• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Main
 Appendix














Title: Research for agricultural development in the savannah regions of West and Central Africa
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00081539/00001
 Material Information
Title: Research for agricultural development in the savannah regions of West and Central Africa
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Morris, W. H. M.
Publisher: Purdue University, Dept. of Agricultural Economics,
Publication Date: 1980
Copyright Date: 1980
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00081539
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: oclc - 190921605

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
    Appendix
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
Full Text





/S1 56b


Research for Agricultural Development in the Savannah Regions
of West and Central Africa

by

W.H.M. Morris


Department of Agricultural Economics
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana 47907

American Participants in International Communication
USICA
November 1980












This report is partly based upon research performed under USAID Contracts
AFR 1257 and 1258.





Draft
November 1980


Research for Agricultural Development in the Savannah Regions
of West and Central Africa
W.H.M. Morris
Purdue University



What is the problem?

The symptoms are a stagnation of agricultural production particularly
if you look at the statistics. The most useful statistic is perhaps the
FAO index of food and of agricultural production for a country and per
head. One of the results is a stagnation or a regression of the real income
per head in the rural areas.

A study at the farm level generally indicates that farmers aim to pro-
duce enough food for their families. If they fail one year they plant a
larger area next year in food grain. This goes on until they have enough
food grain; the farmer usually fills his storage again from the harvest of
the first good year. The expanded rate of production may continue for a
second good harvest in which case the supply is usually excessive and the
bottom falls out of the market. Farmers then swing back to planting more
of the traditional cash crops cotton and peanuts.

For example in Upper Volta after a bad year for food grains cotton
production seems to decline.

The farmers know quite well that in the long run food grains are not
good cash crops because of the instability in market price.

There is not much that can be done about this with a subsistence
crop. The only place where price stabilisation seems to be working is
with the bean/sorghum storage in Rwanda. These storage are especially
effective in the deficit areas in which they are built providing a mar-
ket at a fixed price for any surplus and a supply at a slightly higher
price (provided by bringing beans into the area from surplus areas).

In the Sahelian countries attempts to stabilize supply by government
purchases are unmanagable and lead to large financial losses. The changes
in market surplus are so great that governments cannot purchase, store and
sell the quantities required to stabilize prices (see Niger in 1976 and
Senegal in 1978).

For this reason.Arthur Lewis's statement is very true: "the right way
to attack stagnation of food production is to increase demand for food.
Efforts to increase supply faster than demand will come to naught."
(Reflections on Nigeria's Economic Growth, Paris, 1967).

The surplus resources on the farms will be invested where the farmer
expects to get the greatest return to the limiting resource, usually labor.
The vent for surplus tends to be in one of the two traditional cash crops
peanuts and cotton (and perhaps sesame). Developers have often been fooled
by this for example the railroad in Nigeria was built to increase the
export of cotton to Britain but the farmers decided that it was more pro-
fitable to sell peanuts and so peanuts it was that were sent on the railroad.










Table 1

Upper Volta, Production of Major Crops in Thousands of Metric Tons
from FAO Production Yearbooks

Cereals Cotton Peanuts
Millet Sorghum
1961 221 + 352 = 573 1 110
1962 198 + 306 = 504 4 113
1963 210 + 441 = 651 6 50
1964 263 + 508 = 771 10 70
1965 331 + 718 = 1049 5 73
1966 300 + 750 = 1050 10 76
1967 300 + 604 = 904 10 80
1968 368 + 530 = 898 16 85
1969 382 + 547 = 929 18 71
1970 378 + 563 = 941 20 68
1971 397 + 576 = 973 45 66
1972 278 + 515 = 793 35 60
1973 600 + 481 = 1081 28 63
1974 370 + 705 = 1075 27 65
1975 383 + 738 = 1121 31 90
1976 370 + 717 = 1087 51 87
1977 350 + 610 = 960 55 75
1978 403 + 620 = 1023 38 70
1979 400 + 600 = 1000 75





At Bakel the GOS hoped that the farmers would sell rice but the farmers
produce maize for sale. In a similar way in the Casamance the farmers tend
to eat more rice, if they can produce it; they eat less sorghum and grow more
peanuts which they sell. Using the 4S LP Model I believe it was hypothesised
that farmers would need 50 f/kg to sell millet when peanuts were 36 f/kg.
There is, of course, some sale of millet and women may grow it to provide a
source of cash outside the peanut buying season.

With the increase in the urban population, several of the West African
states have passed beyond the level of urbanisation that can be supported










by the surplus from a mainly subsistence agriculture.


Table 2

Percent of Population with Rural Residence

Benin 46.7% rural in 1978 Nigeria ? 55.1%
Gambia 78.8% Senegal 74.9 in 1980
Ghana 51.3 in 1980 Togo 69.0%
Ivory Coast 80.5% Cameroons 80.4 in 1980

Under these conditions either the food imports will increase or, if
the domestic prices are suitable, commercial food grain production will
develop.

The interior countries Mali, Upper Volta, Niger and Chad have
succeeded quite well in supplying the urban population with local food grains,
that is generally excluding wheat.

The coastal countries, which are more urbanised have done less well.
However, when the cereal import is considered as a percent of the carbo-
hydrate supply rather than just as a percent of the cereal supply, most of
the coastal countries have quite modest imports of food grains.

There are four exceptions: Senegal and Gambia which exploit their
comparative advantage in growing and exporting peanuts and peanut products
and Mauritania (agricultural production declining at 2.1%/year for the last
15 years). In the case of Senegal and Gambia the agricultural sectors are
not performing badly Senegal it is true is showing a somewhat alarming
decline in production/head (1.6%/year over the last 15 years). The same
trend is seen in Nigeria.

To summarize, the main problem in the West African agricultural sec-
tors seems to be a stagnation of food grain production, which is often
accompanied in the coastal countries with a stagnation of production of food
roots. However, there is some evidence that rural populations are producing
the food grains that they need for their own consumption and that, as ur-
banisation increases, the rural population fails to supply the urban market.
However, it is not clear that even if the farmers could increase cereal
production they would do so there may not be the demand for an increase
in supply of traditional food grains.

What increases in agricultural production have resulted in the last 20
years? Have these been associated with research?

Looking at peanut yields in the 1948-52 and 1952-56 periods, the
earliest for which the FAO provides data, peanut production has increased
almost by a factor of 2 but most of the increase took place in the early
1960's and much of the increase was due. to increase in the area of peanuts






4


grown. Research has provided new varieties of peanuts (IRHO in Senegal
for example developed the variety 28-206 used for many years in most of
the peanut growing areas in Sahelian Africa). In Senegal animal traction
is almost universally used for peanut planting.

During the last 18 years, with the rural population increasing per-
haps 50% the FAO statistics report a stagnation in the quantity of peanuts
produced (a little under 2 million tons, in shell). During this period,
apart from new varieties we have seen all sorts of inputs (machinery,
chemicals and fertilizers) becoming increasingly available.

Of course, cotton is the major success story of Savanna agriculture.
From 1948-52 to 1961-65 production of seed cotton for the region increased
at about 13,800t/year. Since that time the rate has been about 25,000t/year.
This is the proof that, given the correct circumstances (see for example
Guy Hunter Food Research Institute Studies 12, 1973, 233-251):

the new practice must be feasible for the small farmer.

it must pay him better than his present practice.

its product must he marketable.

.In many parts of the cotton zone, the higher level of income is
apparent in the form of improved housing, clothing and consumer durables.
Under these circumstances, and with competent research and development
organizations, cotton production has expanded and lint cotton production
will have expanded faster than grain cotton because of improved quality.

Cotton is the proof that technical improvements starting from research
can be extended to a wide range of farmers. Many other crops have been
introduced, with suitable research, on a plantation scale (bananas, oil
palms, rubber etc.).

Why has agricultural research, which has been capable of such innova-
tion in cotton, in oil palms (IRHO 1947 experiments with INEAC and a
Malaysian Company) breeding and cultural practices, crossed Panicum maximum,
crossed arabica and robusta coffee (although not without problems), been
able to do so little in food crops in West Africa?

To quote Bruce F. Johnston (in Agricultural Change in Tropical Africa
by Anthony, K.R.M., Johnston, B.F., Jones, W.O. and Uchendu, V.C.):

"innovations in domestic food crop production have been much more limited
and the important examples can be summarized briefly. Broadly speaking the
new high-yielding varieties of maize, wheat, and rice have had very limited
effect in tropical Africa. Maize and rice production have benefited the
most. There has been widespread success in obtaining substantial yield in-
creases for maize at experiment stations but relatively few instances of
widespread adoption by farmers." Some benefits are now to be seen in Kenya,
Malawi and Zambia. In rice the plant breeding programs in the Congo and in
Sierre Leone have had considerable effect on yields. Improved wheats have
been introduced in Ethiopia and in the Kenya Highlands.


* ., I.







5


The report, edited by M.H. Arnold on twenty-one years of work of
the Namulonge station in Uganda (Agricultural Research for Development),
shows some of the reasons why it takes so long for a research team to pro-
duce results. The problems of fertilizer and pest control trials, plant
breeding and so on are many.

The problems that face a research station in West Africa are many (see
for example Francis Sulemanu Idachaba's Agricultural Research Policy in
Nigeria, IFPRI).

Do research stations in developed countries do any better?

It is interesting to note the parallels between the development of,
for example, US agricultural research and that in developing countries.
At the end of the last century and the beginning of this one, the US
agriculturalists felt the need to develop a commercial agriculture as the
rate of urbanisation proceeded. This lead to the birth of the Economic
Research Service in the US Department of Agriculture; first the Office of
Farm Management was created, later it became a bureau and so on. The most
common activity was to make surveys of farming activities. In this way an
overall view of the economics of the farming activity was obtained. E.H.
Gilbert, D.W. Norman and F.E..Winch (Farming Systems Research: A Critical
Appraisal, M.S.U. Rural Development paper No. 6) also point out the
similarities between the early farm management research, lead by researchers
in the physical sciences who saw the need for the data, and the farming
systems research in developing countries of today. The early farm manage-
ment research lead to the individual states of the US developing farm account
systems, which have provided a major basis for farm management extension
for the last 50-60 years. This permits data gathered from farmers to serve
as a basis for advising the same farmers and others, as well as providing
data on which to improve farm policy decision making.

The designers and evaluators of agricultural projects in developing
countries in West Africa have been frustrated for many years by the lack of
information available on the farming systems. In a way it was impertinent
to believe that we could design projects for the development of farming
systems on which we had so little knowledge. In East Africa British workers
like Collinson, Upton and Pudsey had been doing farm management research
since the 1960's. In Zaire, INEAC had been studying the farming system
in settlement projects (paysannats) starting at about the same time. In
Senegal the Unitees Experimentales, based more on the European "pilot farm"
concept, was operational in the early and mid-1970's. All of these collected
data on the economy of the farm and usually also on the economy of the
family. Meanwhile the concept of the family economics (Becker, G.S., "A
theory of the allocation of time," Econ. J., 75 (1965) 493-517 and Lancaster,
K., "A new approach to consumer theory," Journal of Political Econ. 74(2)
(1966) 132-157.) was developing among some economists. One should also
mention the earlier work of Chyanoff on peasant economics. There were of
course, many others contributing to this flow of research.

It is clear that it is quite possible to gather data on the inputs and
outputs of African farms and farm families. Using microcomputers, we







6


have demonstrated the feasibility of timely analysis of the data and presen-
tation of reports. The form which a continuous type of survey or record
keeping should take is still rather vague in our minds. However, the con-
cept of a system of farm management research and its feasibility have been
demonstrated.

The results of most of the studies indicate that income is dependent
upon the area harvested per worker rather than on the yield per hectare;
that is intensification (or raising yields per hectare) does not seem to
pay the average farmers in the sample studies and extensification does
pay or intensification leads to subsistence and extensification to pro-
fits (as expressed by the West African farmer). Yet, it is clear that in
many areas where land is scarce, intensification will be a necessity for
some farmers to produce the food required by the urban population.

A more careful examination shows that in most countries in this region
there are some farmers who can profitably intensify and there are others
who cannot. In the same way there are some countries in which cotton yields
average near the 500kg/ha level and others with double this.

Furthermore, there is a tendency to consider a single technical package
or a very small number of packages for all farmers. This certainly does
not work in Europe or the US. For example, in Indiana for extension re-
commendations and for variety trials and so on, the state is divided into
about 6 climatic regions and recommendations are made for at least 3 soil
types (light, medium and heavy). Then rotational recommendations are based
upon slope and soil type. Crop production recommendations are based upon
the managerial level of the farmer what yield level can he expect?

In fact, if we look at Indiana farmers by the volume of product sold,
and we can assume that most farmers consume a negligable part of their pro-
duction, we see many kinds of relationships with yield per hectare, crop
produced, gross margins and so on; bigger farmers have a higher percentage
of their land in maize and smaller farmers find it more profitable to grow
less maize and more soybeans and wheat, crops which have a lower input
cost per hectare. In our case it is clear that the farmers with the lowest
level of managerial ability do not receive full payment for the resources
which they use. The smallest of the farmers, by volume of sales, in my
analysis have a negative gross margin, indicating that they do not recover
the cost of labor, or building and machinery investment. The average farmer
has a certain size range and a certain level of technology within which he
can recover all of his costs, and the most efficient farmers make a profit
at most levels of production.

This means that we have to be careful to provide an appropriate tech-
nical package for each level of farmer and probably for the different cli-
matic zones, soil types and slopes. To do this requires a meaningful classi-
fication of the farms. This seems to be a more difficult task in this re-
gion than in a state like Indiana; this is partly because in West Africa a
wide range of land is used for arable farming, some of which in Indiana
would be used as pasture land and not cultivated. It is also partly be-
cause physical changes like drainage and irrigation are used in Indiana to







7


overcome inherent differences in land types, and also because within one
family farm we have a single decision making organization and a much smaller
range of technology employed.

What has research done for our farmers? Over the years our farmers
have learned much from research and our researchers have learned much from
farmers. However we still have a long way to go. Soil erosion is a major
problem; the technology to control it is known but not always implemented.
We face problems of stagnation, too, waiting for solutions to constraints
in maize yields and soybean yields and so on. However, we have provided
several new generations of crop varieties including the introduction of
hybrids adapted to the climatic zones and resistant to major pests.
Occasionally we get a break down, such as with the southern corn leaf
blight (brulures des feuilles, Helminthosporium maydis). Today much of
the development of new maize and sorghum varieties is in the hands of the
private sector. The University Experiment Stations continue to produce
some of the parent material and to run trials of new varieties.

Research has also provided a basis for change in crop production
technology, for example the changes appropriate to the increase in cost of
energy. No-til (no tillage) systems of maize production were started by
the USDA at Iowa State University in the late 1940's and early 1950's.
They are now in widespread use. Herbicide and insecticide research, systems
of integrated pest management and many other innovations have come from
"research." Farm management has been developed by research. There are
many other major contributions that have come from the research institutions.
These are, of course, not of much use unless they are disseminated.

In the US today there are many routes of dissemination for research
results. These include research field days and other direct contacts
between research workers and farmers. Research workers also use radio,
television and the farming press. In the Land Grant System, the
research workers are directly involved in teaching resident students
at short course, associate degree, (2 year courses), BS.degree level and above.

The extension service disseminates the results of extension through
its network to a slightly different clientele. Extension workers also
make use of radio and the farming press. Indeed, the "smaller" farmers
do not often come to extension meetings but usually read the local farming
press (for example, the Indiana Farmer).

A third major channel is by the research and extension workers pro-
viding information to the private sector, i.e. agribusiness, for example
seed companies, fertilizer and agricultural chemical suppliers, farm
machinery dealers and so on.

The future in the area of information accessibility and dissemination
is very bright. Computer terminals cost as little as $100 for a so called
dumb terminal (one that can only serve as an input and output terminal
and cannot compute). Antennas that can receive transmissions from communi-
cations satellites cost little more. Within the decade of the 1980's
(going as far'as 1992) the French PTT expects to install*a dumb terminal
for every telephone subscriber, by that time about 50 million units! The
terminal is to be paid for by eliminating the publishing of a telephone


I










directory and provision of the directory information by the terminal. How-
ever, these terminals can be connected to data banks, farm input suppliers,
banks and so on. In Indiana we have a FACTS program, providing information
for farmer's decision making to a terminal in each country, but it is
clear that the channel of the future is from the extension service directly
into the farmer's house. If we admit that we have top farmers in West
Africa it is not beyond the realm of possibility to provide them with
such equipment and to set up programs with research and extension to in-
form them. Farm planning, pest and disease identification and integrated
pest management, marketing and many other types of information could be
made readily available by these means. Having so little in the way of a
telephone communication system permits more flexibility in the choice of
a line of development. The "telephone line" should not be conceived as
just a line for voice communication but as a channel for information, edu-
cation and entertainment. The cost of a user terminal with antenna and
solar powered batteries is not outside the reach of the top farmer of to-
day. Perhaps television on the farm will serve as the most powerful magnet
to hold the young people in the rural areas!

What of the future?

Research is going to have to become more accountable, both in the
US and in Africa. Systems of research management are difficult to intro-
duce and are viewed with suspicion by research workers. Budgeting the
cost to obtain a desired result from research is also a necessity al-
though even more difficult. The Ministry of Scientific Research in the
Ivory Coast has set up a system for budgeting and management of research.

In a management system priorities have to be identified, which requires
identification of constraints. The system also requires the communication
of research results to the potential users. In the Ivorian system a series
of committees or commissions involving research workers and development
organizations is involved in the establishment of priorities and budgets.
If the research worker has confidence in his ability, it is very stimulating
for him to work with the "consumers" of his research. A major difficulty
that I see is that of estimating the cost to accomplish a certain research
project; so much depends upon the skill and conceptual ability of the re-
search workers. While one team might solve the problem quite quickly a
second team might never reach the objective; and a third might reach it
but only with difficulty and after a considerable time.

There is still a lot of latitude for US agricultural research workers
to do what they want, although they can often get more research funds,
although not necessarily more salary, by doing what someone else wants on
a research contract.

In terms of objectives for agricultural research governments and re-
search workers need to have compatible programs. As has been mentioned
earlier "efforts to increase the supply of (food grains) faster than the
demand will come to naught" (Lewis, ibid) This is not to say that in-
creasing the efficiency of production of food grains will not help even
if the demand is not increased; it will result in greater productivity of -
the farmers and in the employment of the resources saved (usually labor
in this region) in other productive activities, such as the production of
export crops. It will also tend to increase farm income.









Efforts to select a better variety, using introduced material, with-
out changing the production system are unlikely to succeed. This is not
to say that it cannot be done: Serere 6A Millet, bred in Uganda, has been
very widely adopted in Botswana and there are new sorghums being adopted
in East Africa. Efforts to increase yields by using shorter season
varieties of sorghum and millet have mostly been unsuccessful because they
make the crop susceptible to other problems (eg bird damage). In my
opinion the major opportunity in sorghum and millet breeding in West Africa
today is associated with integrated pest management. This involves means
to resist the major pests and diseases anthracnose, grey leaf stripe,
sooty stripe, ergot and downy mildew, (l'anthracnose, les teaches grises,
lecharbon, l'ergot et le mildiou) of millet. Ridomil is already being
tested to control downy mildew and resistant lines are available. In
sorghum there are similar problems and also grain and head molds (les
moissisures) and the sorghum midge (Contarina). One should also mention
the problem of bird pests, which probably needs much more attention from
the research worker. Pest management may be achieved by resistance, seed
or other chemical treatment, cultural practices or by combinations of
these. The researchers of INTSORMIL (the USAID title XII cooperative re-
search program on sorghum and millet), the SAFGRAD/OAU programs should
help in this work. ICRISAT/UNDP and others are also involved. Crossing
of resistant material into local lines carried out in country obviously
provides a line of research with a relatively high probability of success.

There are three comments I would like to make on this research approach
and on the integrated pest management problem. First, the most neglected
source of information on the problem is the farmer. The Institute of
Development Studies, University of Sussex, produced a special issue of
their Bulletin (Vol 10(2) 1979) entitled "Rural Development: Whose Knowledge
Counts"; most of these papers have been reproduced in a book "Indigenous
Knowledge Systems and Development" (by D.W. Brokensha, D.M. Warren, and
0. Werner, published by the University Press of America, 1980). Paul Richards
describes a study on indigenous knowledge of the variegated grasshopper
(Zonocerus) and the value of this knowledge to the researcher.

Second, integrated pest management systems, like other technical inno-
vations, will only be adopted if they are profitable in the hands of the
farmers and if they fit the existing farming systems or can be part of a
new system.

Third, the benefit obtainable from increasing yields through pest
management is one of the best kind of benefits obtainable for development
since, with little or no input (leaving aside chemical spray control) pro-
duction is increased. They are efficiency (efficacite) increasing measures.

A second line of research that will eventually be fruitful is improving
the nitrogen fixation in the soil. There are already algae which improve
nitrogen fixation in soils. Chlorella is being used on millions of hectares
in south east Asia and I believe it is being used in Mauritania and re-
searched in Senegal! With the capabilities of modifying the performance
of bacteria, sooner or later the nitrogen fixation in rainfed soils will
be improved. This may require associations of cereals with legumes to
obtain the benefits, but this is not by any means a new idea to the
African farmer but rather something that has been resisted by some research









workers!

There are also, of course, new crops that could be exploited. A
recent example is the soybean, U.S. type, but the genus is very diverse
and some of the other Asian types might be more interesting for food use.
Pigeon peas (cajunus cajun) are another potential candidate. Obviously,
at an early state the farm families need to be consulted on their pre-
ferences.

I have been struck by how slowly the exploitation of local phosphate
sources has developed. In a region of serious phosphate deficiency (for
soils and livestock), with large natural deposits of phosphates (some
of which, it is true, are not suitable for livestock) it seems strange that
the two have not "got together" many years ago. This leads to the whole
question of the profitability of fertilizer use and long term social
consequences in the national economy of not using fertilizer.

The results of the 21 year Namulonge experience (Arnold, ibid) are
very important and valuable. Because fertilizer did not seem profitable
on a year-to-year basis, and the soil on which the farm was located was
relatively fertils, fertilizer was not used. The results for the first 7
years were not bad but after that yields dropped markedly; only after a
fertility program* was introduced, together with changes in crop varieties
and cultural practices, did yields again attain and then surpass their
original levels.

In general, West African fertilizer appears to be only marginally if
at all profitable on sorghum and millet. However, in Mali and in Nigeria
we can see certain farmers using relatively large amounts of fertilizers
on cereals. This needs to be reviewed. We have to .be careful to recog-
nize that some farmers have the ability to farm at a much higher level of
soil productivity than others (see the Indiana data) almost anywhere in
the world, developed or developing.

The current "fashion" in agricultural research is Farming Systems
Research. This is characterized by an interdisciplinary approach studying
the whole farm and the off-farm economic activities of the farm family
both as a production and a consumption unit. However, a subsystem may
also be studied under certain circumstances. FSR if correctly executed,
leads to the participation of the farmer in the research process.

As usually designed the so-called "downstream" (from the bottom up)
/ farming systems research projects consist of the four stages, as originally
.proposed by David Norman at Bamako, November 1976, and since repeated
4 / (Gilbert, Norman and Winch, ibid 1980). The stages are:

1. the descriptive or diagnostic state in which the "system" is in-
vestigated in the context of the total environment to identify
the constraints and the flexibility in the system (labor and


*62Kg N, 26KgP205, 75KgK20, 37.6KgS and 94KgCa a year, using calcium
ammonium nitrate, single superphosphate and muriate of potash. Subse-
quently the application of potash was halved for general use.










other unused resources). The goals and motivations of the farmers
and their family members might also be studied and further con-
straints or motivation in improving the system identified.

2. the design stage in which a range of strategies is identified
that may be relevant in dealing with the constraints identified
above.

3. the testing stage in which a few promising alternatives from
the design stage are evaluated under farm conditions (a) under
joint researcher and farmer control and (b) only under farmer
control.

4. the extension stage in which the strategies in the testing stage
are demonstrated to extension and the successful strategies are
promoted.

The success of this form of FSR (Farming Systems Research) depends
upon the ability to identify the constraints and to design solutions to
them. The identification of the real constraints in a production system
as complex as Sahelian agriculture may be very difficult, since as we
have said elsewhere there is a series of different ecological niches ex-
ploited by the different members of a family and with the families having
different degrees of access to the different niches (depending on caste,
lineage, etc). In fact, the most effective way of exploring the system,
its subsystems, the classification of farmers and so on, may be using a
complex model (e.g. the Sahel Farm Model, Niang, A., Ph.D. thesis, Purdue
University, 1980). This is not in the scope of most FSR projects.

- A second problem, perhaps even more serious than the first is that
experience, in both developed and developing countries, has shown that
research does not usually have the solutions to the constraints on hand
and, as has been pointed out earlier, it is difficult to predict when the
solution will be available. It would also help if the FSR could estimate
the benefit from different solutions as an indication to research admin-
istrators of the size of the potential benefits and so, by implication, the
appropriate investment that might be made. This can be done using a suit-
able mathematical agricultural sector model.

If the results of research do not lead to effective solutions in the
short run, the FSR becomes "bogged down" in stage 2! There is some men-
tion in the FSR literature and also in Anthony's Agricultural Change in
Tropical Africa, that solutions to the constraints may actually be found
in use on certain farms. Experience in the US. and elsewhere and our ob-
servations in West Africa lead us to propose that this is the place to
look in the short and medium term (say up to 5 years time) for appropriate
solutions but that we must take care to understand the range of circum-
stances under which any given solution is valid or who can appropriately
use it. Here again the model can help indicating the range of validity
of solutions.

I am concerned that the community of development experts (or techni-
cians) noticing the marked failure to continue agricultural development









in West Africa, first by new varieties then by new cultural practices (or
the combination as the green revolution) will see FSR as the means of
salvation. We will have various types of FSR projects being implemented
all over the continent. In five years time we will be looking for some-
thing new because it too will have failed.

However, we should not throw the baby out with the bath water. The
methodology of FSR has many strengths; it provides us with access to the
farmer and his indigenous knowledge (see "Rural Development: Whose Knowledge
Counts," IDS ibid). I am certain that if we seek it we will find many in-
teresting and valuable innovations on the farms if we select an appropriate
sample for study. The innovative farmers will themselves be able to demon-
strate the new ideas that they have tested. They will also be prepared-
if supplied with the inputs, to run tests on their own in the search for
new technology. However, we must find out how to establish what practices
are appropriate for what type or class of farmer.

This in no way says that the biological research workers are not needed.
It does indicate (see Annex figure) that the agricultural sector can in-
crease its productivity by more farmers exploiting the technology that exists.
We must rely on the biological scientist to be sure that agriculture gets
its share of scientific inputs, improved varieties which are better adapted
to the milieu, new bacterial strains, algae or whatever to fix nitrogen,
and all the things that will enable the top farmers to "plow new ground"
and increase their efficiency. This, of course, implies that the donor
community accept the place of the "top farmers" and encourages working with
them as one of the best ways to help the poorer farmers. Adressing the
problems of the poorest of the poor has been unsuccessful almost wherever
it has been attempted.

I regret that I have said so little about marketing, which, as you
might guess, is not my speciality. There are clearly infrastructure
and other problems associated with increasing the demand. This we have
stated as a primordial precursor to increasing the supply! In any case,
we should not underestimate the strengths and the efficiency of the pri-
vate sector working with it rather than in competition with it, to facili-
tate marketing.

What can the US do to this end?

It is a fundamental truth that the Africans are going to have to
solve their own agricultural problems with respect to production, marketing
and policy. Our most effective way to help them is to train them in problem
solving, one of the strengths of the US land grant system. In order to
do this we need means to train ourselves in depth with their agriculture
and livestock sectors, so that we can better train them. We need to ex-
pose our young agricultural scientists who will be at the frontiers of
knowledge in the 21st century so that they can take up this challenge with
you.

We have a few, all too few, examples that show us that real progress
is possible we must examine these successes, perhaps comparing them with
other experiences so that we can increase the probability of success.

Time is against us; we cannot stop the clock. Every day more children
are being born in this region; the quality of their life will depend on
how we do our job.











*"
.. . ..._..... .... ..






----...,:--i .... -.
...L. .
:: -



-.:l,'l. ..-; 1. ,^ ; : ;,.'.'; ;." -.... . .. . .. -
Volume 2, Number 2 May 1, 1980


COMMENTARY: Africa-Depressing Trends and A Difficult Task
The most difficult food problems r f the next decade are likely to occur in tt e countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. Demn nd
generated by high population growth rates (among the highest in the world) and lapid urbanization will be difficult to mee in
the face of declining growth rates in area cultivated. Food needs promise to be much more difficult to solve by increasing yields
per acre in this area of largely rainfed agriculture than in the irrigated farmlands (f Asia, where so much success in expanding
food supplies has been evident in recent years.
In addition, African nations inherited from the colonial powers poorer road infrastructures, smaller proportions of t eir
population with advanced education, and less-developed institutional systems than were the case for most Asian countries.
These conditions help explain national agricultural policies that discourage the incentivee of small farmers. In comparison to
the aid provided to Asian countries in the 1950s and early 1960s, the donor community now prefers not to supply funds for
physical infrastructure or higher education. At the same time it encourages rural development programs that require la:ge
numbers of trained personnel, complex institutions, and rapidly rising recurrent expenditures from the national budge.s.
This lack of trained personnel and public institutions also means that data bas es are poor for most Sub-Saharan countries.
However, projections from the data available bear out the grim conclusions. Exten: ion of past trends indicates that there will be
a 20-million-ton gap between consumption and production by 1990. which would require importing five times the amount of
food imported in 1975. If imports do not make up the deficit and production rates cannot be accelerated sufficiently,
consumption will have to be limited v ith unfavorable effects on nutrition of the poor.
For a variety of reasons, large food importss are likely to be impracticable for most African countries to manage. For many
countries a few primary products dominate exports. Allocating more resources to export crops is difficult when population
gowth alone dictates that these same resources be used for domestic food crops. And rising prices of oil and fertilizer impo.s,
znemselves essential to an improved food production record, will limit allocations for food imports. Concurrently, a generally
tight world food situation makes it unlikely that food aid will be as readily available to Africa as it was to Asia in the 1950s a id
1960s.
What should be done in the face of such difficult prospects?
First, the groundwork must be laid for a better production performance. As much as one might perfer quick results, the
problems are so severe that objectives should focus on the longer run, the late 1980s and beyond. Priorities should include
expanded education at all levels, increased infrastructure investment, and radically improved national policies toward
agriculture. The first two require vast financial resources, and the third, substantial numbers of highly trained people.
Agricultural research institutions to create technologies suited to the widely varying conditions of rainfed Africa are a par-
ticularly pressing need, considering the rudimentary state of present facilities. It is tempting to believe that the needed
technologies are available and waiting to be applied. That unfortunately is no more the case in Africa now than in Asia in the
late 1950s when similar claims were commonly made.
Second, policies and institutions need to be developed for dealing with an increasingly urgent urban food problem in a way
that meets the conflicting needs of encouraging growth in agricultural production and access to food of very low-income
people. That formidable task requires sophisticated policies for food pricing and distribution.
Third, the donor community needs to use its financial, educational, and institutional resources in a consistent effort to
solve the underlying problems. Because of past fluctuations in aid and inefficient allocation among countries and projects by
donors, there is an apparent incapacity to absorb more resources. Until educational institutions in African countries can be
substantially expanded, there will remain a need for large-scale donor assistance in training and education, which is currently
not being adequately filled. Further, the donor community has done little to initiate a reliable international system of stocks or
finances to cushion food production fluctuations.
Beyond these broad issues there is a need to study in considerable detail the intermediate objectives and measures for
dealing with the growing food problems of Africa. As part of this effort. IFPRI plans a series of consultations to diagnose
problems of African food policy. It plans a workshop in Africa on these issues and from that will develop collaborative research
projects to pursue analysis of key policy issues.
John W. Mellor






Appendix Figure 1
Soil Utilisation in Upper and Middle Casamance

After SOMIVAC


I,.


2
All rainfed crops:
peanuts, maize,
millet, sorghum,
rainfed rice (soy-
bean, sugar cane)


3
Soil needs pro-
tection: natural
forest later im-
proved by intro-
duced varieties.


4
Best soils of plateau:
high water table: fruit
trees, all rainfed crops
and irrigation (well/
pumping) New crops:
tomatoes, sugar cane,
pine trees for protec-
tion, (tobacco, tea,
sunflower).


Fruit Production


7
Kola
5 6
Soil not Tree crops, forages
tillable anti-erosive strips
bamboos, protecting fields. Year
shrubs. (slope 1-51).


Elaeio
Coconut
(sugar palm)
citrus Rice
round: vegetables
bananas veget
Pineapples in dr


9
at water table:

ables (or rice)
y season.


re: Each soil type nieds 30-50 trees/ha to protect Lhe microclim.it (reduces evaporation up to 50%)
_____ ____ ------ --t--- -
./ Under Afterreat
'../ forest cropping, r brcu
be twe,


67% 15%
I18s Beige soils Beige soils,
i;e soils hardened
Lth hydro- 46% 87
yrphic spots 672*--- 159


rbers give
ouiands of I .... :.


'.: Water











12o / Basfond
't- s.o
S l '
2 6,. .
d o ,
ff o. -.-. .:' :,=. ,/ ,. ", .







"-,. 'a 2 e "si


1
eventuall use
for rice:
rainfed rice
too far from:
village.






Appendix Table 1
Index of Agricultural Production
1969-71 = 100


Per Capita


Cameroons
Benin
Upper Volta
Ivory Coast
Senegal
Chad
Mali
Niger
Ghana
Togo
Mauritania


1961-65
87.4
89.8
95.0
84.0
120.0
116.6
98.6
105.2
99.8
88.2
99.0


Appendix Table 2


Production


Seed Cotton
109000t
143000t
222200t
490400t
599600t
718900t


Chad
Gambia-
Ghana
Ivory Coast


Peanuts in
with
Nigeria
1695000t
2009000t
3672000t
3481000t
2273000t
2414000t


Mali
Niger
Nigeria


Shell
without
Nigeria
1000000t
1149000t
1818000t
1791000t
1878000t
1946200t


Senegal
Togo
Upper Volta


Appendix Table 3
Cotton Yields 1976-1978


Mali
Senegal
Ivory Coast
Cameroon
Ghana
Benin


1216
1192
1121
850
800
785


kg/ha
kg/ha
kg/ha
kg/ha
kg/ha
kg/ha


Upper Volta
Niger
Chad
Togo
Nigeria
C.A.E.


1966-70
99.8
95.8
98.8
93.2
106.4
106.4
95.0
106.4
96.8
97.8
98.6


1971-75
106.0
97.6
94.0
97.2
97.4
91.2
84.2
77.2
97.6
86.0
76.2


1975-79
106.8
97.0
97.0
96.2
94.8
92.2
92.0
87.5
80.8
77.2
72.0


1948-52
1952-56
1961-65
1966-70
1971-75
1976-78


Benin
Cameroons
C.A.E.


676
525
521
485
292
272


kg/ha
kg/ha
kg/ha
kg/ha
kg/ha
kg/ha







Appendix Table 4
Peanut Yields 1976-1979


Chad
C.A.E.
Mali
Ghana
Ivory Coast
Senegal


2120 kg/ha
1158 kg/ha
981 kg/ha
969 kg/ha
854 kg/ha
825 kg/ha


Benin
Cameroon
Togo
Nigeria
Niger
Upper Volta


Appendix Table 5
Cereal Imports 1976-78


Domestic
Production
000t


Imported
000t


Imports as Percent of
Domestic Cereal Production
Corrected for
Actual food roots


Chad
Mali
Niger
Upper Volta

CAE

Togo
Nigeria
Ivory Coast
Ghana

Senegal
Mauritania
Gambia


620
1243
1449
1141


277
8727
809
659

741
91
60


35
1276
224
211

427
167
176


2.5
3.1
3.8
3.8

8.1

12.8
14.6
28.0
32.0

57.7
183.6
294.9


Appendix Table 6
Weed development and labour requirement
under different weeding regimes

Weeds removed Labour Weeds present at day 120
Weed-free requirement
period Dry matter Numbers (man-hours Dry matter Numbers
Year (days) (g per m2) per m' per ha) (g per m2) per m2
1971 0-100 69 1206 343 2 44
0-70 62 1263 308 10 110
0-30 15 638 74 343 87
30-70 128 1105 294 22 232
30-100 97 1019 368 6 112
50-100 336 920 444 7 106
1972 0-90 28 1835 305 12 217
0-60 22 1090 211 165 290
0-30 15 975 142 386 237
30-60 86 920 234 290 272
30-90 81 1512 350 21 257
60-90 263 1580 345 462 462


822
800
761
674
472
460


kg/ha
kg/ha
kg/ha
kg/ha
kg/ha
kg/ha


9.2
14.4
10.6




Appendix Figure 2


The three phases of Namulonge farm. Yields of seed cotton in kg
per ha (solid line) and areas of cotton harvested (broken line from the main
farm bulks from 1951 to 1972.
2000 100




I -..
S1000 50





0 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 0
1951 1956 1961 1966 1971
Year of harvest

Appendix Figure 3

Namulonge farm income for the financial years ending on
31 December, from 1957 to 1971.
400

300 /Gross
S300 income
00
S200

100

0
0 Net
S, / income
a -100\ \-/--"

-200 I I I I I
1957 1959 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971
1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970
Financtal year

Appendix Figure 4
Nutrient re-cycling within a soil profile through a ley-arable
rotation or under shifting cultivation.


jiT~











Appendix Figure 5

The effects of pre-sowing cultivations on weeds

An experiment was laid dov n in May 1971 on an area of the farm that
was included in the revised 1:3 rotation. The ley was opened bh retavation.
and calcitic limestone was applied at the rate of 2(HMl kg per ha. A mixture of
4.48 kg a.i. dalapon per ha and 1.12 kg a.i. aminotriaale per ha was apphed
to control lumbugu. Details of the experiment were as follows.
Design Randomized complete blocks with live replications: plots
split for fertilizer application
Plot-size 14 m 10 m Ini;ai plotsl. 7 in 10 m isubplotsi.
Average depths Moildhoard ploighing. 0I iI n.
of cullivallon Chisel plo..ighmii. II '1 m
R lintu illltv l i ii I1 II l
Fer(&tllihte Ctaltciil .iiiltiniiiii iltil e l it AIN i.ia d sigl lsipL i pht.pliphate
(SSP) applied at rates of 21Z kg per ha to hbeal.i and so ghunm
in the seed bed. Cotton received niriate of potash in addition
at the same rate of application. 200 kg CAN per ha were
top-dressed to cotton and sorghum.
Weeding Plots were weeded when an estimated 25 per cent of the
ground was covered by weeds.
Main records Type and number of weeds removed at each weeding: time
required for weeding. crop .ields.
Results Results are summarized in Tables A9.1. A9.2. A9.3.



Table A9. I. Labour requirement in mnan-hours. per hu

Crop Treatment PD CD RD PR CR R Mean s.E.

Cotton No fertilizer 1401 182 158 112 120 154 148 -
Fertilizer 163 180 182 120 13. 141 151
Mean 151 181 170 126 126 148
S.E. 16.7
Beans No fertilizer 136 191 180 1 h9 17 171 167
Fertilizer 175 220 161 199 171 229 192
Mean 155 205 170 189 164 200
S.E.t 12.9
Sorghum No fertilizer 128 142 91 107 87 107 110 4.0
Fertilizer 108 186 156 135 143 114 144
Mean 118 164 123 121 115 120
S.E. 19.7



Key to main-plot treatments
PD Mouldboard ploughing (P) followed by disc harrowing (DI.
CD Chisel ploughing. using a Bomford 'Superflow' C). followed by disc
harrowing.
RD Rotavation (RI followed bh disc harrowing.
PR Mouldhoard ploughing followed by rotavation.
CR Chisel ploughing followed by roiavation.
R Rotavation only.




Table A9.2. Crop yields in kg per ha sorghumm yields not available)

Crop Treatment PD CD RI PR CR R Mean s t.

Cotton No fernliter I (, 8WR 11i7 11i42 1 1 I 17. II 2
Fertiliier 14M11 12)1 1 I0 n 1 II 1471 1 1 444
Mean 1485 1061 1142 10(6 1211 1544
s.E. 100.0
Beans No fertilizer 893 810 714 1089 875 827 868
Fertilizer 1184 1006 1143 1298 1220 1202 1175
Mean 1038 908 928 1193 1047 1014
S.E. 55.0





Table A9.3. Shoot production per rni of lunmhugut anrd nugtruss
under sorghum

Second
First cultivation cultivation
No ---
Weed fertilizer Fertilizer R C P D R

Lumbugu 48 52 62 46 42 44 57
Nutgrass 71 108 51 97 120 91 88
















Appendix Figure 6


Effect of clean weeding for different periods on the growth of cotton
in two seasons. 1971: 0-0. 0-100:0--. 0-30: A---A. 30-100: A---A. 50-75.
50-100. 1972: O--O 0-90: O-C. 0-30: A---A. 30-90: A---A. 60-90.

100 1971




../
oI

& -
2 0 50






0 1
30 60 90 120
Days from emergence



100 1972







S50


EI


0 I
30 60 90 120
Days from emergence













Appendix Figure 7

Block diagram to show the relationships among the components
of the comprehensive model of the cotton crop.














Appendix Figure 8
Block diagram to show the structure of the water
relations subsystem.


Leaf area index




Appendix Table /
Table 2.5. Total population, per capital value of exports and of gross domestic product, and the
share of agriculture in exports in selected tropical African countries, 1965. 1973. and 1974*

Gross domestic Total exports Agricultural
Total product of merchandise exports as
population per capital per capital percent of
(million) (U.S. dollars) (U.S. dollars) total

Country 1965 1974 1965 1973 1965 1973 1974 1965 1974

Angola 5.2 6.2* 90' 490* 39 126 ... 76 46C
Benin 2.4 3.0 60b 88 8 13d ... 71 91d
Burundi 3.2 3.7 45b 80b 4 8 8 ... 99
Cameroon 5.3 6.3 111 187 27 57 76 73 72
Central Africa 1.4 1.8 129 143 24 22 27 42 44
Chad 3.3 4.0 65* 64 11 13 14 92 97
Congo 1.1 1.3 120* 284 47 52 58 6 13
Ethiopia 22.7 27.2 47 72 5 9 10 99 89
Gabon .5 .5 369 863 228 735 1,954 2 1
Gambia .3 .5 85 125 41 41 79 97 94
Ghana 7.7 9.6 265 234 38 61 68 73 76
Guinea 3.5 4.3 75* 96 14 ...
Ivory Coast 3.8 4.8 210* 326 77 154 253 67 65
Kenya 9.5 12.9 86 149 23 38 48 57 55
Liberia 1.4 1.7 180* 298 127 223 235 24 20
Madagascar 6.0 7.8 80* 115 15 27 31 92 74
Malawi 3.9 4.9 40* 85 10 21 25 92 90
Mali 4.6 5.6 60* 63 7 11 11 96 65
Mauritania 1.0 1.3 114 68 55 986 ... 5 13'
Mozambique 7.0 9.0 65* 3806 15 26 32 77 74
Niger 3.5 4.5 82 85 10 15 12 92 37
Nigeria 48.7 61.2 68 118 13 49 156 63 6
Rhodesia 4.5 6.1 233 299 98 ... ... 46 ...
Rwanda 3.1 4.1 50* 76 4 8 9 57 71'
Senegal 3.5 4.3 163 220 43 48 91 89 44
Sierra Leone 2.4 2.7 136 146 35 46 49 15 21
Somalia 2.5 3.1 55* 84 14 18 20 84 94
Sudan 13.7 17.3 96 104 15 24 25 99 97
Tanzania 11.7 14.8 69 99 17 26 28 79 72
Togo 1.7 2.2 89 138 21 29 85 62 20
Uganda 8.6 11.1 83 108 26 29 30 80 92
Upper Volta 4.9 5.9 50b 61 4e 4d ... 81 92d
Zaire 17.6 24.2 65* 113 24 ... 60 12 13
Zambia 3.7 4.8 206 339 98 244 287 3 2

*Data for population from United Nations. Demographic Yearbook 1975 (New York, 1976b);
gross domestic product and gross national product from IBRD. World Tables 1976 (Washing-
ton, 1976); gross national product from FAO. Trade Yearbook 1970 and 1975 (Rome, 1971a
and 1976b) and from United Nations. Yearbook of International Trade and Statistics 1975,
Vol. 1 (New York. 1976a).
"Extrapolated from 1972.
5Gross national product.
'1973. Appendix Table 8
d1972.
1964. Table 2.3. Africa's exports of ten major commodities and share in world total*
Peanuts Palm
and peanut kernels
Year Coffee Cotton Cocoa oil Tobacco Palm Oil and oil Rubber Tea Sisal Total

Value of exports from African countries
(1,000 U.S. dollars)
1975 1,227,142 986,304 1,189,512 417,354 233,869 81,746 90,249 89,765 138,757 112,522 4,567,211
1969 651,320 633.300 570,272 271,522 87,568 26,381 78,385 82,710 79,680 40.657 2,521,795
1966 650,480 610,520 345,067 331,842 173,940 52,939 103.190 77,410 71,402 61,317 2.478,107
1960 357,560 643,100 394,796 236,883 117,660 78,340 125,386 107,920 41,0.17 78,271 2,180,933
Africa's share in world total by value
(percent)
1975 29.2 22.3 72.7 50.8 9.1 8.3 49.6 5.6 13.4 71.0
1969 26.3 29.4 73.3 73.9 6.7 23.0 76.2 5.0 14.0 55.4
1966 27.1 26.4 75.3 76.8 14.1 36.9 86.4 5.9 11.2 60.6
1960 18.8 26.0 72.1 76.0 12.1 63.3 87.8 5.9 6.3 63.1
Africa's share in world total by weight
(percent)
1975 31.2 15.7 70.5 57.8 11.2 11.2 49.5 5.3 16.4 75.4
1969 29.0 24.6 74.4 77.2 7.9 22.2 74.9 4.5 15.7 58.0
1966 30.2 20.6 78.2 77.0 17.5 37.7 84.9 5.6 13.1 60.3
1960 24.2 19.1 71.2 75.9 13.4 64.2 86.2 6.1 7.8 63.1
1950 15.2 22.5 66.1 58.6 13.2 69.2 86.8 2.4 3.9 51.5
1934-38
(average) 7.9 18.2 67.0 34.4 5.7 52.8 82.0 .7 1.6 42.1

*Data from FAO, Trade Yearbook 1975, 1970. 1967. 1966, 1953 (Rome). Countries in tropical Africa account for virtually all of the continent's exports of these
commodities with the exception of cotton, for which Egypt's share is substantial.






Chart 2.1. Agricultural exports of selected African countries, 1909-75* (thousand metric tons)

1000
5 (A) COCOA
500 500

............ . .. (B)
200 v- "" 200
Ghana /
100 Vr 100

50 50
/ Nigeria

20 20 -

10 -I Cameroon I 10 -
Ivory Coas I
5 I 5
SI

2F / 1


1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970


1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970


1000

500


200

100

50


20

10

5


2


1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970


*Data from Food Research Institute compilation, based principally on International Institute
of Agriculture (IIA), Yearbook oJ Agricultural Statistics, Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO), Yearbook ofAgricultural Statistics, Pt. II, Trade, and FAO, Trade Yearbook, supple-
mented by official statistics of foreign commerce of individual countries and by trade
publications.


1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970






Appendix Figure 9


1000 i\ I I I I I II I 1 1 I 1
000 I I I I I200 (F) PALM OIL
5 (E) PALM KERNELS, PALM KERNEL OIL


Nigeria
100
200 Nigeria 50

.100 20 Zdire

50 A I. .\ ,o10

i iSierra Leone U
20 -5 5
Zdire
10 2

5o
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
2


1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970







100 2- I I I I I I I I I I I.........- 200 (H) SISAL ,

50 (G) RUBBER 100
50 .... ,, 100 .

2 0 ...... ... 5 0

/Nigeria Tanzania/.-
10 20
Liberioi 20 .
5 10

Zaire 5 Kenya
2

I I I .9 I I MI i 2 Mozambique
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970


1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970






Appendix Table 9


CAMEROON
IMPORTS
IMPORTATIONS
IMPORTACION


CA ER3UN


1000 8


CAMERUN
EXPORTS
EXPORTATItIS
EXPORTAC1ON


1000 8


1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977

OTAL MERCHANOISE TRADE 303462 334737 437305 598256 611731 783058 229131 352510 476560 448927 511419 703500
AGRICULT PRODUCTS.TOTAL 34162 43379 62697 67674 62774 90622 149439 239879 346375 320150 363900 55441
FOOD AND ANIMALS -0 24124 31858 48347 51765 45506 69831 129912 205942 297519 277870 316643 470758
LIVE ANIMALS -00 1251 2546 3656 3961 3982 4250 530 530 660 689 723 711
MEAT AND MEAT PREP -31 821 1 14 1016 13 44 145 1 186 194 2693 2562 2300 1630 1738
CAIRY PRODUCIS*EGGS-02 3229 4024 5425 6563 5563 7385 2 12 18 i 117
CEREALS AND PREP -04 1o20q6 15593 26294 27851 23866 36475 309 284 156 277 642 586
FRUIT VEGETABLES -05 1a30 2513 2597 2594 2763 3435 4191 5143 6262 7437 '136 8042
SUGAR AND HONEY -34 2936 3238 6146 5787 3118 4752 4'3 1177 1212 1359 1334 I 900
CCFFEE*TECA*CCOA.SP-37 324 199 951 785 1542 7521 122072 194509 285173 264756 304184 452980
FEEINGSTUFFS -08 273 311 '370 347 4 72 743 884 1528 1411 935 965 I 5482
MISCELLANEOUS FOOD -09 1437 1470 1892 2533 2725 3410 i 77 81 105 11 202
BEVERAGESTOBACCO -1 7910 8720 9657 11469 12057 16189 2039 3565 155 4867 5997 7852
BEVERAGES -11 5110 5981 6563 7685 8858 10520 1283 2072 1820 3020 2556 2631
TOBACCO -12 2810 2739 3094 : 3784 3159 5669 756 1493 1335 1847 i 3441 5221
CRUDE MATERIALS -EX2 895 1129 1401 2199 2551 1745 17263 30039 :35486 33428 39341 42499
HIDES AND SKINS -21 175 2 8 915 25 1855 292 3289 2616 2693 3354
CILSEEDS -22 1 8 285 97 110 2296 6240 17516 9655 3087 3479
NATURAL RUBBER -231.1 5 9 4 11 11 8 5181 244 7413 10367 12732 13629
TEXTILE FIRES -EX26 13 87 254 1327 685 612 7609 11286 5039 '832 17596 18737
CRUDE ATERL ES -29 879 850Fi 856 756 940 990F 322 1377 2229 2958 3233 3300F
ANINAL VEGETABLE OIL -4 1233 1672 3292 2241 2660 2857 225 333 10215 3985 1919 4 332
44IMAL FATS -4 1 1107 1119 2131 1333 1945 2012
FIXI VEETA OILS -42 53 420 8 69 5* 9 757 225 333 1021 3985 1919 4332
PaCteS5tu uWLS -413 i: 133 21; I n I as8
ISM FISHERY PROOUCTS 1600 3120 I 3342 3597 3387 5575 2745 5420 4693 4454 3660 4420
CREST PRODUCTS 4L92 4*97 4891 4891 i 4891 4891 24533 55225 63928 44288 68778 68778F
KCICULTURAL REOUISITES 9 751 16145 19809 23978 27925 35751 228 159 641 228 1677 2047
CRUDE FERTILIZERS -271 76 166 362 111 498 123 5
&ANUF FERTILIERS -56 2628 3992 5267 13914 4587 4474 108 11 127 66 18
PESTICIDES 591 2500F! 3444 4552 i 4296 7456 8449 F50 112 305 i a 29
AGRIC MACHINES 721-722 3547 5543 9628 5657 15384 21305 70 36 209 162 1651 2013





Appendix Table 10

GHANA GHANA GNA N
IMPORTS 1000 8 EXPORTS 1000 $
IMPORTATIONS EXPORTATIONS
IMPORTACION EXPORTACION


1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 19T7

EOTAL MERCHANDISE TRADE 298948 I 447439 820830 787941 845000 842000* 391136 564358 649095 72818 80000 I12000OF
GRICULT PRODUCTS.TOTAL 48986 92761 126560 9339 108151 129449 256490 3991 497475 567938 533368 20744
FOO AND ANIMALS -0 37213 70362 93102 65596 75254 101581 255281 347729 I 496101 561625 529081 816494
LIVE ANIMALS -00 3788 464 8081 I 4396 1173 1143 4 5 8
NEAT ANO MEAT PREP -01 203 2339 6515 i 4096 4752 11635
0AIRY PRODUCTS+EGGS-02 5867 6765 9912 7150 660 7000
CEREALS AND PREP -04 11l0 33444 45693 25700 31286 64029 758 1002
FRUIT VEGETABLES -05 666 1257 2257 2896 3183 2683 1616 i 17T0 1760 2384 2270 2270
SUGAR AND HONEY -06 10801 17968 15247 18144 24394 11190 1
COFFEE+TEA+COCOA*SP-07 364 8 97 1299 351 576 681 252226 343037 i 492572 556646 524294 812137
FEEDINGSTUFFS -08 41 4 2042 1 2030 1419 1500F' 1600F 525 1208 1762 1578 2480 1980
MISCELLANEOUS FOOD -09 893 998 2068 1444 1530 1620 910 940Fi T 7 37 67F
8 VERAGES*TOBACCO -L 1786 4187 6171 I 5869 9469 6627F 12 4 260 606 507 500
aEVERAGES -11 663 1981 2925 2490 200F 2470F 6 31
TOBACCO -12 1123 2206 3246 3379 7069 i 45F 12 68 210 I 57 507 I 500
CRUOD MATERIALS -EX2 6015 13368 13903 13312 15338 13741 1091 ; 2071 1114 5348 3780 3790
HIDES AND SKINS -21 30 1 113 60 157 60 60 14 20 23
CILSEEDS -22 42 1' I 5 57 68 1 1862 280 20
NATURAL RUBBER -231.1
TEXTILE FIBRES -EX26 5685 : 12099 12984 I 114I 175 11976F
CRUDE MATERLS NES -29 258 1152 i 858 I 1706 1700FI 100F 490 1370 1020 3486 3100F 300F
ANIMAL VEGETABLE OIL -4 3972 5144 13384 8621 8090 F 7500 106 l 40 I 39
NINAL FATS -41 3348 1636 1915 5948 F 2530*0 1930*
FIXED VEGETAB OILS -42 605 3 295 11131 2259 4990 5003 106 : 0 359
PROCESSE' OILS -43 19 213 338 414 i 600F: 600F
F!S FISMERY PRODUCTS 17899 18663 I 29190 25668 25668F 25668F) 25 293 35F! 637 I 637F 637F
PREST PROOUCTS 4577: 9906 26067 23 05 20865 20865 51095 1 123938 90759: 96256 91869 77511
CRTCULTURIL REQUIS1TES i '> F 10749 i 1545 1387 16133 2370 4 21 631 6 '5n 680
CRUDE FERTILIZERS -271 30 43 9
ANUF FERTILIZERS -56 159 1874 I 451 616 2600 7000
PFSTICIDES 591 1476 2119 2854 3622 ; 3000FI 3300F i 14 11 631 650F! 680F
AGRIC MACHINES 721-722 4228 6713 12144 9627 10500F 1170F 13





Appendix Table 11


NIGERIA

IMPORTS
IMPnRTATIONS
IMPORTACION


NIGERIA


1000 8


NIGERIA

EXPORTS
EXPORTATICNS
EXPORTACIDN


1000 S


1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977


ICrTA MERCHANOISE TRADE 1507816 .1863134 2745000 6047400 8191490 11306000 2180166 3462458 9155800 8003900 10570920 11823000

CRICULT PRODUCTSTOTAL 195599 233372 322142 572063 767357 |1225413 302801 462318 544249 4456;2 531500 741409

FCOD AND ANIMALS -0 179619 218364 265939 444310 607035 989311 193339 243415 314542 351281 421492 624673

LIVE ANIMALS -00 36258 34720 28282 22771 28068 37000F 49 941 75 43 29 29
FAIT AND MFAT PREP -01 8 58 1260 9189 25966 66552 71 48
DAIRY PRnDUCTS*ECGS-D2 39062 35331 46497 92365 105270 154543
CERFALS AND PREP -04 54164 77973 119955 141860 241933 444772 850 54 507 I
FPUIT VEGETABLES -05 5334 I 7118 8683 14979 19230 17887 378 498 542 99 83
SUGAR AND HONEY -06 34536 48213 44179 122953 127839 200672 1 I 130
COCFFEE+TEFACOCOA+SP-07 3048 3530 4362 7618 9014 8152 176422 204532 295724 336770 389460 587411
FEFDINGSTUFFS -OR 1901 2275 1550 1750 2734 9333 16414 36499 18010 14362 31407 37227
PISCELLANEOUS FOOD -09 5268 9176 15171 30825 47041 50400 4 47 7 6 6F

BFVERAGES*TOBACCO -1 6651 7961 14383 78020 99370 139914 1 90 35

BEVERAGES -11 5578 7317 12414 74750 96185 137200F
TOBACCO -12 1073 644 1969 3270 3185 2714 1 90 35

CRUDE MATERIALS -EX2 7544 4621 36143 35236 17633 15440 83986 170430 176505 75841 104107 110208

HIDES AND SKINS -21 7 1 190 10275 19333 16737 11038 10865 11232F
CILSEEDS -22 59808 111656 94320 43524 55051 64070
NATURAL RUBBER -231.1 34 60 i 65 25 11173 29482 51367 17707 23016 250C1
TEXTILE FIBRES -EX26 5824 3004 32678 29461 11443 9440 1101 7211 106 77 113751 6106
CRUDE MATERLS NES -29 1679 1556 3400 5750 I 6000F, 6003F 1629 2748 13975 3495 3800F 3800F

ANIMAL VEGETABLE OIL 1785 2126 5677 14497 I 43319 80748 25475 84183 53167 18520 5901 6528
ANIMAL FATS -41 194 632 2874 9313 17431 19000*
FIXFO VEGETAB OILS -42 564 508 1283 3844 : 24973 58286 25387 I 8401 $3127 18516 5894 6519
PROCESSED OILS -43 1027 986 i 1520 1340 1 918 3462* 8 8 12 40 5 7 9F

P1H 6 FISHERY PRODUCTS 4019 I 10738 11615 62660 I 122846 75052F 96 I 2154 4211 4087 1946 i 1891F
IFCREST PRODUCTS 30831 49469 86738 122210 122210 i 122210 10751 22258 23956 8451 8451 8451
*GPICULTURAL REQUISITES 29425 28338 48134 155878 163639 138700F 15 41 18 75

CPUne FERTITIZERS -271 733 1763 4769 5823 I13078 1 F
I mNUF FERTILIZERS -96 5161 2618 9701 19930 32549 12200F
PrrTICIOES 591 9982 : 10248 16609 34322 20145 25000F 10 40 18 75
,-UIC MACHINES 771-777 11549! 13409 17055 95803 97867 100500F


Appendix Table 12

SENEGAL

1000


TTAL MERCHANDISE TRADE

GRICULT PROOUCTSTOTAL

FOOD AND ANIMALS -0

LIVE ANIMALS -00
"EAT ANO MEAT PREP -31
DAIRY PRODUCTSEGGS-02
CEREALS AND PREP -04
FRUIT VEGETABLES -05
SUGAR 1AN MONEY -96
COFFEE*TEA+COCOA.SP-07
FEEDINGSTUFFS -08
MISCELLANEOUS FOOD -19

8EVERAGES*TOBACCO -1

BEVERAGES -11
TOBACCO -12

CRUDE MATERIALS -EX2

HIDES ANO SKINS -21
CILSEEDS -22
I NATURAL PURBER -231.1
I TEXTILE FIBRES -EX26
CRUDE MATERLS NES -29

ANIMAL VEGETABLE OIL -4
A ANIMAL FATS -41
I IXED VEGETAB OILS -42
PRESSED OILS -43

lSMH FISHERY PRODUCTS
CAftIt. VuuUti

AGRICULTURAL REQUISITES

C0UIF FERTILIZERS -271
"ANUF FERTILIZERS -56
PESTICIDES 591
'IIIC MACHINES 721-722


!79248 359745 496604

86168 145259 181539

73619 126065 163498

4181 4449 2990
541 611 498
8408 8020 i 9256
281038 70467 94849
9384 12367 12208
17611 24250 I 38666
4604 4693 4323
73 134 144
779 1104 1564

5065 6376 6422

2821 3284 3285
2244 3092 3137

4848 8478 7535

4
24 2787 331
66 31 58
827 1234 1366
3931 4426 i 5776

2636 4340 i 4084
2016 1291 3351
482 2584 560
138 465 173

4019 6186 8538
5099 718; 5090

5448 4966 9688


120 1376 2661
964 974 2277
3664 2636 4750


581957

155880 I

129922

3855
579
11250
55210
15871
36579
3897
237
2454

9917

5027 I
4890

9573

5
25
78
1898
7567

6468
4550
1347
571

6560
10010

24527


5973
10832
7722


644940 625000

176980 195966

148903 168118

4956 5368
645 840
13620 15370
77959 96703
18313 16964
25688 19703
7191 12080
192 160
639 930

11996 11151

5199 45311
6797 6620

9378 8993

27
48 I
79 79F
1224 914
8000FI 8000f

6703 7704
3136 : 5500
3398 1748
469 456

6560FI 6164F
135t1 13t.1C

24055 21011


630 3233
12003F 11CO00F
6355F 6811F


216160 194998 390928 462802 4 85842 i 490000F


128258

34868

803
203
466
375
1799
566
41
30590
28

2647

251
2396

10545

1222
3953


91661

39271

575
185
368
2459
3128
1131
47
31347
31

3343

293
3050

10748

2626
2526


6
3460 4656
1910 934

80198 38299

80185 38295
I 13 4

17247 21T28


21726 26527

18287 21707
3239 4738

i 200 112


172566 215499 294371 i 307601

39957 48346 50543 72238

522 492 216 190
782 757 363 178
307 532 417 117
3005 2312 814 673
3212 4293 2457 2708
L446 734 217 262
30 72 81 10
30630 39128 45970 68100
23 26 8

3337 4170 246 382

275 238 203 I 192
3062 3932 43 190

23779 15831 67131 48674

1604 1398 1294 1374
6278 6184 50456 25300

9428 6192 12381 19000
3469 2057 3000F: 3000F

108493 147152 176451 186307

108491 147147 176445 186300
2 5 6 T

30906 55415 52609 1090F


114727 111682 72109 86370

103780 103795 65015 83000F
10874 7615 6864 310C

73 272 230 270


SENEGAL

IMPORTS
IMPORTATIONS
IMPORTACION


SENEGAL

EXPORTS
EXPORTATIONS
EXPORTACION


1000 *


1
i




!
1







Appendix Table 13
Indiana Farms by Size, 1974


SIZE


1-9 acres
10-49
50-69
70-99
100-139
140-179
180-219
220-259
260-499
500-999
1000-1999
2000 & over


.5-3.6 ha
3.7-20
20-27.5
27.6-39.9
40-55.6
55.7-71.9
72-87.6
87.7-103.6
103.7-199.9
200-399
400-799
800 & over


%
2.4
12.2
6.5
13.9
12.8
10.4
7.2
5.8
18.4
8.4
1.4
0.2
100.0


Appendix Table 14
Indiana Farms by Value of
Agricultural Products Sold, 1974


Gross Value Sold
$2500-4999
5000-9999
10000-19999
20000-39000
40000-99999
100000-199999
200000-499999
500000 & over


Number %
16.7
19.3
19.9
17.9
18.5
5.9
1.7
0.2


% land
3.5
5.4
8.2
12.13
23.0
12.7
5.7
1.6


% products
sold
1.6
3.8
7.8
14.0
31.6
21.6
12.9
6.7


Average
acres ha
71 28.5
97 39.0
141 56.6
224 90.0
376 151.0
614 246.6
909 365.1
1635 656.6





Appendix Table 15
Crop yields, bushels/acre, 1974


Gross Value Sold
0000. of $ Maize Soybeans Wheat
2.5-5 52 18.1 30.7
5-10 57 21.2 33.5
10-20 63 23.1 35.2
20-40 67 24.2 36.6
40-100 73 25.9 38.5
100-200 81 28.2 40.0
200-500 85 29.8 41.2
500 & over 90 30.5 40.5


Appendix Table 16
Percent of harvested land by crop

Gross Value Sold
0000. of $ Maize Soybeans Wheat
2.5-5 29 36 10
5-10 34 36 12
10-20 39 36 12
20-40 43 36 11
40-100 49 34 10
100-200 54 32 10
200-500 60 28 9
500 & over 63 16 7






Appendix Table 17
Off-farm income and gross margin

Off-farm % farms
Off-farm income reporting
Gross.Value Sold Gross margin income per farm off-farm
0000. of $ per farm per farm reporting income

2.5-5 -53 8590 11,740 73
5-10 2120 8030 10,860 74
10-20 5078 6910 10,200 68
20-40 10870 5240 8,660 61
40-100 24449 3680 6,820 54
100-200 50743 2730 5,710 48
200-500 83239 2910 7,310 40
500 & over 117480 2750 14,100 19







Appendix Table 18
Sales and expenses per harvested acre


Gross Value Sold
0000. of $
2.5-5
5-10
10-20
20-40
40-100
100-200
200-500
500 & over


Sales
per farm
000
3
7
14
29
62
134
278
1118


Sales per
harvested
acre $
132
151
169
186
217
270
374
838


Grain sales
per harvested
acre $
73
92
106
115
133
158
174
165


Production
expense/harvested Fertilizer
acre per acre $
134 33.60
107 30.70
109 29.51
115 30.47
132 33.34
168 36.77
262 40.56
750 43.93


Gross margin
per acre
(-2)
44
60
71
85
102
112
87


Harvested
acres
per farm
26
48
85
153
288
497
743
1335




t, "


SCotton production in Uganda (solid line) and Tanzania (dashed
line). Five-year averages. (The effect of the second world war is clearly
revealed in the marked drop in production during the period from 1941 to 1946.)





Appendix Figure 11

160 I


Maximum Yield

Corn Club












State Average


60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78

YEAR

Corn Yields over time comparing State Wide Averages for Pennsylvania with
Five Acre Corn Club Averages.
(Data courtesy Dr. J.H. McGahen, Associate Professor,Agronomy Extension).


<

S100
-o


0




60


60


Appendix Figure 10

500

400 -



300 -



200 -



100 N



0 I I- i i I I I
1922-26 1932-36 1941-46 1952-56 1962-66
1927-31 1937-41 1947-51 1957-61 1967-71







Appendix Figure 12


Elements Human Technical

I I
Chemical
Physical Biological
Factors Exogenous Endogenous Physical Biological
Community
Structures. I I ,
Norms. and Farming -- -Consumption- -
Beliefs Input Household .
............ "'Income
External Decision
institution Maker(s) .--J- Savings +-J
Institutions M aket (Farm)
Market
Side
Other


Inputs Land Capital Labor Management






Crops C
Livestock
Processes Off-farm i r

tili

Farming System

Broken lines represent results o farming system. L
Broken lines represent results of farming system. t I.


Schematic Representation of Some Determinants of the Farming System











Appendix Figure 13


ARMING SYSTEM
RESEARCH STAGES

1. Description or
diagnosis of present
farming system









2. Design of improved
systems


3. Testing of improved
.systems


4. Extension of improved
farm system


I.


EXTERNAL
INSTITUTIONS


A
CURRENT ARMING
SYSTEM
(Hypothesis formulation)

I I


A ,



Experiment Station Trials -------------- > BODY OF
A | KNOWLEDGE
I.. I .

oI
- - - - - - - - - -



I I
Ex------------------------------ >







Trials at Farm Level ---------------------
--------------------- -- -------------------------->





Farmers' Testing ---I-- ----. -


M a
MODIFIED FARMING SYSTEM ---------------------

I j


SCHEMATIC FRAMEWORK FOR FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AT THE FARM LEVEL
(Downstream Farming Systems Research)









Appendix Figure 14


Balance of
current account
before interest Interest on
Inflation Agricultural Sector Industry X Food Imports on external debt external debt External debt
Rate Growth % % of GDP of GDP as % of GDP $ million $ million service, 1978


Public debt as Population
Z GNP, 1978 Growth Rate


:!ali 6
Chad 10
.'ter Volta 13
Nifer 22
23
:27
Mauritania 30
-. 35
Sen,--:al 37


$/year Growth %
120 1.0 7.8
140 -1.0 7.4
160 1.3 9.6
220 -1.4 10.7
230 0.4 7.4
250 0.7 9.0
270 3.6 10.4
320 5.0 7.4
340 -0.4 8.0


1970-78 1960 1978 1960 1978 1960 '1978 1960 1978
2.0 55 37 10 18 20 19 -2 -72
-0.1 55 .52 12 13 19 2 -188
-3.6 62 38 14 20 21 9 -79
-0.2 69 43 9 27 24 1 -81
55 31 8 13 17 17 -1 -70
2.3 51 36 10 18 15 16 -11 -23
-2.3 59 26 24 37 5 -5 -65
1.7 55 26 16 20 16 19 4 -234
3.3 24 26 17 25 30 -14 -114


% GNP Z exports
1.1 7.1
3.7 13.0
0.9 3.8
0.8 2.9
1.5 6.4
0.7 2.5
0.6 17.0
2.9 15.2
5.4 14.9


'.-i.a 40 390 -0.5
-oron 42 460 2.9
\i a :ia 52 560 3.6
Ivory Coast 57 840 2.5


-1.2 41 38 19 18 19 14
3.3 32 16 20 12
-1.5 63 34 11 43 14 13
3.9 43 21 14 23 18 14


*SoOrce World Bank, World Development Report, 1980.


Country


Poverty
Rate


GNP/Capita


653
234
21.6
16.2
19.5
26.5
138.1
65.4
S29.8 '


2.5
2.2
1.6
2.8
2.8
2.2
2.7
2.7
2.6


-56 32
*-26 -112
-348 -3696
-26 -533




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