• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Generalized organization of FSR/E...
 FSR and the land grant model
 1985 farming systems symposium
 Conference on gender issues in...
 Animal traction in a farming systems...






Title: Farming Systems Support Project newsletter
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00071908/00009
 Material Information
Title: Farming Systems Support Project newsletter
Alternate Title: FSSP newsletter
Physical Description: v. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Farming Systems Support Project
University of Florida -- Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
Publisher: The Project
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1983-
Frequency: quarterly
regular
 Subjects
Subject: Agriculture -- Periodicals -- Developing countries   ( lcsh )
Agriculture -- International cooperation -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
periodical   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Dates or Sequential Designation: Vol. 1, no. 1 (spring 1983)-
Issuing Body: Issued by: Farming Systems Support Project, which is administered by: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
General Note: Title from caption.
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: UF00071908
Volume ID: VID00009
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 10387162
lccn - sn 84011294

Table of Contents
    Generalized organization of FSR/E regions and field teams
        Page 1
        Page 2
    FSR and the land grant model
        Page 3
    1985 farming systems symposium
        Page 4
    Conference on gender issues in FSR/E
        Page 5
    Animal traction in a farming systems perspective
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
Full Text








VOL. THREE NO. TWO
SECOND QUARTER 1985


Farming Systems Support Project Newletter


Generalized Orgamliation of FSR/E Regions and Field Teams

Peter E. Hildebrand, Eugenio Martinez and Ramiro Ortiz*


Field teams are in daily contact with farmers and are
responsible for conducting on-farm research and other
typesof multiple visit activities such as directed or veri-
fication survey or enterprise records.
The organization of field teams necessarily will vary
depending upon many conditions and situations. How-
ever, it is possible to visualize a general framework for
organizing such a team. This will include the area served,
team size, team work load, equipment needs, relation-
ships to national commodity teams and distribution in
research domains.

AREA SERVED
The field team should reside in the area in which they
work. If time is not lost traveling from a larger town
where they live to a smaller town which is the center of
the work area, it should be possible for the team to work
an area which has a radius equal in distance to one hour
of travel. Such an area is not necessarily round. It will
vary according to natural terrain as well as the location
and condition of roads and trails. If transportation is
by jeep, pick-up, or similar vehicle, the physical distance
may well be 40 kms in each direction. If travel is by
mule, it nay be only 4 kms. The one-hour limit per-
mits individual team members sufficient time to travel
to the furthest corners of their work area and have
time to conduct necessary tasks on several farms before
returning to the headquarters site. If the area is approxi-
mately circular and the radius is 4 kms, this would
comprise an area of about 5,000 hectares. On the other
hand, if the radius is 40 kms and the area is approxi-
mately circular, 500,000 hectares would be included.
An area of 50,000 hectares would be achieved with a
radius of 12.6 kms.

TEAM SIZE
In order to have sufficient impact, an ideal team size
is approximately five members, one of which is the
leader and has limited administrative authority. Three
members is probably the smallest effective size. The
members can be BS degree or sub-BS level in profes-
sional training if people with a higher level of training


are not available. However, the leader of the team, who
is also considered a member of the team, should have
received specialized farming systems training and have
hands-on experience in on-farm work with a farming
systems team. Higher level professional backstopping
will be discussed later.
TEAM WORK LOAD
A team of this nature can have the responsibility for
simultaneously conducting researcher-managed on-farm
trials, farmer-managed trials and the collection of enter-
prise records or other multi-visit information from
farmer-collaborators. An achievement goal which could
be expected from a five-member team after one or two
years of experience could be as follows:
a) Four members of the team could well be expected
to have activities on up to 16 farms each and on those
16 farms have a total of 24 trial activities. This would
be approximately one.and a half trials per farm. In this
way the team could be expected to have up to 96 trials.
b) The fifth person on the team could be expected
to have up to 50 enterprise records. If only one com-
modity is being studied, this would be 50 records on
that commodity. If five commodities are being studied,
this could mean 10 records for each of the five.
c) Probably no more than two-thirds of the trials can
be researcher-managed trials and this number may be
closer to half. The remainder would be farmer-managed
trials.
An alternative organization within the team, and per-
haps a superior way of achieving the same general goals,
is for all members to have trial activities with up to 12
farmers, having up to 18 activities on those 12 farms,
then each member would also be responsible for up to
10 enterprise records.
This kind of a work load is feasible and was imple-
mented by ICTA in Guatemala. It is based on the idea
that team members would spend four days in the field
each week and be able to visit up to four farms each
day. The fifth day of the week can be devoted to desk
work. Number of visits and their length change during
phases of the season, such as in planting or harvesting.


*Profesor, Food and Resource Economics. University of Florida; Visiting Research Scientist, Agronomy Department University of Florida: and
Agronomist in AGRIDEC, respectively.








EQUIPMENT NEEDS
In order to be able to accomplish this kind of activity,
it is necessary that all persons on the team have their
own means of transportation, such as a bicycle, a motor-
cycle, a mule, etc. In some cases it may be feasible for
two team members to share a pick-up or jeep. In addi-
tion, the team leader has to have at least one additional
vehicle such as a jeep or pick-up for transporting work-
ers, fertilizer, seed, etc. To facilitate work in isolated
conditions it is highly recommended that each team also
have a two-way radio for communication with back-up
personnel and regional or national headquarters.

RELATIONSHIP TO NATIONAL COMMODITY AND
DISCIPLINE PROGRAMS
Professional back-up support requirements for the
field teams depends upon the nature and complexity
of the work being conducted. Each team should have
professional support for each of the components
being undertaken. One back-up person, of course,
could support more than one component. A back-up
professional can probably easily manage to adequately
support up to five field teams. This kind of support,
usually provided by the national commodity and dis-
cipline programs, is considered as "regional" support.
Regional support teams, which should be MS or BS
level professionals, should also be able to count on
"national" support from the highest level professionals
available in the country. As is the case for regional sup-
port, a member of a national commodity or discipline
program should be able to support up to five regional
teams. At the national level there will need to be more
specialized expertise that is not necessarily required at
each regional level.
One of the potential shortcomings of farming sys-
tems research is a lack of integration between on-farm
and commodity teams. Generally the type of problems
readily addressed by FSR/E field teams are those of
short-term solutions, such as plant population, plant
arrangement, intercropping, levels and placement of
fertilizers, or use of herbicides. However, major prob-
lems that farmers encounter, and that FSR/E teams can
identify potential solutions for, often are long-term
solutions such as short-season varieties, disease-resistant
varieties, insect-resistant varieties, varieties adapted to
acid soils, varieties that compete with weeds, drought
tolerant varieties, or short straw varieties resistant to
lodging. These technologies can only be provided
through the participation of the commodity teams.
This makes integration between commodity and on-
farm research teams essential.
Insufficient attention has been paid to this important
linkage, perhaps through the assumption that somehow
this will automatically happen. But it does not happen
by chance or to the degree necessary through informal
contact of the members of both teams. This linkage
must be intentionally built. It requires a substantial
effort with leadership and authority to put the different
disciplinesand personalities (from both teams) together
to work toward a common goal. That goal is the gen-


eration of agricultural technology that offers solutions
to farmers' problems and that farmers can and are will-
ing to adopt.
Team integration is a functional linkage, necessary
to solve farm-level problems that require different ex-
pertise from different disciplines. Commodity-oriented
plant breeders, for example, must recognized that the
work of the on-farm teams can contribute farm-level
information directly to the commodity teams to use
in its research planning. It can help guide the direction
of commodity researchers. At the same time, on-farm
research team members should recognize the vital im-
portance of the technologies that the commodity teams
have to offer as potential solutions in the on-farm
research domains. Both teams share information and
work together to produce technology that is adapted
to farmers' needs. This common strategy should be
thoroughly understood by all team members. Thus
cooperative integration of commodity and on-farm
research teams forms a powerful combination of
mutually supporting research directed toward the
urgent needs of farmers.

FIELD TEAMS, WORK AREAS, RESEARCH
DOMAINS AND REGIONAL SUPPORT
Figure 1 can be used to demonstrate how a regional
team might be distributed. The region represented
has three research domains, two of which overlap. A
staple crop such as maize may be produced in all three
research domains, but differently in each one. Different
crops are produced in the other research domains. All
three research domains may be combined into a single
one for evaluating maize cultivars, but separated for
evaluating cultural practices.
If the field teams are involved with five different
crops in the three research domains, regional commod-
ity and discipline support could be provided by three
to five persons. These individuals all need jeep or
pick-up transportation because in most cases they have
larger distances to travel and will often be hauling
supplies to the field teams.
The regional commodity and discipline persons may
also be conducting work on a regional experiment
station if one exists. Part of this work can be in direct
support of the field teams and part can be in collabor-
ation with national of multi-regional efforts.
If in Figure 1 the dimensions of the areas covered by
each five-member field team, and with five persons in
regional support are:
Team 1 15 x 25 km
Team 2 20 x 20 km
Team 3 20 x 20 km
Team 4 15 x 50 km,
then the average area covered by each field team mem-
ber is 9,600 ha. The area covered by the regional team
is 192,500 ha or 7,700 ha per person. As mentioned
previously, the areas vary widely in practice and are
influenced by terrain, number and quality of roads,
size and density of farms and means of transportation
available to the field teams and the regional support






staff. Depending on research results, several recommen-
dation domains can be defined and used for diffusion
of technologies in the regional area covered by the
three research domains. a
-..-


Kesearcn
Domains

Boundary of team work area I,


..... Trails


Fig 1. Research Domains and FSR/E Team Work Areas (Regional Organization)


FSR and the Land Grant Model


Agricultural research, extension
and training are handled by two or
more organizations in most countries
of the developing world. Often, these
organizations are based in different
ministries such as Agriculture and
Education. In these cases, it is not
possible to consider the development
of the land grant type institutions
as we know them in the U.S.
Through FSR,. however, it is
possible to build program linkages
between these functional areas of
activity where organic linkages do
not exist. It is now possible, in
working in the FSR context to
rationalize a system where farmers,


by Larry Zuidema*
extension workers and researchers
work together at all stages to deal
with agricultural and rural develop-
ment problems at the local, regional
and national levels.
With the current high level of in-
terest in FSR in many countries of
the developing world, we have the
opportunity to help define roles for
a variety of agricultural workers and
establish the programmatic relation-
ships necessary to develop effective
support systems for a stronger agri-
cultural sector. Once these program
relationships are established, we can
assist professionals to evolve the in-
stitutional mechanisms and structures
3


which will facilitate the desired inter-
actions and achieve some of the
benefits that the land grant model
has to offer.
This approach is more realistic and
less painful than the earlier attempts
by many land grant institutions to
duplicate themselves as institutions
in developing world countries where
existing institutional structures made
this difficult. While the process may
also take time, FSR has the benefit
of achieving results while the process
of institutionalization of these con-
cepts in underway. w
*Dr. Zuidema is Associate Director of Intene-
tion Agriculture at Cornell University.


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







1985 Farming Systems Symposium


This year's theme for the October
13-16 Farming Systems Symposium
at Kansas State University is "Farm-
ing Systems Research and Extension
Management and Methodology". It is
the fifth year for Manhattan, Kansas
to be the site of this international
symposium, and more than 200 par-
ticipants are expected from at least
20 countries.
Symposium organizers report that
response to the call for papers has
been excellent. The following list is
a small sampling of the topical areas
(not necessarily accurate titles) cover-
ed by presentations on this year's
agenda: FSR's contribution to man-
agement of agricultural research and


extension in Tanzania Development
of alternatives for small farming sys-
tems: a methodology used in two
areas of Panama Management issues
in linking research and extension in
Nigeria From farming systems re-
search metholdology to functional
systematic routine management: FSR
methodology to FSR management in
the CARDI FSR&D project On-farm
research: some alternative proposals *
Potential for FSR/E for small farms
in developed economies Design of
on-farm trials in farmers' fields *
Making the mixed discipline farming
systems work: issues and management
insights from a U.S. and Egyptian
project Recommendations for


recommendation domains The
evolution of FSR at the National
Institute of Agronomic Research,
Niger Factors influencing recom-
mendation domain boundaries of the
farming system and levels of agricul-
tural development in Lusaka Province,
Zambia.
For additional information about
the symposium see the FSSP News-
letter Vol. two, No. three (third
quarter 1984). Details about the
program and registration is available
from: Jim Jorns, Assistant Director,
International Agricultural Programs,
Room 108 Waters Hall, Kansas State
University, Manhattan, KS 66506,
U.S.A. (Telephone 913/532-5566).


Minimum Data Set for Agronomic Trials Offers Basis for Comparison


The following outline has been
prepared to offer some standardiza-
tion to the basic content of articles
on agronomic trials for the Kansas
State University Farming Systems
Symposium. This "Minimum Data
Set" will offer a ready means for
comparison of agronomic presenta-
tions in two pages of text. Symposium
organizers are using this data set for-
mat as a test to evaluate and to
formulate guidelines that can affect
the quality and usefulness of FSR/E
literature in general.

The Minimum Data Set is not in-
tended as an outline to write from,
or as an outline to guide the compo-
sition of a paper. Rather, it is intend-
ed as a structured summary of data
that relates to the agronomic trials
reported in a paper. All data called
for in the outline should accompany
the text, even though all of the data
may not be included as part of the
text, or used in the oral presentation.
The two-page summary will allow a
comparative analysis by ensuring
that similar data are reported for
various projects and trials.
The idea for the Minimum Data
Set arose at the 1984 FSSP Annual
Meeting, held following last year's
Symposium. The outline reflects
comments received from participants
and has been substantially revised
from its original draft form.


1. Location
a. Country
b. Province, Department, State
c. Other
2. Environment
a. Latitude
b. Elevation
c. Temperature
1) Annual pattern
2) Specific during trial period
3) Daily max-min
d. Precipitation
1) Pattern
2) Specific during trial period
3) Evapotranspiration and/or
humidity
4) Irrigated
e. Soil
1) Structure
2) Texture
3) Classification
4) pH
5) Fertility
6) Color
7) Slope
3. Socio-economic
a. Size distribution of farms,
median for area, mean for trials
b. Land tenure
c. Ethnic group/language
d. Access to input and output
markets
e. Access to credit
4. Nature of cropping system
a. Subsistence/cash objectives


b. Labor requirements
1) Female/male
2) Distribution over time
3) Hired/family
c. Energy requirements-manual,
animal, mechanical
d. Cash requirements (descriptions
1) Price of key inputs
2) Price of products
e. Other field-household inter-
actions
5. Trial details
a. Crop or crops
b. Previous crops and management
c. Cultivars
d. Planting and harvest dates
e. Experimental design, replica-
tions
f. Treatments
g. Layout, plot size, harvested area
h. Level of farmer involvement
(researcher managed-farmer
managed continuum)

6. Factors to relate the trial back to
the farming system
a. Problem trying to solve-hy-
pothesis of the intervention
b. Infrastructure and policy
implications
c. Farmer assessment of the in-
tervention in terms of the
problem trying to solve

7. Any unusual or other important
circumstances






Continued Support is Welcomed for the Bibliography of Readings in Farming Systems


In support of the growth and devel-
opment of farming systems research
Sand extension, the FSSP initiated a
publication series called Bibliography
of Readings in Farming Systems. The
first volume of this series has been
issued in English, Spanish and French
and distributed through a separate
mailing from the USAID/Document
Information Handling Facility, using
the FSSP Newletter mailing list.

Volume 1 of the Bibliography is a
current-awareness, non-cumulative,
selective collection containing ab-
stracts of 100 readings directly related
to farming systems research and ex-
tension. Abstracts of larger works
may not reflect a specific farming
system content, but the selection
criteria ensures that an article or
publication qualify in this way.
Kansas State University serves as
the lead institution for this documen-
tation effort, coordinating the selec-
tion process for all readings included
in the bibliographies. The documen-
tation center at the university receives
various articles and publications to
be considered for inclusion in the
bibliographies. Cooperating Program
Associates then screen these nomina-
tions for their farming systems content
and relevance before recommending
them. Copies of each recommended


item are then forwarded to the Tech-
nical Committee of the FSSP for
their consideration. The Technical
Committee reviews all of the nom-
inated works and makes recommen-
dation of 100 suitable items (and a
number of alternates) to the core
staff of the FSSP. Selected items are
then forwarded to the USAID/Docu-
ment Information Handling Facility
for annotation, translation, publishing
and distribution.
The FSSP and Kansas State Uni-
versity welcome and encourage your
contributions to the bibliography
series. Participation of the many
individuals helping support this effort
to date is greatly appreciated. Nom-
inations of items for inclusion in the
Bibliography of Readings in Farming
Systems should consider the follow-
ing:
O Send the actual document or
publication for each item nomi-
nated, suitable for reproduction.
Titles or bibliographical refer-
ences by themselves are insuffi-
cient except for commercially
published, copyrighted works.
0 Individual papers and articles
in proceedings or anthologies
will be considered (entire books
of readings or entire proceedings
of conferences will not).


O Materials written in English,
Spanish and French are eligible
for consideration.
O Focus on field manuals and
papers that illuminate particular
points within farming systems
research and extension metho-
dology, particularly practices
that can be generalized to
other situations.
O Consider those items that would
be of most use to practitioners
of farming systems research and
extension in the field.
O Avoid articles on the general
philosophy of farming systems
or those presenting a general
overview.
Volume II of the Bibliography of
Readings in Farming Systems is well
into production. The selection of
contents is completed and the anno-
tation and translation process is un-
derway. Contributions are welcome
for additional volumes, which are
scheduled to be published through
1987. Send copies of selected articles
and papers to:
FSR Bibliography
Department of Sociology
Waters Hall
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas 66506
U.S.A.


Conference on Gender Issues in FSR/E


The Women in Agriculture Pro-
gram of the University of Florida,
announces an interdisciplinary con-
ference on "Gender Issues in Farming
Systems Research and Extension
(FSR/E)" to be held in Gainesville,
Florida from February 26-March 1,
1986. The conference's primary ob-
jective is to bring together scholars
and practitioners with expertise and
interest in Farming Systems Research
and Extension to discuss state-of-the-
art issues related to the role of gender
in FSR/E. The conference will include
plenary panel discussions, workshops
,and training sessions, and keynote
addresses by noted speakers. Partici-
pation will be by invitation, and
attendance open to the public. Some


workshop sessions may have limited
enrollment.
Proposals for participation in the
conference are invited. Conference
sessions will address specific issues of
theory, method, and policy related
to FSR/E in different developing
regions, systematically comparing
African and Latin American experi-
ences. Papers should address specific
issues relevant to the conference focus
(the whole farming system: intra-
household dynamics; institutional
and policy concerns; definition of
research domains; on-farm research
and extension; monitoring and evalu-
ation). Whole panels of comparative
papers on Africa and Latin America
may also be proposed. Those inter-


ested in participating should summar-
ize their proposed contribution and
give specific information on the data
to be used, its relation to FSR/E, the
geographic focus, and relevance to
the designated themes. Letters and
abstracts of papers must be sent by
September 1, 1985, to Dr. Marianne
Schmink, WIA Co-Director, Center
for Latin American Studies, Uni-
versity of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
32611. To request a conference bro-
chure on "Gender Issues in Farming
Systems Research and Extension",
contact the Office of Conferences
and Institutes, Institute of Food and
Agricultural Sciences, 1041 McCarty
Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville,
F L32611 (telephone 904-392-5930).









WHAT IS A NETWORKSHOP?


The term "networkshop" comes from CIMMYT's
East African Programme, and is used to describe
a workshop where peers with common concerns
come together to exchange information and
results, and to determine common strategies
for solving problems. A "network" of shared
results develops from continued support for the
same (or nearly the same) group to meet on a
regular basis. The Farming Systems Support
Project, FSSP, recognizes that both intra- and
inter-country peer group interaction will greatly
enhance the development of Farming Systems
Research and Extension, FSR/E, as a viable
agricultural development approach for West
Africa. The FSSP is committed to the support
of existing FSR/E networks in the West African
Region, such as the West African Farming Sys-
tems Network, WAFSRN, and stands prepared
to assist formal networks in developing activities
as necessary. However, FSSP also recognizes
that networking does and must take place outside
of formalized networks and that such activities
can often contribute to the growth of formal
network structures by creating a "felt need"
among researchers and practitioners for peer
exchange of problems and results. The Togo
Networkshop on "Animal Traction in a Farming
Systems Perspective" is an example of such a
peer exchange.
The idea for organizing a regional networkshop
on animal traction and FSR/E arose out of a con-
cern expressed by participants in previous FSR/E
training activities that too little attention in
FSR/E was placed on the animal systems within
West African farming systems. In developing a
networking activity to address the issue, FSSP
organizers felt that animal systems in general
was too broad of a theme for a week long net-
workshop, and decided instead to focus on a
specific intervention technology and use the
FSR/E perspective to explore problems and
results found to date in its application in West
Africa. Animal traction was selected as the net-
workshop theme for two reasons. First, USAID/
Togo offered to host the networkshop and since
animal traction is a focal issue in Togo's agricul-
tural development plans, the topic seemed
especially appropriate for this networkshop site.
A second and stronger argument for the topic
lies in the fact that focusing on animal traction
technology provides a very useful entry into the
exploration of the crop-livestock intersection in
the farming systems of the region, and generally
into the utility of the FSR/E approach in the
research and extension process. .


Draft omw in poor physical condition, Brokou, Togo. Photo: P. H. Starkey


Animal Traction
in a
Farming Systems
Perspective


A report of the FSSP West African Networkshop,
Togo, March 3-8, 1985.

by P. H. Starkey*

Introduction
This report is intended as a concise summary of the
networkshop, written from the point of view of the
Sierra Leone Work Oxen Project. The full proceedings
will be published in English and French, within a few
months, and these will be appropriately circulated.
Background
The networkshop was organized by the Farming
Systems Support Project (FSSP) which is based at the
University of Florida and which is funded by USAID.
The Networkshop was held at Lama Kara, in the north
of Togo, from 3-8 March 1985, and USAID and the
Togo Animal Traction Project were the hosting organi-
zations. At short notice, invitations had been sent to
African countries, 3 countries in eastern and southern
Africa and to I LCA and IDRC. In the event five coun-
tries were represented by African nationals, (The
Gambia, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo),
and in addition various expatriates brought animal trac-
tion experience from several other countries including
Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mali and Niger. The Direc-
tor of the Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Division of

*Dr. Paul H. Starkey is Directeur du Projet de Traction Animale, Sierra
Leone Work Oxen Project, Private Mail Bag 766, Freetown, Sierra
Leone.







































Use of draft oxen for breaking old ridges with a three-tine cultivator, Brokou, Togo, March 1985. Photo: P. H. Starkey


IDRC participated, but ILCA was not represented.
Simultaneous translation was provided for the plenary
sessions. A team of 'resource persons' was responsible
for coordinating workshop activities and reporting the
proceedings.
Objectives
The Workshop objective included:
O Establishing information exchange among animal
traction projects in West Africa
O Developing an inventory of animal traction projects
and activities in the sub-region
O Identifying animal traction research problems, and
potential solutions
O Developing research agenda for the specific regional
problems
D Developing follow-up programmes, which might in-
volve exchange visits, technical assistance and training
activities.
Networkshop Programme
On the first working day, keynote presentations were
made relating to FSSP (S. Poats), on-farm research
methodology (H. Zanstra), animal traction in Africa
(P. Starkey) and conceptual typology of animal traction
programmes (J. Lichte). Background information and
possible observational frameworks were presented for


the subsequent field visits. The second day involved
group field visits to four distinct areas and many differ-
ent farmers, projects and associations, and discussion
of the group findings and conclusions. The third day
involved synthesis of the field trip experiences, com-
bined with further information from the projects of
the participating countries. Slide presentations were
given, illustrating the work of the Sierra Leone Work
Oxen Project, I LCA and animal traction activities
elsewhere in Africa. A report was presented on the
CIMMYT networkshop on feed resources and animal
traction, held in Swaziland in 1983. The fourth day
involved intensive small group discussions, followed
by group presentations on the subjects of management
of draught animal technology, forage and feeding, pre-
conditions for successful animal traction, methodology
for animal traction research and the monitoring and
evaluation of animal traction activities. The final day
involved further small group discussions, followed by
plenary presentations and discussions relating to possi-
ble solutions to the problems raised. The networkshop
closed following synthesis of the week's experience
and the discussion of follow-up activities. Following
the workshop, the resource group had a day of dis-
cussions with representatives of the Togolese draught
animal programme. (continued on next page)







Evaluation
The networkshop succeeded in bringing together
fifteen African nationals and twenty technical coop-
eration personnel involved in animal traction and
farming systems research. The formal and informal
information exchange and contact development be-
tween the individuals and organizations was consid-
ered of great value by all concerned. The small group
discussions of both the field visits and the specific
problem areas led to very useful synthesis of experi-
ence, clarification of the major constraints, and the
identification of potential solutions. The diversity of
project experiences in the different countries and
ecosystems prevented the development of generalized
or simplistic solutions However, convergence of opinion
on the need for multi-disciplinary, farming systems
approach to animal traction research and extension
was noticeable. The recommendations and guidelines
prepared by the groups on management, feeding sys-
tems, research methodology, preconditions for success-
ful adoption and the monitoring and evaluation of
draught animal programmes were considered valuable,
and should benefit all the participating projects. The
objectives set for the networkshop were comprehensive,
and by their open-ended nature could never be perfect-
ly accomplished. However, significant progress was made
in all the objectives, and the various follow-up activities
will continue to ensure that the information exchange,
inventory preparation, problem identification, research
programme development and methodological improve-
ments continue in the coming year. There was unani-
mous assertion of the value of the networkshop, with
the main potential for improvement being in the num-
ber of countries officially represented.
Follow-Up Activities
The various follow-up activities planned are all sub-
ject to the financial provision of FSSP, or other donor
agencies, and permission from the various national and
project authorities involved. It was agreed that a second
animal traction networkshop would be held in 1986.
The specific topics to be covered, and other technical
details would be decided by a committee, comprising
nominated nationals of The Gambia, Ivory Coast, Mali,
Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo. A USAID-supported
project in The Gambia would act as the secretariat, and
one of the resource persons would act as Coordinator.
The Committee would probably meet in The Gambia
in November, and would use the opportunity for multi-
disciplinary information exchange visits to animal trac-
tion programmes in The Gambia and Senegal. Subject
to appropriate arrangements and invitations, the next
networkshop would probably be held in Sierra Leone
in May 1986. Proposals were put forward for exchange
visits between the Togolese and Sierra Leone national
draught animal programmes. A further proposal involved


representatives of the networkshop (one anglophone,
one francophone) participating in an Asia network tour,
and reporting back to the next networkshop.
Conclusions Relating to the Sierra Leone
Work Oxen Project
Three people from the Sierra Leone Work Oxen Pro-
ject participated in the networkshop-Mr. Bai H. Lanu
(Coordinator), Mr. Jacques Delobre (AFVP-Animal
Health and Husbandry) and Mr. Paul H. Starkey (ODA-
Technical Adviser). All three felt they benefited from
further knowledge, understanding and insight as a result
of the networkshop. Equally important was the good
reception given to their presentation of Sierra Leone
experience, which resulted in the nearly unanimous
feeling, by other networkshop participants, that the
next networkshop be held in Sierra Leone. This will
enable other countries to gain from what is seen as the
valuable research and extension experience of the Sierra
Leone Work Oxen Project. It will also allow many Sierra
Leoneans (of MANR, NUC, ACRE, IADPs, WOP, etc.)
to benefit from the multi-disciplinary expertise of visit-
ing participants and invited resource persons
The Work Oxen Project Coordinator, Mr. Bai Kanu,
was nominated a member of the networking committee,
and as such he will probably have the opportunity to
visit The Gambia and Senegal in November, to under-
take further in-depth discussions with other animal
traction colleagues in West Africa. This should benefit
the project through improved direct liaison and further
information exchange. The workshop suggestion that
Mr. Paul Starkey should assist with the coordination
of some follow-up networkshop activities, should help
to maintain close links between'Mr. Starkey and the
Sierra Leone Work Oxen Project in the coming year.
The first exchange visit proposed as a networkshop
follow-up will also benefit the Work Oxen Project. It
has been suggested that the Director of the Togolese
animal traction programme, and one colleague, visit
Sierra Leone in May, at the time of the ploughing com-
petition. Work Oxen Project staff should then be able
to benefit from discussions with the visitors. It is then
proposed that the Head of Rolako Station (Mr. Abu
Bakar Bangura) returns with these visitors and spend
two weeks with the Togolese project, studying their
extension methodology and visiting the Togolese
Ox-plough workshop.
If the proposed visit to Asia takes place in August,
it is likely that Mr. Bai Kanu will be one of the partici-
pants, which will further broaden the experience of
the project, and stimulate further liaison.
Thus Sierra Leone Work Oxen Project both contri-
buted to, and gained from the animal traction network-
shop, and stands to benefit considerably from various
proposed follow-up activities to encourage further
liaison and information exchange..


The FSSP newsletter is published quarterly by the Farming Systems Support Project (FSSP), which is funded by AID
SContract No. DAN-4099-A-0-2083-00 and administered by the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS),
University of Florida, Tainesvlle, Fla. 32611. IFAS is an Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer.
The FSSP Newsletter encourages the contribution of stories, pictures and ideas, which should he sent to FSSP Editor,
3028 McCarty Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.




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