plenary sessions with presented papers

Session 5: On-farm research methods for fodder banks and live fencing

Chair: E. Alitsi (CARE-Kenya)
Rapporteur: J. Pégorié (ICRAF)

Papers presented

Borel, R. and Romero, F. Review of on-farm research approaches for silvo-pastoral systems used at CATIE.

Lungu, S. On-farm testing for survival, growth and palatability of fodder species in northern Zambia. 

Niang, A.I. On-farm agroforestry research on the central plateau of Burkina Faso.

Summary of presentations

The fifth plenary session discussed on-farm research methods used for developing and testing fodder banks and live fencing. Three papers were presented.

Borel and Romero described the on-farm research activities of CATIE's Silvopas-toral Project in the Atlantic humid lowlands of Costa Rica. Two superimposed experiments were conducted: one to determine biomass production and nutritive value of two live-fence species at different cutting intervals, and the other to determine the most effective methods for protecting newly established trees in grazed pastures. An evaluation of the overall research approach highlighted the difficulties of reconciling the objectives of different participants.

Lungu described an on-farm trial to test six fodder species for survival, growth and palatability in northern Zambia. Problems included differences between researchers and farmers in approaches to tree management, failure of farmers to understand the treatments, and poor plot protection.

Niang described agroforestry research undertaken to develop live fences in the Mossi land-use system of Burkina Faso. The objectives were to protect market gardens, to substitute for crop residues previously used for fencing, and to produce fuelwood. The project included diagnostic farm surveys, an on-farm selection trial with 19 species, and a spacing trial with 10 species. Important aspects of the research design were modified in response to problems and opportunities identified by participating farmers and according to the constraints of farm layout.

Issues raised

All three papers described technology-testing trials that involved evaluating the relative performance of selected components and management options. All the studies encountered practical layout problems related to the spatial organization of farm land. Established to demarcate boundaries, live fences are unlikely to be located on homogeneous soil types or slopes and are commonly of irregular shape. This creates difficulties in using existing plots for superimposed treatments and in laying out new plots.

These studies also demonstrated some of the difficulties in comparing tree species. Species may score high on some criteria or in some environments and low on others. Farmer preferences would seem critical in making selections. The studies reported were more successful in assessing the performance of the same species under different conditions, although results were limited because site and animal-feeding factors were not replicated.

The trials reported here illustrate the variability introduced when livestock are included in this type of research. Lungu reported differences in fodder palatability in formal feeding trials and under free-range conditions. Niang reported variations in herding practices that led to different requirements for live fencing. Borel and Romero reported the effects of different levels of livestock pressure on live-fencing trials.

Even though the objective of these trials was to test technologies under realistic on-farm conditions, the researchers and collaborating farmers differed significantly in their preferences for experimental designs. Farmers working with Lungu were uninterested in continuing treatments that were failing. Farmers working with Niang insisted on testing a larger number of trees of each species than the researchers considered necessary. Borel and Romero reported several differences between researchers and farmers in terms of assessment criteria and experimental layout.

Researchers clearly need to consider farmers' input into research design for practical reasons of trial management as well as to ensure adoptability. Where there are true conflicts of objectives, approaches other than on-farm trials may be needed.

Discussant's Comments: M. Avila (ICRAF)

These three papers illustrate three ways in which farmers have participated effectively in the research process:

• Design —identification of research problems, definition of objectives and treatments, layout of plots

• Implementation — farmer and site selection, transport of inputs, establishment, protection and maintenance of trial plots, harvest, measurements

• Evaluation — definition of assessment criteria, data collection and analysis, interpretation of results.

Borel and Romero suggested that their project would have been more effective if it had focused on farmers at the initial stages of problem definition. They concluded that scientists may need a major change in attitude to become effective field researchers.

All the authors recognized that there are problems in conducting research with farmers: farmers have limited resources and time; they may provide the 'worst' fields for experimentation; they require incentives for collaboration; and they must be compensated for losses or risks. Farmers may lose interest quickly. Their needs may be diverse, changing and difficult to define. Ongoing research programmes cannot change easily to meet new needs expressed by farmers due to such factors as institutional mandates, the composition of research teams, donor pressure, and time frames.

Participants in this session agreed on the importance of:

• Farmer participation in decision-making and management including the promotion of local leadership

• A process approach to problem identification, action and evaluation

• An integrated development strategy, including extension, training and supporting research, with scientists as contributors, facilitators and helpers rather than leaders

• A multidisciplinary approach focusing on project, rather than disciplinary, objectives

• Policy, infrastructure and service support for development and adoption of appropriate technologies.

It is interesting tc note that these are basic principles of the community-development and integrated rural-development strategies that were popular in the 1960s and 1970s. Well-documented case studies of the application of these strategies include Comilla in Bangladesh, Chilalo in Ethiopia and Caqueza in Colombia. These efforts were successful as local or regional projects, but they proved difficult to expand to the national level for several reasons:

• Costs were beyond the institutional and financial capacity of many developing countries

• The lack of a specific focus made it difficult to achieve quick progress in the short term

• Creating local awareness and initiative was sometimes perceived as a political threat.

The two technologies addressed in this session normally involve livestock. Animal-production studies are an appropriate area for on-farm research because farmers treat livestock as part of their integrated farming systems. However, livestock add a level of complexity and require careful analysis of potential impact and conflict with other components. Agroforestry research involving livestock needs to address four basic types of problem:

• Agronomic —multipurpose-tree adaptation, spatial and temporal arrangements, optimal management regimes, yield quantity and quality

• Feeding — choice of animal species and characteristics, fodder palatability and consumption, conversion or response efficiency, optimal balanced diets

• Management —traditional practices and taboos, schedule of activities to meet labour and cash needs, essential infrastructure and equipment

• Exogenous factors—price and market incentives, institutional support, supply of inputs.

An effective on-farm research strategy, based on careful definition of relevant hypotheses, will give rise to a wide range of specific research activities. This might include experiments on components with factorial analysis, experiments on systems defined by farmers, and detailed descriptive and diagnostic studies. Real technology development in animal production requires repeated testing on a range of farms, careful analysis of farmers' responses and extension needs, and effective regional development planning.

On-farm research involving animal-production systems tends to be complex and expensive. The main reason is that animals are not easy to control for experimental purposes. Thus the scientist must adopt a systematic, but dynamic, approach consistent with the way farmers manage their livestock.

The papers identified a number of general problem areas and issues that are crucial to on-farm research in agroforestry:

• Type of design —the complexity or simplicity of a field design depends upon the research objective. Borel and Romero used a superimposed design which they recommend as an efficient method to generate useful results and improve existing technologies.

• Type of analysis — the decision to rely on statistical analysis with certain levels of significance locks the scientist into a limited set of design options. The authors mention several problems including lack of uniformity among plots, limited land area for replication, and lack of management control within and across farms and over time. Borel and Romero suggest that other types of analysis might be used, such as economic, farmer and systematic assessments. Their example of a systematic assessment involves hypotheses formulated to determine differences in the systems under study over locations and successive time periods.

• Size and definition of the recommendation domain — Borel and Romero use a model to assess the impact of their technology in the study area. Such models could also be used to determine key factors or conditions to which the technology is sensitive. This information could help define and validate potential target groups for recommendations.

• Role of on-station research — all the authors contributing to this session recognized the importance of both on-station and on-farm research. Borel and Romero pursued an integrated research strategy with some trials established only on farms, some only on station and others in both environments. Lungu considered that on-station research should 'establish the technology', while Niang mentioned that on-station research should develop components or technologies so as to minimize risks and reduce the number of unknowns before moving to farms.

• Timing of on-farm trials —all three projects initiated on-farm trials early in the research process after some analysis of existing production systems and diagnosis of the farmers' constraints. Borel and Romero would have preferred more analysis and interaction with farmers before initiating trials. Niang justifies the 'interventionist' approach because it makes it possible to establish better rapport with farmers and to identify their concerns.