L3) 5 .& ..L‘~J«o. .1 ..A.vo.o .f I‘ I .' val A . . v . . v.5 .. c .1. . v nt.i~ 19.1. S... . #3.. '1..- ’ .‘h 1.11: mu- .L r.) 5. 1:312 55...!!! .é :5? ‘ .L ll... «1;. 5. rut-(:55 :11}? . ‘ i ‘5. ‘z ..W ‘ I 1 . . . A .. L 1 1 «It? 181.-.“? . ‘ . . ‘ , z...s..nw.flnm'z.§ Jfimirr: - , x n v . I . .h V , “Evy? flM‘L ugvufiflhtr; r ‘ ‘ I- '9' 'I' n .6. ct ..-e.. . s . ' I. l {I ans 10 7 O llllllllllllll “BRA“ Y Michigan State University —' This is to certify that the thesis entitled FACTORS AFFECTING ADOPTION OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGIES BY SMALL FARMERS IN SUBSAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE OF NEW VARIETIES OF COWPEAS AROUND THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION 0F CINZANA, MALI presented by Ousmane N. Coulibaly has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master ' 3 Agricultural Economics degree in Mr 57447? 0 M‘ Date //' /3‘f 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity [urination bViESI.) RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this checkout from ._;_. your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. {WAR} 5 9:2 9‘ i"\ 1.1.: ‘1 a, \ If; . 9“, - ' LI “EL (57 ‘3‘- fly 5177/2 g//»; 02 33.313 23 2335:; FACTORS AFFECTING ADOPTION or AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGIES av SMALL FARMERS IN SUBSAIIARAN AFRICA: THE CASE or New VARIETIES or COWPEAS AROUND THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION or CINzANA, MALI by . Ousmane Natolo Coulibaly A THESIS Stbmitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements [or the degree of Master of Science Department of Agricultural Economics 1937 ABSTRACT FACTORS AFFECTING ADOPTION OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGIES BY SMALL FARMERS IN SUBSAHARAN AFRICA: THE CASE OF NEW VARIETIES OF COWPEAS AROUND THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION OF CINZANA, MALI 8:! 04smane Nafolo Coulibaly ' Body of Abstract This study analyzes factors affecting farmers' rapid adoption of new variefies of cowpeas around the agricultural research station of Cinzana, their impact on the farming systems in the area. and how technology generation and diffusion in the area could be improved. Diffusion of the varieties occurred outside of the formal.research/pre-extensionlestension channel and was backed by a project that supplied inputs and animal traction equipment on credit. The results of the study Show that agricultural technology is quickly adopted by farmers if it: ' I I r é addresses a major consuaint fac:d by farmers Ie.g., early maturing varieties for erratic rainfall conditions); - is profitable and backed by appropriate institutions (adequate input supply, credit. remunerative prices, etc.). Input-tied credit has been very important in adoption because of the lack of input - markets and cash flow, constraints in the area. Access to output markets and remunerative prices will be key factors influencing future adoption. iii To the memories of Lonia Coulibaly Harouna Diarra ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank many individuals, without whose help this work could not have been completed. Dr. John Staatz, my major professor and thesis advisor; gave. me guidance, assistance and encouragement throughout my graduate program -- frdm the data collection stage to completion of this thesis. I owe him a debt of gratitude for his constant help. ' My thanks to Dr. Eric Crawford and Dr. Russell Freed of my thesis committee, who made many useful contributions to improve. this work. I also acknowledge the constructive suggestions of other faculty members and students: Dr. Robert Stevens, Dr. Jim Oehmke, Dr. John Holtzman, Dr. Pat McConnell, Dr. Ismail Ouedraogo and Lisa Allison. 'A debt of gratitude is owed to IDRC and especially to Dr. Marie Helene ICollion for the sponsorship of this study. Dr. John Scneuring (formerly lCRISAT-Mali) and Oumar Niangado (Station de Cinzana) helped initiate this study. My deep thanks go to ICRISAT-Mali and Drs. S.V.R. Shetty, John Scheuring, and Philip Serafini for financing my _U.S. studies. The comments and contributions of the Mali - M.S.U. Food Security Team (Josué Dione and Nango Dembele) and the personnel of the Station of Cinzana (Dr. Oumar Niangado, Adama Coulibaly, Gaston Sangare, Khalifa Yattara, Mido Maiga, Niaba Teme, Bourema Dembele, Moussa Konate, Oumar Samassekou) have been helpful. Suggestions also came from the Cowpea Project in Mali (Mamadou Touré, Kodio and Tanoulé Coulibaly). The contributions from the FDVS project personnel have been helpful and thanks go to Boukader Maiga, Sino Teme, Cheick Kamaté, Jean Marie Keita, Mama Tomota, Meme Sangare and Nazimkone. My deep gratitude to Dr. John McIntire (ILCA) for having. guided my first steps in the research process. I also thank my colleague Mme. Coulibaly Aissata iv Gologo for her contribution In the 1982-8“ data collection. My friends Mamadou Traore (H. Gabriel Touré). Klengolo Traore, Joseph Sedjo. Hojjati Mojdeh suggested improvements. . A very special thank you to Pamela Starr for diligently typing the draft and the numerous revisions of this thesis. I also thank Eleanor Noonan and Pat Neumann for contributing to the typing of the draft. Finally, my deepest gratitude to my wife. A'icha Diarra, who supported me by patiently enduring many hours of loneliness throughout my study period in the U.S.A. TABLE OF CONTENT S Page LISTOFTABLES.....................................................viil LISTOFFIGURES.................................................... 'x LISTOFACRONYMS................................................. xi I. iNTRODUCTION.................................................. l ProblemStatementandSetting ... kaLiveSOI the StUdy OI.00.0..........OOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO #GN 08mizatim 0f 1he StUdy ...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...0.00.00.00.00. Agricultural Research and Technological Change in &bamran Africa and Mali ......0000000000....0.0.0.000...0-0000... Agricultural Technology and Technological Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agricultural Research in Subsaharan Africa .. . . .... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . Natimal Agrimltural ResearCh sySLemssoooseeesoease 00...... International Agricultural Research Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘D W V N ' 0‘ U Mricu‘tma‘ResearChinMaliOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI. NatimalAgriCUlturalResearCh ...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00...... [2 Cooperative Program for Research .... 12 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON AGRECULTURALTECHml-myADOPTlONsse-aoeaooaeoaoaeoosaosssoaoa15 Adoption Process of Agricultural lnnovations................. .... 15 StagesintheAdoptionProcess.............................. l5 Typologiesof Adopters..................................... I7 Factors Affecting Adoption of an Agricultural Innovation . . . . . . . . . . I8 TheRelativeAdvantageof the Innovation I9 TheAgro—ClimaticConditions..........................“... 20 InstitutionaISupport....................................... 21 TheCharacteristicsof the Adopters .... 21 3. THERESEARCHMETHODOLOGY . 2t vi I982-8li FarmSurvey ......................................... 216 I986 DataCoIleCtion 27 Q. CHARACTERISTICS OF FARMING SYSTEMS IN THE STUDY AREA . . . . . 32 Resultsof the Farm Level Survey of 1982—84..................... 32 cuma‘eOOOOOOOOIOOOOO00.0.00...0.0.0.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 32 Soils.00.000.00.000...0.0.0.0...0.000000000000000.00...... 32 crwping PatternsO..........00......OOOOOIOOOOOOOIOOOIO... 33 MarketingO‘ AgriCUItura' Pdemts OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. “I “Minding Remarks OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00.00.00.00...0O “6 5. ADOPTION OF NEW VARIETIES OF COWPEAS BYFARMEBIN T‘EC’MANA AREA......OOOOOOO00.0.0000...00...... “9 mkgrwmoncowpeas.........OOOOOOOOO0.000000IOOOOOOOOOOO. “9 Researchon Cowpeas in West Africa............................ '49 Rate of Adoption of New Varieties of Cowpeas ”Farmersmcmzam 0.000000000000000.0000000000000000.00... ,2 Tummy OfAmpters ..........OOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00.00.00.00... 5“. mmlogy 0t Adwtion 0.0.0..........OOOCOOOO......OOOOOOOOOO 57 Factors Affection Adoption of New Varieties 0‘ “ms in Cinzana Area ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00. ,9 Characteristics of New Varieties of Cowpeas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Personal and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Farmers . . . . . . . 65 Institutions to Generate and Sustain Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 6. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF ADOPTION OF NEW VARIETIES OF COWPEAS Bypmmmc‘mm AREA.........OCOOOOOOOOOOOOO..0000... 82 Economic Analysis of Cropping Techniques fa mw varie‘ies Of cowpeaSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......0.00.... 82 1*n‘iIYin8 variable InputSOOCC.......................... .... 83 Economic Reasons for Adoption New Varieties of Cowpeas . . . . . . . A. . 88 Partial Budget for On—Farm 'MCt contra. T«Miqms CO.........OOOOOOOOO.......OOOOOOOO 97 vii Partial Budget for On-Station Cowpea phospmte Fertilizer.0.....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....0.0.0.0000 99 7. IMPACT OF NEW VARIETIES OF COWPEAS ON THE FARMING SYSTEMSINTIIECINZANAAREA.....................................IO¢i Impacton theFoodDeficit ....................................104' lmpactontheFarmIncomes...................................IOS ImpactonLivestock..........................................106 ImpactonFaIlowLands.......................................IO7 ImpactonFamin LaborMigration..............................I07 ImpactonIntrahouseholdTies..................................I08 8. CONCLUSIONS 109 Summaryof Findings ....109 AgroclimaticConditions ...................................IO9 CharacteristicsoftheTechnology...........................IO9 PersonalCharacteristicsofFarmers.........................IlO Institutional Setting ....103 implications for Action .llO I AgriculturaIResearch.....................................lll Linkage Between Agricultural Research wme FDVS PraieCI 0.00000000000000000000000.......OOOOOOIIZ Marketing 0.00.0000.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.........OOOOOOIIG Some General Recommendations I“ AgriCUItmal ResearCh in MaliOOOO...‘ 00.0.0000...0.00.00.00.0118 Conclusions from this Case Study about the Process of Technology Development and Adoption in &mmran Africa 0.00....OOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0000...0.00.00.00119 Conclusions from this Case Study Concerning the validity 0f the Tmaetical Literature 0...... O... O... O. 0.000.0'000119 BBLImMpm O00......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0...0.0.0.00.0000000000000121 viii LIST OF TABLES Page 3.l Characteristics of the Villages in the 1982-814 Sampie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.2 Number of Sample Farm Households With Given Levels of - Animal Traction Equipment Ownership (Farm Survey, 11982-84) . . . . . . . . 26 3.3 Levels of Animal Traction Ownership in 1982-84 Farm Survey . .. . . . . . . 26 3.0 Village Selection for the I986 Farm Survey 28 3.5 Household Sampling from Village ‘ wa‘Old PWUIatim-1986 Farm survey .........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 29 3.6 Levels of Animal Traction Ownership . I Used in Sample Selection for I986 Farm Survey ............... ...... 29 MI Distribution of Acreages per Crop (halin Cinzana before the Introduction of New Varieties of Cowpeas ...... ............ .. .. 34 (8.2 Characteristics of Farm Production in the Cinzana Area by Level of Equipment - 1982-84 Baseline Survey .. . . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. 36 10.3 Size of Farm Households and Cropped Areas by "wahOId Size inCinzma, 1982-8“ OOOOOOOOO‘O0.0000000000IOOOOOOOOO 38 (M Frequency Distribution of Sample Household Sales (percentage) of Agricultural Products and Small Livestock, 1982-83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III 05.5 Frequency Distribution (percentage) of Sample Household Purchases of Agricultural Products and Small Livestock in Cinzana in 1982-84 . . . . . . . . . . . -43 10.6 - Frequency Distribution of Sample Household Barter Out of Cereals 1982-83 (in percent of total cereals bartered out) . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . Mi 4.7 Crop Prices in the Rural Market of Cinzana, 1982-83 (FCFA/kg) . . . . . . . b6 5.! Characteristics of Varieties of Cowpeas Cropped in Cinzana, I986 51 5.2 Areas Planted in New Varieties of Cowpeas in the Cinzana Area . . . . . . . 53 5.2a Areas Cropped in New Varieties of Cowpeas per Leve10f Emipmmt in Cimana’ ‘9860'0000O.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 53 5.3 Taxonomy of Adapters and Non-Adapters of New Varieties of Cowpeas . intMCinRMArea 0.0.0.00.0.0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO...O. 5“ 5.“ criteria for Village ACCESS IO FDVS Credit seasonsaaoeeoooeaeooooooo 55 5.5 Chronology of Adoption of New Varieties of Cowpeas meim ...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00000000000000000000 57 ix 5.6 Farmers Perceptions of New and Old Varieties of . cowwas Regarding YiC'dSssssssossssesssssssassasassssosssssasssa 60 5.7 Farmers Perceptions of the New Varieties of Cowpeas ResiStence to Pe5t50seasesassoaosaaaaaaaseesoeosseesoassessassess 62 5.8 Farmers Perceptions Regarding the Taste of New varietiCSOECOWWas .0.0...‘..OO..................OO............ 6“ 5.9 Experiences of Adopters with Technical Packages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 5.10 Farmers Perceptions of How to Repay the FDVS Loans for I986 . . . . . . . 67 5.11 Change in the Use of Informal Loans with the Advent of the FDVS Program and the New Varieties of Cowpeas .. .. .. .. .. 71 5.12 Farmers' Desires for Credit from FDVS Project for the 1987 Ctop Year ......OOOOOOOO0.00............................... 7“» 5.13 Prices of Cowpeas in Some Cities of Mali, 1985-86 (FCFA/kg) . . . . . . . . . 80 6.1 Labor Allocation for On-Station and On-Farm Production of New Varieties of Cowpeas (Person days per ha) .. 87 6.2 Average Farm Crop PrOdUCtion Budgets with and without New Varieties of Cowpeas (NVC) in Cinzana, I986 . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . . . . 91 6.3 Sensitivity Analyses: Impact of Changes in Cowpea Prices and Insecticide Prices on Incremental Returns to Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 6A Partial Budget for On-Farm Insect Control Techniques for New varieties 0‘ cowmas (COSLSIha) I......0.00...OO..O................ 98 6.5 Partial Budget for On-Station Response to Cowpea Variety KNI to Phosphate Fertilizer - Station of Cinzana, I986 . .. .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . .101 6.6 Sensitivity Analysis to Assess Changes in Cowpea and Fertilizer "ices on tm Returm to Fertilizer use... ...... .7....... .... .. .. ....102 7.1. Allocation of Sample Farm Gross Cash . ‘mw‘e from cowmas in I985.........O........7...................106 1.1 1.2 9.1. 6.1 6.2 LIST OF FIGURES 2595: Organization of Agricultural Research and Extension in Mali . . . . . . . . . . 11 Location of Agricultural Research Stationsin Mali. . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . l3 Cropping Calendar for Major Crops in Cinzana (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:0 Sensitivity Analysis: Output Price................... .............. 95 Sensitivity Analysis: Insecticide Price ............................. 96 xi CGIAR CIP CILSS CIMMYT DRA DRSPR FAO FED FDVS ICARDA ICRISAT IDRC IER IITA ILCA ILRAD [RAT IRCT IRHO IRR! LDC's SAFGRAD OACV PAR PEP USAID LIST OF ACRONYMS Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research International Potato Center Comité Interétat de Lutte Contre la Secheresse au Sahel Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo. Division de la Recherche Agronomique (IER) Division de la Recherche sur les Systemes de Production Rurale (IER) Food and Agriculture Organization Fonds Européen de Developpement Fonds de Developpement Villageois de Segou International Center for Arid and Desert Agriculture ' International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics International Development Research Centre (Canada) Institut d'Economie Rurale (Mali) International Institute for Tropical Agriculture International Livestock Centre for Africa International Laboratory for Research on Animal Diseases Institut de Recherche Agronomique Tropicale Institut de Recherche sur les Culture Cotonieres Institut de Recherche sur les Huiles et Oleagineux International Rice Research Institute Less Developed Countries Semi-Arid Food Grain Research and Development Operation Arachide et Cultures Vivrieres Operation Haute Vallee Point d'Appui et de Recherche Point d'Experimentation Permanent United States Agency for International Development xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Food deficits have been one of the most important concerns in Subsaharan Africa since the 1970's. Those food shortages are mainly explained by erratic weather fluctuations, poor soils and food crop technologies, and weak agricultural policies (strong extension versus research; bad linkages between research, extension, and farmers; deficient marketing and price policies; and a colonial heritage of a research program heavily focused on cash Crops rather than food . crops.) In addition to the problem of food supply, hunger and malnutrition are also caused by very low incomes. According to Eicher (1981:), hunger and malnutrition occur even in areas where per capita food production is not declining because the poor do not have income to obtain enough food. The solutions to Subsaharan Africa's food deficits will be to increase the supply of food and the purchasing - power for its population by increasing their real incomes. To increase food production and incomes in Subsaharan Africa, and especially in the Sahel, where agro-ecological environments ... very harsh (World Bank, 1935), adequate technologies have to be generated in a cost-effective way and be sustained by supporting institutions (credit, supply of inputs, markets for outputs, extension .services, etc.) compatible with the objectives and socio-economic environments of anal and urban populations. Among the technologies that have been tried are the introduction of hybrid varieties of food crops into the Sahelian farming systems for “transferring green revolution technology to Africa." Such direct transfer of . green revolution seeds as sorghum varieties from India to the Sahel has not performed well (Eicher and Baker, 1982). Steps have been taken to identify, test, and sCreen some promising local and imported varieties in order to adapt them to the Sahelian agroclimatic environment (poor rainfalls and soils, diseases, weeds, etc.) In Mali, research efforts on rainfed food crops have been focused on on-station tests of improved local varieties of millet, sorghum, maize and cowpeas. An illustration of such efforts is the creation and funding of the agricultural research station of Cinzana in 1979 by the government of Mali, the Ciba-Geigy Foundation (Switzerland), and ICRISAT Mali/USAID. The research station was established in Central Mali to carry out breeding, screening, and testing of local and imported varieties of millet, sorghum, and cowpeas and to assess yield responses to different agronomic practices. The “successful" on-station results are tested though multilocational researcher—managedtrials on farmers' fields by SAFGRAD (Semi-Arid Food Grain Research and Development) and diffused to farmers by extension agencies. Such 'top-down" generation and diffusion of technologies in general in Mali has had few impacts on farmers as far as adoption is concerned. Adoption of agricultural technologies generated from research stations has become a very important concern in Malian agricultural development, and this study will analyze the issue by presenting a case study of the adoption of new varieties of cowpeas by farmers in the Cinzana region of Mali. Problem Statement and Setting . Since 1983 farmers who reside around the agricultural research station of Cinzana, many of whom work part time for the station, have been aware of the early-maturing characteristics of some imprdved local varieties (new varieties) of cowpeas on tests at the researcher-managed plots on the station. Some of the workers took seeds from the research plots for use on their own fields and tested them. The results confirmed the precocity of the varieties, which is a good characteristic for a semi-arid zone such as Cinzana, where rainfalls are irregular and low (600-700 mm/year). A diffusion process started from the research station to the surrounding villages. This process occurred outside the formal channel of research/pre—extension/extension. Farmers first adopted two varieties of cowpeas: KNl (Kamboinze no. I from Burkina Faso) and TN 8863 (TARNA no. 8863 from Niger) and later Gorom-gorom and TVX 3236 from llTA in Nigeria. At the research station the improved varieties of cowpeas were tested for yields and environmental stress resistance) through a food legume program supported by IDRC (International Development Research Centre of Canada) and the Government of Mali. In 1985, an integrated rural development project to increase cereal production in the Segou area was set up in Cinzana to supply farmers with animal traction equipment, insecticides, and fertilizer on a credit basis, and services such as non-formal adult education, extension, monitoring and evaluation, and health services for both humans and draft animals. This credit program, which aimed to increase food production into the area, played a key role in increasing the rate of adoption of new varieties of cowpeas in villages with access to credit. Particularly important was the provision of insecticides for cowpea treatment, as the new varieties are very sensitive to insects and disease. Thanks to the early maturing characteristic and the supply of a critical input (insecticides) that was not available on the market,.the areas cropped in the new varieties in 50 villages around Cinzana increasedfrom 80 ha in I984 to 1200 ha in 1986. This quick adoption and diffusion of new varieties of cowpeas provide a case study of the key factors affecting adoption of an innovation, which may be useful in shaping technology generation from the research station. This study will examine the reasons for and the constraints to adoption of these new cowpea varieties in order to get a better understanding of farmer behavior toward new technologies. 6 According to Chapman (I983), a good measure of the degree of success for an innovation or cropping system research program carried out in an area is the extent to which the results are adopted by farmers. The new technologies , emerging from a research station may not be appropriate to farm agroclimatic or socioeconomic conditions or to farmers' objectives or need some institutional support to sustain their adoption. A careful study of farmers' environment, the technology itself and the required institutions to sustain the technology can help avoid mistakes leading to rejection by farmers of the innovation or some components of the proposed packages. wjectives of The Study The objectives of the study are: I. To develop a conceptual framework of factors affecting adoption of agricultural innovations by farmersin low-income countries such as Mali. 2. To understand how improved varieties of cowpeas in test plots on research. stations have been adopted and diffused to villages surrounding the research station of Cinzana. 3. To examine the role and importance of institutions such as the credit system, extension, and input and output markets in affecting farmers' decisions to adopt and continue to use improved varieties of cowpeas in the Cinzana area. _ _ _ 'gads’ ”WW0 5 ._ “A /V .' ......fl ll. To carry out‘an economic analysisdf adoption in order to understand the reasons farmers adopted in a given time only some parts of the proposed technological package rather than the total package. 5. To assess the impact of the new varieties of cowpeas on the farming system in the Cinzana area and on farmers' incomes and food security. . 6. To make general recommendations for the agricultural research in order to generate more appropriate technologies and for institutional support to meet the needs of farmers in adoption of future innovations. mution of the.Study The thesis can be broken down into 8 chapters. Chapter 1 describes the technology generation process that occurs through agricultural research in Subsaharan Africa and Mali. Chapter 2 is a literature review on the process of adopting technologies by farmers'and the factors affeCting adoption. In Chapter 3 we describe in detail how the data on which this thesis is based were collected in both 1982-84 and 1986. Chapter ll gives a summary of findings from the 1982-84 data collection, which is important in understanding the farming systems (constraints) before the advent of the new varieties of cowpeas. In Chapter 5 the process of adoption of new varieties of cowpeas is analyzed, with a focus on factors affecting adoption. Chapter 6 presents an economic analysis of the costs and benefits to farmers of adopting new varieties of cowpeas and illustrates the logic of farmers' not adopting the entire package. Chapter 7 describes the impact of new varieties of cowpeas on the farming systems in the Cinzana. And finally, Chapter 8 presents the conclusions and the recommendations for better technology generation and diffusion in Mali and elsewhere in Subsaharan Africa. Agriculttral Research and Tedinological Change in Subsaharan Africa and Mali Access to food is now a tremendous and continuing problem in Subsaharan 5 Africa. According to Oyer, food production is influenced by several factors, including the available physical and biological resources; the milieu for the initiation, development, testing, and delivery of new and improved technology appropriate to a given environment (local research and extension institutions); national government policies relative (to inCentives for farmers to produce more food (availability and prices of inputs and outputs, storage costs, transportation): and regional and international institutions to facilitate the generation and transfer of technology. The increase in agricultural productivity is more than a necessity in LDC oomtries where food production is outstripped by population growth. As Schultz (1961:) argues, comparatively few significant inefficiencies exist in traditional agriculture, so that it does not pay to reallocate the factors of production already existing at the small-farm level or to apply more units of traditional inputs. New technologies (improved varieties of seeds, farm equipment, chemical inputs and new farm management practices) are needed to'overcome climatological, physical, and labor constraints at the farm level. These technologies have to be profitable for farmers, compatible with their environment (socioeconmic, cultural, etc.) and sustained by an adequate institutional support for extension, input delivery, infrastructure for transportation and storage and markets for output. Agricul ttral Technology and Technological Change According to CIMMYT, a technology is "... a combination of all the management practices for producing or storing a crop or 'crop mixture. Each practice is defined by the timing, amount, and type of various technological components such as varieties, land preparation, fertilizer, or weeding.‘I Agricultural technology can be divided into three main types: biochemical, mechanical, and combinations of the two. Biochemical technologies involve both the chemicals and new plants such as crop varieties. These biochemical technologies have'physiological effect in increasing timeliness of operations (Dalrymple). Mechanical technologies involve improved equipment. ‘ Most research in Subsaharan Africa has been focused on research stations, where the development of new technologies is done under controlled conditions. Promising technological components are refined and sent to farmers through extension channels. This method of technology. generation is often inappropriate because it fails to take into consideration on-farm constraints and objectives .as a guide for experiment station research. Steps have been taken by international research centers (IRRI, CIMMYT, ICRISAT, IITA, CIAT, ILCA) and many countries including Mali to move toward more integrated agricultural research at the farm and agricultural station levels in‘what is called "Farming Systems Research.“ The technologies generated from this integrated on-farm and station research are supposed to reflect farmers' reality (physical and socio-economic environment) and be appropriate to them. As CIMMYT found out, ”Information from on-farm research aggregated over several regions can help establish broad priorities for the experiment station work.” The information on farmers circumstances and the associated risks as well as the types of farmers that would benefit from each technology is important in generating adequate (technologies. Agricultural Research in Subsaharan Africa Agricultural research plays an important role in the overall processes of agricultural produCtion by identifying and providing the limiting element, ingredient, or practice constraining food production. Agricultural research in Subsaharan Africa has focused on developing improved varieties of crops: on agronomic practices such as application of chemical fertilizer, fungicides, insecticides: and on mechanical technology, including animal traction and traCtor mechanization (Eicher and Baker, 1982). Most of this research has been carried out on station in very controlled situations, with trials designed to evaluate crops' physical performance as measured by yield responses to different levels of inputs, level and stability of yields, and resistance to different environmental stresses (drought, heat, pests, and diseases). 5 The research is done through two channels: The national agricultural research system and the International Agricultural Research Centers, which operate through bilateral or multilateral cooperation programs with countries or regions. A National Agricultural Research System Each country has its national agricultural research network, sponsored primarily by the government and to some extent by external donors. One of the main problems in national research syStems is the conflict between the research mandate and the amount of physical, financial, and human resources available to carry out the proposed research program. Most of the research is done at research stations located in different agroclimatic locations and are commodity oriented. Some general problems faced by agricultural research in Subsaharan Africa are: 0 The scarcity of funding and of well-qualified researChers and the lack of incentives to maintain the few good researchers from leaving agricultural research for other opportunities. Training scientists and giving them incentives to work are necessary for any agricultural research network. 0 The poorly designed research system, which often has few linkages with extension and faces severe institutional problems (Evenson, 1986). For example, many research systems lack standards of research conduct and cannot weed out incompetents. 0 The over reliance on the "diffusion“ or “technology transfer“ model of development, which is one reason why research systems in Subsaharan Africa have failed to generate a large enough stock of appropriate technology for farmers (Spencer, 1935). ' 0 The lack of political back-up to research and research institutions. Support is often lacking because research results are neither short-term products nor directly "visible", as are “crash food" projects. Most of the efforts are focused on extension, aimed at achieving quick technology transfers. There is also a lack of early, systematic and critical fee®ack from farmers to breeders (Spencer, I985: Matlon, 1983). I International Agricultural Research Centers 4 The International Agricultural Research Centers, such as ICRISAT (India), IRRI (Philippines), IITA (Nigeria), CIAT (Columbia), CIMMYT (Mexico), and ICARDA‘(Syria), are in the forefront of breeding efforts on world food crops. Others such as ILCA (Ethiopia) and ILRAD (Kenya) carry out research on livestock. Each center has a mandate for one or more important food crops, and some have a regional mandate for several crops in a specified geopolitical area (Munger and Coffman). The centers are supported through the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGiAR). This effort to increase many research centers underscores the desire of donors to provide long—term support for agricultural research in LDC's. Each center has a very well-supported program for breeding and other disciplinary fields. The achievements of two of these centers (IRRI, CIMMYT) have been recognized since the release of new varieties of rice and wheat into the 1960's to start the "Green Revolution“ in Asia. Some centers (ICRISAT, IITA) operating in West Africa have done important work on sorghum, cowpea, and bean breeding and collaborative programs with national research institutes, including short and long-term training. Despite these efforts, more collaboration between international and national research centers is necessary. The collaboration will lead to more exchange of knowledge between scientists and to better integration of local conditions (physical, biological, socioo economic) into the generation of appropriate technologies for rural development. Agricultural Research in Mali Agriculture is the most important activity in the Malian economy, and more than 85% of the population lives in rural areas. Agriculture and livestock exports provide 75% of the foreign exchange earned by Mali (USAID, I985). Malian agriculture faces harsh climatic conditions with droughts, poor management of the state organizations involved in agriculture, and other financial crises linked to international and national economic problems. Agricultural research, as in many former colonies, has historically been heavily focused on cash crops for exports (cotton and groundnuts). Until the late 1970‘s, when the control of all research was taken by Malian researchers and institutions, the research was run mainly by 10 French research organizations such as lRCT for cotton, IRHO for groundnuts, and IRAT for food crops. All agricultural research in Mali is conducted under the Institut d'Economie Rurale, created in 1962. IER has seven divisions (See Figure M), of which two . are concerned with agronomic and breeding research. The Agronomic Research Division (DRA) is the largest division, accounting for 78% of the entire IER staff, and carries out on-station commodity research. The Farming Systems Division (DRSPR) was created in 1976 to determine productivity, (farm incomes, andthe level of technology of existing cropping systems in order to assess the impact of new techniques. DRSPR tests new. technologies at the research station of Tieranla and on.farmers' fields. In 1986 DRSPR extended “its activities to the OHV zone of Central Mali. 3.34 Emma. 4. _l-. allfinwmdww .l. is“ .ll-l_.t . unmauuH l . _ nuocmoum vcun«00mm< . .ls.ltrr lllllrtol1lt.ull|. » m ...--Hll- ..tllmtll ..-r ..... ..ll... lllr.-.— lllll atll..l l rt 4 m modem aqo .4 fl muunam . m " cubouuwu> u ” nealoooonoa ” _ nnnoucu m " :Ouuou _ _o:cuua comm .. m nuasuh M m mnemm _ w 96mm m _ Roam “ H mmomm w m 2.3m m - u Flt-.0 I A IllL .IIIIIII Illl- fall I I 10-0 Ill. .cll fulfil trilli- .:I.lll-4 i- t d . A . H _ .-lllllllll . --rtllrtl_lrl..l w mm cfimomfiwmcu. " counomwm “ m :uuocmcx o«eo:o~mom _ «caucuseou :ouocoeu. 4:20 accemo~c>cn ~ousm no>uueuomooo ousuusuquma new no uuouOuuuuuc oueuouooudn heocoou uouzm How wuzuqumcH Hi: 2H ZOHmzmfixm nz¢ mogmwnx AdKDHADUHmod ho ZOH8228 Cowpeas (NVCs) o 350 1.000 1.05s Fania 132 a o a ' Cowpeas (local varieties) 606 668 668 608 Table 6.2. (oontimed) Without llBect Control With insect Control & NVC ' Without With fioom/branches ULV lTEM NVC NVC insect. application Appli Gross Benefit (FCFA/F arm) Millet ' 100,160 10s,160 100,160 100,160 Sorghum , 37.500 37,500 37,500 37,500 Gromdnut 11,¢00 11,300 11300 11,s00 Cowpeas (New varieties) 0 36,000 100,050 105.1150 Fania 6.600 0 0 0 Com ' . (Local varieties) 6t.800* 68,800 “.800 “.800 Total Gross Benefit 220,460 253,860 317,910 323,310 Fixed Plus Variable Costs (FCFAlFarm) Animal traction equipment ' ' animal charge 20.000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Animal traction animals annual charge 15.000 15,000 15,000 15,000 ULV sprayer annual charge ' 0 0 0 5.000 insecticide 0 0 18.000 16.875 seeds 3,105 46,105 6,105 6,105 fmgicides 560 560 560 560 labor input (person-days) 550 632 635 635 incremental labor input 0 82 .85 85 Total Costs 38.665 $1,665 ‘39,“: saaso was Total return to family labor input (FCFA) 185.795 212.195 ' 258,2” 259,770 Average return to family labor (FCFA/day) - 338 336 so: #10 Total incremental return to family labor (FCFA) - 26.000 72.1050 73.975 Average Inc: emental Return ' incremental Labor (FCFA/day) - 332 850 870 Source: The data are based on both the 1982-8b farm level survey and the 1986 farm data collection (for the 'Without NVC' option). 93 figice Assumptions Used in Tab 1e 6.2 m Millet: 30 FCFA/kg Sorghum: 30 FCFA/k3 Gromdmtss 50 FCFA/kg ° Cowpeas: 100 FCFA/k3 Ionics 50 FCFA/k3 Variable inputs Ammi cost of ULV: 5000 FCFA/year insecticide: 1500 FCFA/liter 'The value—oi cowpeas (local varieties) may be overvalued because of big sizes ot’ millet and sorng intercropped with local varieties of cowpeas. But this value can also include hay since cowpeas hay is not valued here but important for livestock feeding in dry season. As mentioned earlier, local varieties of cowpeas are cropped basically for cowpea hay. Table 6.3. Sensitivity Analyse impact of Change it Cowpea Prices and insecticide Prices an incremental Rena-no to Labor. Cowpea Prices Broom Application ULV Application of (FCFA/k3) of insecticide in hsecticide magnum Price 100 (Base run) too :70 75 565 570 65 MO 635 60 395 390 50 280 270 00 170 150 35 110 90 30 55 30 3. Change in imecticide prices 1.500 850 870 2.000 780 805 2.500 710 7410 3,000 660 670 3.500 570 ‘ 605 6,000 500 an 6,500 830 670 5,000 360 605 5.500 290 . 360 m: Author's survey - Cinzana 1986. 95 i -- . 8' ..- >5 + £8... a .955: 3:... 5.50 ..5 an. :m p .l -.-...ollil- -L..- .‘ I'-..-. Ola... .6..- eos’ . On 0.. --el 00-8906. out: 53.5 .m_m.~_u=< szmeom .... a ‘ ..o .s . l'o.‘6‘8'|'. .I‘ . I - .....3 .. :am .. as: r of. 1 can ... =39 usDO: 'ail ‘IVINSWSSDNI JQVUBIW 01 (AVG I'd 3:1 ) IV '1 96 >5 ... socio . “can... \(uu: ~92... meg—yum:- .......:8.=. - . :4 t ad ad a. a r p . . -..;le ...- ..L..--.i-lrl-l.l - com - =2.“ l sec 4 :3: I 33.... r :2 . .- .. . 2-9.1... -... !... A t 93111.. ill .. 23% 3:.— qutSmE ”aim—«3. azzzéom «... use: :2: . TVLNSWBUDNF 3 QVUEAV '13! 0.1 f um was ”'1 97 Partial Budget for On-Farm lmect Control Techniques As shown in Table 6.2 insect control is essential for cropping new varieties of cowpeas. According to farmers interviewed the use of brooms or tree branches to spray insecticide is widespread because of its low cost. The partial budget (Table 6.11) confirms this perception of farmers under the the current prices for cowpeas, insecticides, and the ULV sprayer. The broom spray technioue of applying inseCticide has the'advantage of no investment in the ULV sprayer, which is supplied by the FDVS credit program on a one-year repayment basis. Cash-flow constraints to payback the ULV sprayer and the insecticide within one year, in addition to higher returns and low costs, explain . the use 01 broom more than the ULV sprayer in applying insecticide to new varieties of cowpeas. I But (armers report that the ULV sprayer is more convenient in spraying insecticide on large cowpea fields (more than 2 ha) because it is less tiresome than'broom or tree branches. 98 Table 6.“ Partial Budget for Orr-farm 1nsect Control Techniques for New Varieties of Cowpeas (costs/ha). No 1nsect 1nsect Control 1nsect , Control with with Tree Variable Control ULV Sprayer Branches or (N = 7) (N = 8) Broom (N = 9) Average Yield (kg/tn)a 26'} 731 700 (standard deviation) (90) (112) (11‘!) Ad sted Yield (k ha) 2'00 703 667 («J-10% losses Gross Benefit (FCFA/ha) 210,000 70,300 66,700 "Variable Costs - Quantity of Cypermethrin (liters) 0 7.5 ' 8 - Cost of insecticide 0 11,250 12,000 - ULV Annual Chargesc o - 5000 . 0 Total Cash Costs (for insect control) 0 16,250 12,000 Variable Opportunity Costs for Labo J . — Labor Cost for 1nsect Cogtrol 0 _ 1,650 1,925 - Additional Harvest Cost 0 9,720 8,980 Total Opportunity Costs 0 11,370 10,905 Variable Costs for 1nsect Control 27,620 22,905 Net Benefit 26,000 42,680 l03,795 1ncremental Net Benefit 0 18,680 19,795 Marginal Rate of Return (96)° GIG insect control to insect control) 68 86 Marginal Rate of Return f V (from preceding to following) (dominated) Sou___c_e: Author's survey, Cinzana 1986. Footnotes The variety KNl is used in the analysis because of its widespread adoption in the area. bl Losses are not accurately measured by the extension of research. The figure of 10 percent for losses is approximate and is based on discussions with farmers and extension agents. cl The ULV sprayer is supplied to farmers on a one-year repayment credit basis. But for the purpose of this analysis the ULV sprayer is assumed to be amortized over 4 years. The annual charge also includes the cost of . batteries. dl Evaluated by valuing labor at the daily wage paid to workers at the research station (550 FCFA/person day). This wage is assumed to be a high opportunity cost for labor. 99 e! Marginal Rate of Return: Marginal Net Benefit (incremental) x 100 Marginal Cosmncremental) 1] An experiment is dominated if there is another alternative with a higher net benefit and equal or lower variable cost. Partial Budget for Oil-station Cowpea Phosphate Fertilizer Trials Low soil fertility and poor water retention, added to unpredictable rainfall, are the main physical constraints in farming at Cinzana. The responses to chemical fertilizers are highly dependent on water availability and can be very risky. Nonetheless, fertilizer use for cowpeas is highly recommended by the extension agency. No on-farm trials were made to evaluate the profitability of the different levels of fertilizer use at Cinzana. The only data available are the on-station experiment trials for cowpea response to phosphate fertilizer. The on-station trials are used in our analysis to assess the profitability of the response of cowpeas to phosphate fertilizer. The results shown in tables 6.5 and 6.6 can help to explain why fertilizers are not used much by farmers for cowpeas, and the need for researchers to carry out economic analysis of on-farm trials before making recommendations to farmers through extension. The marginal analysis shows low returns for phosphate fertilizer compared to insecticide. increasing. fertilizer use from 0_ to 200 kg of "complex coton“ (45 kg 9205) whiCh is used very often on station, has a very low marginal rate of return (15 percent) far below the returns from 0 to 15 kg P205. On-station trials show a 00 percent marginal rate of returns from moving from no fertilization to 67 kg of “complex coton" (15 kg 13205) which is the highest rate of return among all treatments, given a cowpea price of 100 FCFA/kg. It must be stressed that these station results are based on small sample sizes, and that more studies, especially on the total cost of capital (interest rate far borrowing, risk premium 100 due to climatic and soils conditions, services charges, etc.) and on-farm trials will allow researchers to develop better fertilizer recommendations for farmers. The rate of return of 140 percent is also low when we refer to other studies done in the Sahel, especially in Senegal (Crawford and Kamuanga, 1986). Crawford and Kamuanga argued that Senegalese rice farmers would be unlikely to adopt fertilizer use unless the marginal rate of return to fertilizer was at least 50% and that a marginal rate of return of 100% would probably be necessary to secure widespread adoption. 1 But the returns vary with crops, environments, prices, etc. Further research on on-farm trials of fertilizer use by farmers will be important in analyzing adoption of fertilizer in cowpea cropping. . A sensitivity analysis on returns to fertilizer use on station by changing fertilizer and cowpea prices indicates very low marginal returns to fertilizer use if fertilizer price increased from 150 FCFA/kg to 175 FCFA or above (Table 6.6). 101 Table 6.5. Partial Budget For Orv-station Response of Cowpea Variety KNl to Phosphate Fertilizer- Station of Cinzam, 1986 FARM ON-STATlON TRIALS Variable Ns10 N26 Ns6 N86 Ns6 Fertilizer Level (Kg onyha) 0 0 15, 30 » 65 Average Yield (kg/he) ' (Cowpea seeds) 781 760 952 1030 1,225 Adjusted Yield 1-1096 losses) 703 686 857 927 1,103 Cross Benefit ' ha 70,300 68,600 85.7 00 92,700 1 10,300 Variable Costs A h - calamity of fertilizer (kg/ha) 0 0 65 125 200 . pfic I fertilizer (FCFA/kg) - - 150 150 150 - Cost of fertilizer 0 0 9,750 18,750 30,000 Cost of labor (FCFA/day) 550 550 550 550 550 Cost of labor for fertilization \ -- - 550 825 l,i00 Added cost for harvest 0 0 2,000 2,900 5,300 Total variable cost - A 0 0 12,300 22,675 36,600 Net benefit (FCFA/ha) 70.300 68,000 73,1600 70,225 73,900 incremental net benefit - 5,000 (-3,175) 3,675 Marginal rate of return (fi) (from 0 P O, 80 each dose 80 8 15 Marginal rate of return . (from preceding to following experiment '- 00 (dominated 26 m Author's Farm Stevey, Cinzana, 1986. 102 lures-2:999:- Table 6.6. Sensitivity Analysis to Assess Changes in Cowpea and Fertilizer Prices on the Reruns to Fertilizer Use Variable Marginal Marginal Marginal Treatments ' Net Benefit Costs Net Benefit Cost Rate of Return (%) 33th increase in fertilizer price from 150 FCFA/kg a) Price of fertilizer s 175 FCFA/kg 0 kg P20, 68,600 0 15 kg P20, 71,775 13,925 3,375 13,925 20 30 kg P205 67,100 25,600 0,675 11,675 (dominated) 05 kg P20, 68,900 01,000 1,800 15,800 11 Price of fertilizer s 200 FCFA/kg 0 kg P205 68,600 0 - - - 15 kg P20, 70,150 15,550 1,750 15,550 11 30 kg P20, 63,975 28,725 -6,175 13,175 (dominated) s. 05 kg 920, 63,900 «.100 45 17,675 (dominated) Case 11: Decrease in cowpea price from 100 FCFA/kg a) Price of Cowpeas s 75 FCFA/kg - 1. 0 kg P20, 51,300 0 - -- —- 2. 15 kg P20, 51,975 12,300 675 12,300 5 3. 30 kg P205 67,050 22,075 4,925 10,175 (dominated) 6. 65 kg P20, 06,325 36,000 -725 13,925 (dominated) b) Price of cowpeas a 50 FCFA/kg 1. 0 kg P20, 03,200 0 - - - 2. 15 kg P20, 30,550 12,300 -12,560 12,300 (dominated) 3. so kg 920, 23.375 223.75 4.57: 10,175 (daninated) ' 0. 05 kg P20, 18,750 36,000 -5,125 13,925 (dominated) Case 111: Decrease in fertilizer price from 150 FCFA/kg a) Price of fertilizer a 100 FCFA/kg 1. 0 kg P20, 68,600 0 -- .... .. 2. 15 kg P20, 76,650 9,050 8,250 9,050 90 3. 30 kg P20, 76,675 16,225 ~175 7,175 (dominated) s. as kg 920, 33,900 anon 7.025 10,175 73 ' b) Price of fertilizer s 80 FCFA/kg ' 1. 0 kg P20, 68,600 0 - -'- ' - 2. 15 kg P20, 77,950 7,750 9,550 7,750 123 3. 30 kg P205 78,975 13,725 1,025 5,975 17 0. 05 kg P205 87,900 22,000 8,925 8,675 102 Solace: Agricultural Research Station of Cinzana, experimental trials and Author's Slrvey, 1986. 103 The decrease of phosphate fertilizer prices from 150 FCFA to 100 FCFA and 80 FCFA give better marginal returns for the dose of 15 kg of P205 per ha (90 96 and 12396). On-farm trials are again needed for better recommendations to farmers given the alternative of a decrease in fertilizer price. The returns to fertilizer use are also very sensitive to decreases in cowpea prices. A change in cowpea price from 100 FCFA to 75 FCFA gives very poor returns making fertilizer use not profitable at all. The results from the economic analysis of adoption of new varieties of cowpeas can be summarized as follows: - The adoption of new varieties of cowpeas is profitable under the assumptions cited earlier and with the use of insecticide. ° The insectcontrol is a needed technique in cropping new varieties of cowpeas because of the sensitivity to pests. Without insecticide, the returns from new varieties are lower than the situation without new varieties of cowpeas. - The returns to new varieties of cowpeas are very senstive to changes in cowpea prices, moreso than to changes in insecticide prices. Cowpea prices are very important for the profitability of new Varieties of cowpeas. - The returns to fertilizer (phosphate) are low compared to the returns from insecticide. But on-farm fertilizer trials are necessary for assessing the profitability of fertilizer levels proposed by the extension agency to farmers. Any fertilizer recommendation to farmers in Cinzana has to take into consideration the cost of fertilizer, the response of cowpeas to fertilizer, the price of output and the risks involved in using fertilizer under erratic rainfall fluctuations. . According to Roy and McClellan (1985) direct application of finely ground phosphate rock may be one of the cheapest ways to supply phosphorus to crops grown in the tropics and subtropics. But on-farm trials of cowpea responses to 9 rock phosphate are necessary for recommendations of optimal doses of phosphate to farmers. 106 CHAPTER 7 lMPACT OF NEW VARIETIES OF COWPEAS ON THE FARMING SYSTEMS [N THE CINZANA AREA impact on the Food Deficit The food deficit was an important concern in the Cinzana area before the spread of new varieties of cowpeas in 1935. in 1980, more than 79 percent of the farmers were facing a food deficit due to insufficient farm food production to cover the household yearly consumption and lack of adequate income to purchase enough food(Couliba1y and Coulibaly, 1933). in 1985, the food deficit decreased thanks to better rainfalls which were well spread out over the cropping season in the area. in 1985, fifty percent of the farmers interviewed were food self- sufficient and did not buy any food grain from the market or from any (other household. Forty-five percent reported that they were food deficit with regard to their own food production, but half of these deficit farmers could purchase food with off-farm incomes, mainly from wages earned at the agricultural research station. Other sources of income were craft sales (hoes, mats, etc.) and petty commerce. in 1986., 30 percent of the households reported that new varieties of cowpeas helped them reduce the food deficit. only 15 percent of the farm households, however, reported the new varieties of cowpeas completely eliminated the food deficit, either through on-farm consumption of cowpeas during the hungry season or through sales of cowpeas to buy other food. The new varieties of cowpeas helped to alleviate food problems even in households which did not crop them because of the use of cowpeas as wages for women who were hired for the harvest. The daily wage is two kg of cowpea seed per day per woman. This food for labor was important in alleviating food problems in neighboring villages, from whence the women came to work in villages where new varieties were adopted. our ' 105 impact of New Varieties of Cowpeas on Farm incomes Farm income from cowpea production was very low in 1985/86 because of the small acreages cropped in new varieties of cowpeas (.50 ha per farm household). The FDVS project started in 1985 and subsidized the "innovators" for half of the cost of inputs used in cowpeas, but farmers were unwilling to take the risk of planting large acreages to these new, largely unknown varieties. The average net farm income from cowpeas varied from 20,000 FCFA to 60,000 FCFA ' in addition to the family consumption of cowpeas, the in-kind wages and the gifts to the other households (relatives and poor households who receive the Eja_k_§, which is a Muslim in-kind tax on wealth or production to be given to poor). Cowpeas sold to other farmers were used as seeds. The income from cowpeaswas expected to be more important in 1986/87, given the expected 1000 tons of cowpea prediction from the 50 villages involved in the FDVS project (see Table 6.1). The income will also be a function of the prices paid to farmers, which depends on the demand for cowpeas by traders. The cash need is very important to pay back the FDVS credit and to pay for other expenses such as head taxes, non-agricultural goods for consumption (salt, cola nut, tobacco), payments on dowries for marriage. (Table 7.1). Only a few farmers used some part of cowpea income to purchase small ruminants. 106 Table 7.1. Allocation of Sample Farm Gross Cash income from Cowpeas in 1985 items Percentage of farm cowpea income (96) Pay back insecticide loans to FDVS credit program 60 Down payment for animal traction equipment or animal loans (first year) 9 Non-a ricultural consumer goods salt, cola nut, tobacco) 10 Payment on marriage doweries 5 Purchase of small ruminants (saving) ' 16 TOTAL 100 Sauce: Author's survey - Cinzana, 1986 impact on Livestock Livestock play a key role in the village economy as savings, assets, and power for animal traction. Crops are sold to pay for taxes, family Consumption of manufactured goods and social events; and the remaining cash, if any, is used to buy goats or sheep for savings. Sheep and goats are sold to buy cattle or to meet current cash needs. The impact of cowpeas on livestock in the Cinzana area is twofold: - Earnings from cowpeas are invested in small ruminants. , - Cowpea leaves and pods provide an important source of forage to draft animals in the dry season. A 1 Because cowpea income in 1985 was low, only 18 of the 60 sample farmers used cowpea income to purchase sheep or goats. All farmers expect to use more income from cowpeas in the coming years to purchase more small ruminants and even cattle. ' . A , Despite the low forage-yielding capacity of new varieties of cowpeas, they are used in feeding the draft animals in combination with local varieties, which 107 are richer in fodder. The cowpea pods are recognized to be very nourishing in the dry season when the pastures dry out. impact on Fallow Lands The introduction of new varieties of cowpeas did not affect the areas cropped in basic crops such as millet, sorghum, and groundnuts, but decreased the area of fonio, which competes with cowpeas for harvest labor. Some 30 percent of the farmers interviewed reported that they also used some of their fallow land to crop cowpeas. The use of fallow land without further techniques to improve the fertility of the soils can be a serious problem for farming in Cinzana, where soils are already very poor. Fallowing is the common way to sustain the fertility of the soils; fallows last for five to seven years. One way to address this problem would be to carry out research on station in collaboration with the FDVS project on crop rotations, soil management practices (incorporation of organic manures, intercropping, use of chemical. fertilizer, water V retention, etc.) in order to address the future land problem in the area. Farmers are already aware of this future land constraint, as well as the soil's low potential, fragility, low water retention capacity, and the. need to overcome these problems. They therefore would likely be very receptive to promising techniques aimed at maintaining soil fertility. . impact on Family Labor Migration I Family labor is an important factor in farm production. The migration of family labor is higher at the end of the rainy season and involves, on average, one to three persons (men or girls) per farm household who move to urban centers (Segou, Koutiala, Bamako) and C6te'd'1voire. The migration is seasonal for more than 80 percent of the migrants, who come back at the beginning of the rainy The incomes generated from migration are used mainly for taxes and social 108 events such as marriage. Seventy percent of the respondents believed that , cowpeas have the potential to play an important role in the income—generating capacity of the household and could contribute to decrease the migration. Off- farm activities such as building storage granaries, transportation to the markets, and drying and storing cowpea foods in silos for draft animals are some of the activities that could keep young people busy in the dry season if cowpea cropping became very important. impact on intrahousehold Ties The 1982-80 farm survey revealed that one of the main reasons for the break-up of extended families into nuclear households was food deficits. All the household heads agreed on food security as a cement to strengthen intrahousehold ties among the members. According to the village heads, hunger has been a source of tension between household members since 1972. Thirty percent of the heads of extended families think that food security brought by new varieties of cowpeas hasicontributed to strengthening ties between household members by impeding family break-up. But 10 percent of household heads fear that increasing cash income from cowpeas could develop 'individualism" among members and lead to new sources of tension in extended families. 109 CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS _Stlmm of Findings it is too early to draw definitive conclusions about farmers' behavior with respect to adoption of new technologies, but our findings indicate major factors affecting adoption of new varieties of cowpeas in Cinzana. These factors are agroclimatic conditions, the characteristics Of the varieties, the institutional setting to sustain adoption and the experiences of farmers in using similar technologies or accompanying inputs. Agroclimatic Conditions The poor and erratic rainfall patterns have been very important as constraints in dryland agriculture in Cinzana and therefore favored the quick adoption of new varieties of cowpeas, which mature early. The local varieties of millet, sorghum and cowpeas used by farmers are late-maturing and face the risk of shortages in rainfall before reaching maturity. Characteristics of the Technology The characteristics of the technology played a key role in adoption. The early maturing and high yielding characteristics are important factors in adoption of new varieties of cowpeas by farmers. Also, the new varieties of cowpeas are not complicated to use and do not require accompanying inputs unfamiliar to Cinzana farmers, who are used to new varieties of groundnuts supplied by the extension-credit parastatal OACV. The sensitivity of new varieties to pests was important as a constraint to adoption for villages without access to the FDVS credit program and therefore to insecticides. Personal Characteristics of Farmers Farmers' experiences with animal traction usemade cowpea cropping easier. Also, the innovators who were to adopt new varieties of cowpeas had 110 information on the existence of the new varieties of cowpeas before the other adopters. They were chiefs of the villages, the chiefs' counselors and the farmers who worked part-time on the research station. But variables such as education did not played an important role in adoption, contrary to what some of the literature review on adoption would suggest (Chapter 3). institutional Setting institutions such as the, research station, from where varieties were taken; and the FDVS, which supplied credit for animal traction equipment and inputs such as insecticide and seeds, and bought cowpeas from farmers in 1985, were very important in affecting adoption by farmers. Farmers who did not have access to insecticide on credit quit or did not adopt the new varieties of cowpeas. Most of these non-adopters were willing to adopt if they could secure access to credit for inputs, especially insecticide. ' The returns to cowpeas are also very sensitive to changes in the output price. The profitability of new varieties has been very important in adoption. As the sensitivity analysis in Chapter 6 indicated, higher returns to cowpeas are linked to prices of output and inputs. The higher returns from cowpeas, compared to other crops in the area, were due mainly to higher yield responses with klsecticide and higher prices. Profitability as a key factor in adoption of new technologies has been also recognized by many authors (Chapter 3). implications for Action The study revealed that the proximity of the research station facilitated the flow of information on new varieties of cowpeas to surrounding farmers, who took advantage of it. When new varieties of cowpeas were adopted by farmers, the creation of an institution to supply inputs on credit, especially insecticides and animal traction equipment, and to purchase cowpeas in 1985 helped sustain the ' adoption. To solve constraints linked to adoption and sustainability of adoption of 111 the new varieties of cowpeas, emphasis has to be put on following factors: Agriculttni Researdl Efforts on agricultural research and especially at the agricultural research station of Cinzana, should focus on: Breedigg The resistance to pests is the most critical issue in new varieties of cowpeas. Since the new varieties are sensitive to pests, breeding for resistance will decrease the use of insecticide and therefore the cost of production of cowpeas, so long as yields of resistent varieties are not so much lower as to offset the savingsdue to lower insecticide use. But any research effort should be preceded by socioeconomic surveys at the consumer, farmer and trader levels to determine tastes and constraints, which can serve as research goals. The research results should be tested on the farm level to assess their compatibility to the agroclimatic, socioeconomic, and cultural conditions of farmers and consumers before the release of new varieties to extension and then to farmers. . Crgpping Practices ' w The sustainability of cowpea cropping within the farming systems needs to be researched because of the poverty of the soils, their erodability and the damages to new varieties of cowpeas by pests, diseases and weeds. The main on- farm cropping practices to consider for research are intercropping: organic and chemical fertilizer use: and weed, pest and erosion controls. intercropping is impertant because of future land constraints in the area, the benefit of nitrogen fixed by cowpeas to cereals in intercropping and the labor constraint to expand crop areas. Organic and chemical fertilizer will also need to be researched for appropriate recommendations to farmers (compatible with agronomic and socioeconomic conditions). On-farm research for weed, insect, disease and 112 erosion control is necessary to decrease yield losses due to these environmental constraints and to increase yield stability. 1 Toxicology of insecticides Research is needed on the possible toxicological impact of the insecticide used on cowpeas on humans and animals who consume cowpea seeds and forage. The results of such studies will help determine the precautions that should be taken by farmers in using insecticide to treat cowpeas ( e.g., minimum number of days after treatment before human consumption of seeds and animal consumption 0 of fodder is safe, cleaning practices for the ULV sprayer and other equipment involved in insecticide application, etc). These studies need collaboration between the FDVS project extension and research units, the agricultural research station of Cinzana, and the Ministries of Health and Livestock. . A Lhkage Between the Agricultual Research Station and the FDVS Project improving linkages between the agricultural research stationhof Cinzana and the FDVS credit, extension, research and socioeconomic units is very important in order to sustain adoption of new varieties of cowpeas and the overall improvement of farm practices in the area. The lack of strong linkages between the research ' station and the FDVS project reflects the institutional and technical separation between agricultural research and extension in most Subsaharan African I comtries. in addition to this separation, each activity has many weaknesses. Agricultural research in Mali has been neglected when compared to extension agencies for funding and political support. The underinvestment in agricultural research is reflected in the lack of adequate fihancial and human resources as well as the lack of incentives to researchers and the failure to maintain research , facilities. Few researchers are trained at the Masters and Ph.D levels to conceive, design and carry out research programs. The biggest mistake in Malian 113 agricultural research has been the consideration of agronomic‘and climatic factors as the only constraints explaining the poor performance of the crops. The factors commonly evaluated are only physical responses to variety improvement, , fertilization, intercropping, plant population at different seeding rates, pests and diseases. Farm-level constraints such as farmers' endowments of factors of production, input and output prices, and access to resources are seldom taken into accomt in the design of agricultural research. The on-station researchers are not involved in on-farm trials carried out by SAFGRAD in different agroclimatic zones and do not get any feedback from the farmers who use the proposed technologies. Another weakness in Malian agricultural research is the lack of coordination between lER divisions. Socioeconomic data are collected in two divisions (DET and DPE) in addition to the farming system division, which are not - apposed to carry out agronomic research. Agronomists are rarely aware of these socioeconomic data, which are collected mainly for project design _or to evaluate ODRs. . Despite some good physical responses of on-station generated technologies, many problems remain for the adoption of many of them because of their . incompatibility with farmers' goals, tastes or socioeconomic environment. A close collaboration between agricultural research and extension is required to bridge the - gap between the agricultulral research station of Cinzana and the F DVS project which is actually basically managing credit and extension witho t agricultural research, even though research was supposed to be included in its'mandateh Agricultural extension has been the main focus of agricultural development in Mali since the independance of the country in 1960. But extenSion has been facing many problems, such as overstaffing, top-down extension policy from extension agents to farmers without any feedback, management—oriented work to supply inputs and recover credit, and heavy bureaucracy. The extension agents 110 have a very low level of technical training and their supervisors, who are better trained (BS level), are burdened with administrative duties and cannot follow up with field work. . The Cinzana station could serve as an opportunity for the FDVS project and the research system to match efforts for appropriate technology design and use by farmers. The scope for collaboration between the two institutions can be outlined as follows: -Accumulate information on farmers' and consumers' circumstances to set up guidelines for on-station breeders and agronomists to design technologies (varieties and cultural actices) com tible with farmers' and consumers' Pr Pa socioeconomic conditions. Farmers and consumers perceptions can bekno'wn by organizing survesy at the farm, rural, and urban markets and traders' levels. Housewives use of cowpeas can be surveyed also for more information on cooking characteristics of new varieties. - -Test varieties and cultural practices both on station and on-farm that were generated by the research station and gather feedback from farmers for corrections before final recommendations regarding the technologies are made to farmers via the extension service. --Test natural rock phosphate of Tilemsi on farm for an assessment of its technical and economic efficiency before making recommendations to farmers. -—Meetings and workshops between researchers, extension, and credit monitoring units of the FDVS project to define problems for the research and extension and collaborative actions to undertake to achieve workable solutions. 115 Marketing 955m: Markets ‘ The lack of an adequate and ensured market for cowpeas is one of the most important constraints on cowpea production and therefore in the whole adoption process of new varieties of cowpeas. The marketing issue for cowpeas can be addressed by following recommendations: h the Start Term -Set up a marketing information cell inside the revs projeCt, which would make arrangements between cowpea traders in major cities and the village association, which is responsible for the credit management and the marketing of cowpeas. Market information was revealed to be very important, as traders did not know about the cowpea production in Cinzana until our trip in September to inform them. -increase the incentives for traders to export cowpeas to neighboring countries such as C3te d‘lvoire, Ghana, etc., by decreasing export taxes. -Quick extension of phostoxin treatment to farmers and traders to store cowpeas in better condition. in the Long-Term -Carry out marketing studies on cowpeas to formulate a marketing policy to sustain cowpea cropping in Mali, and the Sahel region for interregional exchanges. The studies would address the demand for cowpeas by domestic traders as well as traders in neighboring countries and the sources of supply to meet this demand. -Train members of village associations in carrying out basic marketing tasks (weighing, storing, grading, etc.) to handle village cowpea stocks for “6 sales to traders and to manage the funds. Some credit lines could be opened for these village associations to market cowpeas. . -Research on storage problems to handle cowpea stocks at the village and traders' level. -Research on viability of the creigt programs (rate of recovery, constraints, linkage between credit and repayment possiblitiesd' is important to carry out or to sustain the credit.) hput Markets _ Markets for inputs lanimals, equipment, insecticides, good quality. seeds, fmgicides, and fertilizer) are very important. The following measures would be important in order to improve input supply: Short Term _ . -Extend the credit system (at least for insecticides) to villages in-the Cinzana area that do not have access to: credit. These-villages would like to i have access to these inputs but. lack cash to purchase them because of poverty and the lack of a private market for biochemical inputs. . -Supply credit for blacksmiths in villages covered by the project to obtain small mechanical equipment and raw materials (iron) to make plows and spare parts for animal traction. Many blacksmiths are well qualified to make multipurpose plows but lack equipment to make them. Credit to blacksmiths would foster local production of spare parts for plows designed for local soil conditions. -Carry out technical, financial and economic studies on the use of rock phosphate from Tilemsi at the farm level to assess the possibilities of its use by farmers. H7 Long Term —Carry out studies on input delivery systems and involvement of private traders in the input supply. -Collaboration between the research and the extension networks to design and recommend technologies which are cost effective, and easily available on time to farmers. ‘ _nge Camera! Recommendatiom for Agricultural Researdl in Mali Some of the weaknesses in agricultural research need to be corrected in order to increase the adoption rate of proposed technologies to farmers from the research: -Train researchers in both the social sciences and the biological. sciences to M.S. and Ph.D levels for agricultural research and develop multidisciplinary research teams on research stations. Biological scientists should also receive short-term training in basic agricultural economics on topics such as simple cost-benefit analysis, of technological packages and how to use survey data as a guideline for research programs. A multidisciplinary team on station would include agronomists, soil scientists, entomologists, and economists. The teams would carry out on-farm research as well as on- station research. This would solve the problem of the lack of social scientists on biological research stations. ' -Take into consideration farm-level constraints such as input and output I prices and input supply problems in addition to soils, weeds, insects and labor constraints in order to decrease the gap between research stations and farmers (yields, priorities in problems to be researched). The costs and benefits of technologies have to be considered before any recommendations can be made to farmers. . -Establish more linkages between the researchers at lER and the extension ll! personnel at the ODR: by organizing workshops, visitsand exchanges of information beside the formal annual meetings to discuss research results. w-Encourage research on key issues such as credit, marketing of agricultural ‘ products, and integration of livestock and agriculture at the farm level, to inform policy makers for better policy decisions. Conclusions From This Case Study_About the Process of Tedtnology Development and Adoption in Subsaharan Alana Technology development and adoption in Subsaharan Africa, especially in Francophone countries, have suffered from an imbalance between research and extension and isolation of on-station biological researchers from feedback from farmers about their technologies. The technology to be adopted needs to be ’ compatible with or solve agro—climatic constraints, e.g., possess early maturity or resistance to pests, characteristics important in an environment where rainfall Shortages or diseases are the main constraints. The technology also needs to be profitable and easy use by the target population. The technology requires an institutional backing (input and output markets, extension services. and credit if necessaryho be adopted and sustained in Subsaharan African countries, where the hp.“ markets rarely exist and where agricultural products face many marketing P'Oblems, such as transportation, storage, pricing and access to market inInsulation. Concltnions From this Case Study Concerning the Validig of the Theoretical Literature The decision process regarding the adoption of new technology by farmers hvolves awareness, persuasion, evaluation, application decision, trial and) finally “Option, but these steps cannot be isolated or followed in this order by farmers. TN discontinuance of adoption is explained in our case by the lack of institutional b"Citing to supply inputs necessary for the technology. ‘ H9 Discontinuance is very important to investigate, but little research has been done on this side, compared to factors behind success in adoption. in the literature a lot of studies have focused on farmers' personal characteristics as the main factors influencing adoption of agricultural technologies. in our case study the key factor behind the quick adoption of new varities of cowpeas by farmers in Cinzana was not personal characteristics of farmers but the ability of the technology to address a major problem faced by farmers, namely the need for early maturing varieties to deal with erratic rainfalls. Famors such as ‘ profitability (higher yields and returns) also played an important role in adoption, as found in many previous studies of adoption. institutional support (credit, extension, input and output markets) as a factor to sustain adoption was very important in our case study, as reported in many Other adoption studies in developing countries where capital and marketing constraints are critical in the whole agricultural development process. The typology of adopters and chronology of adoption in our study indicates that “Option of an innovation does not occur at the same time for all farmers, or for all components of the innovation. Adoption is sequential and the success or failure for the farmers who adopted first is critical in the decision to adopt the innovation by the farmers who were not among the first to try the innovation. 120 BIBLIOGRAPHY Agudelo, lvan. 'Evalucion de Algunos Labores de Extension en el Area de Gira Data," Colombia. Unpublished M.S. thesis. inter-American institute of Agricultural Sciences, Turrialba, Costa Rica: l967. Atayi, Emmanuel Ayikoe. “Perceived incentives and Disincentives as Related to Adoption of Agricultural innovations: The Case of Small Farmers ln Aneho, Togo.“ Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University, l979. Beal, Gorge, and Joe M. Bohlen. The Diffusion Process. lowa State Agricultural [Experiment Station Special Report No. 18. Ames: lowa State University, ' 978. Bernsten, Richard H. 'Pre-screening Alternative Component Technologies to identify Probable Constraints to Farmer Adoption.“ Paper prepared for the Cropping Systems Economic Training Program, lndonesia, l980. Bressani, Ricardo. “Nutritive Value of Cowpeas.” in Cowpea Record. Production, and Utilization, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1985, pp. 353-59. man, James Allen. 'Design and Analysis of Appropriate Technology for Small Farmers: Cropping Systems Research m the Philippines." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, l983. Clark, Robert and i. A. Akinbode. "Factors Associated with Adoption of Three Farm Practices' m the Western State, Nigeria." Research Bulletin lfe: University of lfe Press, l968. Coulibaly, Ousmane and Nissan Gologo Coulibaly. Etude socioeconomioue aux environs de la station de recherche aerondmioue ce Cinzana, Bamako, Mali. institut d‘Economie Rurale, Division des Etudes Techniques. Four Reports: 'Profil d‘unite de production agricole' 1983. “Am sociologiques de la production agricole,‘ l982. 'Superficie, temps de travaux agricoles et rendements,‘ 1983. “Commercialisation des produits agricoles et animaux et etude de marches hebdomadaires.“ l984l. . Crawford, Eric and Mulumba Kamuanga. 'L'analyse economique des essais agronomiques pour la formulation de recommendations aux paysans.‘ Dakar: ilBtitut Senegalais de Recherche Agronomique. Department de Recherches :ur 2les Systems Agraires et l'Economie Agricole. Document de travail No. 6- , l986. Cutie, Jesus T. “Diffusion of Hybrid Corn Technology: The Case of El Salvador.‘ Abridged by CIMMYT. Mexico City: Centro lnternacional de Me joramiento de Maize y Trigo, 1975. l2i CIMMYT. Pianningjechnologies Appropriate to Farmers. First edition. Mexico Citthentro lnternaClonal de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo. i980. Cleave, John. “Decision Making on the African Farm.“ in Contributed Papers Read at the 16th internaionai Conference of Agricultural Economists.— Wblished by the University of Oxford institute of Agricultural Economics {07; the international Association of Agricultural Economists, 1977. p. i57- Dalrymple, Dana. Technological Change in Agriculture: Effects and implications for the Developinwntlcns. Wasnington, D.C: U.S.D.A. international Development Foreign Agricultural Service. 1978. Dembeie, Brehima and Mamadou Touré. Personal Communications, Mali: Station de Cinzana, July 1986. Eicher, Cari K. “Facing Up to Africa's Food Crisis,“ in Agricultural Development in the Third World, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, l984. Eicher, Carl K. and John M. Staatz. Agricultural Development in the Third World, Baltimore: John Hopkins Uniersity Press, l984. ‘ Eicher, Cari K. and Doyle C. Baker. Research on Agricultural Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: 'A Critical Survey. M. f U. international Development Piper No. 1, East Lansmg: Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, l982. Evenson, Robert E. “Agricultural Research and Extension ln Eastern and Southern Africa: Comparisons with West Africa and Other Developing Regions.“ . Draft Report for the World Bank, 1986. Falusi, O.A. “Economics of Fertilizer Distribution and Use in Nigeria.“ Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Cornell UniverSity, i973. Fr'anzei, Steven Charles. “Planning an Adaptive Production Research Program for Small Farmers: A Case Study of Farming Systems Research in Kirinyaga District, Kenya.“ Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1983. Cafsi, Salem and Terry Roe. “Adoption of High Yielding Wheat varieties in Tunisia.“ Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol. 28, October ‘979’ pp. 1.1—f3“. <&erhart, John. “The Diffusion of Hybrid Maize in Western Kenya.“ Abridged by CIMMYT. Mexico City: Centro lnternacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo, i985. Giadwin, Christina H. “Cognitive Strategies and Adoption Decisions: A Case Study of Non-Adoption of an Agronomic Recommendation“. Economic Development and Cultural Change, vol. 28, October l978, pp. l55-i73. Griliches, Zvi. “Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change.“ E_c_onometrica, l5 OCt 1957, pp. 50i-522. [22 Harrington, Larry W. “Farmer Assessment of Maize Recommendations in Northern Vera Cruz State, Mexico.“ Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1980. Hodgdon, Linwood L. “The Adoption of New Agricultural inputs and Practices by indian Farmers“ in Small Farm Agricultural Devleopment Problems, ed. by Biggs Huntley H. and Ronald Tinnermeier. pp. 69- -97, Fort Collins: Colorado State University Press, 1970. lDRC. “Coming Full Circle: Farmers' Participation in the Development of Technology,“ lDRC Publication 189, Ottawa: 1984. iFDC (international Fertilizer Development Center). West Africa Fertilizer Study. Technical Bulletin. Muscle Shoals Alabama , i976. Kivlin, Joseph E. “Characteristics of Farm Practices Associated with Rate of Adoption.“ Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University. l960. Lebeau, Francis. “Technology Transfer Study. Operation Haute Vallee. Second Phase.“ Washington: Checci and Company. Report to USAID/Mali. October l986. Lionberger,H H.F. Adoption of New ideas and Practices. Ames: The lowa State University Press, 1986. MacDonald, A.L. Agricultural Technoio ogy in DevelopinL Countries. Rotterdam: Rotterdam University Press, 1976. ( athura, Karamchand. “Result Demonstration as a Factor in Practice Adoption in Trinidad and Tobago.“ Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Cornell University, i973. Matlon, Peter J. “A Critical Review of Objectives, Methods and Progress to Date in Sorghum and Millet improvement: A Case Study of iCRiSAT/Burkina Faso“ in Appropriate Technologies for Farmers in Semi-Arid West Africa. ed. by Ohm Herbert and Josep.. G. Nagy, pp 154-179, West Lafayette indiana: Purdue University, 1985. Mcintire, John. “Reconnaisance Surveys in North and West Upper Volta: Village Studies.“ Report No. 3,1CRiSAT. Ouagadougou: l98i. Misra, R.P. Effusion of Agricultural innovations. Prsaranga, india: University of ' Mysore, 1968. Mu'nger, H.M. and W.R. Coffman. “Future Directions for Food Crop Breeding Programs,“ in World Food issues, ed. by Matthew Drosdoff, ithaca, Cornell University, Program ln international Agriculture, 198“, pp. 23-31. Oyer, Edwin. “Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer for Food Production: What Strategies are Appropriate“ in World Food issues, ed. by Matthew Drosdoff, pp. 65-71, Cornell University, Program in international Agriculture, 1984. l2) Perrin, Richard, et. a1. From Aggonomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics Training Manual. Mexico City, ClhiMYT, 1979. Purdue University. Cereal TechnologLDevelopmentfie-st African Semi-Arid Tro ics: A Farming Svszems Persoecuve, West Lafayette, indlana, Purdue University, internatlonal Programs, 1986. Rangaswamy, Y. et a1. indian's Changing Farming. Kitab Mahal, india: i972. Refugio, J. Rochin. “A Microeconomic Analysis of Small Holder Response to High Yielding Varieties of Wheat in Pakistan“. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Rogers, Everett. Diffusion of innovations. iowa State Agricultural Experiment Station Special Report No. 18. Ames: lowa State University, 1957. __ Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, i962. /’_.’ (\QRogers, Everett and Floyd Shoemaker. Communication of innovations: A Cross Cultural Approach. New York: The Free Press, 1971. Roy, A.H., and C.H. McClellan, “Processing Phosphate Ores into Fertilizer,“ in Management of Nitrogen and Phosphorous Fertilizers in Sub-Saharan Africa, ed. by A. Uzo Mokwunye and Paul L.G. \viek. pp. 225- 253. Muscle Shoals, Alabama: international Fertilizer Development Center, 1985. Ruttan, Vernon W. Agricultural Research Policy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982. Ryan, B. and N. Cross. “The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn in Two lowa Communities,“ Rural Sociology, Vol. 8-1, 1963, pp. 15-24. Schultz, Theodore W. Transforming Traditional Agriculture. New Haven, Conn:‘ Yale University Press. 196“. Spencer, Dunstan C. “A Research Strategy to Develop Appropriate Agricultural Technologies for Small Farm Development in Sub-Saharan Africa,“ in A propriate Technolo for Farmers in Semi-Arid West Africa, ed. by Herbert Ohm and Joseph Nagy, pp. 303-325. West Lafayette: Purdue University, 1985. Singh, B. B. and B. R. N'Tare. “Development of improved Cowpea Varieties in Africa,“ in Cowpea Research. Production. and Utilization, ed.Singh, s.R. and K.O. Rachie. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. 1985. Singh, S.R. “The State of the Art in Cowpea Research.“ Paper presented at the 3;;nICowpea CRSP Five Year Review, Michigan State University, Jan. 1 6. Singh, S.R. and K. O. Rachie, editors. Cowpea Research. Production, and Utilization. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 1985. 12¢ Sinha, P. R. R. and H. S. Bhasin. “Factors influencing Low Adoption of Some improved Farm Practices.“ indian Journal of Extension Education, 1V, 1968. pp. 30'“00 Stevens, Robert and Cathy Jabara. Agricultural Development Principles. John Hopkins University Press, Forthcoming. Tapsoba, Edouard Kouka. “An Economic and institutional Analysis of Formal and informal Credit in Eastern Upper Volta: Empirical Evidence and Policy implications.“ Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan State University, 1981. . Tardieu, Michel and D jibrli Sene. “Le Haricot Niebe (Vigna Unguiculata) au Senegal.“ Bambey, Senegal: Centre National de Recherche Agronomique, Undated. Tesfai, Tecie. “Application of Multivariate Probit Analysis to an Adoption Model of New Agricultural PraCtices.“ Ethiopian Journal of Development Research, Vol. 11, no. 1,1975, pp. 43- 54. Timmer, Peter C, Walter Falcon, and Scott R. Pearson. Food Policv Analvsis. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1983. , Valkonen, Tapani. On The Theory of Diffusion of innovations. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 1968. . USAID. “Farming Systems Research and Extension.“ Pr'ojeCt Paper, Bamako, Mali: 1985. ‘ @flkening, Eugene. Acceptance of improved Practices. Raleigh, North Carolina: Agricultural Experiment Station Tecnnlcal Bulletin 98, 1952. , Waiter, Thomas Steven. “Risk and Adoption of Hybrid Maize in El Salvador,“ Food Research institute Studies, Vol. XViii, no. 1,1981, pp. 58-88. World Bank. Accelerated Development in Sub- Saharan Africa: An Agenda for Act—_i__on. Washington D .C.: 1981. MIC llllllllllllllll“