• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Principles of workshop design
 Week 1: Diagnosis
 Week 2: Design
 Week 3: Analysis
 Conclusion
 Reference
 Appendix A: Final evaluation-participant...
 Appendix B: Original workshop...
 Appendix C: Participant and trainer...
 Appendix D: Farming systems research...
 Appendix E: The farming systems...
 Appendix F: Sondeo report
 Table of Contents
 Executive summary
 Introduction
 Village description and enviro...
 General systems
 Processing, storage and market...
 Farming systems constraints, compensating...
 Appendix G: Needs assessment/t...
 Appendix H: Content analysis of...
 Appendix I: The role of on-farm...






Title: Training workshop report : the 1986 GambiaWest Africa Farming Systems ResearchExtension (FRSE) Workshop: diagnosis, design and analysis
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00056192/00001
 Material Information
Title: Training workshop report : the 1986 GambiaWest Africa Farming Systems ResearchExtension (FRSE) Workshop: diagnosis, design and analysis
Alternate Title: 1986 Gambia/West Africa Farming Systems Research/Extension (FRS/E) Workshop :
Physical Description: 1 v. (various pagings) : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Caldwell, John S.
Walecka, Lisette.
Taylor, Daniel B., 1933-
Farming Systems Support Project.
Publisher: Farming Systems Support Project, International Programs, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida,
Publication Date: 1986.
 Subjects
Subject: Agricultural systems -- Congresses. -- Research
Agricultural extension work -- Congresses. -- Research
Agricultural extension work -- Research -- Gambia.
Agricultural extension work -- Research -- Africa, West.
Farming   ( lcsh )
Agriculture   ( lcsh )
Farm life   ( lcsh )
Africa   ( lcsh )
Spatial Coverage: Africa
 Notes
General Note: "Prepared for: Farming Systems Support Project, University of Florida, October 1986."
General Note: Includes bibliographical references.
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00056192
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: notis - ocm7025

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Abstract
        Page i
        Page ii
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Principles of workshop design
        Page 1
    Week 1: Diagnosis
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Week 2: Design
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
    Week 3: Analysis
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Conclusion
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
    Reference
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
    Appendix A: Final evaluation-participant responses
        Page A
        Page A 1
        Page A 2
        Page A 3
        Page A 4
        Page A 5
    Appendix B: Original workshop schedule
        Page B
        Page B 1
        Page B 2
        Page B 3
    Appendix C: Participant and trainer list
        Page C
        Page C 1
        Page C 2
        Page C 3
        Page C 4
    Appendix D: Farming systems research in southern Senega -- the Djibelor experiment
        Page D
        Page D 1
        Page D 2
    Appendix E: The farming systems research approach in the Basse Cassamance, Senegal
        Page E
        Page E 1
        Page E 2
        Page E 3
        Page E 4
        Page E 5
    Appendix F: Sondeo report
        Page F
        Page F 1
        Page F 2
        Page F 3
        Page F 4
        Page F 5
        Page F 6
        Page F 7
        Page F 8
        Page F 9
        Page F 10
        Page F 11
        Page F 12
        Page F 13
        Page F 14
        Page F 15
        Page F 16
        Kasange-Village
            Page F 27
            Page F 28
            Page F 29
            Page F 30
        Page F 17
        Sukuta Village
            Page F 31
            Page F 32
        Page F 18
        Page F 19
        Page F 20
        Page F 21
        Page F 22
        Page F 23
        Page F 24
        Page F 25
        Page F 26
    Table of Contents
        Page F 33
        Page F 34
    Executive summary
        Page F 35
    Introduction
        Page F 36
        Problem and significance of the study
            Page F 36
        Objectives
            Page F 37
        Methodology
            Page F 37
    Village description and environment
        Page F 38
        Geographical location
            Page F 38
        Climate and soils
            Page F 38
            Page F 39
            Page F 40
        Population and ethnic groups
            Page F 41
    General systems
        Page F 41
        General description
            Page F 41
            Page F 42
            Page F 43
            Page F 44
            Page F 45
            Page F 46
        Crop systems
            Page F 47
            Men's cash crop
                Page F 47
                Page F 48
            Men's staple food crops
                Page F 49
            Women's cereal crop
                Page F 49
            Women's cash crop
                Page F 50
            Fruit production
                Page F 50
        Livestock production
            Page F 51
            Cattle raising
                Page F 51
            Small animal raising
                Page F 51
            Poultry
                Page F 52
            Animal traction
                Page F 52
    Processing, storage and marketing
        Page F 53
        Training and institution building
            Page F 54
        Government assistance
            Page F 54
        Non-governmental assistance
            Page F 54
        Credit
            Page F 54
    Farming systems constraints, compensating strategies and intervention recommendations
        Page F 55
        Labor
            Page F 55
        Seed
            Page F 56
        Pests
            Page F 57
        Nutrition and health
            Page F 58
            Page F 59
            Page F 60
            Page F 61
            Page F 62
        Sukuta Village
            Page F 63
            Page F 64
            Page F 65
            Page F 66
            Page F 67
            Page F 68
        Sohm Village
            Page F 69
            Page F 70
            Page F 71
            Page F 72
            Page F 73
            Page F 74
            Page F 75
            Page F 76
            Page F 77
            Page F 78
            Page F 79
            Page F 80
            Page F 81
            Page F 82
            Page F 83
            Page F 84
            Page F 85
            Page F 86
            Page F 87
            Page F 88
            Page F 89
            Page F 90
            Page F 91
            Page F 92
        Jiramba Village
            Page F 93
            Page F 94
            Page F 95
            Page F 96
            Page F 97
            Page F 98
            Page F 99
            Page F 100
            Page F 101
            Page F 102
            Page F 103
            Page F 104
            Page F 105
            Page F 106
            Page F 107
            Page F 108
            Page F 109
            Page F 110
            Page F 111
            Page F 112
            Page F 113
            Page F 114
            Page F 115
            Page F 116
            Page F 117
            Page F 118
            Page F 119
            Page F 120
            Page F 121
            Page F 122
    Appendix G: Needs assessment/test
        Page G
        Page G 1
        Page G 2
        Page G 3
        Page G 4
        Page G 5
        Page G 6
        Page G 7
    Appendix H: Content analysis of overall workshop evaluation
        Page H
        Page H 1
        Page H 2
        Page H 3
    Appendix I: The role of on-farm trials in the evaluation of alley farming
        Page I
        Page I 1
        Page I 2
        Page I 3
        Page I 4
        Page I 5
        Page I 6
        Page I 7
        Page I 8
        Page I 9
        Page I 10
        Page I 11
        Page I 12
        Page I 13
        Page I 14
        Page I 15
        Page I 16
        Page I 17
        Page I 18
        Page I 19
        Page I 20
        Page I 21
        Page I 22
        Page I 23
Full Text







































Farming Systems Support Project


q'9o/3


International Programs
Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611


Office of Agriculture and
Office of Multisectoral Development
Bureau for Science and Technology
Agency for International Development
Washington, D.C. 20523


MMMM














Training Workshop Report
The 1986 Gambia/West Africa
Farming Systems Research/Extension
(FSR/E) Workshop
Diagnosis, Design and Analysis









Prepared by:
John S. Caldwell, Lisette Walecka, Daniel B. Taylor





















Prepared for:
Farming Systems Support Project
University of Florida
October 1986








TABLE OF CONTENTS


Abstract............ ............ ............................. i

Introduction.................................................... 1

Principles of Workshop Design..................................1

Week 1: Diagnosis...................... ........ ............. 2

Week 2:' Design ................................. ................ 7

Week III: Analysis .......................................10

Conclusions............................. .......................13

References..................... ............................... 17

Appendix A: Final Evaluation-Participant Responses........... A-i

Appendix B: Original Workshop Schedule.......................B-1

Appendix C: Participant and Trainer List...................... C-i

Appendix D: Paper: Farming Systems Research in Southern
Senegal: The Djibelor Experiment..................D-l

Appendix E: Paper: The Farming Systems Research Approach
in The Basse Cassamance, Senegal.................E-l

Appendix F: Participant Working Group Reports................. F-1

Appendix Fl: Kasange Village
Sondeo Report.......................................Fl-I
Design for On-Farm Trial........................Fl-19
Case Study prepared by Yundum FSR/E Team...........F1-27

Appendix F2: Sukuta Village
Sondeo Report.....................................F2-1
Case Study prepared by Yundum FSR/E Team............F2-33

Appendix F3: Sohm Village
Sondeo Report....................................... F3-1
Design of On-Farm Trails...........................F3-16
Case Study prepared by Yundum FSR/E Team...........F3-23

Appendix F4: Jiramba Village
Sondeo Report..................................... F4-1
Design of On-Farm Trail...........................F4-18
Case Study prepared by Yundum FSR/E Team...........F4-27

Appendix G: Needs Assessment/Test.............. .................G-1

Appendix H: Content Analysis of Overall Workshop Evaluation...H-i

Appendix I: Paper: The Role of On-Farm Trials in the
Evaluation of Alley Farming....................... I-














The 1986 Gambia/West Africa
Farming Systems Research/Extension (FSR/E) Workshop:
Diagnosis, Design and Analysis

John S. Caldwell, Lisette Walecka, Daniel B. Taylor,
G.O. Gaye, Isatou Jack, and Rosalie Norem
ABSTRACT

A three week regional fanning systems research/extension workshop was held in the Gambia, West
Africa, April 7-25, 1986. The workshop combined material presented squentially in two workshops held
previously in The Gambia. Week one was devoted to diagnosis. Training focused on informal survey
techniques. Participants were divided into four teams and each team conducted a two-day iterative sondeo
in one of four villages. One day of preparation for the sondeos appeared inadequate. Teams used
structural models; cropping, food, and feed calendars; and producer-by-activity charts, with evidence of
considerable internalization, despite initial frustration with the workshop's "discoB tasks were developed to
bridge diagnosis and design: establishing research priorities, developing a treatment objectives statement,
identifying a treatment subset, and assessing fields and design options. Establishing research priorities was
the most difficult task. Time initially planned for design options proved inadequate, due to need to present
criteria for choosing among options before explaining technical specifics of each option. Week three covered
trial implementation and analysis. Experience from countries where FSR/E originated was utilized. Time
available for analysis was inadequate, and integration of biological, economic, and social analysis is a
priority need for training materials development. In place of the single three week format of this workshop,
a two-workshop sequence is suggested: three weeks for diagnosis and design before the season, followed
by two weeks for analysis after the season.





















kk Paper delivered at 1986 Farming Systems Research Symposium,
Kansas State University, October, 1986.









Authors


John S. Caldwell
Assistant Professor
Department of Horticulture
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061

Lsette Walecka

Training Units Coordinator
Farming Systems Support Project
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611

Daniel B. Taylor

Assistant Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061

G. O. Gaye

Head, Horticulture Unit
Yundum Experiment Station
The Gambia

Isatou Jack

Vegetable Crops Research Specialist
Yundum Experiment Station
The Gambia

Rosalie Norem
Associate Professor
Department of Family Environment
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa.








INTRODUCTION


The West Africa Fanning Systems Research/Extension (FSR/E) Regional Training Course was held
in The Gambia, April 7 through 25, 1986. The Gambia Agricultural Diversification Project (GARD) of
the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of The Gambia hosted the course and supported its
activities. Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP) member institutions in the United States which
participated in delivery of the course were Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VPI), Iowa
State University (ISU), and the University of Florida (UF). The workshop was attended by thirty-one
participants from The Gambia and five other African countries (Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Ghana, Mauritania,
and Botswana).

The Gambia has been the site of two previous FSSP workshops. In 1984, a ten day workshop was
held on Diagnosis (Poats, 1984). A one week workshop addressing On-Farm Experimentation was held in
1985 (Walecka, 1985). Based on feedback from participants and trainers in these and other workshops,
FSSP decided to take a slightly different approach for the 1986 workshop. Ensuring that participants of the
workshop on Design and Analysis had previously attended the Diagnostic workshop, and that the
participants at the Diagnostic workshop would have the opportunity to attend the follow-up workshop on
Design and Analysis, was often difficult and limited the effectiveness of the both workshops. Therefore, it
was decided to lengthen the time for this workshop to include both groups of material at one time. The
course included one week devoted to general diagnostic methodologies and two weeks to on-farm trial
design and analysis methodologies.

In the subsequent pages, this report describes the day-to-day program of the workshop. It also
presents participants' perceptions and trainers' evaluation and recommendations for each day or logical
segment of the workshop. In this way, this workshop may provide suggestions to other trainers as they plan
similar FSR/E training programs.

PRINCIPLES OF WORKSHOP DESIGN

The decision to hold a three-week workshop resulted from experience and feedback in previous
workshops. The previous workshops had been held separately for different stages of FSR/E: one on
diagnosis, followed by a second workshop on on-farm experimentation. The pro's and con's of sequential
workshops have been addressed in evaluation reports on The Gambia 1985 workshop (Walecka, 1985), as
well as the evaluation of other previous workshops. Evaluation of the three week combined workshop
format will be discussed later in this paper.

At the beginning of the workshop, 13 overall objectives for the workshop were presented (Table 1).
Each objective was identified relative to the specific week in which sessions would be directed toward the
objective.

In designing the workshop, the trainers were sensitive to the need to establish a routine structure for
feedback, reinforcement, and direction for participants. Recognizing the principle that training is iterative
in nature, a short (5-15 minutes) period each morning was used for participants to provide feedback on
specific sessions occurring the previous day. In cases where activities lasted for a period of days, this
evaluation feedback was not carried out until the logical closure of the activity.

Often the importance of allowing time for the processing of the specific content of the training session
is overlooked because of time constraints. Leaving time to bring closure to sessions, by summarizing and
highlighting the major points, was another training principle of the workshop.

In keeping with the principle of continual reinforcement and processing of the content being covered,
a short period of time each morning was used to ask participants for any terms which they felt needed
clarification. A list of these terms were then written on a flip chart, briefly discussed, and displayed
throughout the workshop.

Another principle in the planning and execution of the workshop was that of flexibility in the content
and sequence of the material to be covered. As the activities progressed, and it became apparent that the
original time estimations for particular sessions were too limited, reassessment of activities, tasks, and








INTRODUCTION


The West Africa Fanning Systems Research/Extension (FSR/E) Regional Training Course was held
in The Gambia, April 7 through 25, 1986. The Gambia Agricultural Diversification Project (GARD) of
the Ministry of Agriculture of the Government of The Gambia hosted the course and supported its
activities. Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP) member institutions in the United States which
participated in delivery of the course were Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VPI), Iowa
State University (ISU), and the University of Florida (UF). The workshop was attended by thirty-one
participants from The Gambia and five other African countries (Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Ghana, Mauritania,
and Botswana).

The Gambia has been the site of two previous FSSP workshops. In 1984, a ten day workshop was
held on Diagnosis (Poats, 1984). A one week workshop addressing On-Farm Experimentation was held in
1985 (Walecka, 1985). Based on feedback from participants and trainers in these and other workshops,
FSSP decided to take a slightly different approach for the 1986 workshop. Ensuring that participants of the
workshop on Design and Analysis had previously attended the Diagnostic workshop, and that the
participants at the Diagnostic workshop would have the opportunity to attend the follow-up workshop on
Design and Analysis, was often difficult and limited the effectiveness of the both workshops. Therefore, it
was decided to lengthen the time for this workshop to include both groups of material at one time. The
course included one week devoted to general diagnostic methodologies and two weeks to on-farm trial
design and analysis methodologies.

In the subsequent pages, this report describes the day-to-day program of the workshop. It also
presents participants' perceptions and trainers' evaluation and recommendations for each day or logical
segment of the workshop. In this way, this workshop may provide suggestions to other trainers as they plan
similar FSR/E training programs.

PRINCIPLES OF WORKSHOP DESIGN

The decision to hold a three-week workshop resulted from experience and feedback in previous
workshops. The previous workshops had been held separately for different stages of FSR/E: one on
diagnosis, followed by a second workshop on on-farm experimentation. The pro's and con's of sequential
workshops have been addressed in evaluation reports on The Gambia 1985 workshop (Walecka, 1985), as
well as the evaluation of other previous workshops. Evaluation of the three week combined workshop
format will be discussed later in this paper.

At the beginning of the workshop, 13 overall objectives for the workshop were presented (Table 1).
Each objective was identified relative to the specific week in which sessions would be directed toward the
objective.

In designing the workshop, the trainers were sensitive to the need to establish a routine structure for
feedback, reinforcement, and direction for participants. Recognizing the principle that training is iterative
in nature, a short (5-15 minutes) period each morning was used for participants to provide feedback on
specific sessions occurring the previous day. In cases where activities lasted for a period of days, this
evaluation feedback was not carried out until the logical closure of the activity.

Often the importance of allowing time for the processing of the specific content of the training session
is overlooked because of time constraints. Leaving time to bring closure to sessions, by summarizing and
highlighting the major points, was another training principle of the workshop.

In keeping with the principle of continual reinforcement and processing of the content being covered,
a short period of time each morning was used to ask participants for any terms which they felt needed
clarification. A list of these terms were then written on a flip chart, briefly discussed, and displayed
throughout the workshop.

Another principle in the planning and execution of the workshop was that of flexibility in the content
and sequence of the material to be covered. As the activities progressed, and it became apparent that the
original time estimations for particular sessions were too limited, reassessment of activities, tasks, and








processing was done. A number of modifications in the original agenda were implemented. Specific
examples of this will be discussed throughout this report.

WEEK 1: DIAGNOSIS

Week 1, Day I (Monday 4/7/86)

Program

The Director of the Project Planning and Management Unit (PPMU) of The Gambia gave a
welcoming address to begin the workshop. This was followed by introduction of the trainers and resource
persons present at the workshop. The participants were then asked to spend a few minutes first getting to
know someone they had not met previously, before introducing that person to the group as a whole.
Specific information on participants' disciplines and language capabilities was also requested on paper at this
time, to be used as a basis for forming the teams.

The introductions were followed by a General Orientation to the Workshop. The basis of how the
three weeks were going to be structured was presented by considering a number of key questions that would
be addressed in the FSR/E approach. Based on information specific to The Gambia, participants were
asked to try to think about the different perspectives of research and extension: how many divisions,
districts, villages, farm households, and farm household members does each serve, and how? Key questions
were developed based on this discussion, and the stages of FSR/E which address each were identified (Table
2).

The experiences of the farming systems research approach in the Basse Casamance, Senegal (The
Djibelor Experience) were presented in Wollof, a language common to both The Gambia and Senegal,
followed by a summary in English (Sail, 1984).

Before the lunch break, a Technical Overview of FSR/E was presented. The overall objectives and
sequencing of the workshop were discussed.

Following lunch, free time for reading was given. Readings were divided into priority and background
readings. After dinner, slides of an overview of FSR/E were presented. The overview was based on the
same Gambian examples from which the key questions had been developed in the morning.

Evaluation and Recommendations

In a group discussion, the participants were asked to think about their expectations of the workshop
and to consider their own criteria for evaluating the workshop. They were asked to define criteria for
answering the. question, "What is a .'good' workshop/session/day?' In response, participants gave the
following criteria: content, usefulness, sharing information, learning a new approach, "networking" or
sharing new ideas, meeting colleagues, gaining helpful techniques, and relevant information for one's job.

Following this discussion, a number of questions and comments arose that made it apparent that the
group differed in level of understanding of what would be presented in the workshop. Individuals were
encouraged to seek out further information from resource persons on an individual basis. Several questions
also arose about the overall design of the workshop. The participants' questions were:
1. Should the specifics of FSR/E be presented first, followed by illustration of application (deductive
approach), or examples of the general problem presented first and principles of FSR/E drawn from the
examples, leading to specifics (inductive approach)?
2. What do the workshop organizers expect from the participants?
3. How do I as an individual begin to implement the FSR/E approach? How do I follow-up on the
workshop?
In future workshops, it may be useful for trainers to address these issues at the beginning.










Week 1, Day 2 (Tuesday, 4/8/86)


Program

This day began with an evaluation of Monday's activities and a review of terms, and presentation of
detailed objectives for the first week of the workshop. Then a second resource person from Senegal
presented a discussion of Recommendation Domains and Leverage Points, using examples from the
Casamance (Fall, 1986).

This was followed by a discussion of Formal and Informal Survey Techniques, conducted by the
leader of the Yundum FSR/E team. First, the characteristics of the two types of surveys were presented.
This was followed by comparison of the differences between them. Finally, the advantages and
disadvantages of each were discussed.

Following a break, another member of the Yundum FSR/E team presented an Introduction to
Sondeo Techniques. Two approaches to the informal survey were presented to the participants: the "open"
or "blank mind" approach, and the "topic guidelines" approach. The advantages and disadvantages of each
were elicited from the participants: the risk of forgetfulness with the "blank mind" approach, and the risk
of imposing problems with the "topic guidelines" approach (Beebe, 1985; Caldwell et al., 1984; Caldwell et
al., 1986; Patton, 1980; Shaner et al., 1982).

The next presentation, Modelling the Farming System, was again by the leader of the Yundum
FSR/E team. Two types of modelling used in FSR/E, the process model and the structural model, were
introduced (Franzel, 1984).

Just before lunch, the field activity which would require the rest of the week was explained. The
participants were divided into teams based on discipline and language capability. Each team was assigned
to a particular village. The villages were selected based on the sondeo work already carried out by the
Yundum FSR/E team. Since the villages had been surveyed previously by the Yundum team, the Yundum
team felt that the workshop's activities would in part act as a verification survey. Furthermore, trials
developed for the villages by the workshop teams would aid the Yundum team in the development and
implementation of actual on-farm trials.

The task given the four participant teams at this point was to plan their interview strategies for
interviews with village farmers to be held on Wednesday and Thursday. The "open" approach was to be
used on Wednesday, with a more structured interview to follow on Thursday.

After lunch and a break for reading, trainers from UF and The Gambia presented several tools for
summarizing information: cropping calendars, and a summary tool.used by the Yundum team in compiling
information from their original sondeos called an activity-by-producers chart. This technique involved
listing all resources and activities and indicating who had access to each resource or carried out each activity.
All constraints were then circled, and priority contraints starred.

Before dinner, logistics for the village visits were discussed, and expectations for summary of
information were listed. Instructions were again given to use the "open mind" approach on Wednesday and
the "topic guidelines" approach on Thursday. There seemed to be some confusion about the distinction
between the two approaches. Participants were also told that when summarizing information from their
surveys, they were to use at least three different techniques or tools. The techniques should include:
1. Structural model
2. Activity-by-producer chart.
3. One other tool (depending on the needs of the group): cropping calendar, food calendar, or feed
calendar.

The ISU trainer also indicated specific units in Volume I of the Training Materials (Franzel et al.,
1986) which would be useful for preparing for this activity: Unit II, p. 33; Unit VII, p. 141; Unit IV,
grouping farmers; and Unit IX, setting an agenda.








At this point, the PPMU enumerators who would accompany the teams to the villages were
introduced. On the way to the workshop, the PPMU enumerators had stopped at each village to speak to
the Alkallo (village head) in order to arrange for the field work.

It became apparent at this time that the participants were still unsure about the planned sondeo
exercise. In order to address this, although not previously scheduled, the trainers did a short exercise
simulating farmer interviews with the PPMU enumerators being the farmers. After the interview', the
teams discussed the interviewing techniques and the pros and cons of good and bad questions.

After dinner a UF resource person presented a comparison of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and
FSR/E. He discussed the relevance of IPM as part of an FSR/E program. He stressed the similarities of
the two approaches.


Evaluation and Recommendations

The sessions introducing informal survey techniques were delivered by two Gambian resource persons
who had been involved in a GARD sondeo activity in February. This proved to be an excellent
opportunity to take advantage of local expertise as well as provide them with experience in conducting
training. However, it would be more useful if an experienced trainer provided direct support and interaction
as needed during the presentations. A team teaching effort might be quite effective.

A slightly different sequence of the topic presentations may have helped to give clearer direction to
the participants in preparation for the field sondeo exercise. Some recommendations include:
1. "Modeling the Farming System" should be presented before informal and formal surveys and specific
sondeo techniques. Use of diagrams and working through an example would be useful.
2. When discussing informal and formal survey techniques, a clear understanding of both should be
established before advantages and disadvantages are discussed.
3. When introducing sondeo rapid rural appraisal techniques, clear direction should be given on how to
approach a "blank mind" survey, and how to develop "topic guidelines". Some useful questions to
participants are: What is the major objective of doing the informal survey? What do you most want
to know? How will you get at least that information? Contrasting non-structured and more structured
techniques and indicating the importance of gathering sufficient information from different parts of a
farming system (referring back to a structural model) would be helpful.
4. Specific presentations should be made about interviewing techniques and types of questions. A
practical activity (such as mock interviews suggested in the Training Units Vol. I, (Franzel et al., 1986)
should be formally included in the agenda.
5. Presentation with examples of others summary tools (such as crop, feed, or food calendars;
activity-by-producer charts; etc.) should also be made prior to the field exercise.

These recommendations can also be compared to the format of the 1984 diagnosis workshop (Poats,
1984), and to assumptions underlying the changes made from the 1984 diagnostic training format in 1986.
In 1984, two days were allocated to preparation for the sondeo exercise. One day was on modelling
techniques, including both presentations and working through examples. The next day was on interview
techniques and included mock interviews with feedback by PPMU enumerators. Then, only one day was
spent in the field.

In contrast, in 1986, a decision was made to reduce preparation time to one day, in order to allow for
two days in the field. The assumption here was that the first day of interviewing in the field would also
serve, in part, the learning function of mock interviews. Moreover, it would be a more realistic way to learn
than in a mock interview. Another assumption was that the participants would learn how to apply the
modelling techniques with real data. Both assumptions were based on learning by doing." The results of
the 1986 workshop suggest, however, that practice with examples and mock interviews is necessary for
participants to have confidence in going to the field.








Another objective of the change in diagnostic training format in 1986 was to introduce participants
to the iterative nature of diagnosis, through the return visit on the second sondeo day. Embedded in this
design was also the objective of giving participants experience with both 'open" and "topic guidelines'
approaches. For a one week workshop on diagnosis, however, having both two days for sondeo preparation
and two days in the field means that the field exercise would not be finished until the fifth workshop day
(assuming workshop day one is spent on introductions, workshop objectives, and a case study). A sixth
day would be needed for processing oral reports, but participant fatigue would likely be high at that point.
The results of this workshop thus suggest that the objective of training in iterative diagnosis cannot be
accommodated within a five day format.

Alternatively, trainers may want to consider a one-and-a-half week format for training in diagnosis.
In this format, participants would leave the weekend and Monday of week two to prepare for oral
presentations. Tuesday of week two would then be used for the actual presentations.


Week 1, Days 3-6
(Wednesday 4/9/86 to Monday morning 4/14/86)
Sondeo Field Exercise and Processing

The four teams began their sondeo activities Wednesday morning. The teams differed in their
approach to group versus individual respondent interviews. However, participants in all teams worked in
pairs and changed pairings each day, following the sondeo technique (Shaner et al., 1982).

Wednesday evening was spent processing the information within each group and developing more
structured guidelines to gain additional information and verify initial findings on the return visit to the
villages on Thursday.

Thursday interviews were held as originally scheduled, and Thursday evening was left open for group
work. The trainers, after discussing the time constraint facing the groups, decided to alter the schedule for
Friday and Monday. The teams were originally scheduled to deliver their oral reports on Friday. After
discussion among trainers, an evaluation session planned for Friday morning was moved to Monday. That
morning time on Friday was then allocated for continued small group work needed to prepare the summary
oral reports of the sondeo exercise.

More direction was needed to help the groups prepare for their oral as well as written reports. The
tasks were outlined once again on Thursday evening. It was decided to have the participants include copies
of the summary data tools that they used for their oral reports in the written reports. In giving guidelines
for the written reports which were to be completed over the weekend, the groups were told that before the
final report was written, each 'contributor" needed to present their work to the other members of the group
and they needed to agree on content. The reports were expected to be finished and handed in by Monday
morning.

Monday's schedule was also altered. The first 15-20 minutes were set aside for evaluation of the first
week's activities. Following this, 30-40 minutes were allocated for discussing the methods used in the
sondeo activity. During this session, the participants voiced concerns that their interviews might have raised
the expectations of the farmers in the respective villages. Ways to deal with this problem were then
discussed. Also discussed were sources of possible discrepancies in respondents' answers on Wednesday
versus Thursday. These discrepancies were a source of some frustration and confusion in the working
groups. Types of questions were discussed as well. The group exercises of developing research priorities
based on case studies (Yundum sondeos) were moved back until Tuesday. The evaluation framework
presentation originally scheduled for Tuesday morning was moved forward from Tuesday to Monday.

This marked the conclusion to the previous week's content on the Diagnosis Stage in FSR/E.

'Evaluation and Recommendations

The Wednesday through Monday morning sequence of sessions was overall rated above average. The
lowest rating occurred on the time appropriateness, with a few participants feeling that not enough time was









available for the exercise. This is somewhat surprising considering that compared with the original schedule,
a half of a day had already been added. The problem may have been less one of lack of time, and more
one of lack of clear definition of tasks so that participants know how to set priorities for their work time.
Both the written and oral reports were done in great detail also causing the time problems. On the other
hand, the written reports provided a wealth of information that has been used by the Yundum team in
subsequent on-farm trial design and implementation (C. Taal and G. O. Gaye, personal communication,
August, 1986).
In addition, the Wednesday evening processing took more time than anticipated. The "discovery"
time (i.e., that time spent experientially learning what possible approaches could be used to summarize the
information) could have been reduced by having presented more examples and techniques for summarizing
information earlier. The longer time spent in learning by doing" approach may have caused some
frustration in the teams.
On the other hand, a more 'cookbook" approach might have resulted in more or less internalization
of techniques. The oral and written reports prepared by the four teams indicated that the techniques were
very well internalized, despite the initial frustration with the learning by doing' approach. For example,
two teams added a map of the village, although this was not suggested in the trainer presentations (Gibba
et al., 1986; Janha et al., 1986). Another team made a feed calendar, although this was only referred to as
being analagous to a cropping calendar, but an actual example not given in the trainer presentations (Jallow
et al. 1986). The structural models of all four teams went far beyond the simplified examples given in trainer
presentations. This indicated both the study of the reading materials (Shaner et al., 1982; Franzel et al.,
1986) and thought given to the sondeo information. An example is shown in figure 1 (Gibba et al., 1986).
Both crop calendars and producer-by-activity charts showed team modifications made to the formats
presented by the trainers. For example, one team used bar coding in the crop calendar (Jack et al., 1986).
Rather than having producer genders on one axis, and crops and tasks together on a second axis, one team
separated tasks on the second axis from crops on the first axis, and used female and male symbols in the
intersection cells (figure 2: Jack et al., 1986).
Future trainers might thus weigh the advantages and disadvantages of "cookbook" versus learning
by doing" (or "discovery) approaches. The best combination of the two may vary depending on
participants' familiarity with "discovery" learning and time available for the workshop.
When preparing the participants for the field exercise, it is important that the tasks be detailed from
the on-set of the activity through the expected output. A suggested outline of tasks determined through
discussions with trainers and feedback from participants would be:
A. Preparation for village visit:
1. Decide on team composition and pairing
2. Brainstorm on possible types of information necessary for defining the farming systems) in
the village.
3. Determine the method of dividing farm household members for interviews and number of
farm household members to interview.
B. Visit village and conduct interviews.
C. Meet to discuss preliminary information; at this point, preliminary versions of structural models)
of the fanning systems) and the summary tools should be made. Areas for
clarification/verification should be identified as a, basis for the return visit interviews.
D. Return visit to village.
E. Meet to discuss findings; complete structural model and summary tools.
F. Prepare oral report; summary tools should be prepared as visual aids.
G. Prepare written report; include summary tools.
In a training activity it is important to indicate the length of the report expected as well as a time due.
It is important that the activity not take such high priority that it detracts from the following week's
activities by taking more time than anticipated.









The session on bringing closure to the Sondeo exercise which was included on Monday morning
should be included as part of the entire exercise. This was a very important step and is often overlooked
in short course workshops because of time constraints. Such a session, not only reinforces but also
addresses unanswered concerns and sets the stage for new activities.

WEEK 2: DESIGN

Week 2, Day 1 (Monday, 4/14/86)

Program

First was a review of the overall objectives and presentation of the specific objectives for the second
week. In laying out the specific objectives, the coordinator also displayed a "roadmap" of the week. He
explained the layout of the FSSP training manual, Techniques for Design and Analysis of On-Farm
Experimentation (Caldwell and Walecka, 1986). The "roadmap' for the week progressed through the units
of this manual. First were units on alternative pathways to research (Units I, IIA, and IIE), covered in the
Monday session. These would be followed by What Treatments to Test (IIC and IID), Where to Test (IIB
and IIF), and How to Design Trials to Obtain Analyzable Data (III), as the week progressed.

In the two hours prior to lunch, the ISU trainer discussed the concept of an Evaluation Framework.
This discussion was originally scheduled to follow an exercise using case studies of the four sondeo villages
based on earlier sondeos by the Yundum FSR/E group. During this exercise the teams would be comparing
their sondeo findings with the case studies and based on both, establishing research priorities. However,
since the case studies would not be ready until Tuesday, the evaluation framework session was moved up.

The discussion of the evaluation framework centered around what biological, economic, and social
criteria a team would need to establish to evaluate trials. The criteria would be chosen in terms of a research
objective which the trials would be designed to address. At this point, however, due to the above schedule
change, establishment of research objectives had not been covered. Therefore, the group exercise of
establishing an evaluation .plan based on social, economic, and biological criteria appeared somewhat
academic, and the teams had difficulty relating it directly to the previous week's sondeo activity.

As a result of the difficulty the teams had, after the evaluation framework session, the trainers felt it
was necessary to address the step of establishing research priorities. Another "closure" or processing session
was added the following morning in order to tie the evaluation framework back to the establishment of
research priorities and objectives.
Following lunch, the participants were given free time for reading.

Evaluation and Recommendations

More time should be allocated to "setting the stage' of the upcoming week and walking the
participants through the "roadmap" for the week. This was an effective method, but too much was covered
in too short a time.
Skills in problem identification and establishing research priorities need to be introduced prior to the
beginning of the design activity. Short practical exercises and readings should be developed for this purpose.
An expansion of Unit IX of the Diagnosis is manual is needed.
Presentation of the evaluation framework needs to build on the established research priorities,
Specific examples should be given. The practical exercise in the evaluation framework session would have
been more effective if the research priorities had been established.









Week 2, Days 2-3 (Tuesday 4/15/86 and Wednesday 4/16/86)


Program
Following an evaluation of Monday's activities, and an updating of the list of terms, the ISU trainer
gave a presentation on establishing research priorities. During this time she showed how to bridge initial
diagnosis and design by discussing five steps for establishing research priorities indicated in Unit IX of the
diagnosis volume (Franzel et al., 1986).
This discussion was followed by a presentation on priorities for design, treatment selection, and
treatment specification. From the manual (Caldwell and Walecka, 1986), the VPI trainer covered the
sections on Defining Treatment Objectives (II,C, ); What to Consider in Selecting Subsets of Treatments
(II,C,2); Choosing Control Treatments (II,C,4); and Specification of Experimental Variables (II,D,1).
Following this presentation, the VPI trainer outlined the tasks for the teams' design exercise scheduled
for Wednesday afternoon through Friday. The case studies (village sondeo results of the Yundum FSR/E
team) and summaries of Gambia research results (Walecka, 1985) were distributed at this point. The tasks
were as follows:
A. Using information from the team's sondeo as well as the information in the case study, determine
the top priority for on-farm trials by following the five steps presented at the start of Tuesday
sessions:
1. list the principal problems,
2. determine the causes of each problem and interactions among problems,
3. rank the problems in terms of importance
4. identify possible solutions using your own ideas as well as information from the summaries
of Gambia research results,
5. screen and rerank the problems based on the identified possible solutions;
B. Take the top priority and develop a treatment objective statement.

The teams were not yet asked at this point to begin task C, development of a treatment subset,
although this material had also been covered Tuesday morning.

After defining the tasks, but before beginning the design exercise, the VPI trainer had the participants
do two exercises from the manual (II,C,l Activity One) and (II,C,2 Activity One). In each activity, the
participants were asked to develop treatment objectives, options, and subsets based on an example. This
short practical exercise was completed individually but discussed by the participants as a whole.
On Wednesday, following an evaluation period, the ISU trainer went over new terms, and conducted
a summary and review of the previous day's activities. Then, the VPI trainer continued the design
discussion by covering manual sections on What Kinds of Fields are Available for Testing (Unit II, B)
Trade-offs Between Treatments and Replications (II, F); How Objectives Change (III, A); and What
Designs Can Do (III, B).

To close out the morning sessions, before lunch, a resource person from ILCA Nigeria discussed Alley
Cropping.
Following dinner, the tasks for the Thursday field activity were defined, prior to preparation for the
field work. Originally, at this point the trainers had hoped that the teams would be able to proceed to and
complete taskC, development of a treatment subset. This task involved the following steps:
A. List all treatment options.
B. Reduce number based on agronomic, economic, and social criteria (from treatment objectives
statement).
C. Check with farm household members.
D. Write treatment specifications.
The trainers had also hoped that the teams would be able to begin tackling task D, assessing fields. This
task involved the following steps:
A. Determining how to replicate the trial (site-specific or regional).








B. Determining differences in land areas (total, proportions for trial).
C. Comparing land area with plot size based on treatment subset.
D. Determining the number of blocks per farm (1/farm or > 1/farm, equal or unequal.numbers
across farms).
E. Determining block size per farm (equal or unequal size).
F. Following a decision free to examine treatment, replication, and design option trade-offs.

However, an assessment at this point of the four teams' progress indicated that only one team had
begun task B on Tuesday. That team's progress reflected special circumstances. The Yundum FSR/E team
had given that team its (Yundum's) choice of priorities (lettuce), reflecting the results of the Yundum team's
sondeo work prior to the workshop. For the other villages, the Yundum team did not indicate its choices
to the workshop teams.

The remaining three teams were having difficulty ranking and reducing the number of possible
priorities (steps 2-5 of task A). Hence, the trainers reviewed these steps again, using an example from one
of the teams (figure 3). The trainers then suggested that the teams' goal should be completion of task B
during the Wednesday planning and Thursday field work. The trainers also indicated that some teams
might possibly also-reach task C, but that the trainers did not expect any to reach task D.


Evaluation and Recommendations

These two days led to a near-crisis point in the workshop, for two reasons. The first was the difficulty
the teams had with task A. Task A itself, and the sequence of tasks B, C, and D that followed, were all
developed in response to the difficulties the teams were having in making from diagnosis to design. On
Monday, the trainers first presented a scheme developed for the 1985 Gambia workshop (figure 4). This
scheme was based on identifying a couple of key leverage points" in a structural model and comparing
those with available research. Four possible outputs (extension recommendation, on-farm testing, station
research, or policy recommendation) could result. The difficulty with this scheme was that the teams
apparently did not know how to identify leverage points". This term needed to be better defined on an
operational ("how do you do it") basis. Task A, in essence, was an attempt to show how to find the
leverage points" of the 1985 scheme.

The second reason for a near-crisis at this point was inadequate time to cover the material for task
D. The material for tasks B and C were covered in the Tuesday presentation carefully, comprehensively,
and with examples. In contrast, the material for task D was covered incompletely. The decision tree of
unit II,B of the manual (Caldwell and Walecka, 1986) was explained step-by-step, but the possible
outcomes of the.decision tree in unit III,A were only referred to. Likewise, the logical rationale for statistical
designs in unit III,B was explained fairly carefully, using some of the examples in the unit, but technical
explanation of the different designs was essentially not covered at all.

In the 1985 workshop, many design options were presented in a normative scheme based on three
stages of on-farm experimentation. One recommendation by reviewers at the International Rice Research
Institute of the 1985 preliminary edition of the manual (Caldwell, 1985) was to show how different choices
could be made among the design options (R. Bernsten, personal communication, 1985). In essence, this
recommendation suggested that the authors of the manual spell out the criteria and process by which they
had arrived at the norms indicated in the 1985 manual. Spelling out those criteria and process also meant
showing trade-offs among design options, and allowing for decisions different from the original norms,
depending on differences in circumstances. The decision tree of unit II,B and unit II,F were prepared in
response to those suggestions.

Between the 1984 and 1985 workshops, the technical editor of the manual had been involved in a
training needs assessment in the Philippines (Zuidema and Caldwell, 1985). During that work, Clive
Lightfoot described ways in which the Eastern Visayas project had sought to put statistics on a practical
and understandable basis. Lightfoot emphasized the importance of explaining the basic principles of science
in concrete, practical terms. Later, in 1985, he also provided a set of training notes used in the Eastern
Visayers project (Lightfoot, 1985). Unit III,B was prepared based on those training notes, with
modification and augmentation.









All of the above discussion leads to the conclusion that three days is inadequate to cover the material
in units II,B through III,C. In reality, only about two-and-a-half days were acutally used, because of the
spill-over of "closure" sessions from Diagnosis on Monday morning, and the presentation on alley cropping
on Tuesday.
In the end, as explained in the next section, the material in unit III,C was covered on Friday, after
another schedule change.

Week 2, days 4-6
(Thursday 4/17/86 to Monday 4/21/86)
Program
The teams spent Thursday in the villages fine tuning their designs. Between Thursday night and
Friday morning, the trainers decided that the teams did not have enough time to process their design work.
Therefore, their oral presentations were moved from Friday morning to Monday afternoon. Thursday night
through Monday morning was used to finalize their designs, prepare materials for their oral presentations,
and complete their written reports.
During the extended preparation time, the trainers worked closely with the teams. Most worked with
one team, but the VPI trainer with the most agronomic design and analysis training moved from team to
team. In working with the team from which the example of figure 3 had been generated Wednesday, that
trainer saw a way to introduce the material in unit III,C. A spontaneous, interactive lecture resulted.
Participants from all the teams responded actively, applying statistical background to the concrete problem
of the example.
The oral presentations were completed Monday afternoon. Contrary to expectation Wednesday
evening, all the teams were able to complete through task D in their reports.

Evaluation and Recommendations
In contrast with the near-crisis situation, and consequent reduced trainer expectations, Wednesday
evening, the results of the field exercise and oral and written reports exceeded trainer expectations. The
example given Wednesday evening (figure 3) not only enable the teams to get over the "hump' of task A,
but also to see their way through task C and enter into task D during their planning and field work. The
additional time on Friday also allowed for a highly successful lecture. Building on that same example Friday
enabled them to make decisions on specific designs.

WEEK 3: ANALYSIS

Week 3, Day 1
(Tuesday 4/22/86)

Program
After a session for evaluation of the design exercise, the remainder of the day was spent on issues
relating to farmer participation, trial implementation, and data collection. Resource persons from the
Philippines and Latin America conducted this session. The Philippines resource person drew upon his
experiences in the Philippines to present many insights on working with farmers. The Latin American
resource person concentrated on the logistics side: implementation and data collection. He had the
participants lay out the logistics of the trials they had designed in the previous session. Each team identified
their specific materials needs (down to labeling seed packets for plots) and developed the structure of the
field book they would use to collect information from the trials.








Evaluation and Recommendations


The linkage with the previous design exercise made the logistics exercise more realistic. Both resource
persons have had long experience in farming systems implementation. Both are also from developing
country backgrounds themselves. At the same time, the two countries where they have their longest farming
systems experience (Guatemala and the Philippines) are also two origins of FSR/E (Plucknett, 1980;
Waugh, 1980). The Philippines is, at the same time, the original home of the Green Revolution for rice.
It also has successfully created a strong university system, first at the University of the Philippines at Los
Banos (Villareal, 1986) and now increasingly at regional universities like the Visayas State College of
Agriculture (Zuidema and Caldwell, 1985). The Philippines' experience in developing FSR/E within the
context of strong commodity research and university development is in close accordance with the emphasis
of the new strategy for assistance to Africa of the U.S. Agency for International Development (1985).

Week 3, Days 2-3
(Wednesday 4/23/86 and Thursday 4/24/86)

These two days vere devoted to presentation of biological, economic, and social analysis concepts and
techniques. On Wednesday, after a period to evaluate the precious day's activity, the ISU trainer lead a
session which developed a conceptual framework for analysis. The framework listed resources, indicated
who had access to each resource, and who controlled each resource.

Following this, the VPI trainer introduced biological analysis concepts. The focus was on how to set
up a combined analysis across farms. An example from Hildebrand and Poey (1985) was used, and the
anlaysis table compared with Hammerton and Lauckner (1984). Calculations were done using simple
hand-held calculators.

In the afternoon, the participants were introduced to an assignment which they would be working on
for the rest of the workshop. The exercise was based on data collected from actual on-farm trials carried
out in the Gambia under the extension program. The objectives of the exercise were:
A. Set up a combined analysis table.
B. Calculate values for the table and treatment means.
C. Set up economic analysis.
D. Calculate values for economic analysis.

After the participants were introduced to the exercise, the VPI economics trainer presented concepts
of economic analysis. The fundamentals of economic analysis were discussed in general terms relying as
much as possible on examples used in the biological analysis section. This session sensitized the participants
(many who had never had any background in economics) to the relevant questions to ask in terms of
making recommendations. Given the limited time available, the choice was made to stick to general
conceptual understanding rather than actual calculations.

Thursday morning began with tan exercise using a case study from Zambia (Chabula and Nguiru,
1986). In this exercise, participants applied the social analysis tools presented Wednesday morning to results
of on-farm trials. The session also introduced a procedure, called the economic dependency quotient, for
converting qualitative social analysis data to quantitative data.

Following the case study exercise, the VPI horticulture trainer presented several methods of means
seapration analysis, including modified stability analysis, analysis of factorial experiments, planned
single-degree-of-freedom orthogonal contrasts, and linear and quadratic trend analysis.

The afternoon was devoted to continuing work on the extension data sets.


Evaluation and Recommendations

These presentations presented the greatest difficulties in the workshop. First, time available for the
analysis presentations had been reduced by one day, as a result of moving the oral design reports from
Friday to Monday. As a result, the presentation on economics analysis suffered most, with actual








calculations sacrificed. None of the CIMMYT workbook (1986) exercises could be used. Second, both the
biological statistical analysis and the economic analysis material were the most abstract and difficult in
content of all the material covered in the workshop. Third, different examples were used in the social analysis
presentation, making it more difficult to show how to integrate the three types of analysis (biological,
economic, and social).
On the positive side, the presentation of the economic dependency quotient illustrated how social
analysis is not limited only to qualitative analysis of observations.
Prior to the workshop, data sets with a description of social conditions affecting interpretation of
results were sought from Gambian colleagues. Many socio-economic studies have been conducted in The
Gambia, but these have not been linked to on-farm trials or agronomic research. On-farm research is recent
in The Gambia. Considerable progress has been made in including economic analysis of the data (D.
Boughton and J. Kristenssen, personal communication, 1985-1986). However, social analysis for
interpretation of trail results is limited by the fact that there is only one rural sociologist in the Ministry of
Agriculture.
The case study from Zambia includes some excellent summary results of agronomic analysis.
However, the case study would be even more useful for integrated analysis if trainers were provided with
the raw data on a per treatment, per block, per farm basis. Then, the raw agronomic data and relevant
economic data could be given together with the social background information already in the case study,
and workshop participants asked to do an inegrated analysis. The summary results could still be included
in the trainers' notes, to be given out to participants after the exercise.

Week 3, Day 4
(Friday 4/25/86)

Program
The morning was spent on completion of the calculations using the extension data sets. After the
mid-morning break, the teams presented the results of their analyses.
The final session before lunch was spent on an oral evaluation of the workshop.

Evaluation and Recommendations
The exercise with the extension data sets proved, frustrating to the participants. The exercise was
designed based on use of simple hand-held calculators lent to workshop participants by extension. Only a
few participants had scientific calculators with statistical function keys, and not all who had those calculators
knew how to use them. Nevertheless, participants were aware of the power available in scientific
calculators and mini-computers. Some participants questioned the value of carrying out the tedious
calculations by hand.
On the other hand, the fact that the workshop had to use simple hand-held calculators reflects the
same conditions that many research and extension personnel will face in the field. In spite of efforts prior
to the workshop to locate adequate numbers of scientific calculators, there simply were not enough available
for all the participants. Hence, the decision was made to go to the lowest common denominator, simple
calculators with arithmetic functions only.

The spread of personal computers (PC's) may change this situation in the future. Not every
researcher need have one, but all could be trained in how to set their data up for entry into PC's, what
analyses to request, and how to interpret the results. Obviously, the numbers and types of PC's available
for analysis of on-farm trials will vary from country to country. To what extent a regional workshop could
be designed with a common format would have to be determnnined based on a survey of existing and planned
availability of PC's in the different West African countries.
analT ^\^^ ^
f 0 s^^^^.^^
be~^e^?'^^-^^^^








The above contrasting observations and discussion based on this workshop closely parallels the debate
over what level of hardware is most appropriate that was held during the FSSP meetings in 1984. The
results of this workshop suggest that there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the debate, but that
the situation is fluid. Certainly, learning the mechanics of analysis procedures can deepen understanding
of their principles, and can be essential when more sophisticated hardware is unavailable, or becomes
unusable. On the other hand, it would seem desirable to focus as much valuable FSR/E training time as
possible on participants' learning how to interpret the results of analysis in terms of systems output, of
which biological analysis is an essential part, but not the only part.

OVERALL PARTICIPANT EVALUATION

Participants overwhelmingly felt that the workshop was a success in helping them to reach the
majority of the stated objectives. Out of 22 respondents in the written evaluation, only one respondent gave
"no' as an answer to the question, 'Do you feel the workshop was successful in reaching its objectives?"
Nine respondents gave a qualified "yes, but..." response, and 12 give an unqualified "yes' response. The vast
majority of participants would recommend this workshop to co-workers.

Diagnosis, design, and analysis were all mentioned by participants'as the most valuable aspect of the
workshop. The majority were split between design and analysis. However, more respondents cited analysis
alone, whereas all but one respondent who cited design as most valuable did so in combination with another
part of the workshop.

The majority of workshop respondents agreed with the allocation of time among types of activities,
with two exceptions: inadequate reading time ard free time. Three special dinners (two at restaurants) and
two social events (at nearby discotheques) were arranged for participants, but much evening and weekend
time was used for slide presentations and formal or informal group interaction.

The most frequently-cited needs for change in course, structure were increased length of time and
assorted other improvements in course mechanics. Among the three main parts of the course (diagnosis,
design, and analysis), suggestions focused on the analysis part, but opinion was not completely uniform.
Among topics to add, livestock and analysis (primarily statistics) were most frequently cited. On the other
hand, statistics was the most frequently cited topic to shorten or omit. It was also the most frequently cited
single-item least valuable part of the workshop.

Time appeared to be the "nain cause of dissatisfaction with the analysis part, because analysis was
overwhelmingly most frequently cited as the part of the workshop which should be expanded. More
respondents asked for an expansion of biological analysis than for expansion of social analysis (table 3).
This may have reflected a combination of three factors: biological scientists predominated among the
participants, (21 out of 30) the material on social analysis was presented well, and statistics appears to be
inherently the most difficult material covered in the workshop.

Approximately two thirds of the respondents to the question on follow-up activities desired suggested
participant-focused follow-up, primarily in the form of follow-up workshops. Approximately one third
suggested farmer-focused follow-up, primarily implementation of the trials the teams had designed. The
Yundum team planned to implement at least some of the trials coming out of workshop, depending on
decisions made by a committee in the Department of Agriculture responsible for establishing FSR/E field
teams.

CONCLUSIONS

This workshop represented the culmination of three years of training in The Gambia. It was
essentially a combination in one workshop (for new participants) of the two previous workshops offered in
1984 and 1985. The combination was in both content (1984 diagnosis plus 1985 design and analysis) and
time (1984 seven days plus 1985 six days plus expansion of analysis = 1986 three weeks). In the intervening
time, training materials were developed and revised both for diagnosis and for design and analysis.

The results of this workshop presented in the preceding pages suggest that the combination of
diagnosis and design in one workshop was a significant improvement, but that analysis might better be









covered separately, As discussed in the evaluation and recommendations sections of both the diagnosis and
design weeks, more time allocated to each would improve their effectiveness. Also, the linkage between
diagnosis and design is critical. This was a source of near-crisis in the workshop, but the near-crisis resulted
in valuable on-the-spot improvements in training materials.
A diagnosis and design workshop logically should precede the season. If possible, trial designs
resulting from workshop exercises should then actually be implemented, in least by those workshop
participants from the country or region hosting the workshop. In contrast, an analysis workshop has to
follow the season if it is to use data from trials designed in the diagnosis and design workshop.
Splitting analysis from diagnosis and design has the added advantage of allowing more time to be
devoted to each, while permitting total workshop time at each point to be no more than the three weeks
of this workshop. One possible sequence of formats, incorporating recommendations discussed earlier for
each part, could be:
Diagnosis and design workshop (before season)
M Introduction, overview, and case study.
Tu Modeling the farming system.
W Interview techniques and practice.
Th Village sondeo and team discussion.
F Village sondeo and team discussion.
Sa, Su Informal team interaction.
M Completion of preparation for oral and written sondeo reports.
Tu Oral sondeo reports.
W Overview of design. Determining a design priority, establishing an evaluation framework,
and developing a treatment objectives statements.
Th Establishing a treatment subset.
F Assessing field and livestock diversity for replication of treatments.
Sa, Su Informal team interaction.
M Design principles and specifics of design types.
To Village design visit.
W Preparation of written and oral reports.
Th Oral design reports. Wrap up and evaluation.
Analysis workshop (after season)
M Introduction and review of diagnosis and design workshop.
To Evaluation framework as basis for integrated analysis. Introduction to hardware to be
used in exercises.
W Biological analysis principles. Analysis of variance for combined analysis.
Th Treatment separation.
F Biological analysis exercise.
Sa, Su Free time.
M Economic analysis principles. Partial budgeting.
Tu Economic analysis exercise (same data sets as biological analysis).
W Social analysis principles and techniques. Combining results of all three types of analysis
using evaluation framework for design, extension, and policy recommendation.
Th Exercise in social analysis and combining results of all three analyses (same data sets for
all three). Preparation of written and oral reports.
F Team oral reports. Wrap-up and evaluation.
The analysis part of the workshop was overall the weakest. This reflects the development of training
materials and tr g experience, The 1984 workshop built on the 1983 domestic FSSP orientation
workshops, which emphasized diagnosis. The 1985 workshop added new training materials (Caldwell,
1985) which conceptually covered both design and analysis. The 1985 training materials were stronger in
design, and the 1985 workshop focused largely on design. The revised 1986 training materials greatly
expanded the design portion, but the time prior to the 1986 workshop was inadequate for much' expansion
in analysis from the 1985 version. Thus, a second revision of the training manual in on-farm
experimentation should focus on analysis.








The FSSP has been very aware of the need for the development of both training materials and training
approaches for analysis. What exists should be built on. What is needed in terms of training is an attempt
to integrate all aspects of analysis, biological, economic and social. Why are they all important, and how
can they be done? What kinds of data need to be collected? Examples of biological, social and economic
analysis applied to specific data sets should be developed. The data sets should include livestock-based
examples and materials currently under development. Better integration of livestock into diagnosis and
design is also needed as a prerequisite for integration into analysis.
In a short course, time is usually the major constraint, and given such a constraint, decisions on core
content and priority objectives need to be made. The balance of the content is very important. Specific
objectives need to be stated relative to priority and the time available. Expecting to be able to teach (or
review) calculation, use and interpretation of a variety of statistical analyses is unrealistic in a short
workshop. Trainers need to determine what is absolutely essential and narrow the objectives to fit the time
available. Different levels of audience need to be identified and perhaps separate sessions addressing specific
needs can complement plenary sessions. What is absolutely essential for the participants to leave the
workshop with in order to be better able to practice FSR/E effectively? Participants in short courses cannot
be expected to walk away with a full education in statistical analysis (especially in cases where formal
statistical background is negligible). However, they should be much more aware of the need for all types
of analysis and how to interpret results to provide useful information for future activities.

A task force and scope of work is therefore needed to improve the analysis training materials. It is
important that the focus of the task force be on developing practical examples and exercises for training.
Some key outputs of the task force should be:
1. Identification of materials for economic analysis of on-farm trials, with examples. Specific information
on some of the techniques of economic analysis of on-farm trials is provided in the CIMMYT manual
(Perrin et al., 1976) and workbook (CIMMYT, 1986). (The latter is included as supplementary
material in Volume II of the FSSP Training Units (Caldwell and Walecka, 1986)).
2. Development of a core topic list of information considered to be 'absolutely essential" for each areas
of analysis.
3. Construction of a table or chart that clearly indicates the types *of analyses available, when they are
most useful, and what type of data is needed in order to perform each.
4. Development of an integrated analysis framework based on the above information. During this
workshop one of the intra-household case studies developed by FSSP/Population Council was used
(Chabala and Nguiru, 1986). The ISU trainer used the "Conceptual Framework" from the case study
to introduce the analysis portion of the workshop. This 'conceptual framework" should be referred to
in developing the integrated analysis framework. A framework used in the 1985 Gambia workshop
should also be referred to (Walecka, 1985).
5. The integrated analysis should be presented at the beginning of the design sequence and continually
referred to for reinforcement in diagnosis and design workshops. Thus, this output of an analysis task
force would be used in both diagnosis and design workshops, as well as in analysis workshops.
6. Specific application exercises using all aspects of analysis should be developed. The intra-household
case studies may also provide the basic information for a number of these practical exercises and should
be considered as a potential basis for exercises.
7. The task force should not be large but should include at least one economist, one social scientist, one
biological scientist, and a training materials development specialist. Each of the individuals should have
training workshop experience.

The above work outlined for a task force would be the final step needed in synthesizing the experience
of this workshop and the two that preceded it. Seen from this perspective, the results of this workshop
represent a third but still intermediate step towards development of an integrated set of training materials
for FSR/E diagnosis, design, and analysis.








REFERENCES


1. Beebe, J. 1985. Rapid rural appraisal: the critical first step in a farming system approach to research.
Farming Systems Support Project Networking Paper No. 5. University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida.
2. Caldwell, J. S. (technical ed.). 1985. Agronomic experimental design and analysis (preliminary
edition). Farming Systems Support Project TMS/600. Gainesville, Florida.
3. Caldwell, J. S., M. H. Rojas, and A. M. Neilan. 1984. Topic areas and topic leaders in the
methodology in the farming systems informal survey. In: E. C. French and R. K. Waugh (eds).
Proceedings of the Conference on Domestic Farming Systems, September 10-13, 1984. University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida (in press).
4. Caldwell, J. S., I. Jack, and G. O. Gaye. 1986. Linking farming systems research/extension (FSR/E)
and commodity research: FSR/E team identification of horticultural research priorities in The Gambia,
West Africa. Paper submitted for review for Proceedings of the 1986 Kansas State Farming Systems
Research Symposium. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
5. Caldwell, J. S. (technical editor), and L. Walecka (coordinating editor). 1986. Techniques for design
and analysis of on-farm experimentation. FSR/E Training Units: Vol. II. Farming Systems Support
Project, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
6. Chabala, C. and R. G. Nguiru. 1986. Intra-household dynamics and FSR/E in Zambia: A case study
of traditional recommendation domain 3 and in Central Province. In: Population Council/Farming
Systems Support Project Case Studies Project on Intrahousehold Dynamics and Farming Systems
Research and Extension. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, and Farming Systems
Support Project, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
7. CIMMYT Economics Program. 1986. Introduction to economic analysis of on-farm experiments.
CIMMYT, Mexico. (Incorporated as an appendix in reference 5 above.)
8. Fall, A. 1986. The farming systems approach in Basse Casamance (Senegal): from "situation agricole"
to recommendation domain (the Djibelor experience). Djibelor, Basse Casamance, Senegal (mimeo).
9. Franzel, S. 1984. Gambia FSR/E workshop, March, 1984. Development Alternatives, Inc.
Washington, D.C. (mimeo).
10. Franzel, S., M. Odell, and M. Odell (technical editors), and L. Walecka (coordinating editor). 1986.
Diagnosis in farming systems research and extension. FSR/E Training Units: Vol. I. Farming
Systems Support Project, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
11. Gibba, A., A. J. S. Kanuteh, E. S. Baldeh, I. Diallo, J. E. O. Thomas, M. B. Lynham, R. Norem,
A. Sahore, and B. Gassama. 1986. Farming systems in Sukuta, Gambia: report of the rapid
reconnaissance survey in Sukuta village. Bakau, The Gambia, West Africa (mimeo).
12. Hammerton, J. L., and F. B. Lauckner. 1984. On-farm experimentation: a manual of suggested
experimental procedures. Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute, Trinidad.
13. Hildebrand, P. H., and F. Poey. 1985. On-farm agronomic trials in farming systems research and
extension. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, Colorado.
14. Jack, I., F. Biteye, A. Bangura, S. Fall, B. Bayo, M. Lahai, P. Okyere, L. Walecka, P. Francis, J. Silla,
and E. Camara. 1986. Sohm village general "sondeo" report. Bakau, The Gambia, West Africa
(mimeo).
15. Jallow, Y. H., M. Macin, J. O. Jobe, D. Moore, N. Y. Baldeh, M. Darboe, M. Dahaba, M. Nyang,
J. Manneh, F. Badjie, R. C. de Pedro, Jr., and J. Caldwell. 1986. A sondeo case study of Kassagne,
Foni Bintang Karanai, Western Division April 9-10, 1986 (Diagnosis). Bakau, The Gambia, West
Africa (mimeo).









16. Janha, T. A., C. M. Jonas, P. K. Jusu, G. O. Gaye, L. Jaiteh, D. Gaines, C. Bojang, S. Fatajoh, S.
Sanneh, D. Taylor, C. Barfield, E. Camara, and L. Korta. 1986. Sangajor Jiramba village sondeo case
study report. Bakau, The Gambia, West Africa (mimeo).
17. Lightfoot, C. 1985. Statistical analysis for on-farm agronomic data. Farming Systems Development
Project Eastern Visayas (FSDP-EV), Visayas State College of Agriculture (ViSCA), Philippines.
18. Patton, M. Q. 1980. Qualitative evaluation methods. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
19. Perrin, R. K., D. C. Winkelmann, E. R. Moscardi, and J. R. Anderson. 1976. From agronomic data
to farmer recommendations: an economics training manual. CIMMYT, Mexico, Information Bulletin
27.
20. Poats, S. 1984. Gambia workshop highlights. Farming Systems Support Project Newsletter 2(2):6-9.
21. Plucknett, D. L. 1980. An overview of farming systems research (FSR). Paper presented at the
Farming Systems Research Symposium, December 8-9, 1980, Office of International Cooperation and
Development, USDA, Washington, D.C. (mimeo).
22. Sail, S. 1986. Farming systems research in southern Senegal: The Djibelor experiment. Djibelor, Basse
Casamance, Senegal (mimeo).
23. Shaner, W. W., P. F. Philipp, and W. R. Schmehl. 1982. Farming systems research and development:
guidelines for developing countries. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.
24. [United States] Agency for International Development. 1985. Plan for supporting agricultural research
and faculties of agriculture in Africa. Washington, D.C.
25. Villareal, R. L. 1986. Post-graduate training at the University of the Philippines at Los Banos.
HortScience 21:757.
26. Walecka, L. 1985. Training workshop report: FSSP/GARD on-farm experimentation workshop, The
Gambia, May 20-25, 1986. Farming Systems Support Project, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida.
27. Waugh, R. K. 1980. Staffing and funding in the Instituto de Ciencia y Technologia Agricola (ICTA).
Paper presented at the Farming Systems Research Symposium, December 8-9, 1980, Office of
International Cooperation and Development, USDA, Washington, D.C. (mimeo).
28. Zuidema, L., and J. S. Caldwell. 1985. Training needs assessment for farming systems research and
development in the Philippines. United States Agency for International Development, Manila,
Philippines (mimeo).








Table 1. Overall Workshop Objectives


Code Content
General To explain what types of research and extension
problems facing farming systems FSR/E is designed
to address.

A. 1 To group farmers for developing recommendations
A.2.1 To gather information needed for grouping
and developing recommendations.
A.2.2 To process information for grouping and developing
recommendations.


B.1
B.2.1
B.2.2
B.3
B.4


To determine what types of testing to do.
To determine what treatments to test on-farm
To develop an on-farm trial evaluation framework
To determine where to test on-farm
To combine treatments and locations in a design
to obtain analyzable on-farm data


C. 1 To implement and monitor on-farm trials.
C.2.1 To evaluate on-farm trial results by carrying out
biological analysis.
C.2.2 To evaluate on-farm trial results by carrying out
economic analysis.
C.2.3 To evaluate on-farm trial results by carrying out
social analysis.
C.3 To use on-farm trial results by combining biological
.economic and social evaluation for extension and
policy recommendations.


Completion
Target Week


1-3

1

1

1

2
2
2
2
2

3
3

3

3

3


Table 2: Key questions asked at the start of the workshop and their relationship to the stages of FSR/E.


Key Question
1. How do we group farmers to develop
recommendations?

2. What is the basis for grouping?

3. Given groups and priorities, how
do we develop recommendations?

4. How do we determine what is accept-
able to farmers from on-farm trials?


Stages in FSR/E
Diagnosis


Diagnosis

Design / Testing
(trials) (implementation)


Extension









Table 3. Topics to Expand


Category

Diagnosis
Design
Analysis
Biological X
Social x
Not specifedMl
Other
None


No. of responses (value)
Full Half Total
I1 (1 z
I 2 3
19 3 22
8 8 16
2 8 10
4 0 4
1 0 1
I 0 1


Mean
valucY

0.75
0.67
0.93
0.75
0.60
1.00
1.00
1.00


U.9U


Total responses
Total respondents


ZResponses in which respondents cited 2 parts of the workshop as equally most valuable.
YMean value = no. of full responses + 0.5 (no. of half responses)/ no. of total responses
xValues included in Analysis; not counted in devising totals at bottom.


-"" -"""' ---~~ --
























ir I~hL~./S~~~M A.?, 1A E T NO











I I.- C~~r



filou I l i r7 ..,
krtilCA -Cl


L. Lam.___Om

Motors..


L
Rnj~lJ


1ft~ur4
AIcwas
IMfl~Y*


I.-J
rI ao


Figure 1. Example of a structural model prepared by a workshop team.


viev-p
Calm.

-11*
IIr~


I~s1,-*j


Lc~rJ


I
t rrlr.-l


l


7-4-~M


to synlt
v, rs~






















S&C. l.i


Mlt S' d' d' 9(19


6'

-7


C 4S.I

4calaai,


-7
d'
el
-7

-Z
-7


0"
I


6'


6'


I I I I I


6
d
d
f

6


L4L4-L{


.-.'ei
6.~r


d e,7


$ 1



~ZTk










L0 ?
Wpt< C
pb6l Is lg


Example of modified producer-by-activity chart prepared by a
workshop team.


r~c


=n do


u. gtce.





CA 34k.
JA7_ML
Gc^&H/ da
C#l5iqwr
045^


$,04

VQ

i'


Figure 2.


/XAtei!^
Cicel-0


I I I I


1


d"


I


de
















A: Ranking Priorities


Tomato Livestock



3 4


B: Treatment Objectives


Factor A:
Time of maturity


Factor B:
Time of planting


C: Treatment Subsety


Farmer Sapu Senegal

5 4 4


13


Weeks before rains After rains

3 2 1 Farmer

4


- 52


Farmer Sapu Senega
1 2 25
5


Weeks before rains After rains
2 Farmer
------------


x

- 10


ZProbability of successful solution: H-high, M-medium, L=low.

YNumber of varieties (factor A) times number of planting dates
(factor B) number of treatment combinations.



Figure 3. 1986 example for moving from diagnosis to design.


Lowland
rice


1


Priorities



Ranking



Solutionz



Reranking


Upland
rice


2



H



1













2
System



Household

Livestock < Crops
(1)
Market Support
(credit,
extension)


Research Resultsy


a

Ic
c


/ station
trials


[of-iiT]


p1


policy


extension


Z1 Crop-livestock interaction identified as leverage point.
y2 Possible technical solution (b) identified.
x3 Possible solution has adequate potential for testing in on-farm trials.





Figure 4. 1985 Scheme for identification of "leverage points" for determining
a research priority.


ii i i iiii l illililli


I




















Appendix A


Final Evaluation
Participant Responses









FINAL EVALUATION
PARTICIPANT RESPONSES





Do you feel that the workshop was successful in reaching its objectives?
yes
no
yes for all objectives except for analysis topics
yes
to an extent yes
at least, yes
the workshop was successful although I couldn't fully understand some parts like data interpretation
because of time.
S yes
very successful
not fully
yes
yes
above average (four marks on a scale of five)
yes it was although it was crop biased I could still interpret what was taught to on-farm trials with
livestock.
yes
yes
yes, but I think the statistics part was not reached
to some extent
yes
almost
yes, very successful
yes

What did you find most valuable about the workshop?

setting up an informal survey and recording the results.
how to plan and implement on-farm trials
field trips
the design and analysis presentations
understanding the value of the sondeo and informal survey techniques and learning about on-farm trial
designs.
analysis of economic and biological data
sondeo, where the actual problems of the farmers are discovered
- the content of the exercise from sondeo to analysis, and the interaction with people of different
nationalities and professions.
all the materials and lectures given to me.
experimental techniques and analysis of data.
trial implementation as well as data analysis.
S designing, analyzing, and evaluating on-farm trials.
the organization and conduct of the workshop was excellent.
session about biological, economical and social analysis.
that these concepts may be applicable in livestock research.
that it had good resource persons who were able to explain most of the things clearly.
application of FSR/E, i.e., Diagnosis--design--analysis.
analyzing, designing and implementing on-farm trials.
S statistical analysis-biological and economical.
analysis: biological, social, economic.


A-1









- the opportunity to interact with people from different disciplines who are involved in FSR/E work.
The section on design and analysis were most valuable to me in terms of content.
the knowledge of how to implement on-farm trials and also choosing priority problems.
the sondeo exercise and every part of the diagnosis and design exercise.
Analysis of variance with data interpretation.
implementation of trials and analysis of socio-economic and biological concepts.
biological and economic analysis.
What did you find least valuable about the workshop?
Snone
- the biological analysis. I say this is the least valuable because two days was not enough for us to really
understand this analysis.
duration was too short to cover all topics.
that it is crop biased, most likely due to its evolutionary state.
Case study in Nigeria on Alley Cropping.
none
Economic Analysis was too difficult to understand.
the long time in class was boring sometimes.
Logistics
statistics
social analysis
the statistical analysis portion was too much information for too little time.
lectures
none
session on biological, economic, social analysis was interesting but the time allocated was very short.
What topics would you expand? add? shorten? omit?

Expand:
biological, economic, social analysis
Biological, economic, social analysis
groundnut, rice and maize production
biological analysis
experimental design, economic and social analysis
analysis of yield data
sondeo
Analysis
none
interpretation and analysis, more time is required for the workshop.
biological analysis
analysis of on-farm trials
statistical analysis
sondeo and session about biological, economic and social analysis.
- statistics
socio-economic and biological data analysis
statistical analysis
biological, economic and social analysis
treatment selection, and placing treatments on fields.
statistical analysis
design and analysis
- economics
biological analysis
- biological and economic analysis
- analysis of socio-economic and biological concepts.
biological and economic analysis
Add:
Animal production
Livestock, nutrition/home economics


A-2








fanning systems in tropical countries with no less than 10 months of rainfall
S regression analysis
- to identify data requirements for and methods of analyzing on-farm experiments. Practical exercises
on statistics with more time.
S none
- reporting
S how to solve the problems of farmers.
- more on the principles of statistical analysis.
- more case studies.
- more statistics
S practical field layout of designs.
- a resource person to talk about livestock.
- more time for the third week presentations.
- the usefulness of formal survey and introduce questionnaire.
Shorten:
sondeo exercise
free time
statistical calculations
social analysis
statistics, how could this be transmitted to farmers?
S sondeo and design
none
nothing
S home economics
none
lectures
social analysis
sondeo exercise-diagnosis and information processing
Omit:
case studies from other countries
social aspect of the course
statistics
statistics, it cannot be understood in 2 days or a few hours.
Please comment on the allocation of time throughout the workshop:
too little about right too much total

Presentations by
resource persons 19% 69% 12% 26

small group work 38% 54% 8% 26

general discussion 31% 65% 4% 26

reading time 58% 27% 8% 24

slide modules 23% 69% 4% 24

field work 35% 54% 12% 26

free time 54% 30% 15% 26


Could the structure of the course be changed to better present the concepts of the FSR/E process? If so,
how?
. Farming systems in the Gambia is not only limited to crops and vegetable gardens, therefore, livestock
should have been included.


A-3









. There should be a projector for the tables and graphs to be presented by participants.
No. the structure is ok. If only more time will be allocated for future workshops. Time is really
needed for the analysis aspect because it is the most useful If you collect data and you don't know
how to analyze it that there is no work done.
In order to better present the concepts of the FSR/E process, the period should be increased form three
weeks to at least one to two months.
Yes, there is a need to increase the time of the workshop from three weeks to about six or more weeks.
- the course should be taught at different levels for people with different levels of educational and work
experience. this refers in particular to the statistical analysis section.
- By including more slide shows so that you see the practical experience of other countries, as this has
particularly helped me a lot. Livestock and Forestry should have adequate emphasis in FSR/E like
crops.
- By allocating more time to data analysis.
Yes, additional time is needed. Say one week.
Most people were not familiar with FSR/E and should have had a program in advance to see what it
is about, including advanced readings.
International participants could be asked to present a paper on farming systems in their country.
I think the statistical session could have been stretched over the duration of the three-week workshop.
By frequent field visits.
More sociologists should be included in the workshop.
The structure can be changed by instead of a workshop to organize a study program for the
participants, because you will find out that the time allocated to the biological, social, and economic
analysis was very short. Only additional time would have helped.
No, I think it should remain as it is.
By partitioning it so that at one time the topics will be diagnosis, at another time design, and finally
analysis.
More time should be allocated to the analysis portion of the FSR/E process since analysis is very
important. Less time should be devoted to diagnosis exercise. The material in analysis is more difficult
and also more than diagnosis. I would allow at least a whole week on analysis.
Please explain why you would or would not recommend this workshop
to a co-worker.
The workshop is useful for introducing the concepts of FSR/E to persons working with on-farm trials.
It affords you the opportunity to share experiences with people who are pioneers in the FSR/E
philosophy.
I would highly recommend this workshop to a co-worker because of the wealth of information one
gains in a few weeks.
I would recommend this workshop because I learned quite a lot of new things and ideas.
If only I could figure out ways to conduct the on-farm trials in relation to livestock I would.
I would recommend it because it reorients approach to solving farmers problems with full farmer
participation.
I would recommend it because it helps us with the methodologies which proved to be successful.
Not recommend it because it is crop biased.
To make one to have a better understanding of how research should be conducted in a relevant way,
I would recommend the workshop.
I would recommend this workshop to any co-worker because the program is very interesting. The
sequences were useful.
I would surely recommend this workshop to a co-worker so that he/she would have the opportunity
I had in getting learning about the Gambian farmers present state, constraints, and the farmers
objectives for development.
I shall recommend this workshop to a co-worker because in addition to refreshing his research
techniques the workshop will enable him to learn how to diagnose, implement and analyze on-farm
trials.-I would recommend it to a co-worker because apart from expanding his knowledge in farming
systems if he is working in any agricultural institution it will ensure his success as a potential farmer.
S I would recommend it because some of what has been taught can be easily applied or readily at filed
level. Also because it encourages team work.
I would recommend it because it teaches all the basic concepts that would enable one to carry out
FSR/E research correctly.


A-4








I would recommend the workshop to any co-worker because a lot of know how and skill are acquire
during the workshop.
There are two reasons I would recommend this workshop: it orients research to a more objective
approach, and priority problems are selected and solutions sought through on-farm trials.
- It was very educational. I am pleased because we have learned a lot that I never heard, saw or learned
before.
I would recommend it because they would learn the value of careful analysis of survey data, careful
planning of filed trials, and the importance of collecting appropriate and accurate data.
I would recommend it as an opportunity to become better skilled at identifying farmers problems anc
addressing solutions to the problems.
I would recommend this workshop because it is an effective to for the change agent.
Recommend, I have achieved a lot of information of the role of FSR/E.
I would recommend this workshop to a co-worker because every individual involved in rural work aims
at increasing the standard of living of the rural people. To do this you must understand the system ir
which they operate and that is what this FSR/E workshop is all about.
- I would not recommend it to a co-worker because there was no resource person for livestock,
Therefore, I do not know what I have gained here. The only thing I can tell is the farmer is to make
feed trials which I doubt they will accept.

What follow-up activities would you like to see?
- The on-farm trials.
- I would like to see the implementation and any other follow-up workshop that will be organized in
future by FSSP.
Instructors(trainers) should be invited to come back to the Gambia and to all those countries that
participated in the workshop to see the performance of the participants.
- I would like to find out how the farmers felt about their role in the sondeo exercise.
More workshops of this kind.
Immediate implementation of the trials.
S Visit of FSr/E specialist to various FSR/E programs in they are undertaken in the respective places.
The formation of multidisciplinary teams to look into the farm family structures in order to formulate
same recommendations for various domains.
- Practical demonstration of on-farm trials.
I would personally want to be involved more in on-farm research than on-station.
- To train the participant in the FSR/E system, so as to make them more efficient in their work. Hence
they are the field worker, they need to know better before helping farmers.
That the programme should have an agricultural research statistics workshop organized shortly.
If possible I would like to see participant be contacted in the filed personally by post questionnaires.
Workshop to include animals.
Reports on the progress of our sondeo survey.
The implementation and analysis of the results of trials recommended for each village...since trials were
an outcome of the Diagnosis, the results -ould prove how efficient the diagnosis was carried out (the
farmers reaction being extremely important).
On-farm trials and economic, social and biological analysis. sending us reading materials.
Follow-up activities in the area of analysis, economic social, and biological.
It should be useful to have follow-up mini-workshops for those actually involved in on-farm trials.
The time for such mini-workshops should correspond with the different stages of FSR/E.

The Zambia Case Study is being tested as part of a project to
develop several teaching case studies. Your feedback on the use
of the case study is important in this testing. How useful do
you think a case study is as part of a training workshop like
this one?
Almost all participants rated its usefulness at 4 or 5 on a scale of 5 indicating it to be considered very
useful.


A-5
















Appendix B

Original Workshop Schedule







MONDAY 4/7 TUESDAY 4/ WEDNESDAY 4/9 THURSDAY 4/10 FRIDAY 4/11 SAT 4/12 SUN 4/13
_I I I I I I I
7:30 I BREAKFAST BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST
8:30 II I I I I
IHelcome, Intro's IEvaluate Previous IEvaluate Previous ISondeo In The lEvaluate Pro- IWrite up of IRoading and
IHorkshop Sche- IDays Day's Obj. IDay IField 4 Groups to Ivious Day ISondeo Re- IFree Time
.Idule; ObjectivessI IDay's Objectives 14 Villages with IDay's Objectiveslports IAll Day
IThis Heek's Ob- IRecommendation Do-I IPPMU enumerators I I
Ijectivest Day's Imains and LeveragelSondoo In The I IPrepare oral
objectives IPoints: Casamance IField 4 Groups to ISondeo Reports
I IExample 14 Villages with Iwith Visual Aidsl
INhy FSR/E: Usingl IPPHU enumerators IPrioritize Pro- I
IThe Gambia ex- IFormal and Inform-I Iblems
ample lal Survey Exper- I I IBegin Sondeo Re-I
I liences of Group I Iports
_I I I I I I I
11:00 I BREAK I BREAK I BREAK I BREAK I BREAK I I
11:30 I I I I I II-
ICase Study IIntroduction to IContinue Sondeo Icontinue Sondeo IContinue Sondeo
ICasamance ISondeo Techniques lExercise IExercise IReports-35 min.
II I per group, in-
I I Icluding discus-
S________ Ision
IQuestions and I I I I I
Discussion on I I I lEvaluation and
Icase study IHodeling the Farm- IWrap up of eek I
I ling System I I
IOverview of week II I I
I I I I I I I
2:00 I Lunch/Rest/Read I Lunch/Rest/Read ILunch/Rest/Read I Lunch/Rest/Read I Lunch/Rest/ReadI LUNCH I LUNCH L
5:00 I I I I I I
IReading time IExamples and prac-lContinue Sondeo IContinue Sondeo IReading & Free
I Itice in use of lExercise lExercise and Re- ITime
I ISondeo techniques I Iturn to home base I
I II I IIII
I ILogistics of
I ISondeo
I Iondeo I I I I I I
_I________ _______ I _________ II_________ II________ I_______I _______I
7:00 I DINNER I DINNER I DINNER I DINNER I DINNER I DINNER I DINNER
8:00 I I
IAssign FSR Teams ILand Tenure in Up-lGroup Discussion IGroup Discussion Party
I Iper Volta or Carl lof Sondeo-Recorderlof Sondeo
I IBarfield & IPM IUpdates Notes I
I I I I I I I I









I I I I I I-I I
I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I
I I I. I l, i----- i ---- I
(Review last weekslEvaluate Previous IEvaluate Previous IField Hork to finelEvaluate Previ- IHrite up of I PAGE 2 I
lobjectivesi statelDay (Day Itune on farm triallous Day Groups' De- -I
This weeks objec-IDay's Objectives IDay's Objectives Idesign four vil-IDay's objectiveslsign plans I DRAFT 83
Itivest Day's ob- I I Ilages, one PPHM I I I I
Ijectives IDesigns conceptuallPlacing Treatmnttslenumerator in eachlFinish Visual I IReading and I
I Idesign choices Ion Fieldsl Ivillage laids for design I I Free Time I
ITechnical Over- I Ireplicationst why I Ireport I I All Day I
View of OFE I design I( I I
I I I I ISmall Group Re- I I


7:30
8:30


I_____ .I__I.___I____________I.___ ---
0 I BREAK I BREAK I BREAK I BREAK I BREAK BREAK
0 II __ I I I --------
IGroup Exercise onlTreatment Selec- ITypes of Designs IContinue field IMaximum of 35 I
IOFE based on Gam-ltion and Specifi- IIPM and Livestock Iwork and return tolminutes/group
Ibia Case Studies (cation I Ihone base I
I I I I I I
IGroup Reports 15 I I
Minute each, four I I I
Groups I I I (Evaluation and I
I IAlley cropping andi I IWrap of Heek 2
' Ilivestock in FSRE I I I
I I I I I I I
t Ii I


I










I
I


I______.... I I_ II _____--
I Lunch/Read/Rest I Lunch/Read/Rest I Lunch/Read/Rest| Lunch/Read/Rest I Lunch/Read/RestI Lunch Lunch I
I I _I I _I I_ __ I I
IReading Chapters (Reading Ch III de-ILogistics of FieldlSmall group work IReading and Freel Reading I
II & II of Design Isign manuals Hild-IHork ion design problem I Time I and I
IHanual lebarnd Poey I I I I Free I
II Ilegin Small Group I I I Time I
I I Work 4 groups I I I
I I I I I I I I
1 I I I I I
t_______NEINI _______ I D l__________ I- I
I DINNER I DINNER I DIER I DINNER I DINNER I I


IAnimal Traction I Zairo Slides |Continue Small (Continue Small I I I I
I Slides I IGroup work IGroup design work I I I I
I I I I I 'I I 1I


(ports on Design I


11:0
11:3


2:00
5:00








7:00
8:00


SAT. 4/19 SUN. 4/20


THURSDAY 4/17


F IDAY 4/18


MONDAY 4/14


TUESDAY 4/15


ONESDAY 4/16


I






I MONDAY 4/21 I TUESDAY 4/22 I WEDNESDAY 4/23 I THURSDAY 4/24 I FRIDAY 4/25 WEEKEND I
I I I I I I I
I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST I BREAKFAST 14/26-4/27
I _I I__ I I I
IHeek's objectiveslEvaluation of IEvaluation of IEvaluation of lEvaluation of
IDay's objectives IPrevious Day -IPrevious Day IPrevious Day IPrevious Day
| JDay's Objectives IDay's Objectives IDay's Objectives IDay's Objectives I


PAGE 83
DRAFT 93


I I I I I IDepartures
IFarmer Partici- IBiological Analy- lEconomic Analysis lIntrahousehold IGroup Reports of I
Ipation Isis concepts IConcepts analysis: appli- overall analysis I
IFarmer Managementl I Ication in socio- I
ITrial Implementa-I I Ilogical analysis I I
Ition: Examples I I lof on-farm trials IDiscussions by I
From the Philip- I I Gambians of what I
Ipines and Latin I I Ihas happened in I
IAmerica I 13 yrs of FSR work
I I I I I I


11:00 I BREAK


I BREAK


BREAK


SI BREAK


I BREAK


L1:30 I I I I_ I
IData Collection I Biological IEconomic Analysis I continued IWorkshop wrap-up
I I Analysis Examples I land Evaluations
ISmall Group As- I Examples I Group Assignment
Isignment Data I I Biological/Econ-
ICollection Forms I I omic/Social I
I I Analysis of Trialsl
I- I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I 'I I
2:00 Lunch/Rest I Lunch/Rest I Luch/Rest I Lunch/Rest I Lunch/Rest
5:00 II I I I I
I Presentation of IReading and H.H. IReading and H.H. IGroup Assignment I Departures
I Data Collection Ion Biological An- Ion Economic Anal- IWork
S Forms lalysis lysis I
I I I I I
IReading on days INB may require INB may require INB may require
I Topic Icalculator Icalculator Icalculator
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I __________I _________I I_______I__ I_________ II_________ I______I
7:00 I IDINNER & Land Ten-1
8:00 1 DINNER I DINNER lure in Upper Voltal DINNER BANQUET DINNER
SI IA I I
I I,_ _I


7:30
8:30


1


I
I

















Appendix C

Participant and Trainer List









MAILING ADDRESS
Workshop Participants


Mr. Nyada Yoba Baldch


Mr. Abu Bakar Bangura


Mr. Ibrahima Diallo

Mr. David Gaines


Ms. Fatou Biteye Nee Gaye

Mr. G. O. Gaye


Mr. Ansumana Gibba


Ms. Isatou Jack

Mr. Yaya Hassan Jallow

Mr. Tayib A. Janha



Ms. Jaye O. Jobe


Ms. Catherine Mpopi Jonas



Ms. Priscilla Kudiatu Jusu


Training Unit
Agriculture Headquarters
Cape St. Mary, The Gambia, W. Africa

Sierra Leone Work Oxen Project
P.M. B. 766
Freetown, Sierra Leone, W. Africa

3211 Norshire Terr.
Bowie, Maryland 20716 USA

Peace Corps Office
P.O. Box 582
Banjul, The Gambia, W. Africa

Animal Health & Production
Abuko, The Gambia, W. Africa

Department of Agriculture
Yundum Research Station
Yundum, The Gambia, W. Africa

Upland Agronomy Unit
Sapu Agriculture Station, M.I.D.
The Gambia, W. Africa

P.O. Box 376
Banjul, The Gambia, W. Africa
PPMU
Banjul, The Gambia, W. Africa

C/O Director
Department of Animal Health &
Production
Abuko, The Gambia, W. Africa
Department of Animal Health &
Production
Abuko, The Gambia, W. Africa

A.T.I.P.
P.O. Box 10
Mahalapye, Botswana
S. Africa

Integrated Agricultural Development
Eastern Region
Kenema, Sierra Leone


C-1


NAME










MAILING ADDRESS
1i'orkshop Participants


Mr. Ansumana J.S. Kantch


Mr. MohamecdT. Lahai



Mr. Mark B. Lynham


M'r. Michael Marcin


Mr. Daniel Moore




Mr. Joshua .O. Thomas

Mr, Ebrima Bandeh

Mr. Momodou Darhoe

Mr. Momat Nyang


Mr. Chemo Bojang


Mr. Sana Sanneh

Mr. Mbemba Dahaba


Mr. Baboucar Bayo


Mr. Sarjoh Fatajoh


Njau District Extension Centre
Upper Saloum District, MID North
The Gambia, W. Africa

Agronomy Department
Njala University College
PMB, Freetown
Sierra Leone, W. Africa

Agres II Project
Boite Postale 14
Kaedi, Mauritania, W. Africa
Peace Corps
Box 582
Banjul, The Gambia, W. Africa
Pan African Peace & Voluntary
Association in Rural Development
(PANASCO)
P.O. Box 6828
Accra, Ghana
Animal Health & Production
Abuko, The Gambia, W. Africa

Crop Protection Service
Yundum, The Gambia, W. Africa

Crop Protection Service
Yundum, The Gambia. W. Africa

Upland Agronomy Unit
Sapu Agricultural Station, MID
The Gambia, W. Africa
Upland Agronomy Unit
Sapu Acricultural Station, MID
The Gambia, W. Africa
Kwinella District Extension Center
LRD, The Gambia, W, Africa
Mankanang Kunda
District Extension Center, URD
The Gambia, W. Africa

Dept. of Forestry
5 Marina Parade
Banjul, The Gambia, W. Africa
Forestry Department, MWR&E
No. 5 Marina Parade
Banjul, The Gambia, W. Afica


C-2


NA'ME









MAILING ADDRESS
Workshop Participants


Mr. Ansalum Udcalor


Mr. Paul Okyere


Lamin A. Jaiteh


Farming Systems Res. & Ext Prog.
National Root Crops Research Inst.
Umudike Umuahi
Imo State, Nigeria
Opoku Ware School
Agrofotestry Research Programme
P.O. Box 849
Ashanti, Ghana


Bakindik D.E.C.
NBD
The Gambia, W. Africa


NAME


Kebba M. Dramch


Kemoring M.B. Trawally


Amidor Mballow


MAILING A ADDRESS
Observers Week 3

Department of Agriculture
Yundum Agronomy Unit
WD
The Gambia, W. Africa

c/o Director of Agriculture
Cape St. Marry
The Gambia, W. Africa

c/o Director of Agriculture
Cape St. Marry
The Gambia, W. Africa


C-3


NAME










Week


MAIILING ADDRESS
Trainers


Mr. Carl Barfield




Mr. John Caldwell




Ms. Rosalie H. Norem



Mr. Daniel Taylor




Ms. Lisette Walecka



Mr. Samba Sail


Mr. Sidy Falt


Mr. Alioune Fall


Ms. Isatou Jack

Mr. G. 0. Gaye


Mr. Paul Francis



Mr. Roque De Pedro '



Mr. Frederico Poey


Dept. of Entomology & Nematology
3103 McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
(904) 392-1901
301E Saunders Hall
Dept. of Horticulture
VPI & SU
Blacksburg, VA 24060 USA
(703) 961-7433
173 LeBaron Hall
Iowa State University
Ames. Iowa 50011 USA
(515) 294-860S
Dept. of Agricultural Economics
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 USA
(703) 951-5032

3028 McCarty Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
(703) 392-1965
IS RA Ziguinchor
BP 34, Senegal
W. Africa

CNRADA BP22
Kaedi, Mauritania
W. Africa

CRA/DJIBELOR
P.O. Box 34 Zieuinchor
Senegal, W. Africa

P.O. Box 376
Banjul, The Gambia, W. Africa

Department of Aricu!ture
Yundum Research Station
Yundum, The Gambia, W. Africa

International Livestock Centre
for Africa (ILCA)
P.M.B. 5320
Ibaden, Nigeria

Dept. of Agricultural Eng.
& Applied Mathematics
ViSCA, Baybay, Leyte 7127eA
Philippines

AGRIDEC
1414 Ferdinand Street
Coral Gables, FL 33134
(305) 596-4027


C-4


NAME




















Appendix D
Farming Systems Research in Southern Senegal:
The Djibelor Experiment

by Samba Sail











FA-:IG. s- ....... ., -'- T 5 TH .- E NE .'



THE DJ'IELCR EXPEr :MSNT,

W OV;TLE y : Z. SA.LL


The G-r c'-trrnmet :f Fenegal has opted to reorient ag',4cultural
researpch in order to focuS on the problems faced by far--rs -
herd-rs i' thh cu- try* ma.aor srr'-,'coicgical tones

THL: DSS CZA A5AgA.CE ":SoGN MD TE ASgDm mI i:19e82

Tota! pop~lat -aioa n A- t .-.. ., 0

3 iola 85 %

*ani-ng 5 1.

aultiv.b1 reland (2. % 2..--ex.-ate t%:iZ are.3 ot' 7,9: "m2
Total rainfall was about 1100 miatt S % lower thWn its.
1'ng-terma a2eage (Z52C0 n).
Exentension Agency a SOMIVACO

P R CR ANIZ.T' .14 AND IMPLZMENTATION

Phass_ JE Diagncsis of s Eistin g Far-~SgS-Sy, es.
Constraints. The 1982 Season

L- r:rrstorv_ urvez.

35 villages

Teao (+1 on Stat.ito Researchers

Interviw"vs .thout .'uOestitnr..1irES
Litterature review on both agrcor.-.o :r'eul' aJ
Scibo-EcN.rnet stujdbies

Discussion with exteniaon agents

Charsteriremi Homo2eeoUs ZonPs and Deir2i.!n
lcsearch others t

Five. 3aricultursl sitatio..S


Dl-I









Research Themes

Intensification of production in good lands
Diversification of the cropping pattern
The rehabilitation of abandoned lands
Taking advantage of residual moisture

Field work and Program Implementation

a- Selection of research sites

2 villages per zone

b- Building asapl-e -frame

c- Agronomic experiments

d : Agro economic (formal) Survey in 1982. The
verification Survey was essentially designed to provide
quantative data about production practices and constraints
by crop and field operation.

3/4 of the data was on labor time by crop activity and by
sex/age category. Planting dates, tools and instrument
used with associated costs, varieties planted and related
constraints.

Phase II : First Approach to Finding Solutions

1 Revising the Master Sample
2 Agronomic Survey, Experiments and Results
3 Socio-eco6omic Studies, Special Focus Surveys

Social organization of production
a study of constraints on the adoption of animal.
traction.
an evaluation of off farm revenues in the southern
villages.

a retrospective Survey of livestock systems aimed at
deriving a typology for the Basse-Casamance.

a Comprehensive inventory and rating of farm
equipements.

PhaseiI I Internal Review of tne FSR Program in 1985 Season.
The rationale.
0-2



















Appendix E

The Farming Systems Research Approach
in The Basse Casamance, Senegal

by Alioune Fall






THE FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH APPROACH
IN THE BASSE CASAMANCE(SENEGAL): FROM "SITUATION AGRICOLE"
TO RECOMMENDATION DOMAIN (THE DJIBELOR EXPERIENCE)
BY ALIOUNE FALL
FSR/DJIBELOR


The goals and objectives of any Farming systems Research (FSR)
program to be achieved, require the application of a certain type of
methodology different from those usually applied in traditional and
classical agricultural research. In order to meet farmers'needs and
circumstances, we must understand how a production system is organized anc

how sub-systems interact among themselves to guide research priorities for
better relevancy and efficiency.

One step of that methodology is to gather farmers with similar
circumstances,constraints or cropping patterns under the same entity called

either zone,recommandation domain or' "situation agricole" as in the case of

the Basse Casamance area.

The objective of this paper is to point out the steps used by the
Djibelor FSR team to achieve the zoning of the Basse Casamance into five(5'

"situations agricoles".

I-DefinitjonofConcepts

-Zone : The dictionary gives the following definition :" An
area,region or division distinguished from ad~iacetDAarts by some
distinctive feature or character". The terms "adjacent parts" is meaningful

in a sense that zone is more or less a physical division, with the idea of
clear boundaries.

-"Situation agriclg": It is cropping-pattern oriented .The
equivalent of "situation agricole" may be a "cropping system" which has a
broader sense than recommendation domain (KAMUANGA, 1986).In fact crops do
not represent the unique criteria in the process of identifying a
"situation agricole". Others, as important as type of crops, are used.There

is not really an idea of physical boudaries .

-Recommandationd996imn : Byerlee et al.,cited by Shaner (1982),
define this term as a group of roughly homogeneous farmers with similar
circumstances for whom we can make more or less the same
recommandation.Recommandation domains may be defined in terms of. both
natural factors -e.g.,rainfall- and economic factors-e.g.,farm size". The
idea behind recommendation domain is to identify large numbers of farmers
homogeneous enough to rggndto_..thenrge9sed _technologin a similar Cwa

The Djibelor FSR team preceded through the situation agricole"
concept to develop research activities from identified priorities by taking

into account the heterogeneity of the area(POSNER,1983). Each member of the

multidisciplinary team could focus afterwards on area recognized as
recommendation domain in order to improve the efficiency of the global
approach by implementing localized and disciplinary research activities
(the example of animal traction will be given). Three (3) main criteria
E-1






were used to achieve the zoning of the Basse Casamance into five (5)
"situations agricoles".

II-Criteria Used to i-de-nt- the -Si-tLaticns -gir e-_"

The following criteria were set up through a review of existing
secondary informations(ressources and climate), informal and formal farm
surveys and discussion with regional policy makers.

-Labor organization system:It allowed to divide the region into
two (2) zones. Two (2) main ethnic groups with different ways of organizing

labor were identified. The original Diola organization is oriented towards

the tgef_fiieldworek: men do all land preparation anywhere a crop is
going to be grown (rice fields ,peanut, cereals) and women perform all the
planting, transplanting and weeding activities. The second zone, made of
Diola under the influence of the Mandingue culture (Northeastern area) is
characterized by a labor division based on the ty2ge_gof_cro. The rice
production is completely between women's hands while men are specialized in

upland crops (cerealspeanut, sorghum,,...etc)This type of labor
organization is mainly found in the zone 4.

-Importance of animal traction: It also divides the area into two

(2) zones the northern and southern parts of the Basse Casamance( zones 4
and 5).Animal traction.has a limited difusion in the north-south axis for
different reasons (environmental, sociological and economic ).

-The upland/lowland crops ratio:the geographic characteristics o'

the region, the rainfall pattern and the topography determine two (2) types

of cropping patterns. The first one is based on rice production (zone 1)
because of a lack of upland area .Rice is mainly transplanted in this
zone.As one moves north, upland crops become more and more
important,especially in those areas where animal traction is implemented
(zones 4 and 5).

The combination of these criteria allowed the team-to establish
the zoning of the Basse Casamance into five (5) "situations agricoles"(see
figure and table).
Tables Criteria used to classify the Basse Casamnce into zones
-- ---- ------ --- -- --- --
Zones I II III IV V
Character istics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Importance of aquatic
rice Y Y N N Y
2-Importance of Plateau
Cereal Crops N y y Y Y
3-Importance of Animal
Animal Traction N N N Y y
4-Existence of Labor
Division by Crop N N Y y N
5-Existence of Labor
Division by Field Work Y Y N N N

---------------------------------------------------------------

Y' Oui ; N= Non .Source: Bernstein R., 1985.

E-2




Carte 1


CAIIRZ DY S6YLSAL 6T US S.?TUATYQVS Ag

.1


8bis


L


SM- MAURITANIE



SENEGAL -I

r'S,
T u

'S
*KAOLACK |
,***TAusaOU1NOA MALI
A


SB oA % R

OUINEE.BISSAU ,b REP. GUINEE


-.


,./ /***A
0\ j

/ -' 1 /

SSINDIAN
r ~~ NEDIE G8~i'
ZONE~L


-II

ONAUARSASSNUI
BOULANDOR



-TENOOUW---





ZONE r -
ZONE ELIKkI ..4 A Ot
6 OIA OUOUYE ?4AOUA -
Oouss()YFE

UITINGO
ECIELLE

*KAROUSSE 0 a to t to 25 '50 8 40 40 fo

E-3


ZONES I Organis.soc.du trav.type Oiola;sans
tract.bov.;rit repiqui dominant.

II : Organis.soc.du traw.type Oiola;sans
trac.Bov.;cult.de plat.iaport.,seesi
direct.

III : Organis.type Mandingue dominant;
avec Oiola et autres;peu de tr.bov.
seeis direct.

IV : Organis.type Nandingue;tr.bov.deveL
cult. de plat.d(vel.

V : Organis.type Oiola;trac.bov.isport;
rit repiqul encore important.


T--


LEG N 0





III-Animal Traction in there!g.g

Animal traction is important in the northern part of the region
(zones 4 and 5). The existing technology has been assessed by the animal
scientist and the agricultural mechanization specialist through two
retrospective surveys on draft animals and animal drawn equipment (Sonko,
1985; Fall,1985). The results of both surveys revealed the existence of two

areas using different types of land preparation equipment. Those two
areas coincide with the two "situation agricoles" known as zones 4 and.5.
The cropping system of the first area is characterized by the use of
ridging implement originated either from the Gambia or from SISMAR/Senegal.

The cropping techniques (ridges) 'is one major limiting factor to a further
diffusion of the technology in the area. Thus, no seeders or weeding
equipment are found in the area. However,no seeders or weeding equipment
is available in the area. Yet, all recommendations to improve farmers
cropping systems are based on ridging techniques of land preparation. The
second area has more possibilities for the development of the technology as

the basic land preparation equipment is the moldboard plow which can
perform both flat and ridging techniques. Most of the recommendations for
intensifying cropping systems focus on flat land preparation to allow the
use of seeders and weeding equipment.

I-Csncliusions

The use of "situation agricole" or recommendation domain has to be
considered as a tool to improve research activities and to increase
efficiency by focusing on groups of farmers with similar circumstances. Two

very important aspects to consider in conducting a Farming Systems Research

program in this part of Africa are the socio-cultural heterogeneity and the

physical environment. The socio-cultural heterogeneity brings about
questions and issues relative to the adoption and diffusion of any new
technology. Labor organisation can be different from one ethnic group to
another, as in the case of the Basse Casamance. This implies different
approaches in order to intensify cropping systems, by the use of animal
traction for example. The type of labor organisation (Diola vs Mandingue)
is usually a determinant factor in the process of technology transfer. The
topography and the amount of rainfall determine the types of crops that can

be grown (upland or lowland). In each system,research priorities and
activities has to be determined and oriented to bring about improvements in

the major production crops.

BIBLIOGRPHY

Bernstein R.,.1995: Mission Report. January 19-February 16, M.S.U.

Fall A., 1985: Situation Actuelle de l'Environnement et de l'Utilisation du

Parc de Materiel de Culture AttelP e en Basse Casamance, ISRA.

Kamuanga M.,1985: Farming Systems Research in Southern Senegal:The Djib(lor

Experiment (Preliminary Draft). CRA de Djibelor.

Posnre J., Sall S.,Kamuanga M., 1983: Agronomic Research in the Basse
Casamance Province of S6n6gal. The Farming System Approach CRA Djibelor.

E-4







,Rokrbach D., 1981: Issues in Developing and Implementing a Farming Sy-.
Research Program, USDA.

Shaner et al.,1982: Farming Systems Research and Development. Guideli~nes+c

Developing Countries,Westview Press.


E-5

















Appendix F

Sondeo Reports






A SONDEO CASE STUDY OF KASSAGh;, FONI BINTANG KARANAI,
WESTERN DIVISION: APRIL 9-10, 1986. (DIAGNOSIS)

1. MEMBERS:


John Caldwell
Yaya H. Jallow
Michael Macin
Jaye 0. Jobe
Daniel Moore
Nyada Yoba Baldeh
Momodou Darboe
MBemba Dahaba
Momat Nyang
Jero Manneh
Famara Badjie
Roque C. De Pedro, Jr.


2. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND


Workshop Trainer, Resource Person
PPMU, The Gambia
Peace Corps
Animal Health and Production, The Gambia
Ghana (Panasco in Rural Development)
Agriculture Department, The Gambia
Crop Protection Service, The Gambia
Agriculture Department, The Gambia
Agriculture Department, The Gambia
PPMU Enumerator, The Gambia
PPMU Enumerator, The Gambia
VISCA, FSDP-EV, Philippines


INFORMATION:


The Gambia located on the West Coast of Africa, has an area of
10,690 sq. km and has a population of approximately 687,817 (Central
Statistics 1983). The climate is tropical sub-humid sahelian.


Agriculture contributes 35-40%
and employs 80% of the population.
50% (or 161,689 ha) of the land put
foreign exchange earnings.


of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Groundnut cultivation accounts for
under cultivation and 90% of


The Gambia is administratively divided into five divisions namely,
Upper River Division (with Basse as the divisional headquarters),
MacCarthy Island Division with Janjanbureh/Georgetown as the divisional
headquarters), Lover River Division (with Mansakonko as the divisional
headquarters), North Bank Division with Kerewan as the divisional
headquarters) and Western Division (with Brikama as the divisional
headquarters).

Western Division has 9 districts (Kombo North, Kombo South, Kombo
Central, Kombo East, Foni Brefet, Foni Jarrol, Foni Kansala, Foni
Bintang Karania, and Foni Bondali). The population of Western Division
is 282,937 (143,566 males, 139,371 females). The majors tribes are
Mandinka and Jola.

Kassange is located in Foni Bintang district about 86 km away from
Banjul. Kassagne is situated on the road to Bintang near the Bintang
Bolon (tributary) which empties into the River Gambia. It has a
population of about 400 people, 20 households with 15-17 people per
household. The inhabitants of Kassange are Jola. The village is
headed by Saja Biyai.

Kassange is blessed with the following resources: a Health Centre,
all season motorable road leading to Sibanor, the district's main
shopping/trading centre 6 km away from Kassange, and generally flat
arable land.


F1-1







Farming is the major occupation of the people. There are two
seasons in the year, a rainy season beginning mid-June ending
mid-October and a dry season beginning mid-October ending mid-June.

During the rainy season, both food and cash crops are grown. The
main cash crop is groundnut and the food crops include cereals like
maize, rice, millet, sorghum, and findo (hungry rice).

The main dry season activity is vegetable growing. Vegetables
grown include onion, okra, bitter tomatoes, greens, pepper, etc.

Informal interviews (sondeo technique) were used to obtain
information on the cropping, livestock feed availability, and food
availability calendars. A structural model of Kassange obtained
through the 'sondeo' technique was developed as well.

3. FINDINGSt

1. Producer x Activity
2. Crop Calendar
3. Food Calendar
4. Feed Calendar
5. Structural Model


F 1-2






PRODUCER CHART-KASSANGE VILLAGE


In this village, land is available to both male and,female;
however, the land is owned in the final analysis by the men.

Neither the men or the women have the capital or the resources to
purchase implements for farming and.therefore the handful of implements
available in the village is shared between the men as a group on one
hand and the women as a group on the other hand.

Two main varieties of cereal seeds for each type of cereal are
under cultivation; these are the early maturing seeds and the late
maturing seeds, and when one particular sex or both cultivate a cereal
type, it works on both varieties of seeds.

The men take to the planting of millet and the women take to the
rice in the swampy areas. Findo, groundnuts and maize are cultivated
by both men and women. Once the seeds are planted, first and second
clearing of weeds for the early and late maturing crops respectively
occur two months before harvesting takes place; these classes of
weeding are done by the women or the men as the case may apply in their
respective cereal production activities.

During the dry season when there,is nothing specifically to be
done or while waiting for harvesting time, vegetables like sweet
potato, bambara nuts (from Mali) carrots, cabbage, pepper, tomatoes,
onions, etc. are cultivated in compound gardens by the women. The
women do all the preparation of seed beds, watering, manuring, weeding
and soil turning except harvesting of the vegetables which the men
assist.

There are no storage and preservative facilities for the crops
except solar or natural heating which is used for the drying of pepper
and onion, while millet is pounded and steamed to prolong its
usefulness for food; these forms of storage and preservatives are done
by the women.

Scaring away of crop pests like weever birds, parrots, and monkeys
is done by children of the ages between 10-20 for maturing maize. With
regard to rice, the children are assisted by the women; they are
assisted by the men in scaring away birds and monkey pests from millet
crops.

Insecticides supplied by agricultural extension officers are also
shared between the male and the female farmers for use on their various
fields of operation as explained earlier on. Harvesting follows the
same pattern as the planting: i.e., the women or the men or both men
and women doing the harvesting as the case may be. Findo is harvested
by the men only; maize is harvested by both men and women assisted by
children.

Clearing of weeds and harvesting of millet is done by both men and
women. Groundnut is marketed by men and vegetables are marketed by the
women. Fowls or cattle sold out during periods of need to supplement
earnings or buy other crops for home consumption and planting is
undertaken by the men.


-F1-3







The single donkey and the single horse which are used as means of
communication and transporting farm produce to the home and market are
shared among the women and the men. A wide variety of wild fruits are
collected by the whole village community; some of them, for example,
the baobab fruit, is processed by women. Wild fruits are marketed by
both males and females, assisted by the children; some are used for
home consumption.

The only cultivated tree crop or fiuit is the mango, and this is
cultivated by the men in all its stages of growth; harvesting and
marketing of the mango is done by both men and women assisted by
children.

Fuel in the form of firewood is collected by both females and
males assisted by the children and then transported home by the males.

The need to design sustainable farm production and increase labour
productivity by making available farm inputs and means of
transportation is very necessary for this farming community.

The producer chart attached explains in detail the wide range of
cereals and vegetables being produced in the Kassagne village and the
role the male, female, children and animals play in this production
drama.


F1-4
















~~ _







.sJJ
-C. -u





2Nnc _-



two


StISMC4S


F1-5


"








































-- F pgz-c^lsE 4u 1-YI



r0 ia no mfrn7o'A r2kgt a
rrme A ftqt ~


F1-6






CROP CALENDAR-KASSAGNE-APRIL 1986


INTRODUCTION:

The farming calendar is divided into two distinctive phases: a
short rainy season and a long dry season. Rain normally starts in the
last half June and ceases by mid October. In fact, the village has
been experiencing shorter rainy season recently and this has an adverse
effect on crop yields. Actual rainy season crop activities start in
April and ends in December. This season (cropping) overlaps with dry
season gardening, which begins in late November.

1. LAND PREPARATION: This starts in April with clearing of fields
and ends in May. Clearing is followed by seed bed preparation around
the last half of June. However, this is proceeded by decortication of
groundnut seed at the beginning of June.

Animal traction is used on a limited scale because many farmers
have no draft animal. Seed bed preparation ranges from flat sowing to
ploughing and/or ridging.

2. CEREALS SOWING: Early maturing cereals are sown immediately after
the first rain around the second half of June. These being food crops,
early cultivars act as a rescue crop because they are harvested in
September (hungry season). Late cereals are sown in the middle of July
and last until the end of July.

GROUNDNUTI This is the main cash crop of the people of Kassagne
although recently co-ops have started to provide market outlets for
other cereal crops. It is sown at about the same'time as late cereals
although it may be .sown a day or two later.

COMPOUND CROPS: Cassava is planted at the beginning of the season
(about 3-5/6) while sweet potato is sown in the last week of August and
in early September.

INTER-CROPPINGC The main intercropping patterns are maize/millet,
maize/sorghum, and groundnut/millet or groundnut/sorghum. In the
maize/millet intercrop, millet is sown two weeks after maize while in
ground/millet or groundnut/sorghum intercrops, the interval may be only
few days.

3. WEEDINGs This takes up to three courses, depending of course on
crop and field conditions.

Early cereals are first weeded at the end of June and weeding may
last up to mid July. From mid July weeding of late cereals and
groundnuts is conducted. This is carried on to the middle of August.
Weeding is done in a cycle i.e. a second round begins at the end of the
first course and third at the end of the second. Every course
generally lasts at least for two weeks. However, weeding may last for
a considerable length of time because the hand hoe is slow and many
farmers have no animal traction. In fact, weeding actually lasts from
the end of June to the end of September.


F1-7







4. CROP PROTECTION: Chemical and cultural methods are employed in
Kassagne. Among cultural methods, crop grinding is most popular. Bird
scaring from early cereals takes place from mid August to mid
September, but for late cereals the period is from the middle of
September to the third week of October. From the second week of August
to October, pest (e.g. (insect) monitoring is undertaken.

5. HARVESTING: Harvesting of early cereals begins in the last half of
September and continues to the end ofthe month. Groundnut and late
cereals are harvested between mid October and mid November. Thrashing,
winnowing and storing are done from the end of November to around
December 15.

6. VEGETABLE PRODUCTION: Fence maintenance, clearing, and well
redigging takes places around mid November. Bed lay out and nursery
sowing starts in December. December and January are the period of
transplanting, weeding and fertilizer application.

The scheme being mixed gardening, harvesting is staggered, i.e.,
from January through April. In April activity in the garden become
progressively more dormant as the main farming season commences.

7. CONCLUSIONS: The erratic nature of rains in the past few years has
forced farmers to change their cropping pattern. First priority (time
wise) is given to food crops, especially early cultivars. This is
because farmers have been experiencing serious crop losses due to
insufficient moisture. For example maize planted in June will mature
if even rainfall stops at the end of September. Also vegetable
production has been in interested into the farming calendar in such a
way that the two activities do not affect each other adversely. In
fact, vegetable production has lessened the effects of drop in
production of wet season crops.



KEY

1. EARLY CEREALSi
MAIZE
UPLAND RICE
EARLY MILLET (SUNO)
EARLY SORGHUM (KINTO)
FINDO (HUNGRY RICE)


2. LATE MATURING CROPSs
LATE SORGHUM (BASSO)
LATE MILLET (SANYO)
SWAMP RICE
GROUNDNUT


F1-8
















S. R ... P

ASVIT1 s /2.2oL3p
/ *44tLSAtl


G ARAC N .4 0




2a .". Ctau'/,c
a,) I. C. oS
J. . G
SE.l. CR.oP5








bJ) L. I..
:" ~5eA6, I
J) . "' I

f ta tp7 r?





A) &L5/M t,



e s a..I ,crS

SEPI / , M AM it/Gf3ZZZ


SCA LAk--

/I 4 le i It I -7aI p .-


- -LA G


0 U I t F_ 1 _, 1 t(\
.1 12. QI 1,2td 1ar~~4


-I Ijbm( ib~~ I II .


F1-9


-- I %-- .


" ""


L *


I


~cl
~al
r~e






FOOD SUPPLY CALENDAR


In many low-resource farming systems, food deficit is the number
one problem facing farmers. This food supply calendar shows which
produce is coming into the household at which times, which times there
are deficits of preferred grains, i.e. the staple foods, mainly upland
rice and swamp rice, and also what substitutes are used, namely, maize,
millet, sorghum, cowpeas and vegetables (see chart).

Viewing the food calendar, it is obvious that food grains begin to
flow into the household from the start of the harvest which is from mid
September to December. These are the early maturing crops, e.g., maize
upland rice, early millet, and findo. One notices that from the
beginning of September until February, generally there is virtually no
problem in getting food supply. The acute period, as one can
distinctly see from the food supply calendar is between April to June,
when all harvested grain has been consumed. Farmers in this village
are fed from the proceeds obtained from their vegetable gardens, with
which they then buy their preferred grain, mainly rice.

One interesting phenomenon in the food supply calendar is the
comparison between their preferred staple grain (rice) and the other
grains (substitutes). If one looks closely at the overall total
production of other cereals, maize through.findo contributes over 60%
of their food supply during the months of September to February each
year. This implies, therefore, that they would want to produce more of
the staple food, but the constrains surrounding the circumstances do
not allow them to intensify the growing of their preferred grain, and
they are therefore forced to eat what is available until the month of
March each year when they have cash to buy the preferred grain from the
vegetable proceeds.

If the preferred grain is not adequately produced and there is
enough land, what may be the immediate problem faced by these peasant
farmers? The lack of one or more the following be the cause of low
productivity:

1. lack of fertile land.
2. lack of an improved early maturing variety.
3. labour shortage and lower labour output due to the fact that
people are hungry at a time when labour is most needed.
4. non-availability of implements.


F1-10












C~to o

*7kft- PP


A rt Z.
ar d. eMn




a~r;







4
oSu.Wjrigup
*C j



r r
*Su-tU~if-pe





o rrraic

iutV ^^"
c^:- L

P-Yrc


CA 6,AtI P- SLt-
RftpiL MAf 4Ic uty
1 > 'tt> i u- I


w s k A S ^

A,1u it, elo 1. C-
*k ---- ----* -J I


LuLl


tJ%4Jr ~

qg Sd ta24*La.


F1-11


T1 1 4 1 7







LIVESTOCK FEED CALENDAR-KASSAGNE VILLAGE FONI BINTANG KARANAI

Five main feed sources were identified for livestock in Kassagne.
They are placed in the feed calendar and each feed source is explained
below.

FEED SOURCE I: GRAZING
(a) Own-Land Grazing:- This area is property of an individual farmer
or farm family (Daabada). Animals are restricted to his/hers and
own animals or those belonging to a close relative, and they are
allowed to feed freely.
The most ideal time for own-land grazing is between December
and March because sufficient crop residues are available on these
areas.

(b) Common-land grazing: It is an area where livestock feed and
feeding are not restricted. The feed in this area especially
during the dry season becomes puch more scarce than from July to
December when almost everywhere has green grasses.

FEED SOURCE II CEREAL STALKS
(a) Maize: Maize is an early maturing crop, and comes (is
harvested)at a critical time when the people are almost all
hungry. Maize also serves livestock, as it is the first cereal
stalk feed in the year. It becomes available after harvest in
September and October.
Nature of feeding Animals move about to locate where maize
stalks are available, preferably those of the highest quality.

CONSTRAINTS:
(1) No means of preserving maize stalk feed to maintain its
quality based on the nutritional wise.
(2) Cannot intensify maize cultivation to keep a fair amount of
feed for livestock because the lack of farm implements and
other constraints.

(b) RICEs
1. Early Maturing Animals are left to graze after harvest
between October and November. As drought (erratic rains) is a
limiting factor to upland or (early maturing) rice
cultivation, feed for livestock on rice stalks has dropped
sharply over the years.

CONSTRAINTS
As an upland crop, early bush fire reduce the time span that
stalk is available to animals.

2. Late Maturing This is grown in swampy areas. Available to
animals after harvest between November and January. Swamp
land is also conducive to upholding the quality and freshness
of the stalks at times because of moisture.

CONSTRAINTS
Salt water intrusion negatively affects yields, and
consequently stalks quickly fall apart and becomes useless as
livestock feed (experience 2 3 years back*)



F1-12






(c) SORGHUM:
1. Early maturing (basso) Available only after harvest
between October and November.
It is an alternative feed that can substitute for millet and
maize stalk feed.
2. Late Maturing (Kintoo) Available after harvest in
November. An alternative feed to late millet stalk feed. No
preservation method known.

(d) MILLET:
1. Early maturing This feed has a wider preference over
all other feeds except maize in the cereal group. Available
in September and October after harvest. Feed lasts precisely
1 1/2 months after harvest in a commonland area and 2-3 months
in own land area, depending on the number of animals grazing
there.
2. Late Maturing Harvested in November and available to
animals immediately. Feed last for 1 month in an unrestricted
area, e.g., common land.

FEED SOURCE III -
Peanut (Groundnut) Hay
(a) For Draft Animals (work animals) -
After harvesting and threshing, hay is collected and stored
for draft animals. This is done in December and January. The
feed collected lasts the year round, so that draft animals will
keep strong enough to work during the peak period.

CONSTRAINTS:
Lack of storage facilities.
Feed is kept on high platforms in open places, so excessive
rain made them rotten more than 2 times.
Stored in damaged houses other animals may feed.
(b) Other Animals Available to them after feed for draft animals
is collected. Lasts for 1-1 1/2 months, until the later part
of November to December and/or December and January, depending
on time of threshing and harvesting.

FEED SOURCE IV-BRAN FOR DRAFT ANIMALS
1. Coos (millet) As coos production has deteriorated, over the
years, coos bran feed is obviously limited to animal feed, especially
the work animals. Available only as long as coos (millet) last in the
season. Coos bran remains fresh for 1/2 1 month without being
infested by pests and diseases.

(2) Rice bran Available only when rice is processed. In order to
increase the quantity of rice bran in Kassagne, some of their
deficiencies must not be overlooked, e.g. providing short duration
varieties.
-Drought tolerant varieties and high yielding varieties.
As these are introduced and efforts intensified,
more yield will mean more bran for livestock feed.
Time available: September October and November December.






F1-13






FEED SOURCE VI
1. Dry grass-grazing
Dry grass feed is a substitute for many feeds, especially
for feeds listed in these notes. Dry grass grazing is
interrupted by bush fire which comes in November June and
becomes more important with shortages of feed in the critical
period, so consequently animals may move far away to feed on
dry grass.


,vesToc- FeED C4LSA& --ioAS, A -CI .... _,7
^--r7*'sbr of.K
AU 1 '( U4
VC-E IE6 Is.;5'l- ~ le(i)r';DL li~~_


C re ,,
MAay/7MA








'AA7Ei






P 1iic i
-AaLY MAfitAS -




CAjA2,d&Q..


F1-14


I///ll/llIr


I777777


I )nn)^






STRUCTURAL MODEL


Following the two day informal survey a structural model of
Kassagne's farming system was developed. With the farmer household as
the focus of interactions, the model's main components are the market,
the bush, fruit production, vegetable production, cereal and legume
crop production, and livestock. Each component and its interactions
with the household are discussed separately except the market which is
mentioned throughout.


Cereal and Legume Crop Production/Household Interaction

Labor is the main input from the household to crop production. In
the cultivation of rice labor needs are met by women. The activities
involved, from sowing to harvest, are done manually. Women are also
responsible for a small portion of groundnut production. The majority
of groundnut production and cereal production is taken care of by men.
It is only when the crops mature that other members of the household
assist by harvesting.

The crops provide the household with two important inputs food and
income. Income is generated through the sale of groundnuts to the
local buying station offering the highest price. This marketing
decision is left to the work head of each field. All of the other
croips are grown for home consumption. The most important of these
crops is rice, the village's main staple. The remaining crops
supplement its consumption. Even so, food shortages are experienced as
the rainy season approaches each year. With the money earned from the
sale of groundnuts, rice is bought during this hungry period, but
still this is not enough, which brings us to the next component of the
structural model, Vegetable Production.

Vegetable Production/Household Interaction

Vegetable production provides additional food and income to the
household in much the same way as legume and cereal crop production.
Here, however, women are the sole source of labor. They prepare the
garden plots by mulching with crop residues and a limited amount of
manure.

Another input coming from the household is labor for watering.
The garden plots are supplied water from nine wells located in the
garden area. This task is done everyday with the water carried from
the wells in buckets or tins.

Sending the harvest to market is a decision made by the women.
They also decide what portion will remain in the household for hime
consumption. As with other crops, the income generated from market
sales is used to buy rice when the locally harvested crop is finished.


F1-15







Fruit Production/Household Interaction

Within the farming system of Kassagne these are two sources of
fruits. The first one, those cultivated in the garden area and around
the household compounds, will be discussed here. The second source is
mentioned with regards to the bush and household interaction.

For cultivated fruits, mango, cashew, and baobab, the labor source
for production differs depending on the site. Those fruits grown in
the garden areas are tended to by women, while both men and women tend
to the fruits in and around compounds. Again water is supplied from
wells located in the garden and throughout the village.

In return for their labor the households receive another source of
income when the mature fruits are marketed. A portion of the harvest
also contributes to the diet of the household.


Livestock/Household Interaction

While having an important role in the model, livestock represent
the point of weakest interaction not only with the household but other
components of the farming system. Reasons for this include high
incidence of disease, a lack of money to purchase animals, and a lack
of sufficient feed.

What livestock the villagers have are tended to by both males and
females. These labor activities include herding and feeding. As a
result of the aforementioned constraints, for all the labor put into
livestock the household obtains very little in return. Occasionally
their sale at markets-brings in money with which to buy rice. Very
seldom are the animals slaughtered for food, usually only for a
ceremonial celebration such as a marriage or circumcision.

What makes livestock so vital to Kassagne is its interaction with
crop production. This perhaps the most important interaction.

Livestock, particularly oxen and donkeys, provide transport and
power to cereal production. However, both the numbers of livestock as
well as of implements and carts needed for these two tasks are
limited. As a result, animal traction is not widely practiced. This
imposes a strain on the household because lablr has to be intensified.

At the end of the cereal cropping season, feed is made available
to the livestock in the form of crop residues. While grazing on these
residues, animals defacate, replenishing some of the field's
fertility. It is the interaction between livestock and crops which if
strengthened could have far-reaching effects on crop and vegetable
yields and ultimately family income.

Bush/Household Interaction

The interaction between the bush and the household is vitally
important, because'it supplies the sole source of fuel, firewood.


F1-16











CASE STUDY PREPARED BY THE YUNDUM FSR/E TEAM KASSANGE VILLAGE


Case Study: Kassange: Foni Bintang Karawi


An intrrdi ci i plnary team of researchers carried out this

informal survey on January 29th, 1986. The team consisted of an

entomol gist, pathologist, rural soi ologist, nutritionist,

extension/communication, two horticulturist, of the

non-governmental organization (N.G.O.).


The Kassange farming system is inhabited by a mixture of Jolas

and Mandinka's, the Jolas predominating. The village is situated

in the humid zone of the Western Division characterized by high

and moderately reliable rainfall of more than 1000 mm. Cloud

cover during the rainy season limits potential yields.


Cmo_. n_,ji. System:.


The farmers in a group interviewed listed several crops qrown

in order of importance and land area allocated to them.


Crops .isted Crops Listed In Order of
In Order of Importance Land Allocated


Maize Millet
Millet G/nuts
G/nuts Maize
Findo Sorghum
Vegetables Findo
Sorghum B. Seed
B. Seed Rice
Vegetables


Maize is listed as the most important crop because it provides

the first food, foll.owred by find and early millet. In terms of


F1-27















land allocation, millet receive the largest area because it is

the main staple beside rice.


Li .eft oci::


Several kinds of animals are kept on a free range system and

tethered or herded in the rainy season; sheep, goats, cattle,

donkeys and poultry are kept. The village has one herd of cattle

but it is sent to Jakoai intang for safe keeping. There has been

instances of cattle rustling in this village. Animal health

practices are deficient and except far work animals crop residues

are not fed to animals in the long dry season. Cattle besides

draught are kept as a bank and sold only in periods of extreme

difficulty. Other small ruminants are slaughtered on festive or

ceremonial occasions. Donkeys are used in seeding operations and

as transport.





Availability of farm inputs such as seed, insecticides, and

fertilizers are through the co-operatives, but this is expensive,

and erratic, and depends on the payment of co-op loans the

previous year. This may account for the improper use of these

inputs on many occasions.


Markets:


Excluding groundnuts and maize which have a guaranteed market

through the co-operatives, other crops especially vegetables are

F -28














subject to erratic trends, gluts and almost always end in

distressed s;lrs.


Yegtab J es:


Farmers work both a communal garden on the higher land and a

private garden in the lower lands where the water table is

higher. The wells in the private gardens are hand dug at the

cost of D30.OO but re-dug about 3-5 times during the vegetable

season at a cost of D 15.00 each time. Several vegetables are

grown of which onions predominate because it is less perishable

and sells easily. The farmers listed the following vegetables

they grow inorder of preference:


Communal Garden


Onions
Tomatoes
Cabbage
Okra
Lettuce
B. Tomatoes
Sorrel
Carrot


Fencing and

Embassy and the

digging team.

vegetables e.g.

making full use


Private Garden
------------

B. Tomato
H. Pepper
Okra
Sorrel


4 concrete lined wells are provided by the U.S.

work was done by the Methodist Mission well-

Several inter-croppings are carried out on

cabbage, onions, hot pepper. Reasons given is

of limited land.


Pests and Diseases:


F1 -29














Several pests and diseases attach- their crops, -,naon them are

grasshoppers, stembtorers, blister beetles, termites, millipudes,

and heliothes on cabbage and tomatoes. The diseases are

cercospora leaf spots on g/nuts, tomato mosaic and several fruit

rots.


F1-30






Firewood is mainly gathered by women, and the distances travelled
can be great. In some instances large piles are collected and later
transported by taxi or rented ox cart.

As a source of wild fruits, the bush provides additional income
and food for the household.

Additional livestock feed found in the bush supplements the
groundnut fodder and crop debris made available by the household. One
constraint faced, though, is the damage casued by bush fires. This
damage forces the animals to forage relatively far from the village.


Interaction Conclusions:

As discussed the overall weakest link is with livestock, bring it
as a source of food, transport and power, or manure. The model
suggests in the long run, that measures be taken to strengthen this
link. This could perhaps be accomplished by increasing crop yields in
order to provide enough feed to support a larger animal population.


i e YIL, Po M, -


z P *Jt i P _
TflAP t f<
raf%14%


I 0 P1 kT0> -J ZA-.YI -FM 1 Ift I "V
1 -Rr-TC Of-ga- ^ R


OF F -. FP M Ac-r I v.,e -
- dia.p,c~ .It U n a O


F1-17

























THE FARMING SYSTEMS

IN

SUKUTA, GAMBIA

April 1986 -



Report of the Rapid Reconnaisance Survey in Sukuta
Village



Ansumana Gibba

Ansumana J.S. Kanteh

Ebrima S. Baldeh

Ibrahuma Diallo

Joshua E.O. Thomas

Mark 8. Lyuham



Resource Person: Rosalie Norem

PPMU: A. Sahore & B. Gassama


F2-1










4. CONCLUSION:


The major constraints identified are low crop yields, insufficient
food for human and animal consumption, poor distribution of labour and
weak links between Kassagne households and animals and animals and
crops.

Looking at the constraints identified, an improvement in the crop
production techniques will have a direct favourable effect as a
solution to other constraints. Food for human and animal consumption
will be available throughout the year.

The use of implements will reduce the excessive role of human
labour and make farm operations timely. The time available to the
people would be better utilized in off-farm activities.

The use of animal manure will improve the soil fertility and
reduce the need for commercial fertilizers. This is more sustainable
in the long term.

The increase in crop production means more crop residues will be
available as animal feed and thereby will increase livestock
production. The increased livestock means additional income.

In conclusion, therefore, an area which Farming Systems Research
and Extension could look into is in the improvement of crop production
using a 'sustainable' technical package based on:
(i) improved early maturing cultivars
(ii) animal manure
(iii) appropriate farm implements for draft animals
(iv) better farm management techniques.


F1-18








DESIGN FOR ON FARM TRIAL- KASSANGE VILLAGE

Principal Problems As Identified By The Team



Insufficient food
Lack of Implements
Pest infestation
Feed insufficient
Marketing of vegetable produce
Disease (livestock).
Labour too intensive
Infertility of soil
Poor labour distribution
Short rainy season (drought)
Poor storage facilities
Poor preservative techniques
Bush fires
Low crop yields
Lack of credit facilities
Lack of inputs

Ranking In Order Of Priority

1. Food

2. Implements

3. Marketing

Causes And Interactions

Short rainy season leading to low soil moisture and low crop
yields. Poor soil, pest and disease exarcebated the problem due to
lack of implements, labour is too intensive.

If all these problems are solved food will be available, capital
will be generated through marketing of excess food and the need.for
credit will be reduced.

Discussion With Farmers

The above ranking was discussed with the farmers in a group and
their reaction were favourable to our ranking.

Possible Solutions

From our own sondeo case study and one conducted by the Yundum team,
we came up with the followings-

a. Improve crop production'particularly maize which according to
information gathered is one of their preferred grain and most
important crop in the sense that it matures at a time when food
is very scarce.


F1-19








b. One of the main problem is the lack of draught animals and
implements which when available there will be an increase in
maize production. From the sondeo interviews we learned that
only 11 draught animals i.e. 8 bulls and 3 donkeys are
available.

c. Use of fertilizer might increase yield because maize thrives
well in a fertile soil. As stated by the farmers that yield on
a non-fertile soil is in the ratio of 1:3.

d. Intercropping early maturing varieties of crops.

Farmers Response

These possible solution were discussed with farmers and their
response led us to privatize the three principal problems.

Reranking

Improving the food situation by increasing the production of maize
in Kassaye because maizes-

a. Is early maturing

b. Requires less labour

c. A variety of dishes can be prepared from it.

d. Yields higher compared to other crops e.g. from,-

I acre of maize one can get 3 bag (300 kg)
1 acre of rice one can get 2 bags (200 kg) of polish rice.

One bag of maize can feed 12. people for 90 days whilst one bag
of rice can feed 12 people for 40 days.

e. There is less risk involved, even after one weeding a harvest
can be made.

f. Excess can be easily marketed because there is a demand for
yellow maize. (GPMB)

Priority Problems

How to increase maize production. This problem was also discussed
with the farmers (both males and females) and during this discussion
examples of yield comparisons of maize sorghum and cowpea
intercropping were given. The farmers approved this.


F1 -20








Treatment Obiective Statements


1. Maize cowpea intercropping.

Cowpea as supplement for maize or increase food base, at the same
time increase soil fertility.

To achieve this objective their team and farm household want to
learn the following:-

a. Reduce financial constraints in obtaining chemical fertilizers.

b. Maize cowpea vs maize fertilizer, comparisons will be based
on the following criteria yield, labour, pest infestation level
etc.

c. Amount of fertilizer.

d. Ratio of maize intercropped.

Treatment Sub-sets

These includes:-

a. Fertilizer
b. Spacing
c. Intercropping
d. Pesticides
e. Time of planting
f. Varieties for maize (yellow and white) for cowpea mougue,
CB5, TN 8863.

Reranking Treatment Sub-Sets

Intercropping maize with cowpea in the ratio of I1l.

Yellow maize was selected because of living storage and better
marketing prospects.

Cowpea varieties mougue and CBS were selected because TN 8863 was
rejected by the farmers because it had failed in the previous trial
conducted at the village (reasons not clear but it was believed that
late planting and/or rainfall pattern were responsible).

Time Of Planting

(i) Mougue planted 10 days after planting maize.
Hougue planted 20 days after planting maize.

(ii) CBS planted 10 days after planting maize.
CBS planted 20 days after planting maize.


F1-2 1








Trial Superimposed

Design: RCB
Plot size: 5.4m X 5m
Replication: 2 across 5 farms (farmers)

Treatment Description

1. Sole maize (Jeka).

2. Mougue/Jeka intercrop with Mougue planted 10 days after maize
planting.

3. Mougue/Jeka intercrop with Mougue planted 20 days after maize
planting.

4. CBS/Jeka intercrop with CB5 planted 10 days after maize
planting.

5. CB5/Jeka intercrop with CBS planted 20 days after maize
planting.

Row length 5m
Intercropping pattern 1 row maize X 1 row cowpea

Field Lay Out


3


Conditions Of Implementing The Trial

1. Farmers planted researcher managed.

2.. Farmer accepting not to remove any given cob of maize or any
part of the cowpea until such time that we have completed
collecting data.

3. Seeds of mougue and CB5 will be provided by the team.

4. After the data has been collected all produce should be
returned to farmer cooperation without leaving a grain behind.

Observation(s)


F 1-22










Cowpea

i. Flowering dates (initial and end).
ii. No. of plants at harvest.
iii. Weight of grain.
iv. 7 moisture

Maize

i. Plant and height.
ii. Lodging (root, stem).
iii. Weight of cobs.
iv. % moisture of grain.

Soil Sampling

i. At time of planting.
ii. After harvest.

Logistics:-

1. Cowpea seeds needed.
i. CB 5 3,400 seeds
ii. Mougne 3,400 seeds

2. Equipments/Tools

i. Measuring tapes
ii. Ropes
iii. Pegs
iv. Scales
v. Moisture metre
vi. Soil auger
vii. Plastic bags
viii. Buckets
ix. Cutlass
x. Metre stick

3. Transport and fuel

i. Transport: LRover (Station Wagon 4 wheel drive)
ii. Diesel litress)
iii. Engine oil

4. Office supplies

i. Note books
ii. Pens, pencils
iii. Log books (field book)
iv. Others

On Farm Trial Work plan

Trial name Maize cowpea intercrop.

Number of trials 5


F1-23










Responsibility

Location

Objective


- The team explorating.

- Kassague village

- To improve the yield of
maize in order to alleviate food
shortage.

- To see if the covpea/maize
intercropping will do this.


Justification


Description Of Trial

a. Treatments

i. Sole maize (Jeka)

ii. Mougue Jeka intercrop with mogue planted 10 days after Jeka.

iii. Jeka/mougue planted 20 days after Jeka.

iv. CBS/Jeka intercrop with CB5 planted 10 days after Jeka.
CBS/Jeka intercrop with CB5 planted 20 days after Jeka.

b. Check sole maize.

c. Experimental design RCB.

d. Planting date As soon as there is sufficient


e. Duration


moisture for planting i.e. 10 or
20 days after maize planting.

June November.
(i) logistics
(ii) selecting the farmers.
(iii) coordinating the planting
dates.


Description Of Field Design

1. Plot area 27m2.

2. Length 5.4

3. Experimental unit area (net plot)i 16.5m2 (3.3m X 5m).

4. No. of rows 1 plot Maize 6 rows.

Covpea 5 rows.

5. Block area 5.4m X 25m 135m2.

6. Total trail area 135m2 X 2m 270m2.


F1-24










7. No. of rows/block


Cowpea 5 X 5 25 rows.

8. No. of plants/row 500/30cm 17.

9. Distance between plants 90 cm.

10. No. of seeds/hill 2.

11. No. of plants/hill 1.

12. No. of repetition 2.

13. Total No. of treatments 5.

After data collection is completed, i.e. after harvesting and
processing, the statistics will be used to further continue analysis
of the social and economic characteristics of the household which
will complement a further experiment.


F1-25


Maize 6 X 5 30 rows.


























TABLE OF CONTENTS


SECTION PAGE


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ---------------- --------------- -- 4

INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------- 5

Problem and Significance of the Study ---------------- 5
Objectives ------------------------------------------- 6
Methodology ------------------------------------------ 6


VILLAGE DESCRIPTION and ENVIRONMENT --------------------- 7

Geographical Location ----------------------------- 7
Climate and Soils ---------------------------------- 7
Population and Ethnic Groups -------------------------10

FARMING SYSTEMS ---------------------------------------- 10

I General Description -------------------------------10

II. Crop Systems --------------------------------------16

(i) Men's Cash Crop ---------------------------16
(ii) Men's Staple Food Crops -------------------- 18
(iii) Women's Cereal Crop ------------------------ 18
(iv) Women's Cash Crop ------------------------ 19
(v) Fruit Production --------------------------- 19

III. Livestock Production ---------------------------- 20

(i) Cattle Raising -----------------------------20
(ii) Small Animal Raising ---------------------- 20
(iii) Poultry ------------ ------------------ 21
(iv) Animal Traction --------------------------- 21

F2-3
















IV. Marketing ----------------------------------------22

(i) Market Structure ----------------------------22
(ii) Trading -------------------------------------23
(iii) Other Sources of Income --------------------23
(iv) Food Storage and Processing --------------- 22

a) Storage Structures -------------------- 22
b) Processing ---------------------------- 22
c) Spoilage ------------------------------- 22

V. Training and Institution Building ---------------- 23

(i) Government Assistance --------------------- 23
(ii) Non-Governmental Assistance ---------------- 23
(iii) Credit -------------------------------------- 23

VI. Farming Systems Constraints, Compensating Strategies,
and Intervention Recommendations ------------------ 24


F2-4












EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

A field survey using both informal and formal means of data
collection was conducted in the village of Sukuta, Western
Division, of The Gambia by a group of participants in the 1986
FSSP Workshop, to assess the efficiency of the different farming
systems evolving in the village.

The farming systems in Serrekunda were found to be heavily
influenced not only by the proximity of the village to the urban
zone of Serrekunda and Banjul, but also by the predominance of
the traditional ethnic group of the Mandinka. The crop
production system was heavily dominated by groundnuts, followed
by millet and rice. Groundnuts are a major source of income, and
cereals are grown for consumption, although they are hardly
sufficient to meet household needs.

Vegetable production, practiced exclusively by women, was
found to be an important segment of the farming system with a
high potential for growth due to high demand in the urban and
suburban areas surrounding the village. The division of labor
between men and women followed established traditional patterns,
which led the investigators to distinguish five crop systems: (i)
men's cash crop (groundnut), (ii) men's staple food crops
(millet, maize, findo and sorghum), (iii) women's cereal crop
(rice), (iv) women's cash crops (vegetables) and (v) men's and
women's fruit production.

Livestock production was not found to play a significant role
in the farming system, as the Mandinka are known to traditionally
shy away from cattle. Sheep, goats and poultry raising represent
marginal activities to the existing farming systems.

The farming systems in existence in Sukuta were found to fall
short of their potential and of farmers' expectations due to both
environmental and technical constraints. The ever increasing
length of the dry season, comnined with the outflow of youth and
the able-bodied individuals toward the city, have contributed to
keeping Sukuta villagers at the subsistence level of farming. As
a result of the drought, the village is suffering from the
outbreak of certain diseases and pests. Last but least, the
investigators found that government and non-government
agricultural institutions have kept their interventions in the
Sukuta village at a minimum, non-acceptable level.

As survival dictates improvision, farmers have developed a few
compensating strategies in an attempt to maintain their status
quo. These include: (a) the use of minimum-till or no-tillage
practices, (b) the use of short-cycle, early maturing varieties,
(c) the dry planting of cereals.


F2 -5











In order to ease the pressure exerted on the farming systems
in Sukuta, the following recommendations are suggested:

1. Research and development is needed in appropriate
agricultural implements and technology, and resource
conservation farm practices (minimum-till, no-till,
mulching). The policy implication of this recommendation
is to guarantee longer term credit to farmers and encourage
local artisans and manufacturers of small tools.

2. Research and development in germplasm collection and plant
breeding, to supply farmers with early maturing, highly
productive varieties. The policy implication of this
recommendation is that cooperatives, government and private
agencies should establish rules and regulations as to the
maintenance of seed purity and vitality, as' well as
insuring seed availability.

3. Research and development in crop protection based on
farmers' limited resources and cultural practices. The
development of resistant varieties, crop rotations and
other agronomic practices should be investigated to see how
they can ease the situation. The policy implication of
this recommendation is the implementation by government and
non-governmental agencies of the IPM philosophy. Training
farmers and extension agents in the implementation of IPM
is a prerequisite to the adoption of this strategy.

a. INTRODUeTION:

1 EC:2bem and Sig2icase1% of the Study

A number of organizations from the U.S. and elsewhere have
made several attempts over the past decades to relieve the food
shortages and other human calamities occurring particularly in
sub-saharan Africa. While these attempts have concentrated in
the past on commodity-oriented research and/or technology
transfer, it is now generally accepted that one answer to
development issues and problems may be in a new approach termed
Farming Systems Research & Extension (FSR/E).

The holistic approach of FSR/E, taking into consideration the
total farm with its components of crops, animals, and people and
their interaction with the environment, is now advocated by host
governments and development agencies alike. U.S.A.I.D. is now
concentrating much of its funding of development projects on the
basis of their underlying strategies- using the FSR/E approach.
To give some examples, the Mauritanian Agricultural Research
(AGRES), the Zambia Agricultural Research & Extension (ZAMARE),
and the Malawi Agricultural Research & Extension (MARE) are all
multimillion dollar projects designed using the FSR/E approach.


F2 -6











In order to ease the pressure exerted on the farming systems
in Sukuta, the following recommendations are suggested:

1. Research and development is needed in appropriate
agricultural implements and technology, and resource
conservation farm practices (minimum-till, no-till,
mulching). The policy implication of this recommendation
is to guarantee longer term credit to farmers and encourage
local artisans and manufacturers of small tools.

2. Research and development in germplasm collection and plant
breeding, to supply farmers with early maturing, highly
productive varieties. The policy implication of this
recommendation is that cooperatives, government and private
agencies should establish rules and regulations as to the
maintenance of seed purity and vitality, as' well as
insuring seed availability.

3. Research and development in crop protection based on
farmers' limited resources and cultural practices. The
development of resistant varieties, crop rotations and
other agronomic practices should be investigated to see how
they can ease the situation. The policy implication of
this recommendation is the implementation by government and
non-governmental agencies of the IPM philosophy. Training
farmers and extension agents in the implementation of IPM
is a prerequisite to the adoption of this strategy.

a. INTRODUeTION:

1 EC:2bem and Sig2icase1% of the Study

A number of organizations from the U.S. and elsewhere have
made several attempts over the past decades to relieve the food
shortages and other human calamities occurring particularly in
sub-saharan Africa. While these attempts have concentrated in
the past on commodity-oriented research and/or technology
transfer, it is now generally accepted that one answer to
development issues and problems may be in a new approach termed
Farming Systems Research & Extension (FSR/E).

The holistic approach of FSR/E, taking into consideration the
total farm with its components of crops, animals, and people and
their interaction with the environment, is now advocated by host
governments and development agencies alike. U.S.A.I.D. is now
concentrating much of its funding of development projects on the
basis of their underlying strategies- using the FSR/E approach.
To give some examples, the Mauritanian Agricultural Research
(AGRES), the Zambia Agricultural Research & Extension (ZAMARE),
and the Malawi Agricultural Research & Extension (MARE) are all
multimillion dollar projects designed using the FSR/E approach.


F2 -6











The Gambia has also been in recent years the target of
development projects using the 'framework of FSR/E. In addition
to the yearly FSSP workshops, the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA),
through the GARD project, is placing a strong emphasis on the use
of FSR/E methodology in identifying technology acceptable to farm
household members. It is expected that the improvement of the
total agricultural system will have a substantial impact upon the
nutrition, income and overall welfare of the limited resource
farmers of The Gambia.

2. Objectives:

The present investigation was undertaken in the village of
Sukuta, Western Division, with the overall objective of assessing
the efficiency of the farming systems practiced in the village.
Specific objectives included:


a) The description of the total environment surrounding
farming and other production activities in the village of
Sukuta.

b) The identification of the numerous and intricate linkages
between the production units, and the socio-economic
sectors, as well as the internal and external dynamic forces
targeted on the village.

c) The identification of the constraints limiting the
improvement and efficiency of the farming systems in
the village and farmers' compensating strategies to
maintain the fragile equilibrium between the farm
and the natural environment.

d) The formulation of policy guidelines enabling the
government of The Gambia and other intervention agencies
to establish recommendation domains, and eliminate the
constraints limiting the growth of agricultural
production and the improvement of rural life in The Gambia.

3. Methodolony:

An informal survey was conducted by the participants to the
FSSP workshop on April 9, 1986, in the village of Sukuta. This
was a rapid reconnaissance survey, aimed at developing a quick
understanding of farmers' environmental surroundings and their
farming practices. Three interdisciplinary teams were formed on
the basis of the professional 'background and linguistic
capabilities of the individual members. Social scientists were
teamed up with agricultural scientists to conduct the survey and
two enumerators were attached to the teams to facilitate the
contacts with farmers.


F2 -7











The Gambia has also been in recent years the target of
development projects using the 'framework of FSR/E. In addition
to the yearly FSSP workshops, the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA),
through the GARD project, is placing a strong emphasis on the use
of FSR/E methodology in identifying technology acceptable to farm
household members. It is expected that the improvement of the
total agricultural system will have a substantial impact upon the
nutrition, income and overall welfare of the limited resource
farmers of The Gambia.

2. Objectives:

The present investigation was undertaken in the village of
Sukuta, Western Division, with the overall objective of assessing
the efficiency of the farming systems practiced in the village.
Specific objectives included:


a) The description of the total environment surrounding
farming and other production activities in the village of
Sukuta.

b) The identification of the numerous and intricate linkages
between the production units, and the socio-economic
sectors, as well as the internal and external dynamic forces
targeted on the village.

c) The identification of the constraints limiting the
improvement and efficiency of the farming systems in
the village and farmers' compensating strategies to
maintain the fragile equilibrium between the farm
and the natural environment.

d) The formulation of policy guidelines enabling the
government of The Gambia and other intervention agencies
to establish recommendation domains, and eliminate the
constraints limiting the growth of agricultural
production and the improvement of rural life in The Gambia.

3. Methodolony:

An informal survey was conducted by the participants to the
FSSP workshop on April 9, 1986, in the village of Sukuta. This
was a rapid reconnaissance survey, aimed at developing a quick
understanding of farmers' environmental surroundings and their
farming practices. Three interdisciplinary teams were formed on
the basis of the professional 'background and linguistic
capabilities of the individual members. Social scientists were
teamed up with agricultural scientists to conduct the survey and
two enumerators were attached to the teams to facilitate the
contacts with farmers.


F2 -7











Each interview team held an informal discussion with groups of
three to four farmers for a period of about two hours. The
informal survey was followed by a visit to the women's vegetable
gardens where another informal discussion was held with the
women. At the end of the day, the interviewers were able to
identify key topics and issues that need focusing in the formal
survey scheduled for the next day.

On April 10, 1986, a formal survey was conducted by the
interviewers organized the same way as previously described. New
groups of farmers were interviewed and the teams were able to
gather specific information on the farming systems operating in
the village. Again, each interview lasted approximately two
hours. The interviews were followed by field visits by both
upland and vegetable crops.





VILLAGE DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENT


a. esgraahicsal rLocationl

The village of Sukuta is located approximately 3 to 4
kilometers south of the town of Serrekunda and is easily
accessible from Banjul and the other suburban areas.
Consequently, the village is under the influence of both pull
(rural-to urban migration) and push factors (land pressure and
urbanization). Sukuta also serves as a feeder road to the
townships of Brufut to the East-West and Joungoun to the South.
The village is at a walking distance from either the Atlantic
Ocean or the River Gambia.

. Climate and soUils-

The village of Sukuta is considered to belong to the
Sudans-Gambian zone and its climate represents a transition zone
from the arid to the humid wooded savannas.

Rainfall pattern is of the unimodal type with a long dry
season and a wet season from June to October. Rainfall varies in
its commencement, duration and intensity and the average rainfall
quantity fluctuates around 800 mm. In recent years, farmers have
had to contend with a significant decline in rainfall. Since the
1970's an isohyete shift southward was observed by
climatologists, and Sukuta, like many other Gambian villages is
suffering from a 100 mm reduction per year of its rainfall.

Temperatures are moderate due to the close proximity of both
the ocean and the Gambian river. Average monthly temperatures


F2-8











Each interview team held an informal discussion with groups of
three to four farmers for a period of about two hours. The
informal survey was followed by a visit to the women's vegetable
gardens where another informal discussion was held with the
women. At the end of the day, the interviewers were able to
identify key topics and issues that need focusing in the formal
survey scheduled for the next day.

On April 10, 1986, a formal survey was conducted by the
interviewers organized the same way as previously described. New
groups of farmers were interviewed and the teams were able to
gather specific information on the farming systems operating in
the village. Again, each interview lasted approximately two
hours. The interviews were followed by field visits by both
upland and vegetable crops.





VILLAGE DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENT


a. esgraahicsal rLocationl

The village of Sukuta is located approximately 3 to 4
kilometers south of the town of Serrekunda and is easily
accessible from Banjul and the other suburban areas.
Consequently, the village is under the influence of both pull
(rural-to urban migration) and push factors (land pressure and
urbanization). Sukuta also serves as a feeder road to the
townships of Brufut to the East-West and Joungoun to the South.
The village is at a walking distance from either the Atlantic
Ocean or the River Gambia.

. Climate and soUils-

The village of Sukuta is considered to belong to the
Sudans-Gambian zone and its climate represents a transition zone
from the arid to the humid wooded savannas.

Rainfall pattern is of the unimodal type with a long dry
season and a wet season from June to October. Rainfall varies in
its commencement, duration and intensity and the average rainfall
quantity fluctuates around 800 mm. In recent years, farmers have
had to contend with a significant decline in rainfall. Since the
1970's an isohyete shift southward was observed by
climatologists, and Sukuta, like many other Gambian villages is
suffering from a 100 mm reduction per year of its rainfall.

Temperatures are moderate due to the close proximity of both
the ocean and the Gambian river. Average monthly temperatures


F2-8











Each interview team held an informal discussion with groups of
three to four farmers for a period of about two hours. The
informal survey was followed by a visit to the women's vegetable
gardens where another informal discussion was held with the
women. At the end of the day, the interviewers were able to
identify key topics and issues that need focusing in the formal
survey scheduled for the next day.

On April 10, 1986, a formal survey was conducted by the
interviewers organized the same way as previously described. New
groups of farmers were interviewed and the teams were able to
gather specific information on the farming systems operating in
the village. Again, each interview lasted approximately two
hours. The interviews were followed by field visits by both
upland and vegetable crops.





VILLAGE DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENT


a. esgraahicsal rLocationl

The village of Sukuta is located approximately 3 to 4
kilometers south of the town of Serrekunda and is easily
accessible from Banjul and the other suburban areas.
Consequently, the village is under the influence of both pull
(rural-to urban migration) and push factors (land pressure and
urbanization). Sukuta also serves as a feeder road to the
townships of Brufut to the East-West and Joungoun to the South.
The village is at a walking distance from either the Atlantic
Ocean or the River Gambia.

. Climate and soUils-

The village of Sukuta is considered to belong to the
Sudans-Gambian zone and its climate represents a transition zone
from the arid to the humid wooded savannas.

Rainfall pattern is of the unimodal type with a long dry
season and a wet season from June to October. Rainfall varies in
its commencement, duration and intensity and the average rainfall
quantity fluctuates around 800 mm. In recent years, farmers have
had to contend with a significant decline in rainfall. Since the
1970's an isohyete shift southward was observed by
climatologists, and Sukuta, like many other Gambian villages is
suffering from a 100 mm reduction per year of its rainfall.

Temperatures are moderate due to the close proximity of both
the ocean and the Gambian river. Average monthly temperatures


F2-8





























































F2 -9

















7D .VA'f:,1gji r -IIr"
a. -
UJI







7777f








Cu-ttMecJ
I~/ c.~,- ~-LA (~




















F2i % 10
F2 10/~












varies between 22 C and 731 C. In general, soils are of the
alluvial type, sandy to ad.i-loam with little :'-eic matter
content due to intense deforestation and mineralization.

SEuletii.n End thn^i it:

The village of Sukuta has a population of eopro':imately 2,00'
to 2,500 with the predominant ethnic group being; the Mandinka.
The presence of the other ethnic groups is reduced to a few
compounds of Jollofs and Fulas. Population growth is estimated
at 2.7% per annum with a subsequent effect on land pressure.
Population density is a little over that of the national average
of 65 inhabitants/km2 due to the expansion of the suburban
areas.

Both tradition and convenience help explain the intense
trading activities occurring in the village of Sukuta. There is
also a traditional division of labor between men and women, and
the social structure is heavily affected by the process of
urbanization. An increasingly large number of part-time farmers
is appearing, made up specifically of commuting civil servants
and other professionals.

Ith EcwiQ2a Systema
I. The urban influence and attraction to the younger
population strongly affects the farming system in Sukuta and thus
dominates the activities of the agricultural sector. The elderly
women, and children are the main actors in the farming sector.
Most of the younger adults, especially males, either commute or
migrate to the major business/commercial centers sush as Banjul
in order to seek higher and more secure incomes. The commuting
younger adults help with farm activities on returning from work
and on the weekends. The temporary urban workers return at the
beginning of the rains to help in the initial crop activities.
This phenomenum characterizers the rural labor situation and
together with the climatic and environmental conditions dictate
the farming systems adopted by the village of Sukuta,

The farming system is composed of four major components as
shown in the farming systems strotural model.-, The components
are: (1) the farm household; (2) the market; (Z) the livestock
system; and (4) the cropping system. The two most iaoortant
components are the farm household and the cropping system or more
specifically the vegetable garden sub-component. The cropping
system is divided into five distinct crop systems, two of which
are predominantly worked -and managed by men, two by women, and
the fifth may be worked and managed by either group (refer to the
Activity by Producers Chart, part III, and the Structural
model).






F2- 11




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs