technology tested by farmers, and economic production or the use of a multidisciplinary team serves to provide information
farm records maintained by farmers with the help of the from many different points of view simultaneously. Depending on
technicians. In order to provide the original orientation to the the size, complexity, and accessibility of the area, the Sondeo
team, the Sondeo, or reconnaissance survey, is conducted by should be completed in from 6 to 10 days at a minimum of cost.
members of the Techology Testing Team who are going to work in Areas of from 40 to 50 km2 have been studied in this period of
the area, sometimes personnel from an appropriate program, and a
team from socioeconomics comprised of one or more of the time. The following is a description of the methodology for a
following: anthropologists, sociologists, economists, agri- six-day operation.
cultural economists and/or engineers. Usually, there are five
people from socioeconomics and five from the Technology Testing Day 1
:eam who form a ten-man Sondeo team for an area. The The first day is spent in a general reconnaissance of the
purpose of the Sondeo is to provide the information required to area by the whole team as a unit. The team must make a prelimorient the work of the technology generating team. The cropping inary determination of the most important cropping or farming
or farming systems are described, the agro-economic situation of system that will serve as the key system, become acquainted in
the farmers s etesarminesied,a the reckon s tufacen ae general terms with the area, and begin to search out the limits
defined, so that any proposed modifications of their present to the homogeneous system. Following each discussion with a
technology are apprpropiate to their conditions, If ICTA is to farmer, the group meets out of sight of the farmer to discuss
tecnolgyareappopiat tothir ondtins.If CT istoeach one's interpretation of the interview. In this way, each
work in an area that is not previously defined, such as by the ea mnbs in to ofe intevi hn th wa, ec
bounds of a land settlement or an irrigation project, one of the think. Interviews with farmers (or other people in the area)
objectives of the Sondeo is to delimit the area. thinld Ievews with far ern(orgot eaepe the ea)
As well as delimiting the area of this homogeneous system, should be very general and wide-ranging because the team is
the tasks of the Soideo team are to discover what agro- exploring and searching for an unknown number of unknown
socioeconomic conditions all the farmers who use the system have elements. (This does not imply, of course, that the interviews
in common and then to identify which are the most important in lack orientation.) The contribution or point of view of each
determining the present system and therefore would be the most discipline is critical throughout the Sondeo, because the team
idetertantn t conseint aystem m iaon thfore mlde by the tm does not know beforehand what type of problems or restrictions
iiqm rtant to consider in any modifications to be ma de by th e team m y b n o n e e T e m r i c p i e h t a e b o g t t in the future. Finally, the end purpose of the Sondeo is to may be encountered. The more disciplines that are brought to
orintth frs yars or infam rilsan vritybear on the situation, the greater is the probability of
orient the first year's work in farm trials and variety encountering the factors that are, in fact, the most critical to
selection. it also serves to locate future collaborators for the the farmers of the area. It has been established that these
farm, trials and for the farm record projects. restrictions can be agro-climatic, economic or socio-cultural.
Because the farm trials are conducted under farm Hence, all disciplines make equal contributions to the Sondeo.
conditions, during the first year they provide an additional
learning process about the conditions that affect the farmers and
are invaluable in acquainting the technicians with the realities Day 2
of farming inteae.Tefr eod hc r loThe interviewing and general reconnaissance of the first day
initatedg in the area. The farm records which are also serve to guide the work of the second day. Teams are made up of
initiated in the first year -- provide quantifiable technical and pairs: one agronomist or animal scientist from the Technology
cost information on the technology being used by the farmers. At Testing Team and one person from socioeconomics who work together
the end of the first year's work, then, the technicians have not in the interviews. The five teams scatter throughout the area
only been farming under the conditions of the farmers in the in the inei The fe teamsrst througou the area
area, but they also have the information from the farm record and meet again either after the first half-day (for small areas
project. For this reason, it is not necessary to obtain or areas with good access roads) or day (for larger areas or
rojetifiable information in the Sondeo, which is not a benchmark where access is difficult and more time is required for travel).
study. Quantifiable information for impact evaluation in he Each member of each team discusses what was learned during the
area is available from farm records which increase in value each interviews, and tentative hypotheses are formed to help explain
year. the situation in the area. Any information concerning the limits
of the area is also discussed to help in its delimitation. The
tentative hypotheses or doubts raised during the discussion serve
THE SONDEO PROCEDURE as guides to the following interview sessions. During the team
discussions, each of the members learns how interpretations from
The primary purpose of the Sondeo, then, is to acquaint the other points of view can be important in understanding the
technicians with the area in which they are going to work. problems of the farmers of the region.
3cauSe quantifiable information is not n the Sondeo can be Following the discussion, the team pairs are changed to
needed, maximize interdisciplinary interaction and minimize interviewer
94
95




bias, and they return to the field guided by the previous and/or modify what is presented.
discussion. Once again, following the half-day's or day's interviews, the group meets to discuss the findings. Day 6
The importance of these discussions following a series of The report is read once again and, following the reading of
interviews cannot be overstressed. Together, the group begins to each section, conclusions are drawn and recorded. When this is
understand the relationships encountered in the region, delimits finished, the conclusions are read once again for approval, and
the zone, and starts to define the type of research that is going specific recommendations are then made and recorded, both for the
to be necessary to help improve the technology of the farmers. team who will be working in the area and for any other agencies
Other problems such as marketing -- are also discussed and, if that should be involved in the general development process of the
solutions are required relevant entities can be notified. it is zone.
important to understand the effect that these other limitations The product of the sixth day is a single report generated
will have, if not corrected, on the type of technology to be and authored by the entire multidisciplinary team that should be
developed, so that they can be taken into account in the
generation process. supported by all of the members. Furthermore, after participating in a team effort for six days, each member should be
During the second day there should be a notable convergence able to defend all the points of view discussed, the conclusions
of opinion and a corresponding narrowing of interview topics. In drawn, and the recommendations made.
this way, more depth can be acquired in following days on the
topics of increasing interest.
Day 3 THE REPORT
This is a repeat of the second day and includes a change in To a certain extent, the report of the Sondeo is of secthe makeup of the teams after each discussion. A minimum of four ondary value because it has been written by the same team that
interviews/discussion cycles is necessary to complete this part will be working in the area. Most of its value lies in the fact
Of the Sondeo. If the area is not too complex, these cycles that they have written it. By forcing the team members into a
should be adequate. Of course, if the area is so large that a situation where many different points of view have to be taken
full day of interviewing is required between each discussion into consideration and coalesced, the horizons of all will have
session, then four full days are required for this part of the been greatly amplified. Further, the report can serve as
Sondeo. orientation for nonparticipants, such as the Regional Director or
Day 4 the Technical Director, in discussing the merits of various
Before the teams return to the field for more interviews on courses of action. However, it is also obvious that the report
the fourth day, each member is assigned a portion' will appear to be one written by ten different persons in a
or section of hurry, which is exactly what it isl it is not a benchmark study
the report that is to be written, Then, knowing for the first with quantifiable data that can be used in the future for project
time for what topic each will be responsible, the teams, evaluation; rather, it is a working document to orient the
regrouped in the fifth combination, return to the field for more research program and it served one basic function in just being
interviewing. For smaller areas, this also is a half-day. In written.
the other half-day, and following another discussion session, the
group begins to write the report of the sondeo. All members
should be working at the sane location so that they can circulate CONCLUDING REMARKS
freely and discuss points with each other. For examples an
agronomist who was assigned the section on maize technology may The disciplinary specialty of each member of the Sondeo team
have been discussing a key point with an anthropologist and need is not critical so long as there are several disciplines
to refresh his memory about what a particular farmer said. In represented, and, if the Sondeo is in agriculture, a significant
this manner the interaction among the disciplines continues. number of them are agriculturalists, at least some of whom who
Day 5 will be working in the area in the future. The discipline of
As the technicians are writing the report, they coordinators of Sondeos is probably not critical, either, if they
invariably are persons with a broad capability, an understanding of
encounter points for which neither they nor others in the group agriculture (if it is an agricultural Sondeo), and experience in
have answers. The only remedy is to return to the field on the surveying and survey technique. However, the coordinators must
morning of the fifth day to fill in the gaps found the day have a high degree of multidisciplinary tolerance and be able to
before. A half-day can be devoted to this activity, together interact with all the other disciplines represented on the team.
with finishing the writing of the main body of the report. The coordinators, in a sense, are orchestra directors who
In the afternoon of this day, each team member reads his must assure that everyone contributes to the tune and that, in
section of the report to the group for discussion, editing and the final product, all are in harmony.; They must control the
approval. The sections should be read in the order in which they group and maintain discipline. They arbitrate differences,
will appear in the report. As a group, the team should approve create enthusiasm, extract hypotheses and thoughts from each




participant, and ultimately will be the ones who coalesce the survey, a questionnaire is administered by enumerators to a
product into the final form. It is perhaps not essential that random sample of farmers. Formal surveys may involve single
they have prior experience in a Sondeo, but it would certainly visits to farmers or frequent visits over a period of a growing
improve their efficiency if they had. season, a calendar year, or longer. Since questioning is
standardized and sampling is random, data are subject to
SELECTEDl REFERENCES statistical testing procedures.
Most farming systems researchers use a combination of the
Chinchilla, two types of surveys; a few use one type exclusively. Wat
onahil ierMaria E. Condiciones agro-socioeconemicas de una appears clear, however, is that the role of the informal survey
zona maicera-horticola de Guatemala. Trabajo presentado en in farming systems and farm management investigations in
la XXV Reunion Anual del P Tegucigalpa, Honduras, 19- developing countries has increased in importance in recent years,
23 de Matzo, 1979. relative to the formal survey. In the past, the informal survey
Hildebrand, P. was generally considered to be a "pre-survey," that is, a
er P e fMotivating small farmers to accept change. preliminary task to complete before starting a formal survey. In
Paper prepared for presentation at thei Conference on fact, its primary function was to contribute to more effective
Integrated Crop and Animal Production to optimize Resource planning and execution of the formal surveys. In recent years,
Utilization on Small Farms in Developing Countries. The however, sane farming systems researchers have begun to place
Rockefeller Foundation Conference Center, Bellagio, Italy, greater emphasis on the informal survey. For example, Collinson
18-23 October, 1978, ICTA, Guatemala. (1982) calls the informal survey the "pivotal" procedure in the
diagnosis of farming systems. Hildebrand (1981) claims that
Hildebrand, P.E. Summary of the Sondeo methodology used by well-managed informal surveys can generate the information
ICTA, ICTA, Guatemala, 1979. necessary for identifying principal farmer problems and planning
experimentation to solve these problems.
Indeed, many FSR/E practitioners have found the informal
COMPARING INFORMAL AND FORMAL SURVEYS survey to be an extremely useful tool for diagnosing farming
Steven C. Franzel systems (Hildebrand 1991; Rhoades, 1982; Byerlee and Collinson
1980). The principal advantages are (1) its low cost and rapid
turnaround, (2) the emphasis placed on direct researcher-farmer
Farming systems practitioners makerause ofketwoteamwork, (3) its sequential, iterative data collection procedure
types iof sureystems pra and generallytwo in which data are evaluated and data needs are reformulated on a
types Of surveys -- informal and formal. The objectives of daily basis, (4) its facilition of interdisciplinary interaction,
informal surveys, also called sondeos, rapid-reconnaissance and (5) its conduciveness to collection of data concerning
surveys, or exploratory surveys, are to develop a rapid farmers' values, opinions, and objectives.
understanding of farmer circumstances through direct, informal However, informal surveys have important disadvantages as
interaction between researchers and farmers. Informal surveys well, which may render data inaccurate. First, the sample of
have four distinguishing characteristics. First, farmer inter- farmers interviewed may not be representative of the group
views are conducted by researchers themselves, not by researchers wish to characterize. Second, since questioning is
enumerators, as in formal surveys. Second, interviews are not standardized, it may not be possible to generalize across the
essentially unstructured and semidirected, with emphasis on farmers interviewed. Thus Shaner, Philipp, and Schmehl (1982)
dialogue and probing for information. Questionnaires are never warn that in analysis of results from informal surveys, staused; however some researchers use topic guidelines so as to tistical testing is not possible, summarization is difficult, and
ensure that they cover all relevant topics on a given subject the reliability of conclusions is subject to question.
(Collinson 1982). Third, informal random and purposive sampling
procedures are used instead of formal random sampling from a
sample frame. Fourth, in an informal survey, the data collection RESEARCH PROBLEM
process is dynamic, that is, researchers evaluate the data
collected and reformulate data needs on a daily basis (Honadle Because both informal and formal surveys have particular
1982). In a formal survey, reformulating data needs requires strengths and weaknesses, many researchers use both approaches in
changing the questionnaire or adding a new questionnaire; this their investigations. For example, CIMMYT advocates a two-stage
cannot be done on a frequent basis. Informal surveys are procedure an informal survey followed by a formal survey. The
generally conducted over a period of one week to two months principal objective of the formal survey is to verify, using
during the growing season. appropriate statistical tests, the impressions developed during
The objectives of a formal survey may be quite diverse to the informal survey.
verify hypotheses developed during an informal survey, to However, given the acute scarcity of research resources in
quantify parameters critical to developing the understanding of developing countries, the formal survey is too expensive and
the system, or to measure resource stocks and flows. In a formal time-consuming an exercise if it serves only to confirm informal
98 99




survey findings. Little work has been done to formally compare different sets of circumstances. For example, Middle Kirinyaga
the information and implications for research from informal has several features that make it relatively easy for resurveys with those of the ensuing formal survey for the same searchers to develop an understanding of farming systems without
group of farmers. indeed, if the formal survey exercise does not a formal survey. First, the cropping system, composed almost
lead to significant improvements in the accuracy of information exclusively of maize and beans, is less complex in many senses
and the design of experiments appropriate for farmers, one can than cropping systems in other areas. Second, farmers and local
argue that it is superfluous, officials were exceptionally cooperative. Third, farmers' fields
in this paper, we examine the utility of conducting a formal are generally all located at their homestead, making it fairly
survey by comparing the data and the proposed experimental easy to estimate farm size and generalize about field
program developed in an informal survey with those developed from characteristics.
an ensuing formal survey in the same area. The utility of on the other hand, one can also argue that Middle Kirinyaga
carrying out a formal survey, in addition to an informal survey, has several features that make it more difficult than other areas
is evaluated by: to study. This lends support to the position that if a formal
survey is not useful in middle Kirinyaga, it will not be useful
1. Comparing the data obtained with those obtained in the in most other areas. First, farmers have two cropping seasons
informal survey, using a systematic rating system to measure the per year. This in effect doubles the quantity of information
degree of closeness, needed about cropping practices. Second, two recommendation
domains co-exist in the area and it is often difficult to
2. Assessing the implications that the formal survey re- ascertain the relative numbers in each and the characteristics
sults have on changing or refining the proposed research and that distinguish them. Third, there appears to be much variation
extension program planned following the informal survey, in how certain operations are performed, e.g., land preparation
and planting. Furthermore, it should also be noted that the
In addition, we examine some of the sources of inaccuracy in inclusion of the repertory grid and hierarchical decision-tree
the informal survey findings in order to make recomnendat ions for methods for developing the understanding of farmer decisions in
conducting more effective informal surveys in future exercises, the informal survey made the survey more effective than it
otherwise would have been.
overall, the data in this paper support the hypothesis that
CONCUSIONS the informal survey is an effective and sufficient method for
developing an understanding of farming systems and planning
In sumiary, it appears that the contribution of the formal experimental programs for farmers. It also suggests that a
survey to developing an understanding of the farming systems and formal survey may be replaced by (1) a slightly longer and more
an experimental program for middle Kirinyaga were rather carefully managed informal survey than would otherwise be
marginal, relative to its costs. The formal survey involved conducted, or (2) two or more informal surveys. However, it
approximately four months of the researchers' time and could also be argued that even if this is so, a very brief,
.iLstantial costs in transpoi c, hiring and training of enu- focused formal survey may be important for verifying selected
merators, computer and manual data analysis, paper, and findings of the informal survey, quantifying a few important
photocopying. However, there were relatively few refinements variables, providing a cross-check for the informal survey, and
made in the experimental program following the formal survey and, lending greater credibility to the diagnostic exercise.
in fact, most of the changes were not due to information gained
in the formal survey. Rather, they were due to:
REFERENCES
1. incidental refinements and additions which researchers
informally discovered, such as the potential of coffee husks. Byerlee, D., M. Collinson, et al. 1980. Planning technologies
This lends support to conducting a more thorough informal survey, appropriate for farmers: concepts and procedures. Internaor carrying out more frequent informal surveys in the sane area, tional Maize and WJheat Improvement Center (CItflYT), Mexico.
rather than mounting a formal survey.
Caldwell, John. 1983. Issues in the integration of the
2. A deliberate acceptance of lower accuracy in some as- household in farming systems research and development. Paper
jects of informal survey method and analysis, likely due to the presented at the Family Systems and Farming Systems
fact that the researchers knew that a formal survey would be Conference, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, Virginia.
carried out and thus more precise information would be obtained.
The effort to measure plant population reflects this. Collinson, M.P. 1980. The use of farming systems research for
understanding small farmers and improving relevancy in
It is important to emphasize the danger in overgeneralizing adaptive experimentation. Paper presented at Second
from our conclusion that a formal survey was not really Symposium on Intercropping for Semi-arid Areas, University of
t-rrthwhile. Certainly, different methods are appropriate for Dar es Salaam, Morogoro, Tanzania.
100 101




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 Development Paper No. 3. East
Lansing, Michigan.
Dillon, J.L. 1976. The economics of systems research.
Agricultural Systems, 1:1:5-22.
Franzel, Steven, 1983. Planning an adaptive production research
program for small farmers: a case study of farming systems
research in Kirinyaga District, Kenya.
Franzel, Steven. 1984. Moduling farmers' decisions in a farming
systems research exercise: the adoption of an improved maize variety in Kirinyaga District, Kenya. Human Organization
43:3, Washington D.C.
Franzel, Steven, and Njogu Njery. 1982. Informal survey report
on two farmer recommendation domains in Middle Kirinyaga.
CIMMYT Eastern Africa Economics Program, Nairobi, Kenya.
Gilbert, E.H., D. Norman, and F. Winch. 1980. Farming systems
research: a critical appraisal. MSU Rural Development Paper
No. 6. East Lansing, Michigan.
Hildebrand, P.E. 1981. Motivating small farmers, scientists and
technicians to accept change. Agricultural Administration
8:375-83.
flonadle, George. 1982. Rapid reconnaissance for development
administration: mapping and moulding organizational
landscapes. World Development, 10:8, London.
Johnson, G.L. 1981. Small farms in a changing world. Paper
presented at Farming Systems Reseach Symposium, Kansas State
University, Manhattan, Kansas.
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
systems research and development: guidelines for developing
countries. Westview Press. Boulder, Colorado.
102




THE FOLLOWING SELECTION
HAS BEEN PRINTED WITH PERMISSION DATE: 07/02/92
Author: POATS, SIN & SPRING Title: Chapter 6 and Chapter 7
Book: GENDER ISSES IN FARMING SYSTEMS
RESEARCH AMD EXTENSION
Volume: No: Pgs: 73-87,149-169 Copyright Year: 1987
Reprinted by Permission of: Westview Press Inc
THIS MATERIAL MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER
WITHOUT THE PERMISSION
OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER




Published in cooperation with the Gender Issues
Women in Agricultural Development Program,
University of Florida in Farming Systems
Research and Extension
EDITED BY
Susan V. Poats, Marianne Schmink, and Anita Spring
Westview Press
BOULDER & LONDON




6
Research, Recommendation and
Diffusion Domains: A Farming Systems
Approach to Targeting
Peter Wotowiec, Jr., Susan V. Poats, and Peter E. Hildebrand
TARGETING FARMING SYSTEMS ACrIVITIES: HOMOGENIZING VARIABILITY?
Inherent in the farming systems approach is the recognition of the variability of the complex circumstances farmers face while managing farms that are comprised of inter-related crop, animal, household, and off-farm enterprises. Diversity in farming systems must be recognized in developing appropriate technologies for the farmers that manage those systems. However, it is not practical to conduct research tailored specifically to a few individual farmers. Targeting entails the grouping together of similiar clientele so efforts can be sufficiently focused. Although the concept of targeting might seem contrary to the recognition of heterogeneity among farms, it is an essential component of the farming systems approach. When Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR/E) practitioners target a group of farming systems as relatively homogeneous based on a few simple factors, the existing variability among farms is often not sufficiently considered. How can FSR/E teams define and target homogeneous groups of farming systems without losing sight of the heterogeneity among them? Farming systems practitioners take different positions on this issue (Cornick and Alberti 1985).
One perspective stresses the early definition of homogeneous groups of farmers using the recommendation domain concept to guide subsequent research activities. Collinson (1979, 1980), Gilbert et al. (1980), and Franzel (1985) advocate ex ante delineation of recommendation domains based on ieco-ary data and preliminary surveys, followed by a formal survey to refine the domain boundaries. Both Collinson and Franzel describe a technique of defining recommendation domains through interviews with extension agents and local authorities before actually initiating activities with farmers. Early definition of




74 75
recommendation domains is usually based upon a few of targeting in FSR/E using recommendation domains, probrelatively easily identifiable factors such as soil type, lens in the conventional use domains in FSR/E are described
agroecological zones, crop type, and management (Harrington in an attempt to bring together the two differing viewand Tripp 1985). These authors note the importance of points and to begin to resolve the question. The refined
continuing the refinement of domain boundaries throughout concept of targeting allows for better inclusion of gender
the sequence of on-farm adaptive research, but the subse- variables in the definition of domains.
quent reassessment of recommendation domains is often not
vigorously pursued. OVERVIEW OF TARGETING AND RECOMMENDATION DOMAINS
A more recent view states that grouping farming systems
should not take place until the researchers have an ade- Targeting for Efficiency and Social Equity
quate understanding of the variability inherent in local
farming systems, usually not accomplished early in the work FSR/E must differentiate between various potential
in an area. Cornick and Alberti argue that recommendation farmer-client groups and determine the particular needs of
domains established early are frequently poorly conceived each, if technologies are to be developed that clearly meet
and lead to a premature assumption of homogeneity. The those needs (Byerlee and Hesse de Polanco 1982). most
failure to consider potential variability from factors such literature on the subject of targeting in farming systems
as long-term climate induced trends in cropping patterns, has stressed the increase in efficiency of FSR/E activities
household decision-making and labor allocation, or rela- made possible through focusing upon specific, relatively
tionships between on- and off-farm activities, may bias homogeneous farmer groups.
subsequent technology development. For example, Cornick Efficiency in allocation of research resources is
and Alberti (1985:1) note: essential if a program is to reach and benefit a maximum
number of farmers. By focusing scarce resources upon
... the roles of women and children that can be critical roughly similiar groups of farmers, research programs are
factors in the development and subsequent adoption of able to carry out investigations on a selected number of
technologies are often explicitly excluded from consi- representative farms and later can transfer the findings to
deration in recommendation domains. This occurs because the comparable situations faced by other farmers.
the usual time frame for development of recommendation Targeting is also important in justifying the farming
domains is inadequate to the task of understanding intra- systems approach to institutional policy makers who are
household dynamics and the importance they hold in the concerned about social equity in the distribution of
system. resulting benefits. Farming systems practitioners use targeting concepts to assist them in making decisions which
In particular, socioeconomic factors are often not, increase the likelihood of an optimal distribution of
fully integrated into domains defined early, either because research results among the members of a community.
of the longer period of time necessary to gather this
information, or because of the absence of trained social Conventional Concept of Recommendation Domains
scientists as part of farming systems teams. One area
often poorly covered in early definitions of domains is the The concept of "recommendation domains" has been widely
different agricultural roles of men and women. Proceeding used in targeting farming systems research since Perrin et
with on-farm research and other activities on the basis of al. (1976) first introduced the idea. It is described'and
a hastily achieved assumption of homogeneity could result defined by.Byerlee et al. (1980:899) in the following
in inefficient subsequent research and the promotion of manner:
solutions that are not appropriate to farmers (Cornick and
Alberti 1985:25) or technologies that may favor some ... a recommendation domain (RD) is a group of farmers
farmers (male) while causing disadvantages for others with roughly similiar practices and circumstances for
(female). whom a given recommendation will be broadly appropri-,
In this paper the issue of variability versus ate. It is a stratification of farmers, not area:
homogeneity in the targeting of farming systems research farmers, not fields, make decisions on technology.
and extension activities is explored. After a brief review




76
exists among FSR/E practitioners as to the general meanin>
Socioeconomic criteria may be just as important as adueo h emrcmedto oan
agroclimatic variables in delineating domains. Thus and use of the term recommendation domain.
resulting domains are often not amenable to geographi- On-Farm Variability and Conventional Recommendation Domai.
cal mapping because farmers of different domains may be
interspersed in a given area. The emphasis by Byerlee et al. (1980) upon "farmers,
not fields" as the sole basis for the delineation of recL:
Using this definition, neighboring farm households mendation domains is not always warranted because of the
might be placed in different recommendation domains because variability found in some field situations. Cornick and
of differences in availability of family labor. In socie- Alberti (1985) cite the case of farmers in the community
ties where women cultivate different crops than those of Quimiaq in the mountains of Ecuador who manage different
the men, female farmers could comprise a recommendation cropping patterns in different agro-ecological zones, a
domain separate from male farmers even if they are from the product of altitude, temperature, and rainfall variation o,,
same household. the mountain slopes. Not only does each farm cross agroecological zones, but the cropping patterns found in each
Expanding upon the Definition of Recommendation Domain field vary greatly from year to year. For example, depend
ing upon a farmer's perception of trends and yearly change:.
Perrin et al. (1976) originally conceived of the notion in climatic conditions, bean or fava bean intercrops will
of recommendation domains as an aid to researchers for be assigned to maize fields located at varying elevations
targeting the development of technologies to specific along the slope.
audiences. The concept has been expanded since then to alondter slope. hoshodvribesae e
inclde nuber f aditonalsitatins ad prpoes.Gender and intra-household variables are often include a number Of additional situations and purposes, neglected in the process of defining a recommendation
Some of the most common applications of recommendation domain because of the relatively more difficult and tiur
domains include the following'gleaned from current consuming task of collecting and analyzing data on thesL
literature on the topic: variables. Existing information on gender and household(
variables often offers few useful insights for defining
(1) making policy decisions; recommendation domains when compared to the secondary dat.
(2) identifying priority issues for research; available on agroecological characteristics. In additici,
(3) specifying clientele for developing recommenda- the gender and household data that may exist may be unobtions; tainable locally. Nevertheless, superficial understandin,
(4) selecting representative sites and farmer- of these variables or the transfer of erroneous assumptio.
cooperators; without continued investigation can hamper design and deli
(5) focusing analysis of surveys and on-farm trials; very of appropriate technology.
(6) orienting extensionists to groups of similar
farmers; Refining the Concept of Domains
(7) transferring adapted technology to appropriate
farmers; and, The argument here is that the issue of targeting in
(8) enhancing equitable distribution of FSR/E benefits. FSR/E has become confusing because the definition of the
As Harrington and Tripp (1985) point out, the domain term "recommendation domain" has been stretched to cover
concets a lto anveTry stag5e ointt the on-farm eah too many situations and too many different purposes. Fat,:
concept is vital to every stage of the on-farm research ing systems practitioners must develop a common understaui
process. However, it is apparent from reviewing the ing of how the use and definition of "domains" change as
literature on the subject that the definition of "recommen- the farming systems sequence progresses from initial chatdation domain" not only changes at each stage, but also acterization through proi,.erit .Lagnosis, testing, adz.x
varies according to the individual who applies it as well fia
as to the end result. The wide variability among farmers tion, evaluation, and ally, to the delivery of the new
and farms, and the dynamic nature of the farming systems technology to farmers.
development sequence, contribute to the confusion that It is essential to account for the heterogeneity in
deveopmnt equnceconribte o th cofuson hatfarming systems, even while delineating relatively




homogeneous groups. Refinement and expantion of the use of In the Ecuadorian case cited by Cornick and Alberti,
domains in targeting will enable researchers to distinguish recommendation domains would be based not only upon farm
applications of the domain concept, while still recognizing households, but also upon their separate fields that are
the diversity among farm households and farming systems. not contiguous but widely dispersed in location and altiThis can be accomplished by recognizing a problem focus tude. Each household might fall into several recommnendain the definition of the domains, by tying the changing tion domains depending upon: (1) where their fields are
concept of domain more closely to the farming systems located along the agroecologicrl. gradient of the mountainsequence, and by stressing a greater inclusion of socio-sie(2thclme-ladcrpangetdcsos econmicconidertios ito te trgeing rocss.Themade for each of those fields; and, (3) the particularrefinements outlined below are a sharpening of focus not a problem solutions to be tested.
changing of terminology', that will lead to increased Other examples from West Africa demonstrate how gender
utility of this method of targeting in the field. can be used to differentiate recommendation domains. In
Any of the three types of domains described below maymayresmnadwonhveepatfilotn
be defined within specific geographic boundaries for ease mnyreas frme r an awmae separate fies noftemnae
in conceptualization, but it is imperative to realize that communally by the household. Women traditionally grow rice
domains do not necessarily include all the area within the on their lands while men produce upland crops such as
boundaries prescribed. Because domains are based upon a groundnuts or sorghum on their own fields. In this system,
specified problem focus and upon socioeconomic considera- fields managed by a household pertain to different recointions in addition to the more geographically mappable fac- mendation domains depending upon both the cropping system
tors of climate, altitude, and soil, they are actually and the gender of the farmer manager. in one area of the
interspersed intermittently in a discontinuous pattern Ivory Coast, men plant yams in a cleared field. Women will
throughout a geographic area. often care for the yam plants by weeding them while they
The examples here will emphasize gender as a key factor plant their vegetable crops in the space between the yam
in delineating domains; other factors, such as class, plants. In this system, fields are neither men's nor
education, language use, or food preferences, could also be women's, nor would entire ields fall into a single
used. problem-focused recommendation domain. Rather, domains
would be determined by crops and their managers, male or
Research Domains: Targeting for Variability female, and contain pieces of many fields.
Recommendation domains are seen as tentative in nature
A "research domain" is a problem-focused environmental throughout the on-farm adaptive research process. Recomn(agro-ecological and socioeconomic) range throughout which mendation domains are initially hypothesized by the FSR/E
it is expected that hypothesized solutions to a defined team on the'basis of on-farm exploratory and ref inemnent
problem could have potential applicability and therefore trials, information collected through directed surveys, andi
should be tested. Research domains are determined during subsequent on-farm verification trials. over tine, as note
the initiation of research activities, largely by consider- information is gathered, the recommendation domains are
ation of biophysical (agro-ecological) factors, with some refined and redefined to closer approach reality.
attention to socioeconomic and gender issues.
Recommendation Domains: Targeting for Homogeneity DfuinDmis agtn o omncto
"Dif fusion domains" are interpersonal communication
Research domains are comprised of one or more agro- networks through which newly acquired knowledge of agri-socioeconomic "recommendation domains", that are tenta- cultural technologies naturally flows (Hildebrand 1985).
tively defined based upon the response of a specific tech- Informal flow of information through a community grapevii.
nology to the actual agro-socioeconomic conditions found on is substantial (Rogers 1983). From farmer to farmer,
farms. A "recommendation domain" is a group of farmers (or neighbor to neighbor, store operator to patron, inforinati(
farmers and their fields) with a common problem for whom a about new ideas moves through a farming community. Awaretested solution meets their biophysical and socioeconomic ness of a new technology being verified in on-farm trials
requirements for adoption.




80 81
takes place among farmers and their families who are not A Case of Targeting in the Farming Systems Approach
directly involved in the on-farm research.
A farming systems team can enhance the informational The following example is drawn from farming systems
effect of on-farm research activities in a community. By activities in Central A~merica (Ruano 1977; Hildebrand and
understanding the local communication networks in an area, Cardona 1977; Reiche Caal et al. 1976). Although based oil
the FSR/E team can strategically locate on-farm verifica- actual experiences and cases, some liberty has been taken
tion trials in each diffusion domain to enhance the diffu- with its portrayal here to sht hr.', this refined concc-pt
sion of information about a new technology among potential domains might have been advantageously applied.
users. This ensures a broader, more equitable distribution A farming systems team from the national research
of information because it has the potential of reaching institute composed of three agricultural technicians, one
farmers who are difficult to reach through conventional economist, and one anthropologist (all men) was assigned to
extension methods and who rely greatly upon localized a certain hilly section of the country. In accordance with
interpersonal communication to acquire information, national agricultural production objectives, the team's
Frequently, information about new technologies mandate was to work on improving the production of basic
developed in agricultural programs tends to be communicated grains among small, resource-limited farmers in the project
only through male information networks. In som 'e societies area (a commodity and socioeconomic based project focus).
information about technologies is diffused only slowly, if Initial informal reconnaissance of the area and a
at all, from men to women even within a household. Female review of secondary information revealed that the area was
farmers are clearly disadvantaged in learning about new comprised of relatively flat, fertile lands in the valley
technologies if they cannot participate in male-oriented bottoms and poorer, rocky soils on the slopes. The larger,
dissemination programs. Definition and use of diffusion fertile farms in the valley bottoms were owned by wealthier
domains in the FSR/E testing process allows practitioners farmers who were able to employ mechanization in their
to recognize and plan for the fact that men and women often cultivation systems. Tractors were used in their monohave different communication networks. For example, if men cultural stands of maize and short, improved sorghum
gather and exchange information about agricultural varieties. In contrast, the hillsides were largely devoted
technology at certain locales (cooperatives, local seed and to small farmer cultivation, with farms averaging about 3.5
feed stores, bars) where women are usually not permitted by hectares. Sorghum and maize were interplanted using mostly
custom to enter, women may effectively be excluded from the traditional, taller sorghum varieties. A few farmers
process of dissemination, employed bullocks and plows on their farms, but most
cultivated their crops by hand.
FIELD USE OF THE DOMAIN CONCEPT Unfortunately, little secondary information existed
concerning the socioeconomic conditions of the area.
In practice, farming systems teams work in a project However, generally for this region, people say that men
area located on the basis of geographical and political plant and tend the crops while women manage the household,
considerations rather than with biological conditions or food processing and preparation, and the marketing. Little
socioeconomic concerns. Within a project area, project was known about the role of women in production. The team
focus can be based on a specific priority commodity common- assumed that this was generally true for the project area.
ly produced by farmers in the area or may be based on The team did not at this point have any female members.
socioeconomic considerations such as an emphasis upon small In keeping with their project focus, the team decided
farmers or women farmers. The farming systems team working their attention should be targeted on the smaller hillside
in the area may have responsibility for determining project farmers and farms. A sondeo (Hildebrand 1982), or diagfocus. Seldom will the team have input into defining the nostic survey, conducted in the hillside region revealed
project area. Even though it is of great importance in that farmers in the hillside areas used similar systems of
targeting farming systems efforts, the process of selecting intercropping maize and sorghum. They complained that the
the project area and project focus lies beyond the scope of scarcity and irregularity of rainfall had made maize culthis paper. This discussion will commence with subsequent tivation an increasingly risky endeavor. Farmers were
stages of the targeting process. For the sake of brevity unable to grow enough maize to meet their consumption
and clarity, a relatively simple example will be used.




82 83
needs. Only the male heads of households were targeted for sondeo activity. All hillside farmers and their farming
the sondeo. systems no longer appeared alike.
Since irregular rainfall frequently caused the failure Some farmers at slightly lower elevations had soils
of the maize crop, the more drought-tolerant sorghum was with better water retention characteristics than other
being grown to supplement it. However, farmers expressed a farmers on higher slopes. These farmers could plant miiL'
dislike for eating sorghum and indicated they only grew it with a greater assurance of obtaining a harvest than thc.
to sell for animal feed, using the proceeds to purchase at higher locations with poorer soils. Through addition
maize. In this sense, substituting cultivation of sorghum directed interviews, it was found that lower elevation
for maize reduced the risk of crop failure yet provided for farmers tended to grow sorghum primarily as a cash crop.
the household subsistence needs. Because of their favored soil conditions, they possessed
Sorghum production in the area was higher per unit enough cash from crop sales to ensure a continuous supply
planted than maize, but still below production levels of maize in the household. These farmers did not consume
achieved elsewhere in similar environments with improved sorghum.
varieties. As one facet of their farming systems program, Over time the team came to realize that even though
the team hypothesized that selected improved sorghum vari- most people claimed they did not eat sorghum, many were
eties within the traditional cropping system could lead to actually using it as a substitute for maize. The team
a partial solution to the identified production problem. hypothesized that sorghum consumption increased among lesr'
Based on these findings, the team considered the hill- well-off households farming the poorer, higher elevation
side maize and sorghum farmers and their fields, with fields. It was apparent that farmers of this group also
declining maize yields as a single "research domain" were not interested in the new higher yielding sorghums.
(problem-focused, agroecological range). A series of As one aspect of their attempt to resolve this seeming
exploratory trials were designed for placement throughout contradiction, the team initiated informal surveys with
the research domain, women of the households within this group. Unfortunately,
At harvest, the team collected production data as well owing to socio-cultural and linguistic barriers, the male
as information on farmer opinions about the new varieties, team members were unable to obtain adequate information.
Even though the new, earlier varieties performed well on This was corrected by temporarily adding a female
all test sites, there were sharp differences among farmers social scientist from the institute headquarters to the
as to their acceptability. Some farmers were planning to team to conduct the interviews. She found that these
keep seed and plant the new varieties again the following families did consume sorghum, although they had not always
season. Others were quite disinterested in the varieties, done so. Decreasing maize harvests and lack of resources
but their reasons were unclear to the team. Based on far- for the purchase of maize had forced them to consume sormen evaluations, the team partitioned the "research domain" ghum. Women interviewed indicated that consumption of sorinto two groups of farmers; those interested in planting ghum implied a certain social degradation, a "shame" in the
the sorghums again and those not interested. The former eyes of neighbors. In many cases, a farmer whose family
group became a tentative "recommendation domain" and more consumed sorghum was considered a poor provider. To the
precisely refined trials were designed to continue testing casual observer, sorghum consumption was not apparent among
the varieties under farm conditions, while further deter- the farmers; but as the team moved deeper into the commining the reasons for the farmers' acceptance of the new munity, they found that sorghum was an important part of
sorghums. For the other group, more information was needed the diet among families lacking maize.
by the team to determine why the new sorghums were unac- Further study of sorghum preparation, cooking and
ceptable. Thus, this group continued to constitute a taste preferences revealed that sorghum, like maize, is
researchh doan"primarily eaten in the form of tortillas, either prepared Information had been collected to characterize the with maize or alone. women said some of the new varieties
farming systems of the area while monitoring the explora- tasted bitter and were not fit for consumption. One of the
tory trials. Continuous contact of the team members with new varieties was not bitter-tasting, but due to purple
farmers during this period had yielded much additional glumes, it left telltale dark spots when made into torsocioeconomic information not apparent from the initial tilllas. Although the purple glumes could be removed after
many washings, this was an unacceptable alternative for




84 3
most families because of a scarcity of readily available homogeneous farmers while not losing sight of the
water in the higher elevation areas of the research domain, heterogeneity inherent among them. This conception of
using this information, the team partitioned the domains is not a static one, but one that recognizes the
original research domain into two "recommendation domains." changing nature of the targeting process as a result of
For the earlier tentatively defined recommendation domain, on-going information gathering through surveys, participai
consisting of farmers who produced sorghum destined for the observation, and on-farm experimentation. Maintaining a
animal feed market, on-farm testing of the previously flexible determination of domains allows for a greater
introduced new sorghum varieties was continued. For the understanding of the diversity of local farming systems, Cj!
second recommendation domain, composed of relatively poorer the rationale behind the behavior of farmers, and of the
farmers producing sorghum for home consumption under less effect of gender and social factors upon the local practic
favored soil conditions, the team recommended that the of agriculture.research institute acquire or develop varieties with less
coloring and no bitter taste that could then be tested
on-farm with the farmers in this group. REFERENCES
Through this experience the FSR/E team and the research
institute began to realize that while women were not Byerlee, D., M. Collinson, et al.
directly involved in sorghum production, they did have con- 1980 Planning Technologies Appropriate to Farmers:
siderable influence in making cropping decisions that Concepts and Procedures. Mexico: CIMMyT.
affect household concerns such as consumption. Newly cog- Byerlee, D. and E. Hesse de Polanco
nizant of the need for an augmented social perspective in 1982 The Rate and Sequence of Adoption of Cereal
their development activities, the team began a second phase Technologies: The Case of Rainfed Barley in the
of on-farm experimentation targeted towards the two sep- Mexican Altiplano. Mexico: CIMMYT.
arate recommendation domains. Collinson, M. P.
At the same time, they began to work with local exten- 1979 Deriving recommendation domains for Central
sion personnel to study the flow of agricultural informa- province, Zambia. Report no. 4. Nairobi, Kenya:
tion among the farmers and households ip the region. Rec- CIMMYUT.
ognizing the role that household consumption preferences 1980 A Farming Systems Contribution to Improved
play in the adoption or rejection of sorghum technologies, Relevancy in Agricultural Research: Concepts and
female team members and interviewers were added to the Procedures and Their Promotion by CimmY in Eastern
farming systems program to ensure a balanced gender Africa. Nairobi, Kenya: CIMMYT East Africa
perspective. Economics Program.
Among the many local information pathways, it was found Cornick, T. and A. Alberti
that women exchanged much information about sorghum and 1985 Recommendation Domains Reconsidered. Paper
other agricultural crops with other women at the weekly presented at the 1985 Farming systems Research and
markets. Among men, interpersonal communication concerning Methodology Synpos!imP. Manhattan, KS: Kansas S'tate
farming and crops took place on Sundays when farmers from University.
the surrounding countryside congregated in the town plaza Franzel, S.
to converse and visit. By the close of the second season 1985 Evaluating a Method for Defining Recommendation
of farming systems activities, the team had tentatively Domains: A Case Study from Kenya. Paper presented
defined several local "diffusion domains" based on gender, at the 1985 Farming Systems Research and methodology
religious affiliation, locality groups, and other factors. Symposium. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University.
on-farm trials and extension efforts were managed to ensure Gilbert, E. H., D.W. Norman and F.E. Winch
information flow to each diffusion domain. 1980 Farming Systems Research: A Critical Appraisal.
Michigan Sate University Rural Development Paper No.
CONCLUSION 6. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Harrington, L. W. and R. Tripp
This greatly simplified case provides an example of how 1985 Recommendation Domains: A Framework for
the refined domain concept allows grouping of roughly On-Farm Research Working Paper 02/84. Mexico:
CIMMYT.




Hildebrand, P.E.
1982 Combining Disciplines in Rapid Appraisal: The
Sondeo Approach. Agricultural Administration 8:
423-432. 7
1985 On-Farm Research: Organized Community IncorporatingWomen into
Adaptation, Learning and Diffusion for Efficient
Agricultural Technology Innovation. Farming Systems Monitoring and Evaluation in
Support Project Newsletter 3:4:6-7. Farming Systems Research and Extension
Hildebrand, P.E. and D. Cardona
1977 Sistemas de Cultivos de Ladera para Pequenos y Jonice Louden
Medianos Agricultores: La Barranca. Guatemala:
ICTA.
Perrin, R. K., D. L. Winkelmann, E. R. Moscardi and J. R. OVERVIEW OF FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND EXTENSION
Anderson
1976 From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: During the past few decade;, a number of programs
An Economics Training Manual. Mexico: CIMMYT. designed and financed by national and international agenReiche Caal, E.C., P. E. Hildebrand, S. R. Ruano and J. Wyld cies tried to improve the productivity of rural popula1976 El Pequeno Agricultor y Sus Sistemas de Cultivos tions. Among the strategies adopted were the "Green Revoen Ladera. Guatemala: ICTA. lution," extension, research and development, credit, irriRogers, E.M. gation, and soil conservation. While these innovations
1983 Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY: Free have made technological advances, a number of limitations
Press. have also been detected. The plant breeding breakthroughs
Ruano, S.R. of the "Green Revolution" of the 1960s, that produced high1977 El Uso del Sorgo para Consumo Humano: Caracter- yielding grain varieties favored more progressive farmers.
isticas y Limitaciones. Guatemala: ICTA. Most of this research concentrated largely on plantations
and export crops and provided little technical assistance to the small farmer.
The strategy employed by extension services took results generated on research stations to the farmer. Implicit in this approach was the assumption that farmers have inadequate knowledge about agriculture and must depend on information from professional groups. Farmers often rejected advice based on what they perceived as "book learning" rather than practical experience about farming. Due to the limited success of the extension approach, it was imperative that new strategies be employed to improve agricultural production and to correct the food deficit situation now becoming acute in most developing countries.
The farming systems approach was introduced during the 1970s to work more effectively with the problem of increased agricultural production through improved technology. Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR/E) aims at improving the effectiveness of national research and extension services in generating and disseminating technologies appropriate to farmers. A farming system may be broadly defined as the way in which a farm family manages the resources it controls to meet its objectives within a particular ecological, social and economic setting.




Farmer Participation for More Effective Research in Sustainable Agriculture
by
Walter W. Stroup', Peter E. Hildebrand2 and Charles A. Francis3
Staff Paper SP91-32 September, 1991
Staff papers are circulated without formal review by the Food and Resource Economics Department. This paper, a chapter for the proposed American Society of Agronomy Special Publication: "Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture in the Tropics", is being circulated for review and comments. Contents are the sole responsibility of the authors.
123
1 Associate Professor, Department of Biometry, University of Nebraska-Uncoln
2 Professor, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida
3 Professor, Department of Agronomy University of Nebraska-Uncoln
Senior authorship not assigned
[-




ABSTRACT
Farmers have conducted their own research from before plants and animals were domesticated. However, with the advent of scientifically based agriculture their influence on technology development waned. Farming systems research-extension (FSRE) methodology was a response to a concern that Green Revolution technology was bypassing many small, resource-poor farmers in the Third World. Based on the FSRE-generated concepts of domains (research, recommendation and diffusion), the unique nature of on-farm research, and its demands on statistical analysis are examined. On-farm trials differ from on-station trials in two important ways: 1) the objectives are usually different, and 2) the variablity of on-farm data is more complex and must be addressed with greater sophistication. Four analysis of variance (ANOVA) models for on-farm research data are examined and the relationship of ANOVA to modified stability analysis (MSA) is discussed. Means of incorporating larger farms (both developed and developing countries) into, an organized research and extension effort are examined. Finally, the integration of large and small farms into a combined research and extension effort is discussed.




FARMER PARTICIPATION FOR MORE EFFECTIVE RESEARCH IN SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
If developing countries are to meet national food needs and alleviate rural poverty,
millions of small farmers must become active participants in the agricultural
research and development process (Whyte and Boynton, 1983).
Most crops and many predominant agricultural production systems are the result of
empirical research, or trial and error, by generations of farmers working the land. Neolithic farmers knew much about 1500 different plant species used for food and. medicine. (Braidwood, 1967). Vestiges of their traditional subsistence systems still exist in many regions (Francis, 1 986b). With the advent of scientifically based agriculture following World War 11, however, farmers' influence on technology development became less and less.
In the late 1 960s and early 1 970s, the international development community began to see a need to reach the many small, resource-poor farmers who were being by-passed by the Green Revolution. Whyte and Boynton (1983) argued that this meant 1) an increased emphasis upon onfarm research, 2) greater interdisciplinary collaboration, 3) agricultural bureaucracies that are more responsive to the interests and needs of small farmers, and 4) small farmers should no longer be treated simply as passive recipients of what the experts decide is good for them.
To respond to this new clientele, a methodology was needed to efficiently find
environment-specific technologies for large numbers of such farmers. This methodology had to not only reach farmers in widely varying and often difficult situations who lack the resources required to dominate, the environment., but also:
- speed up the technology development, evaluation, delivery and adoption process,
and
- efficiently use scarce institutional resources (those human, physical, and financial
resources of national agricultural research and extension services in developing
countries.
In order to accomplish these needs, the methodology required an integrated, multidisciplinary approach that incorporated farmers, researchers and extension personnel.
Internationally, over the last 20 years, this *real world* or on-farm research for large
numbers of farmers has come to be called Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSRE). In the broadest sense FSRE involves
- rapid diagnosis of farm problems by multidisciplinary teams to provide the basis for
- adaptive and descriptive biophysical on-farm research which is supported by
- socioeconomic research on-farm and in the farm community,
- controlled biophysical research in laboratories and on-station, and
- simultaneous dissemination and diffusion of results.
By incorporating farmers from the beginning of technology development from problem diagnosis, through adaptation and evaluation FSRE 'Methodology reduces the incidence of-




2
research results that perform poorly on farms (Figure 1), or the rejection on-station of technologies which might have performed well on farms but were never released (Figure 2).
As methods have developed over time, FSRE is not limited to small farms. Indeed, efficiency in the use of research resources is enhanced by incorporating farmers from multiple environments. In this chapter, methods for incorporating large numbers of limited resource farmers into on-farm research are discussed. Later in the chapter, means of including larger, more commercial farms is covered.
CONCEPTS AND METHODS
Using FSRE methods, farm problems are diagnosed by rapid rural appraisal procedures
(Chambers, 1981) or sondeois (Hildebrand, 1981), that incorporate farmers as active participants working with multidisciplinary research and extension teams. These methods are flexible and may or may not use formal questionnaires in the process. Problems encountered are elaborated and prioritized for research by several methods including those proposed by Tripp and Woolley (1989) from CIMMYT and CIAT.
Research domains
An earlier concept that sought homogeneous groups of farms (Hildebrand, 1 981; Norman, 1980) has been modified to incorporate the concept of a research domain (Wotoweic, et al., 1988) which recognizes the fact that farms, and farmers are highly variable and taot this vaiability. Often research- domains are chosen, based on biophysical characteristics although they may be chosen politically. Research domains ideally contain a wide range of environments that are incorporated as early as possible in the technology screening process. Environments in this context can be associated with farms, fields or even portions of fields. The use of socioeconomic considerations in the choice of environments withinthe research domain enhances efficiency in technology development and evaluation.
To comprehend a research domain, compare the environment for producing tobacco in the field on the small, resource-poor farm in north Florida shown in Photo 1 with the environment for raising tobacco in the field on a larger farm, in the same area, but which has enough resources that it can dominate the environment to a much greater extent. shown in Photo 2 and to the environment for raising tobacco on an experiment station, also in the same area, where it is grown with few limitations, allowing most environmental factors to be dominated, Photo 3.
All of these environments can be considered part of the same research domain and be incorporated simultaneously into an integrated technology development, evaluation and diffusion process for tobacco in north. Florida. The;-nature .of -on-farm research in research domains is exploratory, to answer the questions WHAT and WHERE, not why and when. Diverse environments such as those shown in north Florida. enhance the exploratory nature of on-farm research in research domains.
Recommendation doman
In a research domain, an integrated, multidisciplinary research and extension team conducts both biophysical and socioeconomic on-farm research and analyzes the results to 1) characterize the biophysical envirornents associated with each location, 2) elicit farmers! evaluation criteria with respect to the technology being evaluated, and 3) define recommendation domains. A




3
recommendation domain is a unique combination of these environmental characteristics and evaluation criteria.
Recommendation domains, then, are one or more subsets of a research domain which
target for homoceneitv of 1) natural and farmer-created biophysical environments, and 2) farmers' evaluation criteria for the technology being evaluated. Also modified from previous thinking that recommendation domains pertained to whole farms (Byerlee, et al., 1982), or cropping or farming systems (Hildebrand, 1981) are that these logically can refer as well to individual fields on a farm, or even different locations in the same field. The most important concept is to consider recommendation domains as environments whose biophysical and socioeconomic characteristics can be identified.
The nature of on-farm research in recommendation domains is validation, to confirm
answers as to 1) how each alternative (treatment) will respond, and 2) where each alternative is best, as well as to refine the characterization of the recommendation domains and farmer evaluation criteria. At this stage, the number of treatments in on-farm trials is limited. Extension personnel can play an increasingly important role by expanding coverage for evaluation and enhancing exposure (diffusion) of the technology.
Diffusion domains
Diffusion domains are informal interpersonal communication networks through which newly acquired knowledge of agricultural technology normally flows. Knowledge of these networks is important in helping research and extension personnel lc-ate on-farm trials to target for communication.
The challenge of diagnosis and identification of these several domains is complicated by how information is collected, analyzed, and evaluated from on-farm trials. We need to clearly identify where research results can be applied, how broad the recommendations can be, and for whom these new technologies are appropriate. To be credible for farmers as well as rigorous from a statistical point of view, results from on-farm research must be analyzed and evaluated according to valid statistical methods.
ANALYTIC VERSUS ENUMERATIVE STATISTICAL METHODS
Over the past several decades, procedures for the design and analysis of experiments have been developed and utilized very effectively in agricultural research. Many of these procedures have become so institutionalized that it is easy to lose sight of the fact .that they are only specific applications of statistical theory to specific experimental conditions namely, those of the agricultural experiment station.
Are the requirements of on-farm trials; identical to those of experiment station trials? There is no good reason to expect they should be. In fact, on-farm trials differ from their on-station counterparts in two very significant ways: 1) the objectives are typically quite different; and 2) the variability of the data in an on-farm trial is typically more complex and must be addressed with greater sophistication than is normally required for an on-station trial.
How do the objectives of on-farm trials differ from on-station research? How does this in turn affect decisions regarding appropriate statistical methodology? Although probably not obvious to agricultural researchers, on-farm trials have many statistical similarities to quality improvement experimentation in. manufacturing.. Deming (1953. 1 9751, the statistician whose contributions to




4
3quality in Japanese industry are legendary, distinguishes between two approaches to statistical analysis: enumerative and analytic. From Deming (1975):
Enumerative. "The action to be taken on the frame depends purely on estimates or
complete counts of one or more specific populations of the frame. The aim of the statistical study in an enumerative problem is descriptive.' Virtually all classical statistical procedures t-tests, Ftests, analysis of variance (ANOVA), standard confidence intervals are enumerative in nature.
Analytic. *In Which action will be taken on the process or cause-system that produced the frame studied, the aim being to improve the practice in the future.* Only statistical procedures which involve prediction rather than estimation or hypothesis testing are analytic in nature.
Deming (19~75) puts it another way: *A 100 percent sample in an enumerative problem
provides the complete answer to the problem posed for an enumerative problem. . In contrast, a 100 percent sample of a group of patients, or of a section of land, or of last week's product, industrial or agricultural, is still inconclusive in an analytic problem. This point, though fundamental in statistical information for business, has escaped many writers."
Clearly, most on-farm trials have analytic rather than enumerative objectives. Thus, the literal application of enumerative statistical procedures, many of which form the core of statistical tradition in agricultural research, is not appropriate for most on-farm trials. For example, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) can be very useful for interpreting data from on-farm trials. However, traditional ANOVA places much emphasis on hypothesis testing and significance levels. These are important in enumerz.- ve studies, but essentially irrelevant to analytic studies, where the emphasis is on prediction and taking action.
Ad hoc statistical procedures are common in analytic studies. While many of these
procedures can be validly criticized using enumerative statistical arguments, these criticisms often miss the point. Analytic studies are usually conducted with less prior knowledge of and control over experimental conditions. The choice is frequently between no knowledge and useful, if imperfect knowledge; conditions of optimality characteristic of enumerative statistical procedures are simply not an option. Analytic studies typically sacrifice control over variability for a broadened research domain. This does not make them incorrect or invalid, it just means that the researcher must understand the trade-offs and choose statistical methods accordingly.
The complex variability in on-farm trials often troubles those trained in traditional statistical methods for agricultural research. In statistical jargon, these methods are examples of "ordinary least squares"; their main virtue is that they are easy (relativelyl) to do without a computer, which was a vital consideration in the 1 920s, and 1 930s. when they were developed. Their main drawbacks are the rigid structure and narrow, frequently unrealistic assumptions required of the data to permit legitimate interpretation. Since on-farm trials rarely satisfy these assumptions, many have concluded falsely that they are somehow "statistically improper." In truth, traditional methods simply cannot accommodate the complexity of on-farm trials.
*Ordinary least squares* theory has long since been supplanted by more versatile methods, mixed linear model methods (or "mixed model methods* as they will be referred to here) being of particular importance to on-farm trials. The virtue of mixed model methods is their flexibility; their drawback is that they generally require a computer. Thus. while mixed model theory has been around for nearly a half century, it did not become practical to use until the 1 970s in developed countries and the 1 980s, in most developing countries.. By then, more traditional methods were so deeply entrenched in statistics courses, on experiment stations, and in agricultural research journals that substantial re-education has either been required or, more correctly, is still required.




5
Recently, there has been a great deal of interest in applications of mixed model theory in agriculture. Henderson ( 1975) developed best inear unbiased predictors (or BLUPs) as an alternative to more enumerative-type estimators. Perceived at first as an ad hoc procedure, Harville (1976) put BLUP on sound theoretical footing. A regional publication of the southern Research and Information Exchange Group in statistics (Southern Regional Bulletin, 1989) contained several examples of mixed model applications in agriculture. This publication also contained articles by McLean (1989) and Stroup (1 989a) describing mixed model theory and methods.
In the following section, mixed linear models appropriate for on-farm trials are discussed. These models superficially resemble models used to evaluate on-station data. The goal of this section is to show how to use mixed model theory to understand the distinction between the various assumptions that can be made about these models, their effect on the resulting analysis, and their implications for the on-farm researcher. The larger objective is to empower the on-farm researcher with a relevant statistical perspective so that design and analysis choices appropriate to on-farm trials can be made.
THE "TYPICAL" ON-FARM TRIAL
On-farm trials are conducted in a variety of ways, but most have a common basic structure. The following is a generic description of the essential elements:
Suppose a number of treatments, V, are to be evaluated. Each treatment is observed at F different farms where the specific biophysical and socioeconomic characteristics of the specific site on. the farm -will be characterized. At. each farm site, each treatment is "replicated" R times the word "replicated* appears in quotes here because, as will become apparent later in this discussion, multiple observations on treatments within a farm site may not be true replications. Note that the term 'farm%, to be designated in what follows by the letter "F* is generic. The term more specifically should be interpreted as "environment'. In specific trials, 'field", "location', 'village", etc. may apply equally.
Schematically, this trial can be represented as in Figure 1. As a starting point for analysis of this trial, the following mathematical model can be used:
yw= yi + f, + r(f), + v,, + vfk+ e,,1, (1)
where y~k is the observation on the ji' replication of the ii" farm for the kd" treatment,
# is the overall mean,
f, is the effect of the ii" farm,
r(f), is the effect of the j1h replication in the il' farm,
vk is the effect of the W"' treatment,
vf, is the interaction between the il farm and k1 treatment, -and
e~k is residual variation not accounted for by the above effects.
The analysis of variance (ANO VA) implied by this model has the following general form:




6
SOURCE OF VARIATION degrees of freedom
FARM F F-1
REP(FARM) R(F) F(R-1)
TREATMENT V V-1
FARM X TREATMENT V x F (F-1)(V-1)
RESIDUAL resid F(R-1)(V-1)
TOTAL FRV 1
This ANOVA has several possible interpretations, depending on the specific objectives of a given on-farm trial and how the effects in the model are defined as a consequence. In order to make appropriate use of this ANOVA table, the researcher must be clear about the objectives of the trial and the nature of the effects being observed. Some useful definitions follow.
Population of inference: The set of elements (e.g. farms) to which the results of the study are to be applied. 'his is similar to the concept of a research domain.
Prediction space: Applications of study results from on-farm trials often take the form of
recommendations. Recommendations are based on the predicted behavior of the treatments, either for the entire population or for various sub-populations. The set of elements (e.g. farms or environments) to which a prediction is intended to be applicable is called the prediction space. This is similar to the concept of a recommendation domain.
Random .and-Fixed. Effects:.. Effects irmthe-study treatments, farms, "replications" can be considered as fixed or random depending on 1) how they are chosen and 2) what prediction space is appropriate to the objectives of the study. An effect is considered fixed if the levels of a particular factor are chosen deliberately in advance of the study. In this case identical levels would be used again were the study to be repeated based on the same prior knowledge, and prediction is limited to only those levels actually represented in the study. Typically, treatments such as tillage methods or fertilizer levels in a variety trial would be considered fixed effects. An effect is considered random if the levels actually observed in the study result from a random sample of a larger population identical levels in a repeat of the study would be exceedingly unlikely. Prediction in this case is intended to apply to the population of which the levels observed are onlyrepresentatives. The most blatant example of a random effect would be the effect of "replication" or of residual variation. Many effects are not clearly fixed or random the effect of farm site or environment, for example. Whether an effect is fixed or random has a major impact on the analysis, as will be demonstrated below.
Most statistical methods texts, e.g. Steel and Torri (1980) or Snedecor and Cochran
(19801, contain discussions of fixed and random. effects. Many texts on the design or planning of experiments discuss the population of inference, e.g. Cox (1958) or Mead (1988). The reader is referred to these texts for more detail.
IMPACT OF FIXED OR RANDOM EFFECTS ON ANOVA
In the ANOVA for the on-farm trial given above, it is usually fairly clear that *treatments* are fixed effects and "replications' are random. Farms, however, are not so easily categorized. Different farms may have been selected quite intentionally based on certain criteria: size, income, technology level, soil type, climatic characteristics, etc. Or they may have been selected at random from a target population. Actually, these are extremes usually, farms are selected using a combination of fixed and random effect tactics.- That is, a spectrum of-defmed conditions must be
r r




7
represented, but some form of random sampling is done within each condition. Essentially, this amounts to stratified random sampling.
It follows that farms are not easily categorized as fixed or random. Usually, in fact, the .correct" analysis of the on-farm trial will involve some compromise between the analysis with farm as a fixed effect and the analysis with farms as random. Before examining this "compromise,* it is instructive to look at the appropriate analyses with farms strictly fixed or strictly random.
If farms are fixed then the only random components of model (1) are r(f)j and eljk. Denote the variance of r(f),, by a,2 and the variance of elik by .2. Then the expected values of the mean squares of the ANOVA are as follows:
SOURCE OF VARIATION EXPECTED MEAN SQUARE .
F a2 + FVa,2 +RVo,
RR a2 + FVa,2
V o2 + FRO,,
VxF o2 + RO
residual a 2
where 0,, 0, and Of denote variation attributable to the fixed effects fi, vk, and vfik,
respectively.
If farms are random. then the components f, and-vflk from model (1) are also random. Denote their variances by a,2 and o2, respectively. Then the expected mean squares are:
SOURCE OF VARIATION EXPECTED MEAN SQUARE
F a2 + Ra2 + Vaf2 + RVo,2
R(F) aZ + Voa,2
V a2 + RO-2. + FRO,,
VxF o2 + Ro.2
residual a2
These two ANOVA tables imply very different approaches to inference. When farms are fixed the data analyst's first concern must be the farm by treatment interaction (V x F), the magnitude of which is assessed by the F-ratio MS(V x F)/MS(resid). If this F-ratio indicates the existence of interaction, then effort must be focused on understanding its nature. Even if the interaction F-ratio appears to be negligible, the data analyst would do Well to partition MS(V x F) into meaningful components, e.g. using contrasts, since important interactions often are masked by the large number of degrees of freedom associated with the V x F effect (see Snedecor and Cochran 1980), pp. 304-307).
When farms are considered fixed, the treatment main effect is of interest only if the interaction effects are negligible, i.e. if it is clear that the same relationships among treatment means appear to hold for every farm in the population of inference. This is generally not true, but if it is then the treatment main effect can be evaluated using the F-ratio MS(V)/MS(resid).
When farms are considered random then test of farm by treatment interaction, which uses the same F-ratio as above, has a far different interpretation. Specifically, it means that differences among-treatments vary at random by farm. This is quite.distinctfrom thefixed. effect case, in




8
which interaction implies that relative differences among treatments are affected by systematic, identifiable and repeatable farm characteristics (i.e. the characteristics that motivated the choice of the farms in the first place). In fact, the test for interaction is not particularly interesting if farms are random: if o,, is not greater than zero, then the assumption of random farms is probably defective. Of interest is the treatment main effect. This is evaluated using the F-ratio MS(V)/MS(V x F). Its purpose is to verify that differences among treatment means, substantial and consistent enough to be seen through the population of inference, over and above random differences among treatment by farm, actually exist.
To summarize, if farms are fixed, the F-ratio of primary interest is that for the V x F
interaction, MS(V x F)/MS(resid), or, if the V x F interaction is negligible then the V main effect is assessed by MS(V)IMS(resid). If farms are random, the V x F test is of little intrinsic interest (except to verify the validity of the assumptions); of primary interest is the V main effect, which in this case has an F-ratio MS(V)/MS(V x F).
In on-farms trials as they are actually conducted, farms are rarely purely fixed or purely random effects. The above ANOVAs, therefore, are useful as academic exercises to illustrate issues the farming systems researcher needs to understand, but neither, unmodified, is likely to be of much use in practice.
PARTITIONING THE FARM BY TREATMENT INTERACTION
In most on-farm trials, the population of inference includes a set of *types of
environments,* that the researcher wants to be represented. In the extreme fixed effects case, the number of types, would be F, and thus only.one environment per type would be observed. In the extreme random effects case, there- would be exactly one type of environment. (or so little would be known about the environments that typing could not be done prior to conducting the trial) and F randomly sampled environments per type. Usually on-farm researchers would reject either extreme; a more realistic design would be to randomly sample a number of environments from each of the several types of in the population.
If the types of 'farms* are very well defined, model (1) could be modified as follows:
y~i, = u + t, + f(t) + r(ff)iik + v, + vt + vf(t),, + e., (2)
where t, is the effect of farm type,
f(t)q is the effect of farm within type,
vtv is the farm type by treatment interaction,
and other terms follow by extension from model (1).
In model (2) type and treatment would be considered fixed, farm and replication random,
and analysis would proceed accordingly based on thefollowing ANOVA:
SOURCE OF VARIATION Sa EXPECTED MEAN SQUARE
T T-1 o2 + Ro',u2+ Vo'a2 + RVo'f2 + FRV0p
FM T(F-1) a2 + Rau2+ Voa, + RVoft2
R(TF) TF(R-1) oa2 + Vo,2
V V-1 e + Ro,.2 + TFRO,,
VxT (T-1)(V-1) oz + Ra,2 + FRo,,
V x F(T) T(V-1)(F-1) oa + Ro,,2
residual. TF(R-1 )(V-1) a2




9
The type by treatment (V x T) interaction would be of initial primary interest. Its F-ratio is MS[V x T]/MS[V x F(T)].
As before, partitioning MS[V x TI into meaningful contrasts would be strongly advisable. For example, suppose the farm types are:
1. higher rainfall, mechanized
2. higher rainfall, non-mechanized
3. lower rainfall, mechanized
4. lower rainfall, non-mechanized
and the treatments are:
1. standard variety, no fertilizer
2. standard variety, with fertilizer
3. resistant variety, no fertilizer
4. resistant variety, with fertilizer
The type main effect could be partitioned into rainfall and mechanization main effects and a rainfall by mechanization interaction. The treatment main effect could be partitioned into variety and fertilizer main effects* and a variety by fertilizer interaction. Then the interaction of any of the three type effects with any of the three treatment effects could be evaluated. For example, a rainfall by variety effect could be examined to see if the resistant variety is equally advantageous at lower and higher rainfall. In the unusual case that type by treatment interactions are negligible, the
-treatment -main.effect, could be tested using. MS[VIIMS[V x FM].
Predicted performance of treatments for particular farm types can be obtained using confidence intervals for the treatment x farm type means. Care should be taken to base the confidence interval on the correct standard error. Most statistical software packages are poorly suited to work with mixed linear models such as model (2) without special attention. For a complete discussion of this issue, see McLean (1989) and Stroup 01.989a). Predicted performance of specific farms within a given farm type for a particular treatment can be obtained by calculating best linear unbiased predictors (Henderson, 1975). These are not the same as usual sample means. Again, see McLean (1989) and Stroup (1 989a and 1 989b) for a full discussion of best linear unbiased prediction.
STABIUTY ANALYSIS
A special case of the above analysis occurs when 'environmental types' and their potential interactions with~ treatment are not well understood prior to conducting the on-farm trial. In such cases, the researcher makes an attempt toa represent as wide a spectrum of types as possible within the-population of inference. but a cleano partition of the variability among environments- into types and environments within types may not be possible. Indeed. one objective of the research may be to provide insight concerning which environments favor or disfavor certain treatments and what features are common to these environments. Various forms of *stability analysis' are important examples of this approach.
Excellent review articles on stability analysis are available (see Freeman (1973), Hill (1975), Westcott (1985)). Hildebrand (1984) has adapted the approach for on-farm trials and its use is demonstrated in the following section. This discussion will be restricted to pointing out its relation to model (2) above. In Hildebrand's modified stability analysis (MSA), an index for a given environment (El) is defined -as- the mean response over all treatments at that farm site. A linear




10
regression over Els is obtained for each treatment and used as a basis for determining "recommendation domains," a notion loosely similar (but not identical) to the mixed model concept of prediction space. In terms of ANOVA, this could be expressed by modifying model (2):
Yiik = Y + f, + r(f), + v + ((ElI) + vfik + eiik (3)
where El, is the index of the il environment, and
G. is the linear regression coefficient for the kth treatment.
In essence, El in model (3) replaces type in model (2). Also, f, in model (3) is equivalent to t, + f(t),, in model (2) and vfik in model (3) is equivalent to vf(t)iil in model (2). Since environment (represented by "F') aside from El, is a random effect, the ANOVA is:
SOURCE OF VARIATION df EXPECTED MEAN SQUARE
F F-1 a2 + Ro'2 + Vaf2 + RVo 2
R(F) F(R-1) a + Vo,2
V V-1 oa2 + Ra,2 + FRO,
V x El V-1 a2 + Ra',2 + FRee
V x F (V-1)(F-2) a2 + Rao2
residual F(V-1 )(R-1) o2
Equality of the Gk can be tested using MS[V x EI]/MS[V x Fl. A "significant" F-ratio would imply that treatments respond unequally to El (and thus to whatever environmental types +he El imply). This would in. turn provide formal justification for predicting that different treatments are optimal for various "recommendation domains."
There is no reason why the use of environmental indices need be limited to linear regression. For example, model (3) can easily be extended to
Y= + f, + r(f), + Vk + MIk(EI) + Gn(EI)2 + vfk + eGik, (4)
where 13, is the linear regression coefficient for the kd' treatment, and
M~k is the quadratic regression coefficient for the kd' treatment.
The ANOVA for model (4) would be identical to the ANOVA for model (3) except that an additional line for V x Ell (or V x El x El) with V-1 degrees of freedom would appear immediately after V x El and the remaining V x F term would have (V-1)(F-3) degrees of freedom.
The F-ratio MS[V x E12]/MSIV x F] tests the equality of quadratic regression over El for the various treatments. Pictorially, this can be visualized as in Figure 4. Note that the quadratic regressions are quite different for the treatments, although their linear components are similar. Several authors have noted the limitations of linear-only regression over El, e.g. Westcott (1985). However, model (4) should make it clear that this restriction is unnecessary. Indeed, model (4) can be extended to more complex forms of regression over El.
If there is only one "replication" per farm (a discussion of the advantages and
disadvantages of this appears below) then the R(F) and residual terms in the ANOVA have no degrees of freedom and the result is the following simplified form:




SOURCE OF VARIATION df EXPECTED MEAN SQUARE
F F-1 o + Vo 2
V V-1 o2 + Fo,
V x El V-1 o'Qf2 + Fog
V x E12 V-1 o'w + FoE,2
V x F (now the residual) (V-1)(F-3) alt,2
Note that this has no impact on the F-ratio used.
The use of El in stability analysis has been widely criticized because the independent variable El is in fact a function of the dependent variable. Westcott (1985) makes a case for greater use of independently determined "environmental variables.' He also notes that "environmental measurements are very seldom available.* Theoretical objections aside, the onfarm researcher often has but two alternatives: using El or being unable to make useful recommendations within a reasonable period of time. And, as McCullagh and Nelder (1989) point out, "A first, though at first sight, not a very helpful principle, is that all models are wrong; some, though, are more useful than others and we should seek those." Critics often point to the weaknesses in formal statistical properties of analysis using El. These difficulties clearly exist; however, a more compelling point is that the researcher often has the El as the ONLY objective guide to environmental quality. These criticisms would be severe problems if formal. definitive statistical inference were the objective. It is not. The more important use of this type of analysis is to obtain preliminary insight 'egarding the consistency of treatment performance, which fields, farms or groups of farms appear to be troublesome, what recommendations appear to be reasonable eto Thissort ot analysisis. alwaysa starting point, never an end in itself.
For the researcher to make the jump from finding a significant El x treatment interaction from a model such as (3) or (4) to associating El with predictable future environments or "recommendation domains" and making reliable treatment recommendations for them obviously requires a great deal of thought and care (and involves, to a large extent, non-statistical questions, i.e. why are some El low and others high). Predicted treatment performance for farms included in the trial can be made using well known best linear unbiased prediction methods. The Els have no intrinsic meaning, so predictons for fields or farms not included in the trial are only as good as the researcher's ability to predict which fields or farms will be in which recommendation domain. The on-farm trial will not by itself generate data suitable for this purpose.
AN IMPORTANT NOTE ON DESIGNING-ON-FARM TRIALS
Note that neither MS[R(FT)] nor MS[residl are ever used in the analysis of the "usual" onfarm trial, i.e. one described by some variation an model (2). The appropriate denominator term for all tests of interest is MSIV x F(T)]. Why is this important? Both MS[R(FT)] and MS[residl require that R, the number of "replications" per farm, be at least two. However, neither of these terms has any role in the analysis of the standard on-farm trial. What would happen if only one replication per farm were observed? Neither. MS[R(FT)1 nor MS[resid] could be calculated. However, since neither term plays any role in the analysis, this is no real disadvantage.
It IS important to have as many farms per type as possible. This maximizes the degrees of freedom for MS[V x Fm]; since this is the denominator term for all F-ratios of interest, this will maximize power and, consequently, the usable information available. Thus, it is the FARM that is the true replication in an on-farm trial, not the "replication" within a farm (hence the motivation for the quotation marksl). This is important because on-farm researchers often have been advised to replicate within a farm, even for examplein Hildebrand and Poey (1985)l From an ANOVA




12
viewpoint, we now know this is clearly erroneous advice. Moreover, it is wasteful: the researcher would be better off observing more farms. Even worse, it abuses the hospitality of the farmer donating the space for the research to be conducted; the farmer should not have any more land out of ordinary production than absolutely necessary.
To repeat, in most on-farm trials, the number of farms observed should be maximized. Replication within a farm should not ordinarily be necessary and is usually wasteful. The only exception is for the purely *farms as fixed effect" case of model (1), an unlikely, though not unheard of, on-farm trial design.
MODIFIED STABILITY ANALYSIS
One method for managing research in such different environments as those shown above in north Florida is with "stability analysis%; modified to provide a positive rather than a negative interpretation to treatment by environment interaction (Hildebrand 1990). Figure 3 shows hypothetical results of three varieties (as an example of three alternative technologies) that have been tested over an appropriately wide range of environments. In this hypothetical case, all three have the same overall mean yield and deviations from regression, s~d, = 0. The linear regression coefficients are 1.5, 1.0 and 0.5 for varieties A, B and C, respectively. In the absence of other disqualifying characteristics, variety B (the most generally adaptable according to Finlay and Wilkinson (1963), or the most stable according to Eberhart and Russell (1966)) would be selected based on the value of the regression coefficient. The argument against variety A is that because it has a coefficient much higher than unity, it is too sensitive to environmental change and does poorly in prior environments. Variety C, because it has a coefficient much lower than unity, is unable -to,.exploi..Jigh- yielding .environments-.Theref ore,..variety. B, which. is not superior in an y
environment, is chosen as the best of the three.
Notice that the argument against variety A with a high coefficient, moves from right to left or toward low environments (it does poorly in poor environments). The opposite is true of the argument against variety C with a low coefficient, which moves from left to right or toward high environments (it is unable to exploit good environments). These are negative interpretations which lead to the selection of variety B, Figure 5.'
IIf the emphasis regarding varieties with a high regression coefficient were toward, rather
than away from the best environments (which variety can exploit the better environments?), variety A would be selected. Likewise, if for varieties with a low coefficient, emphasis were toward (rather than away from) the poorer environments (which variety can maintain yield even in poorer environments?), variety C would be selected, Figure 6. The difference is not one of analytical procedure, but of a positive rather than a negative philosophy, goal and/or attitude toward technology selection.
The result of-using this approach with modified stability analysis (Hildebrand, 1984) is to describe recommendation domains within, which specific technologies excel (recommend variety A for the better environments and variety C for the poorer environments, in the above example, rather than variety B for all environments).
Numbers of locations (environments)
Following models (3) and (4), the number of environments required for estimation of treatment by environment response in research domains and verification in recommendation domains is not excessive. In order to have at least 20 degrees of freedom in the error term, and allowing for estimation of. both linear and. quadratic responses as in. model (4), if 8 treatments are




13
included in the trial, such as might be used in an exploratory trial in a research domain, 6 environments is an adequate number. For 4 treatments, 10 environments would be required, and in a verification trial with only two treatments (the recommended treatment and the farmer check, for example) 23 environments is adequate. These suggestions, of course, are approximate. The appropriate number of environments is a function of the variance and the required sensitivity all case-by-case situations.
Numbers of years
Experience has indicated that if three conditions are met, the estimates of environment by treatment response stabilize in one year. These conditions are:
1. The range of environmental indices (El) should be at least as great as the mean of the
indices.
2. The range of environmental indices should approximate what would normally be
expected over a period of years.
3. The distribution of environments should be reasonably uniform from good to poor.
However, it should be remembered that at least two years of data will be available for estimates if both an exploratory trial (in a research domain) and a validation trial (in a recommendation domain) are carried out prior to making firm recommendations. Also, preliminary data often are available from on-station trials, conducted over previous years, as the technology is being developedo._The treatmentsLthat.arecommon -from. among these current and previous trials can be combined in a single MSA. The data from previous years can also help to verify whether the range of environments included in a current trial is adequate.
RECENT EXAMPLE
Singh (1990) reports on recent research conducted near Manaus, Brazil, that illustrates
many of these concepts. The on-farm portion of his research was conducted in two small farming communities in the municipality of Rio Preto da Eva, Amazonas, Brazil, where the government was initiating a small watershed management program. The Brazilian national agricultural research institution (EMBRAPA) has a mandate to develop appropriate technology for different farming conditions in this relatively inaccessible area. Also collaborating in the research were EMATER (extension) and SEPA, the state development planning entity, TROPSOILS, and the University of Florida.
Secondary information regarding indigenous farming practices of the area .were collected from published sources. A-rapid appraisal of the area, was conducted with a multidisciplinary team of persons from EMBRAPA, SEPA and EMATER who, visited the area on three different occasions. Farmers' knowledge of indigenous technology, agronomic practices, and land types being used were recorded. An extensive soil sampling program was carried out to understand soil physical and chemical characteristics and relate them to farmers' rationale for assigning a particular cropping pattern to a given land type.
Three treatments, based on previous on-station research, were selected for comparison with farmers' practices (FP) for growing maize (Za nays L) and cowpea (Vina .nguicata Only results from the cowpea are reported here. All three treatments with amendments received K (60 kg ha'- broadcast.. -Processed city waste (PCW), chicken manure (CM)-and triple super




14
phosphate (TSP) were applied in 25 cm bands. The cowpea variety IPEAN V-69 was planted in rows 60 cm apart. Plot size varied from 100-200 square meters. Land preparation and planting methods consisted of clearing the area by slash and burn, followed by manual land preparation and planting with sticks.
The project area is inhabited by subsistence farmers who clear land from primary forest (PF) or secondary forest (SF) and farm it up to three years before abandoning it as waste land (WL). Cowpea trials were established on 13 locations. Eight were replicated and five were not. Yield results, averaged. across replications where appropriate, and the environmental index for each location are shown in Table 1. Analysis of variance using the model (4) with R = 1 is shown in Table 2.
For the criterion Mg ha', the response of the four treatments to environment, using modified stability analysis, is shown in Figure 7. It is clear that amendments are needed to maximize per ha yield from these soils. In the poorer environments (El< 1.32) CM produces the best results, and in the better environments (El > 1.32) TSP is best.
The biophysical characteristics of the better and poorer environments closely follows the nature of the land being used. That is, the better environments (El> 1.32) are all land taken from PF and in first or second year of use and SF in first year of use. All other categories (PF3, SF2, SF3, WL) are in the poorer environments. For farmers whose evaluation criterion is to maximize Mg ha', the research domain can be divided into two recommendation domains. For farmers with PF, and PF2, the recommendation is to use TSP. Farmers in all other cases should use CM.
Figures 8,and: 9-show.the. MSA. resultaifor the, alternate, evaluation criterion of kg per dollar of cash cost (kg/$CC), a criterion usually of great importance to farmers in this area who have little cash to spend for agricultural inputs. Figure 8 shows that for the better environments (here El> 1.25, but covering the same soil situations) FP is by far the best practice of those tested. In the first or second year out of primary forest, none of the other tested treatments would be acceptable to farmers for whom cash is very scarce and therefore need to maximize kg/$CC. For any other soil situation, however, either TSP or CM could be recommended even if the farmers had to use scarce cash to purchase the amendments.
The use of Figure 9 narrows the choice somewhat in the poorer environments. CM
produces very stable results compared to TSP which could result in fewer kg/$CC than FP. This leads to the recommendation of CM as the best choice of those treatments tested in cases where farmers use, or are forced by circumstances to use fields more than one year out of secondary forest or two years out of primary forest.
FOCUS ON INDIVIDUAL FARMERS. FARMS. AND FIELDS IN COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE
Farmers, themselves, continually fine-tune.their systems to the specific resource-and
infrastructure conditions in which the farm and family are found. In addition to the crop varieties mentioned earlier, a number of innovations in farm equipment originated with producers. Perhaps the agricultural machinery industry has been the sector most active in capturing the experience of farmers and putting this into commercial practices. Many of the current tillage, planting, and harvesting units have reached their present form through farmer modification of what was on the market, and then tested and adopted by industry for the next generation of commercial units. The ridge tillage planters and cultivators are currently going through this phase of farmer modification. A number of cropping system innovations likewise originated with farmers. Annual windbreaks have been proven usefulto reduce, transpiration in cropsbetween thewindbreaks, and perennial
(




15
windbreaks used to break the wind and trap moisture as snow in the Northern Great Plains. Alternating strips of different species, such as maize and soybean, have been used by a number of farmers in the Western Corn Belt. Although there is a growing body of technical research on. experiment stations to validate and quantify the effects of these practices, many of them in fact originated with farmers in the region. What has been difficult is the rationalization of different methods used by farmers to test their systems, and those used by scientists trained in a different research paradigm.
In many respects, on-farm research has a great deal. in common with industrial statistical process control. In manufacturing, products are designed in the lab, then prototypes are produced and evaluated under "real world conditions.* During the latter phase, problems are identified when typical workers, rather than research engineers, attempt to produce the product and when prospective consumers attempt to use the product. Invariably, they find ways to "break" the product that would never occur to lab workers. So it is with agricultural research. The experiment station or greenhouse can be thought of as the agronomic lab. The function of on-farm trials is identical in agriculture to "real world* testing in manufacturing. Real farmers will surface problems not encountered by experiment station workers; the research process is not complete until this is done.
DESIGNS FOR RESEARCH ON COMMERCLIL FARMS
In a recent symposium of the American Society of Agronomy in San Antonio, there were* many; presentations about~howresearch Js being.condur-ted on,farms. The examples appeared to fall into one of two categories. .First was the replicated .trial with relatively small plots in which the university researcher developed an agenda, designed treatments and plots in the field, collected most of the data and interpreted the results. The farmer was a participant in providing land and some cultural operations during the season, but was not an active part of the planning or the evaluation process. This role for the farmer meets most of the reasons for locating plots on farms as listed by Lockeretz (1987).
In contrast, a second approach was essentially an extension of the farming systems research/extension philosophy and method (Hildebrand and Poey, 1985), where farmers were primary participants in the setting of a research agenda, search for relevant treatments, layout and implementation of the trial, and interpretation and use of results. The latter approach provides an environment in which the methodologies given by Taylor (1990) for on-farm research can be implemented: use of multidisciplinary research teams (including the farmer), whole-farm analysis of results where appropriate, design of long-term plots and treatments, and synthetic as well as analytical approaches to use of data. In the United States, the former approach has been favored by researchers from-land grant universities, -while-the- latter has been part of the agenda.of farmer groups and other non-profit organizations. The proponents of each approach find it difficult to communicate at times with others who. do not share their definitions of what constitutes. research, since each group has a relatively clear mind set of what is meant by *on-farm research, while in fact these definitions are quite divergent.
When a university trained scientist uses the term "research', there is an assumption of an explicit and testable hypothesis, replicated treatments irt a randomized pattern in a standard design, homogeneity of variances among treatments, control of experimental conditions, and relative uniformity of the experimental area or some blocking pattern to handle variation in the field. These are the normal assumptions connected with the analysis of variance, and although they are nor always. strictly- adhered to we -often: make. the- assumption- that they are being met Saying that




16
.standard statistical procedures were followed" implies all of the above even if the researcher (or farmer) did not really understand the statistical thinking very well.
Many of these criteria are not recognized nor understood by most farmers. They prefer
trials that are fairly close to the home farm or under similar conditions or both, that have plots large enough to use commercial equipment, that show visible differences among treatments, that can reduce costs or increase profits, or that solve a constraint that was already perceived on their farm or in the area (Francis, 1986a). In the real world we encounter comparisons from one year to the next, from one field to another, from one farm to a neighbor's, or among strips in a field that have different treatments (eg. varieties or hybrids) with no replication. Although these comparisons do not meet the criteria recognized by the scientist to qualify as credible or valid research, the results are no less meaningful to many farmers. We do find that careful explanation in an extension meeting of some of the criteria used by researchers, for example replication and randomization of treatments, leads to a fairly quick understanding of the need for these methods and the importance for repeatability of the experience.
Are these two definitions of "research" mutually exclusive, or is there some middle ground where farmer creativity, land, and resources can be utilized for credible on-farm research? Over the past several years, there has been substantial work on large plots with few treatments, replication and randomization, and standard statistical analysis. Long strip designs used to compare two or three treatments were described by Thompson (1990), and are currently being used by a number of the members of the Practical Farmers of Iowa, among other groups. Rzewnicki et al. (1988) summarized these trials from Iowa as well as some from farms and from experiment stations in Nebraska. With plots that ranged from 200 to 1200 feet long by four to eight rows wide and three to six replications. per-treatmente they.foundcoefficients of variation from less- than 1.0 to about 10 percent; the CVs-were frequently less than five percent. Practical researchers who are familiar with the variation in most field experiments find these levels very acceptable.
How is it possible that such large plots have low CVs7 Although we are only now testing these hypotheses by comparing large and small plots from the same field (Shapiro et al., 1989, 1990), it appears that a long and narrow plot goes across a range of variability in the field. A plot located adjacent with the same dimensions crosses the same gradient, and at any one point there is relatively less difference between the strips than there is across the gradient in each long plot. Thus the potential exists for planting contrasting treatments side by side, allowing use of full sized commercial equipment and having a highly visible comparison, while still meeting the requirements of replication and randomization. This would appear to be one option for an individual farmer to collect credible data for one site in one year, and use standard statistical techniques such as analysis of variance, t-test, or paired comparisons to evaluate the trials. In one set of comparisons, the Clay County Corn Growers in Nebraska planted maize hybrids in unreplicated strip plots in four areas in the county, with similar conditions and the same hybrids in each test. Analyzed with farms as replications, there were CVs from three-to four percent over the five years of the tests (Rzewnicki et al., 1988). This opens the possibilities for individuals or groups of farmers to work in a cooperative research network and to develop-a credible set of comparisons for.use by them and. by others. Each farmer becomes a part of the research and extension network, since these plots are used for field tours and the data for extension meetings before the next planting season.
Results from these large replicated or unreplicated trials in Nebraska represent one approach that can be taken by farmers in a highly mechanized, large farm situation. It is a challenge to the practical researcher or applied extension person to explain the basic characteristics of the trials, and to work directly with farmers in developing the research agenda.




17
INTERPRETATION AND EXTRAPOLATION OF RESULTS
The zone across which such results can be applied depends on how many sites were used for the trials, the soil and climatic characteristics of the sites, whether similar results could be expected from other sites in the region, and how credible or repeatable the results are from the experiments. Several dimensions of this question have been discussed above. In statistical terms, the potential for application of results across a range of environments depends on the significance of the specific technology by environment.interaction. An example is the. testing of hybrids across locations, and measuring the genotype by location interaction. When this is low, it is relatively easy to recommend one or a few hybrids across a wide area; when the interaction is large, there is a high degree of site specificity and need for unique choices for different locations.
It is important to consider the effects of replications, years, and locations in contributing to. the value of results. Increasing number of locations and environments had little effect beyond about eight on the magnitude of the standard error of a genotype mean (Saeed et al., 1984). Increasing number of years from one to two substantially reduced the standard error of the mean, while adding an additional year had minimal effect. Likewise, increasing number of replications has little effect on the standard error. The influence of additional locations or environments is much greater than either adding years or replications to an experiment in order to reduce the variance of a mean, thus increasing the potential for detecting statistical differences among treatments in the experiment. Although it is less expensive to add replications in a single location, this is relatively ineffective in increasing the potential to detect differences. This is consistent with the above discussion on need for a large number of locations or environments for testing, and the relatively smaller need for replication in one site. The concept of single replications and a large number of locations. is-a, cornerstone..of: current commerciathybrid. testing. strategies .(Bradley et al., 1 9b8). The efficiency of this: procedure-inca testing- program has recently been described (Dofing and Francis, 1990). Replication at one site does improve the precision of measurement at that site in that year. But. with multilocational (multiple environment) on-farm testing, the relevant variance is that among locations or environments. Therefore, multiple replications- at one location contribute little to the potential extrapolation from that. site to others, or to other years.
The challenge for the individual farmer is to decide what information really applies to his or her site, given the abundance of results from trials that are available from industry, university, or private sources. The better a farmer is able to characterize the farm and the individual fields, and the better the description of the conditions under which data were collected in other sites, the easier it will be to decide which data or recommendations are relevant. This is a practical way of defining recommendation domains, a topic already explored. The best place to look for relevant data is within the same recommendation domain as that where the field is located. It should be apparent that these domains are not defined only by geographical location, by soil type, or by any single factor. Likewise, it is possible that a single farm may encompass several domains. It is important to understand the concept, and. to use this information to best access the most appropriate data. before making production technology decisions.
PARTICIPATORY MODEL FOR RESEARCH AND EXTENSION
On-farm research trials and demonstrations for extension purposes have long been. a staple component of comprehensive investigation and development programs in agriculture. Some of the reasons have been described above. There are even more compelling reasons today why research with individual farmers and groups of producers makes sense (Francis et al., 1990). There are limited research and extension budgets. with an increasing focus of federal funds irt the U.S. on basic- work at- the expense of applied research. This is a trend that is3 being followed by national




18
research programs around the world, as scientists become better prepared for basic investigations and the glamour of genetic engineering and high technology solutions pervades the scientific community, In contrast to the range of ecological situations where farmers produce crops, the research establishments have relatively few experiment stations. Much of the research performed on these stations is reductionist in nature, with limited regard for the incorporation of new innovations into the total farming system. For these reasons, there is comparative advantage to conducting at least some of the research in a wider array of sites with collaborating farmers.
Another compelling reason for. working directly with individual farmers and groups relates-to distance from the controlled research site to the farm where results will be applied. This 'distance" may take several forms (Francis et al., 1990). Geographic space in miles or kilometers from one site to another is the most commonly used measure of distance. Farmers are willing to travel certain distances to visit other sites, depending on culture and infrastructure (Rzewnicki, 1991). More important, perhaps, is the 'ecological distance' from one site to another. For example, a low lying area with poor drainage and heavy soils may be a very short physical distance from a well drained, lighter soil on a hillside, yet the soil conditions, appropriate cultural practices, and crops or varieties that are appropriate may be quite distinct. Finally, there may be *conceptual* or .psychological distances" between researcher and farmer, based on differences in education or experience, and these need to be bridged in order to effect a working partnership and a fully participatory system of research and extension. On- farm activities among people who have mutual respect for each others' talents and potentials to contribute can help to overcome these social distances.
The potentials of a participatory network of farmers and rese-"chers can perhaps best be illustrated through: use of an- exampl-.. Th&unique. contributions of the farmer in the total research process is highlighted; -A number of additional: examples,. especially in farmer contributions to ideas for weed management, were recently summarized by Francis and Doll (19 91).
Maize yield resoonse to nitrogen in crop rotations. In order to study the effect of nitrogen applications on maize yields in continuous maize and sorghum compared to rotation of these cereals in Nebraska, a network of about thirty farmers was established to work with a project of the University of Nebraska. There has been great concern about the energy costs of this input in maize production, as well as potential for nitrate contamination of ground water supplies that are frequently used for human and animal consumption. Supported in part through a grant from the Nebraska Energy Office, a university technician established contact with a number of farmers, many of whom were members of the Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society. All were interested in more efficient use of nitrogen, and in finding ways to quantify the effects of a cereal-legume rotation on response to this important nutrient.
In cooperation with farmers, fields and experimental sites were chosen, soil samples were taken, and lab test results discussed. Together- the team determined realistic yield goals. and developed nitrogen budgets considering all sources of this major nutrient. Each farmer thus derived a conservative but optimum level of nitrogen for the. coming season. In most fields this N rate and a one-half rate were included, and in. some fields a zero rate as well. On many fields these treatments were applied in replicated strips across the entire field. For the years 1988, 1989, and 1990 there was a predicted yield response to rates of 80 to 150 pounds N/acre, although the
-actual economic optima were lower in most fields (Franzluebbers, 1991). Following soybean, sweet clover, or alfalfa there was no -economic response to applied nitrogen by either maize or sorghum under rainfed conditions. In irrigated fields, there was no economic response of maize yields. to nitrogen if the maize followed alfalfa. The conclusions from this three-year project. as interpreted by farmers and project personnel, was that nitrogen generally is over applied under many conditions in Nebraska.




19
Statistical analysis followed the standard procedures described above in model (1). Where replicated treatments were present, the analysis and comparison were conducted on each farm. In a number of cases there. was a single replication per farm, and these results were pooled with the replicated sites using a single mean per treatment per location, and locations used as replications. Regression analysis was used to compare the response of cereal yields to applied nitrogen in rotation compared to continuous culture. Grain yield response in maize and sorghum to applied nitrogen was measured at 29 sites With continuous cropping and at .57 sites in rotation with legumes and small grains. Continuous maize responded ta nitrogen up to about 80 kg N/ha, the maximum level' in the trials-. Maize and sorghum following small. grains or legumes showed only a, modest response in some cases, not statistically significant, and not economically sound because the cost of nitrogen plus application was not offset by the increase in yield. This type of analysis is useful for grouping results of like treatments across sites.
To reach more farmers with this information, eight meetings were scheduled jointly by the Sustainable Agriculture Society and Nebraska- Extension in early 1990. The objectives of the trials and methods were described, tables or figures presented, and the meeting turned over to farmers to interpret the data and derive results. A lively discussion ensued about results from the trials and how to apply them to specific fields. The university staff present were valuable as resource people, helping to explain why or why not crops were responding in specific situations. But the farmers were deriving their own recommendations, and the extension specialists were able to empower the producers to make these decisions. During the next summer of 1990, many of the trial fields were used for field tours and discussions on site. Farmers were in charge of describing what happened. These are both examples of participatory extension practices.
Should the farmer put more confidence- in- results.from his or her own field trial, or from the aggregate analysis across sites? It is usually appealing to have one's own data from a field on the farm, where the cultural practices are known and the results appear to uniquely fit that farm. Whether these are. the best data to use to predict next year's results depends on the similarity of cultural practices, hybrids, and soil conditions across the range of sites, and how likely those sites represent the potential range of possible rainfall events that may occur over a number of years. Since rainfall is-.the most limiting factor in most Nebraska Sites each year in rainfed -crop culture, it is possible that the mean performance over several similar sites will be a better predictor of next year's situation than the results from the single farm. We are seeking data and a method to analyze this situation. The decision by an individual fanner at the moment is a judgement call, and the best that we can do is to provide tools to help improve that judgement.
RESEARCH-EXTENSION AGENDA: LARGE AND SMALL FARMERS
The approach and examples. presented in this chapter illustrate the potential of an emerging paradigm, or shift in patterns of research and extension activities. This applies to both large and small farmers. Efficient research of the type' being discussed here-depends on recognition and full representation of the research domain or inference space. Scientists need to recognize that onstation trials are useful for research and development, but limited for surfacing knowledge about production realities. Both large and smaU farmers need to recognize that they represent these realities, and in a major way can contribute to their identification and solution.
Once the inference space is well understood, it is possible to follow with carefully designed activities to solve the problems associated with the primary constraints to sustainable production using resources and information from both large and small farms. Data gathered in-situ is critical, and on-farm- trials- that include- the widest possible variety of farms are essential. Failure to include.




20
this range of environments can result in compromised research (bad for the scientist) that may produce flawed information and incorrect production decisions (bad for farmers). The need for many environments and a wide range of participants should be clear.
Large-scale farmers often have the resources to contribute to the research process, and can easily grasp the relevance of self-generated information to their own operations. Using the principles described above, their efforts can be more productive if combined across locations, and at times combined with data from small-scale farm trials. A wide coalition of farmers, researchers,. and extension -specialists can, bring together the resources needed to broaden the range of environments over which results can be collected. If large farmers are incorporated into a technology evaluation network with small farmers, the length of time required for testing can be reduced because environments (locations) can substitute substantially for years. This can lead to greater efficiency in use of scarce resources, both from farmers and the government. It may well be possible for many of the larger farmers, in conjunction with the national researchLand extension organizations, to pick up costs associated with on-farm research that will benefit them, and at the same time enhance the development of technology for all farmers.
The role of the research and extension specialists in this system needs to be clearly
recognized. The upgrading of farmer participation and input into the research process does not devalue the scientists' role, but rather expands their capacity to recognize and work with real world problems that limit production and the range of solutions that may be available to solve them. The role of research specialists can, in fact, become more focused on describing the *why* behind questions in agriculture, ecology, biology and sustainability. The role of extension specialists can be to catalyze the exchange of information among a number of credible and relevant sources. The research: process; can.be a rigorousstatistical exercise, and.it is possible to determine where results can be applied in the-appropriate recommendation domains.I
Assumptions about roles of different players, cooperation among farmers and scientists, relevance of information from various sources, and ultimate objectives of the systems need to be recast. This is the paradigm shift described above. Many agricultural infrastructures are set up with good intentions, but fail to produce anticipated results due to inadequate communication, limited scientific literacy among specialists and farmers, and a strained relationship between those who develop theoretical knowledge and those who focus on practical application. This is a problem in both developing and developed countries. The farming systems paradigm, and especially the on-farm research approaches described here can offer enormous potential that will benefit national agricultural infrastructure as well as sustainable agricultural production systems.
REFERENCES
Bradley, J. P., K. H. Knittle, and A. F. Troyer. 1988. Statistical methods in seed corn product selection. J. Prod. Agric. 1:34-38.
Braidwood, R. J. 1967. Prehistoric men. Scott. Foresman and Co., Glenview, Illinois.
Byerlee, D., L Harrington and D.L. Winkelmann. 1982. Farming systems research: Issues in research strategy and technology design. J. Am. Econ. Assoc. 5:899-904.
Chambers, R. 1981. Rapid rural appraisal: Rationale and repertoire. Public Administration and Development. 1:95-106.




21
Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L. A. Thrupp. 1989. Farmer first: Farmer innovation and agricultural research. Intermediate Technol. Publ., London. Cox, D.R. 1958. The Planning of experiments. Wiley, New York. Deming, W.E. 1953. "On the distinction between enumerative and analytic surveys." Journal of the American Statistical Association, 48: 244-255. Deming, W.E. 1975. "On probability as a basis for action." American Statistician, 29: 131-137. Doing, S. M., and C. A. Francis. 1990. Efficiency of one-replicate yield testing. J. Prod. Agric.
33):399-402
:berhart, S.A., and W.A. Russell. 1966. Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci. 6:36-40.
Finlay, K.W., and G.N. Wilkinson. 1963. The analysis of adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 14:742-754. Francis, C. A. 1986a. Designs for reseearch: the quest for credibility. Seminar, MTDI Workshop on Small Farm Enterprises, Ames, Iowa, May 12. Francis, C. A., editor. 1986b. Multiple cropping systems. Macmillan Publ. Co., New York. Francis; C. A., J. King, J. DeWitt,-J. Bushnell, and L. Lucas. .1990. Participatory strategies for information exchange. Amer. J. Alternative Agr. 5:000-000 (in press) Francis, C. A., and J. D. Doll. 1991. Participatory research and extension strategies for sustainable agricultural systems. Weed Science (submitted). Franzluebbers, A. 1991. On-farm results of fertilizer response in crop rotations. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Freeman, G.H. 1973. "Statistical methods for the analysis of genotype-environment interaction." Heredity, 31: 339-354.
Gilbert, E. H., D. W. Norman, and F. E. Winch. 1980. Farming systems research: a critical appraisal. MSU Rural Devel. Paper No. 6, Dept. Agr. Econ., Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, Michigan.
Harrington, L.W. and R. Tripp. 1984. Recommendation domains: A framework for on-farm research. CIMMYT Economics Program Working Paper 02/84. CIMMYT, Mexico. Harville, D.A. 1976. "Extension of the Gauss-Markov theorem to include the estimation of random effects." Annals of Statistics, 4: 384-395.
Henderson, C.R. 1975. "Best linear unbiased prediction under a selection model." Biometrics, 31: 423-447.
Hildebrand, P.E. 1981. Combining disciplines in rapid appraisal: The sondeo approach. Agricultural Administration. 8:423-432.




22
Hildebrand, P.E. 1984. "Modified stability analysis of farmer managed, on-farm trials." Agronomy Journal, 76: 271-274.
Hildebrand, P.E. 1988. Technology diffusion in farming systems research and extension. HortScience 23(3):488-490.
Hildebrand, P.E. 1990. Modified stability analysis and on-farm research to breed specific adaptability for ecological diversity. In: Kang, M.S. Genotype-by-environment interaction and plant breeding. Louisiana State University. pp.169-180.
Hildebrand, P. E., and F. Poey. 1985. On-farm agronomic trials in farming systems research and extension. Lynn Rienner Publ, Inc., Bolder, Colorado. 162 pp.
Hill, J. 1975. "Genotype-environment interactions a challenge for plant breeding." Journal of Agricultural Science, 85: 477-493.
Lockeretz, W. 1987. Establishing the proper role for on-farm research. Amer. J. Alternative Agr. 2(3):132-136.
McCullagh, P. and Nelder, J.A. 1989. Generalized linear models. Chapman and Hall, New York.
McLean, R.A. 1989. "An introduction to general linear models." in applications of mixed models in agriculture and related disciplines. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No. 343, pp. 9-38. Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Baton Rouge.
Mead, R. 1988. The Design of experiments: statistical principles for practical application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Norman, D. W. 1980. Farming systems approach: relevance for the small farmer. Rural Devel. Paper No. 5, Dept. Agr. Economics, Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, Michigan.
Plucknett, D. L., and N. J. H. Smith. 1986. Historical perspectives on multiple cropping. Ch. 2 in: Multiple Cropping Systems, C. A. Francis (editor). Macmillan Publ. Co., Inc., New York. pp. 20-39
Rhoades, R. 1989. The role of farmers in the creation of agricultural technology. Ch. 1.1 in: Farmer first: Farmer innovation and agricultural research, R. Chambers, A. Pacey, and L. A. Thrupp, editors. Intermed. Technoi. Publ., London. pp. 3-9.
Rzewnicki, P. E., R. Thompson, G. W. Lesoing, R. W. Elmore, C. A. Francis,A. M. Parkhurst, and R.
S. Moomaw. 1988. On-farm experiment designs and implications for locating research sites. Amer. J. Alternative Ag.r 3:168-173.
Saeed, M., C. A. Francis, and-J. F. Rajewski. 1984. Maturity effects on genotype x environment interactions in grain sorghum. Agron. J. 76:55-58.
Shapiro, C. A., W. L. Kranz, and A. M. Parkhurst. 1989. Comparison of harvest techniques for corn field demonstration. Amer. J. Alternative AGr. 4:59-64.
Shapiro, C. A., A. M. Parkhurst, and W. L Kranz. 1990. Update on the statistical implications of experimental units for on-farm trials. Agron. Abstr. p. 30.




23
Singh, B.K. 1990. Sustaining crop phosphorus nutrition of highly leached oxisols of the Amazon Basin of Brazil through use of organic amendments. PhD Dissertation. University of Florida. Gainesville.
Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G. 1980. Statistical methods, 7th edition. Iowa State University Press, Ames.
Steel, R.D.G. and Torrie, J.A. 1980. Principles and procedures in statistics: a biometrical approach, 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Stroup, W.W. 1989a. "Predictable functions and prediction space in mixed linear models." In: Applications of mixed models in agriculture and related disciplines. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No. 343, pp. 39-48. Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Baton Rouge.
Stroup, W.W. 1989b. "Why mixed models?" in Applications of mixed models In: Agriculture and related disciplines. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No. 343, pp. 1-8. Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Baton Rouge.
Taylor, D. C. 1990. On-farm sustainable agricultural research: lessons from the past, directions for the future. J. Sustainable Agr. 1(2):43-87.
Thompson, R. 1990. The Thompson-farm on-farm research. Rodale Institute, Emmaus, Pennsylvania. 68 pp.
Tripp, R., and J. Woolley. 1989. The planning stage of on-farm research: Identifying factors for experimentation. Mexico, D.F. and Cali, Colombia: CIMMYT and CIAT.
Westcott, B. 1985. ""Some methods of analysing genotype-environment interaction." Heredity, 56: 243-253.
Wotowiec, P., S. Poats and P.E. Hildebrand. 1988. Research, recommendation and diffusion domains: A farming systems approach to targeting. Chapter 6 In: Poats, S., M. Schmink and A. Spring. Gender issues in farming systems research and extension. Westview Press, Inc. Boulder, Colorado.




24
Table 1. Cowpea yield (Mg/ha) across environments,
Rio Preto da Eva, Amazonas, Brazil, 1989
LOCATION FP PCW TSP CM El
8 0.10 0.20 1.30 1.65 0.81
13 0.00 0.00 1.30 2.00 0.82
6 0.15 0.50 1.35 1.35 0.84
9 0.20 0.40 1.20 1.70 0.88
2 0.50 0.65 1.10 1.50 0.94
5 0.15 0.50 2.10 2.05 1.20
4 0.60 1.20 1.60 2.25 1.41
1 0.70 0.90 2.30 1.80 1.42
11 1.20 1.50 2.20 1.90 1.70
12 1.50 1.80 2.10 1.70 1.78
3 1.45 1.95 2.50 1.90 1.95
10 2.20 1.90 2.60 1."'0 2.02
7 1.70 1.65 2.65 2.15 2.04
Source: Singh (1990).




25
Table 2. ANOVA, Cowpea response to environment,
Manaus, 1990
SOURCE OF VARIATION df MEAN SQUARE Pr> F
Location 12 0.9470 0.0001
Treatment 3 3.8127 0.0001
Env*Trt 3 0.9923 0.0001
Env*Env*TrT 3 0.1266 0.1840
Residual 30 0.0736




26
EVALUATION
SELECTED FOR REJECTED, NO
FURTHER TESTING- FURTHER TESTING I
PERFORM POORLY SPON FARMS
Figure 1. Possible results of on-station testing.




27
EVALUATION
SELECTED FOR REJECTED, No
FURTHER TESTING FURTHER TESTING
MAY HAVE PERFORMED WELL ON FARMS
Figure 2. Possible results of on-station testing.




28
TRT 1 "uTRT T TRT 1 ~ TRT T
REPLICATION" 1 REPLICATION" R
FARM 1
TRTl1 TRTT R1 aTTT
OREPLICATIONO 1 REPLICATION" R
FARM F
Figure 3. Representation of a typical on-farm trial.




29
23
22 wow ,M,
21 TREATMENT 1
20 19 18
TREATMENT 2 17 16 15
14 A 3
12 11
10 ----3 4 5 6 7
Figure 4. Illustration of treatment by environment interaction.




30
6
A
5 B
4
3
0U
2
0 12 3 456
ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX, El Figure 5. Hypothetical results of variety testing over range of environments.




31
6
5 B
4
0
ff 3
LU.
2
0
o I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX, El Figure 6. Negative interpretation of the response of varieties to environment resulting in choice
of variety B for "broad adaptation".




32
6
A
5 B
4
3
-J
2
0
0 123 456
ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX, El
Figure 7. Positive interpretation of the response of varieties to environment resulting in a choice
of variety A for the better environments and of variety C for the poorer environments.




33
3
2.5 T SP ---- .***
Cu 1.5 7* 5.,..**** ** -.
2.5
*TSP
p(V~ ......... ._ ---_'--.-FI
1.5 ..**
PCW ---F-P..
0.5 *
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2
ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX, El WL SF SF PF SF PF2 PF
LAND CLASSES Figure 8. Cowpea response (MG/HA) of four treatments to environment,
Manaus, Brazil 1990 (Singh)




34
70
60 FP.
50
40 TSP
, 30'
S.o* '-'-"= . -:
... CM
o ...- ....-**Pcw
0
0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 ,1.8 2 2.2
ENVIRONMENTAL INDEX, El
WL SF3 SF PF SF PF PF
31 1 21
LAND CLASSES
Figure 9. Cowpea response (KG/SCC) of four treatments to environment
Manaus, Brazil, 1990 (Singh)




35
50
: I:"
I a.,.,
: 1.
60
FP
> I l
LUU
() e 1 .I l
Z 7.1.1
C 80
C I
I I
90 r ",
. e I st
TSP --- 'I
.. /
100 .. ,
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Kg/$CC
Figure 10. Stability of three treatments in cowpea for poor environments
Manaus, Brazil, 1990 (Singh)
f




36
Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3'




THE FOLLOWING SELECTION
HAS BEEN PRINTED WITH PERMISSION DATE: 07/01/92
Author: CB. FLORA-EDITOR
Title: I ARTICLE
Journal: NO. 9/ FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH PAPER
Volume: No: Pgs: Copyright Year: 1986
Reprinted by Permission of: Kansas State Univ.-Library
THIS MATERIAL MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY MANNER
WITHOUT THE PERMISSION
OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER




Proceedings of the Kansas State University 1985 Farming Systems Research Symposium.
No. 8 (in press)
USING MALE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION PERSONNEL TO TARGET WOMEN FARMERS
Anita Spring
University of Florida
A group of people en route to the FSR Conference met a child with a wagon load of puppies. One of them asked
where the child was taking the puppies and the child
answered that the puppies were going to be given to the commodity researchers (this was a sophisticated child).
The next day, after the conference had started, the
participants were en route to lunch and they came across
the same child again. One of the participants introduced
the child to some people who hadn't been there the day
before and asked the same question about the fate of the
puppies. This time the child said the puppies were
being taken to the farming systems researchers. The
participants pointed out that only yesterday the child
said the puppies were going to commodity researchers.
"But," the child replied, "yesterday, the puppies didn't
have their eyes open."
INTRODUCTION
To many FSR proponents, commodity-oriented scientists do not focus on the
whole farming system and therefore do not have their eyes open. They cannot
appreciate the complexities of small farm management and smallholder needs and
problems. This is analagous to the way those involved in farming systems
research and extension (FSR/E) feel about the lack of appreciation and
consideration of gender issues and intrahousehold dynamics amongst FSR&E
practictioners. Those who ignore these issues do not have their eyes open.
Farming systems researchers did not invent the fact that farmers have to deal
with a multitude of environmental, familial, infrastructural, and other
factors, so that a focus on a single commodity might not remedy the problems
of the farming system. So too, researchers who consider women's role in
agriculture did not invent the sexual division of labor, the semiautonomous nature of different family members, the differential access to land, labor,
and capital, or the fact that women are becoming more involved in the
smallholder sector in some developing countries because of extensive male
migration (Chaney and Lewis, 1980; Gladwin et al.; Dixon, 1982).
Evidence is accumulating that technology transfer is frequently hindered when
intrahousehold dynamics are not taken into account (see for example Rogers,
1979; McKee, 1984). Often, technologies are ill-suited or only partially
adopted because the resource base in terms of personnel, capital, land, and
equipment is inappropriate or inadequately understood. A consideration of
intrahousehold labor allocations and decision-making shows that in many places
female family members will have to provide the labor and will either make or
be involved in the decision as to whether or not to adopt the technology. In
addition, labor, access to resources, and remuneration are not consolidated in
one neat family unit everywhere in the world, but often are dispersed among




individuals who are in diverse age and sex categories. A failure to look at who does what farm operations, who makes which decisions, and who receives the remuneration, and makes further investments, will affect the practive of FSR/E. For example, a higher yielding variety might require more labor in managing, harvesting, processing, and storing the cereal especially in synchronously maturing varieties (Ferguson and Horn, 1985; McKee, 1954) or a livestock intervention might target one group of producers at the expense of another. For example, in a case from Senegal, men made decisions about the planting of cereal crops, but women contributed much of the labor for the crop's weeding, harvesting, and processing. Women made decisions about legume, vegetable, and condiment crops. If women did the extra work for the new variety of cereal crop, they had less time for the crops that they managed. In livestock production male farmers favored livestock interventions that "would increase live-weight and quality of stock" because size and number were determinants of wealth. But, women controlled the milk allocation and sale of milk products and "would gain most from interventions-which increased calf survival or ... permitted an increase in the number of animals under current land or-labor constraints" (McKee, 1984:598-599).
There are specific methodologies needed to understand intrahousehold variables within the FSR/E process (McKee, 1984). *In the pre-diagnostic stage, the ethnographic literature that provides information on the household's division of labor, decision-making, and allocation of resources must be reviewed for specific recommendation domains. In the diagnostic stage, the types of household and the types of representative farmers n ed to be considered. For example, in areas where there are many households headed by women, as in the case of much of Africa and the Caribbean, it is necessary to include such households in the sample and to ask if their resources and needs are the same as or different from the households headed by men. Socioeconomic and agronomic variables have to be assessed in terms of various household members in the different types of households. The interventions have to be geared to the needs of the types of households and the constituent 'members. In the technology design stage, it is necessary to make sure that the researchers do not use incorrect assumptions about gender; McKee suggests the input of female scientists and field workers, but this is not always possible or even a guarantee tht gender issues will be considered. There is no reason why both, male and female scientists, who have their eyes open, cannot work on the problem. In the testing stage McKee says that one must monitor "how the farm household actually copes with the reallocation of resources required by the new requirements" (McKee, 1984:602). En the final 'extension stage, McKee argues that it is important "to involve women farmers and farm workers, as well as female extension agents, in diffusing technologies for crops and tasks in which women predominate" (McKee, 1984:602).
The major thrust of this paper is that men as well as women agricultural researchers and extensionists have to become involved and have to target farmers of both genders. The argument here first considers the gender-related characteristics of extension services and how these characteristics affect reaching a variety of farmers, especially women. Then a case study from Malawi shows that women are important in agriculture but tend to be neglected in extension services and in the practice of FSR/E. In order to study and correct the problem, the results of two sets of trials are considered here. In one analysis, the results of using men and women farmers in the sample shows differences in recommendation domains. In another, mechanisms by which the male staff can work with women farmers are discerned. Based on the




lessons learned the paper concludes with a mechanism whereby the male extensionists were legitimated and mandated to work with female farmers.
CHARACTERISTICS OF EXTENSION SERVICES
Usually it is the male extension personnel who work with farming systems researchers to locate, interview, select trial cooperators, and target disseminators. The number of male extension workers far exceeds the number of women who receive training and who are employed as extensionists in most places. Many writers comment on the paucity of female extension workers compared with male ones (Jiggins, 1984; Berger et al., 1984; Staudt, 1975-76, 1978; Fresco, 1984). The data show that worldwide (including North America and Europe) only 19% of the agricultural extension'staff members are women. The average number of female extensionists for Africa is 3%, for Latin America and the Caribbean it is 14%, and for Asia and Oceania the figure is 23%. Only in the Philippines are 40% of the staff members female. Table 1 gives the figures as of 1981 for these regions. Berger et al. (1984) estimate that of extensionists specially designated as agriculturalists, 41% do home economics rather than agriculture. Tables 2 and 3 show the number of men and women trained in two countries where women are critical in agricultural production: Malawi in Africa and Nepal in Asia. These tables show that women extensionists also are to be found in the bottom education tier and that their training is much shorter than the training for men. A consequence of this is that women extensionists often are not regarded as professionally competent in their knowledge of field crops and of livestock as men. What is not evident in the tables is that female workers are often pressured to work in home economics programs rather than to work in the agricultural programs for which they were trained. The contacts of female workers with male farmers tend to be limited; concomitantly, the male extensionists tend to deal with male farmers rather than with all farmers (Jiggins, 1984, Part 3:16). Whereas it is often the case that only a small proportion of farmers are reached by the extension service in any case, there is no reason to restrict extension to only male farmers.
In the extension service itself, male personnel hold a variety of positions, including decision-making ones that affect programs and policies. The female extensionists, with the exception of a few supervisors, usually are concentrated in the lower ranks. Often male workers are given the tasks of offering concrete agricultural services either through the training and visit system or through other regimes, while the female workers are supposed to form women's groups for small scale income generation activities. Most extension services in developing countries were modeled after the systems in North America and Western Europe during the colonial period with men providing agricultural information to male farmers and women providing home economics and nutrition information to women (Mead, 1976; Berger et al., 1984). Ironically, home economics programs in the developed countries have changed a great deal since the late 1800s and have become relevant to the needs of American farm women today, focusing on such topics as human development, consumer education, household finances, and marketing. By contrast, the teaching of domestic science in Africa is mostly focused on sewing, embriodery, recipes, and basic hygiene/nutrition. Coupled with this is the notion that there is better communication between members of the-same sex than between members of the opposite sex. Sometimes these notions are strongly stated in terms of tradition or cultural constraints and operationalized so




that only women are slated to work with women and only men are slated to work with men. The paucity of women in agricultural service assures that rural women will remain uncontacted and unassisted in terms of mainstream agricultural training and services. Although it is probably true that many people prefer to learn or to work with people of their same sex, coeducational programs have worked in a large portion of the world. Berger et al. remark that "since very little empirical work has been done in this area, there is really no basis on which to judge the relative effectiveness of men and women agents in assisting women farmers" (1984:54).
The Integrated Cereals Project in Nepal funded by USAID studied women's contribution to agriculture in four areas of the country and queried how women farmers could most effectively be reached (Shrestha et al., 1984). In this case because of women's important role in the agricultural system, it was "posited that unless new information, methods, and techniques are made available to women, major potential change agents in the agricultural labor force are being by-passed" (Shrestha et al., 1984:6). When questioned, the women farmers said they did most of the agricultural work (79%) and more than a third (35%) of the decision-making (Table 4). The female extensionists agreed with the female farmers but the male extensionists thought women did only some of the work and were not involved in decision-making. The male workers were therefore "unlikely to perceive female farmers as important recipients of extension information" (Shrestha et al., 1984:29) and this undoubtedly constrained their contacts with women. Concomitantly, female farmers did not think of themselves as recipients of extension information. However, there were contacts by male extension agents to family members as reported by female farmers. The data showed that three fourths of the male extensionists did talk with women but only sporadically (about only 16% of their contacts are women); and one fourth never contacted women (Table 5). Female farmers were asked if they would visit male and female extensionists. Table 6 shows that almost all the women farmers said they would seek out a female extensionist and would go to their homes for advice, a common practice of male farmers towards male extensionists. Fewer would ask a male extensionist or visit their houses. Yet, in the areas where fewer women would. contact the male extensionists, male extensionists had visted the women. This case illustrates that people prefer to work with people of the same gender, but in practice farmers work with those who have the knowledge, power, and access to resources. It should also be mentioned that only 2.5% of all extension workers in Nepal are female, so the possibility of having a woman agent nearby is remote.
Because of the polarization of the extension service in many places, there is little or no way to account for the variety of real situations and to take into account the needs of the various household members. Some households may share resources well and have a division of labor that is complementary. There are households where husbands may preempt resources that other household members helped to generate. In some households both husband and wife are full time farmers; in others the husband may be absent and may or may not send remittances while the wife does the farming; in still others a woman will have no male labor or support; in some households only the husband will farm or the wife is a part-time assistant. These varieties of intrahousehold dynamics and access to services and resources by different family members have to be considered in the design of technology testing and dissemination.
Part of the reason that it is difficult to reach the women in the practice of




FSR/E is that researchers make use of the extension and research services as they are already set up in the host country. Farming systems researchers accept the bias of the system either because they do not recognize it as such and/or because it coincides with their own. In recent years there has been a reexamination of the assumptions behind the sexual seggregation in extension and research programs. In a number of places, the policies have become non-discriminatory so that technically women farmers can apply for credit or they can be part of FSR/E programs, although in practice the number of participants is low (Delancy, 1984). The question to be asked is what would happen if the equation were changed and if extension and research programs in practice were geared to all farmers regardless of sex. This might even entail new procedures to target and reach the neglected farmers rather than the standard procedure of assuming that one method works for all. A case study from Malawi examines the problem of relying on male extensionists in FSR/E and reports on some methods that were undertaken to change extension and FSR procedures in order to reach female as well as male farmers.
CASE STUDY FROM MALAI
Between 1981 and 1983, 1 directed an agricultural development project funded by the Office of Women in Development and housed within the Ministry of Agriculture in Malawi (Spring, 1985). The Women in Agricultural Development Project (WIADP) was of national scope and its aims were multifaceted: to research women's and men's roles in smallholder farming to use farming systems research to ascertain smallholder, and especially women's needs; to disaggregate agricultural data by sex; to work with extension and research units to target women as well as men farmers; to evaluate women's programs; and to orient policy makers to consider women farmers in agricultural programs. Primary and secondary research by the WIADP showed the contributions by gender for various commodities (Clark 1975; Spring,.Smith and Kayuni, 1983b). Women indeed did form the bulk of the agriculturalists in the rural areas. They spent as much time on their farm work as on their domestic work. Approximately one third of the households in the country were headed by women, but in some areas as many as 45% of the households were female headed. Women were taking over more of the management of family farms. This was true not only in households that they headed, but in married households because of male out migration for wage labor in cities and in the agricultural estate sector. Women were involved in a variety of cropping patterns from mixed subsistence to cash crops. They grew maize, groundnuts, rice, cassava, tobacco, cotton, coffee, and tea. They worked on both food and cash crops doing many of the operations such as spraying cotton and planting tobacco seedlings that were commonly believed to be done by men only (Clark, 1975). In fact, farm operations were differential by sex in some areas and in some households, while in other places and households they were not. The so called standard sexual division of labor where men prepared the land and women planted, weeded, and harvested had given way to expediency in many places (Spring, Smith and Kayuni, 1983b). The adult who was home on the farm did the operations and in many cases this meant that the women were doing the work and making the farm decisions. Women were involved in all aspects of farming including land clearing, plowing, applying fertilizer, crop protection, etc., either routinely or when male labor was unavailable. Women in many areas were involved in the care of livestock, especially of small ruminants and poultry. Free ranging cattle were mostly owned by men and cared for by boys and men, but as the animals were brought into the village for fattening in




stall-feeding projects, their care fell to women (Spring, 1986a).
Agricultural development projects increased the amount of time in hours per day and in days per month that both men and women ha'd to work (Clark, 1975). The agricultural services provided by integrated development and localized projects that included such services as training, input, and credit programs, and agricultural extension mostly by-passed women. For many households this meant that the efficiency of their farming was reduced. There were some women who were able to participate in development programs in order to increase their productivity. There were some male extensionists who included women farmers with the male farmers they targeted for training, credit and visits (Spring, Smith and Kayuni, 1983b).
The WIADP documented the delivery of agricultural extension services to men and to women in a variety of ways. First, the WIADP analyzed the extension survey that was part of a large national multi-instrument survey conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture and financed by the World Bank. Second, the WIADP interviewed and observed extension personnel in the field in terms of the way they worked with clients. Third, the WIADP conducted FSR/E surveys and trials and studied the ways the extension personnel were utilized to identify and to work with farmers. Fourth, meetings and interviews were held with the staff and management of agricultural projects who supervised extension and research efforts to examine their procedures.
The results from the national s- :vey- (The National Sample Survey of Agriculture or NSSA) showed that farmers' contact with extension workers in terms of personal and field visits, attendance at group meetings and demonstrations, and participation in training courses were differential by sex (Table 7). The data showed that contact with extension workers was the major source of advice for both men and women farmers, but that men received more personal visits and more advice than women. Group meetings tended to reach more farmers than personal visits, but men were the primary participants. Relatively few farmers of either sex viewed extension demonstrations, but more men than women learned from this method. Field visits reached even fewer women and the WIADP observed that many male extensionists simply dismissed the women working in the fields while they concentrated on the men.
The WIADP disaggregated the NSSA data into three categories: male household heads, female household heads, and wives of the male household heads. The data showed that men received more services than women and often wives received more services than female household heads. The data also showed that very few wives received agricultural information from their husbands. The presumed transfer of technology from husbands to wives and from men to women in the household did not take place. The asssumption that if men are trained or assisted that other family members learned or were assisted was not confirmed by the data (Spring, Smith and Kayuni, 1983b).
In terms of the practice of FSR/E surveys and trials it was the uncommon situation where women farmers were contacted by reconnaisance or survey teams or where they were part of the recommendations domains discerned. There was a tendency for the host country and expatriate researchers to ignore the women in the fields during rapid reconnaisance surveys. When production and social scientists relied on the extension workers, which they often did, the extension workers tended to take them to interview and work with the men. In terms of on-farm farmer managed trials, only male cooperators were selected.