DRYLANDS ECOFARMING: An analysis on ecological · PDF fileDRYLANDS ECOFARMING: AN ANALYSIS ON...

NO

RW

EGIA

N U

NIV

ERSITY O

F LIFE SCIEN

CES

DEPA

RTMEN

T OF IN

TERN

ATION

AL ENVIR

ON

MEN

T AND

DEVELO

PMEN

T STUD

IES.......................................M

ASTER

THESIS 30 C

RED

ITS 2008

DRYLANDS ECOFARMING: An analysis on ecological farmingprototypes in two Sahelian zones: Koro and Bankass in Mali

Didier Habimana

DRYLANDS ECOFARMING: AN ANALYSIS ON ECOLOGICAL FARMING PROTOTYPES IN TWO SAHELIAN ZONES: KORO AND BANKASS IN MALI Didier Habimana

(Photo taken by Didier Habimana) A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF

SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE DEPARTEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONEMT AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES (NORAGRIC) NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCE 2008

ii

The Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, is the international gateway for the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB). Eight departments, associated research institutions and the Norwegian College of Veterinary Medicine in Oslo. Established in 1986, Noragric’s contribution to international development lies in the interface between research, education (Bachelor, Master and PhD programmes) and assignments. The Noragric Master theses are the final theses submitted by students in order to fulfil the requirements under the Noragric Master programme “Management of Natural Resources and Sustainable Agriculture” (MNRSA), “Development Studies” and other Master programmes. The findings in this thesis do not necessarily reflect the views of Noragric. Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the author and on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation contact Noragric. © Didier Habimana, May 2008 [email protected] Noragric Department of International Environment and Development Studies P.O. Box 5003 N-1432 Ås Norway Tel.: +47 64 96 52 00 Fax: +47 64 96 52 01 Internet: http://www.umb.no/noragric

iii

Declaration

I, Didier Habimana, declare that this thesis is a result of my research investigations and

findings. Sources of information other than my own have been acknowledged and a

reference list has been appended. This work has not been previously submitted to any

other university for award of any type of academic degree.

Signature………………………………..

Date…………………………………………

iv

DEDICATION I personally dedicate this thesis to my parents and siblings, who have given me the inspiration and encouragement to continue with my education at a master’s level.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would first like to thank the department of International Environment and Development

Studies (NORAGRIC) at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, for giving me the

opportunity to study at a master’s level and for their financial support. Thanks to the

Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation of the University of Makerere in Uganda,

for the practical fieldwork training which was part of a compulsory course.

I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Jens Aune for making this thesis

a success. I thank him for his professional guidance, criticism, and patience. I also thank

him for allowing me the chance to conduct research in Mali.

My gratitude also goes to Cheick O.Traore and to Kalilou Kone for their moral support

during my time spent in Mali. Thanks to ICRAF, CARE, PACOB, AID-MALI, the

Agricultural Technical Service of Koro, and especially the field agents and technicians

for their assistance and activities conducted in villages.

Special thanks to the Kone family who showed me Malian hospitality; I am also

gratefully thankful to them for taking care of me during a severe case of malaria.

Big thanks to my family, friends and classmates for their moral support and inspirations.

Finally, I give special thanks to all peasant tests interviewed for this study. I thank them

for their time and sacrifices, and for showing me their courage, hard work and dedication

in extreme working condition of the Sahelian environment.

vi

ABSTRACT

Farmers in the Sahelian part of West Africa are facing yield-limiting factors affecting

household capabilities of securing food security in a rapidly growing population. The

main concern in the region is to find potential ways to alleviate the low soil fertility

problem in a way that is cost effective, environmentally friendly and making investment

opportunities possible. The Ecofarming project developed two types of fertilizer

microdosage systems that underwent testing in both mono cropping and intercropping

systems. The specific objective of this study was to investigate the present socio-

economical situation of farmers involved in the project, study the effects of fertilizer

application on crop yields and to evaluate the potential economical gain from adopting

these microdosage systems. The study area was in the region of Mopti in Mali. The

sampling method used was convenience sampling. Structured questionnaire was

employed to collect data. The results show that farmers have all necessary requirements

to intensify their agricultural system. In mono cropping, farmers can expect to have good

crop yields when adopting the technique of applying fertilizer 15 days after seed planting.

However, this technique has shown to be costly for farmers to adopt, and is economically

not suitable at an early stage. Alternatively, a single change application of fertilizer in

ratio 1:1 can give a profit of more than 300%. In intercropping farmers can improve their

crop yields when adopting the technique of applying fertilizer in ratio 1:1, with soaked

seeds of millet intercropped with cowpeas, and pesticide use. However, farmers in Koro

were unsuccessful to obtain important yields like their counterparts in Bankass. Farmers

in Bankass can obtain 300% benefit from changing from a more traditional farming

system to the application of micro-fertilization without the use of any pesticide alone.

Micro-fertilization techniques remarkably increase crop yields, which can help farmers

securing their consumption and investment possibilities, and at the same time

intensifying their agricultural system.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...........................................................................................................................V

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................................................................................................VII

LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................................................... IX

LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................................................X

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 RATIONALE .......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 JUSTIFICATION ..................................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND HYPOTHESIS.............................................................................................. 3 1.5 OBJECTIVES......................................................................................................................................... 3

2 LITTERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 CONCEPT OF ECOFARMING .................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 SOIL FERTILITY .................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 MICRO- FERTILIZATION........................................................................................................................ 8 2.4 SOIL DEGRADATION ............................................................................................................................. 8 2.5 LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT................................................................................................................... 9 2.6 INTENSIFICATION OF SAHELIAN FARMING SYSTEM ............................................................................ 10

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA........................................................................................... 13

3.1 GEOGRAPHY...................................................................................................................................... 13 3.2 CLIMATE ........................................................................................................................................... 13 3.3 SOIL TYPE ......................................................................................................................................... 13 3.4 AGRICULTURE................................................................................................................................... 15 3.5 LIVESTOCK........................................................................................................................................ 15 3.6 HOUSEHOLD ECONOMY..................................................................................................................... 15 3.7 SOIL FERTILITY PRESENT SITUATION................................................................................................. 16

4. MATERIALS AND METHODS......................................................................................................... 17

4.1 SAMPLE SELECTION........................................................................................................................... 17 4.2 SAMPLE SIZE..................................................................................................................................... 17 4.3 DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................................................... 17 4.4 LIMITATIONS OF THE SURVEY........................................................................................................... 18 4.5 DATA EXTRAPOLATION ..................................................................................................................... 18

4.5.1 Mono cropping and intercropping and their harvest procedures ............................................ 18 4.5.2 Calculating into hectare.......................................................................................................... 20

4.6 DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 20 4.7 ECONOMICAL ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................... 20

4.7.1 Partial budget .......................................................................................................................... 21 4.7.2 Dominance analysis ................................................................................................................. 22 4.7.3 Marginal rate of return ............................................................................................................ 22

5 RESULTS............................................................................................................................................. 24

5.1 HOUSEHOLD AND FARM CHARACTERISTICS....................................................................................... 24 5.1.1 Household characteristics.......................................................................................................... 24 5.1.2 Farm characteristics .................................................................................................................. 25

viii

5.1.3 Chosen technology ..................................................................................................................... 28 5.2 YIELD CHARACTERISTICS................................................................................................................... 29

5.2.1 Differences between the experimental yields and past harvest yields........................................ 29 5.2.2 Differences in treatments and systems for Koro and Bankass ................................................... 30

5.2.2.1 Koro .................................................................................................................................................... 30 5.2.2.2 Bankass ............................................................................................................................................... 32

5.3 ECONOMICAL RESULTS AND ANALYSIS.............................................................................................. 35 5.3.1 Partial budget analysis .............................................................................................................. 35

5.3.1.1 Inputs costs.......................................................................................................................................... 35 5.3.1.2 Labour costs ........................................................................................................................................ 36 5.3.1.3 Partial budget ...................................................................................................................................... 37 5.3.1.4 Variance analysis on net profit benefits of Koro ................................................................................. 39 5.3.1.5 Variance analysis on net profit benefit of Bankass.............................................................................. 40

5.3.2 Dominance analysis ................................................................................................................... 42 5.3.3 Marginal rate of return analysis ................................................................................................ 44

5.3.3.1 Koro .................................................................................................................................................... 44 5.3.3.2 Bankass ............................................................................................................................................... 44

6. DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................................ 46

6.1 HOUSEHOLD AND FARM CHARACTERISTICS....................................................................................... 47 6.2 Y IELD CHARACTERISTICS.................................................................................................................. 49 6.3 ECONOMICAL RESULTS AND ANALYSIS............................................................................................. 49

7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................. 53

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 54

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................ 58

ix

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1- DESCRIPTION OF TREATMENTS FOR EACH MICRODOSAGE SYSTEMS............................................... 19 TABLE 2- FARMER’S AGE GROUPS................................................................................................................. 25 TABLE 3- FARMER’S AGE GROUPS AND GENDER............................................................................................ 25 TABLE 4- PERCENTAGE TABLE SHOWING TYPE OF CROPS SOLD FROM FARMERS’ LAST HARVEST.................. 26 TABLE 5- FARMER’S PERCEPTIONS ON HOW TO IMPROVE CROP PRODUCTIVITY............................................. 27 TABLE 6- FARMER’S PERCEPTIONS OF MAIN CROP YIELD PATTERNS OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS. ................... 27 TABLE 7- AVERAGE PRODUCTION INCREASE AND DECREASE PER FARM OF MILLET OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS

IN KORO AND BANKASS....................................................................................................................... 28 TABLE 8- PERCENTAGES OF SYSTEMS CHOSEN ACCORDING TO FARMER’S GENDER....................................... 28 TABLE 9- AVERAGE LAND SIZE AND LAST HARVEST AVERAGE PRODUCTION. ............................................... 29 TABLE 10- AVERAGE EXPERIMENTAL YIELD OF MILLET OF EACH TREATMENT OF BOTH SITES BY SYSTEM. .. 29 TABLE 11- INDIVIDUAL FARMER ’S YIELDS FOR PURE CROPPING WITH VARIANCE ANALYSIS ON TREATMENTS

............................................................................................................................................................ 31 TABLE 12- INDIVIDUAL FARMER ’S YIELDS FOR INTERCROPPING WITH VARIANCE ANALYSIS ON TREATMENTS

............................................................................................................................................................ 32 TABLE 13- INDIVIDUAL FARMER ’S YIELDS FOR PURE CROPPING WITH VARIANCE ANALYSIS ON TREATMENTS

............................................................................................................................................................ 33 TABLE 14- INDIVIDUAL FARMER ’S YIELDS FOR INTERCROPPING WITH VARIANCE ANALYSIS ON TREATMENTS

............................................................................................................................................................ 34 TABLE 15- INPUT PRICES REQUIREMENT FOR T3 AND T4 IN BOTH SYSTEMS.................................................. 36 TABLE 16-AVERAGE LABOR COSTS PER SYSTEM IN BOTH SITES.................................................................... 36 TABLE 17- AVERAGE HOURS PER HECTARE SPENT FOR EACH SYSTEM IN BOTH SITES.................................... 37 TABLE 18-TABLE SHOWING THE PARTIAL BUDGET OF BOTH SYSTEMS IN KORO............................................ 38 TABLE 19-TABLE SHOWING THE PARTIAL BUDGET OF BOTH SYSTEMS IN BANKASS ...................................... 38 TABLE 20- INDIVIDUAL FARMER ’S NET PROFIT FOR PURE CROPPING WITH VARIANCE ANALYSIS ON

TREATMENTS....................................................................................................................................... 39 TABLE 21-INDIVIDUAL FARMER ’S NET PROFIT FOR INTERCROPPING WITH VARIANCE ANALYSIS ON

TREATMENTS....................................................................................................................................... 40 TABLE 22- INDIVIDUAL FARMER ’S NET PROFIT FOR PURE CROPPING WITH VARIANCE ANALYSIS ON

TREATMENTS....................................................................................................................................... 41 TABLE 23- INDIVIDUAL FARMER ’S NET PROFIT FOR INTERCROPPING WITH VARIANCE ANALYSIS ON

TREATMENTS....................................................................................................................................... 42 TABLE 24- DOMINANCE ANALYSIS TABLE OF MICRODOSAGE WITH PURE CROPPING IN KORO....................... 43 TABLE 25- DOMINANCE ANALYSIS TABLE OF MICRODOSAGE WITH INTERCROPPING IN KORO...................... 43 TABLE 26- DOMINANCE ANALYSIS TABLE OF MICRODOSAGE WITH PURE CROPPING IN BANKASS ................. 43 TABLE 27- DOMINANCE ANALYSIS TABLE OF MICRODOSAGE WITH INTERCROPPING IN BANKASS................. 43 TABLE 28- MARGINAL RATE OF RETURN TABLE FOR KORO AND BANKASS...................................................45

x

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1- NUTRIENT CYCLE ........................................................................................................................... 7 FIGURE 2- POPULATION DENSITY AND AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION..................................................... 11 FIGURE 3- ANNUAL PRECIPITATION OF MALI ................................................................................................ 14 FIGURE 4- PLOT OF YIELD VERSUS TREATMENTS FOR MONO CROPPING, KORO ............................................. 30 FIGURE 5- PLOT OF YIELD VERSUS TREATMENTS FOR INTERCROPPING, KORO............................................... 31 FIGURE 6- PLOT OF YIELD VERSUS TREATMENTS FOR MONO CROPPING, BANKASS........................................ 33 FIGURE 7- PLOT OF YIELD VERSUS TREATMENTS FOR INTERCROPPING, BANKASS......................................... 34 FIGURE 8- POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION OF AGRO-ECOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES WITH THE USE OF MICRO-

FERTILIZATION ..................................................................................................................................... 46 FIGURE 9- SOCIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND POVERTY................................................ 47 FIGURE 10- POTENTIAL AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION............................................................................ 48 FIGURE 11- CRITERIA THAT PLAYS A ROLE IN FUTURE ADOPTION OF TECHNIQUES........................................ 50 FIGURE 12- M ICRO-FERTILIZATION CAPABILITY ........................................................................................... 52

1

1 INTRODUCTION In this section I will present the introduction into five different parts. These parts will

look into the background information, its rationale and justification, the problem

statement and finally all objectives of this study on: “Drylands Ecofarming. An analysis

on ecological farming prototypes in two Sahelian zones: Koro and Bankass in Mali”

1.1 Background Before arriving to the Sahelian regions of Mali, my notion of the Sahel was attached with

the inevitable expansion of the Saharan desert, the irreversible damages of the soil

leaving barren land, and the worsening of living conditions in communities who base

their survival on agriculture. Upon my arrival, I was to discover the potential efforts put

in these regions from the local government, the NGOs, to the local communities to fight

desertification and soil degradation through implementation of various projects and the

supplying of agricultural extension work.

These projects try to counteract main environmental issues such as erosion, and low soil

fertility. The main emphasis is on improving the soil quality of the region since it is

highly linked to the socio-economical situation of local people living in these areas

(Cullet2004). Main crops grown in the region are usually drought resistant, but with

unpredictable rainfall and erratic precipitation patterns, peasants often find themselves in

critical situations. There have been cases of failed technology practises that did not

improve farmer’s productivity, which eventually led to more scepticism among some

local communities (Kone et al. 2004).

Sahelian peasants are highly adaptive to their environment using indigenous technology

passed down from passed generations, to ensure an environmental friendly use of

resources; in order to increase overall productivity and reduce effects of erosion (Kaya et

al. 2005; Kone et al. 2004).

2

The Ecofarm prototypes in Mali are initiated to help vulnerable farmers combat food

insecurity, and to develop alternative techniques in the field of horticulture, agriculture,

and livestock management. These techniques are complementary tools, to strengthen

farmers’ indigenous techniques in order to counteract the effects of low soil fertility

(Kaya et al. 2005).

1.2 Rationale An exponential increase of population in areas where resources are already scarce may

have detrimental effects on drylands ecosystems (Boon 2004; De Pauw 2006). The fast

growing population in rural areas, increases food demand. This has lead to an increase of

livestock holdings, land expansion, encroaching natural resources and reducing

traditional fallow systems necessary for soil fertility, crop- and fodder production (Jayne

et al. 1989; Kaya et al. 2005; Powell et al.1993; Kaya et al. 2000). That is why it is

necessary to find alternative agro-ecological farming techniques, which not only

increases local food production, but also assures a sustainable means of production

capable of reducing soil degradation (Altieri, 2007).

Agro-ecology, according to Altieri (2007), is a science concerned with both socio-

economical and environmental agricultural process to improve crop production, soil

conservation, and to increases the rate of return to investment helping farmers out of

poverty. Through yield and economic analysis of local farmers’ potential earnings, this

study will show the possible contributions of agro-ecology in the improvement of

livelihood of people living in the Sahel regions of Mali.

1.3 Justification Agro-ecological projects have given important and successful results, when it comes to

increasing important food crops of poor peasants, especially in environmentally difficult

places (Altieri, 2007). Evaluating the ecofarm, prototype project will help understand the

potential benefits that farmers could reap if the new farming techniques disseminated on

a larger scale. This study will contribute to ongoing agro-ecological research in drylands,

for the improvement of peasant livelihood and food security.

3

1.4 Problem statement and hypothesis Climate, rainfall distribution, topography and soil composition are important

determinants in understanding agro-ecological diversity in drylands (De Pauw 2006). The

problem is that people living in the Sahel are mostly complaining about the erratic

rainfall patterns and low soil quality, drastically affecting their crop yields and

livelihood.

The hypothesis of this study will be to look into the agro-ecological technical systems

offered by the eco-farming project; whether these techniques improve farmers’

production yields, household income and food security in areas most susceptible to

drought.

1.5 Objectives The Ecofarming project's main goal in the Sahel regions of Mali is to improve soil

fertility. The importance of repairing soil damages may improve agriculture and livestock

production, lead to better household income, food security, nutrition, and biodiversity.

There are three main objectives in this research:

1. The investigation of household and farm characteristics of farmers

2. Studying the effect of fertilizer application on crop yields

3. The investigation of potential economical gain from adopting microdosage

systems

4

2 LITTERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Concept of Ecofarming Ecofarming is an agricultural development system, which permits farmers to use

efficiently their available resources in order to increase productivity, sustain household

needs in food, reverse land degradation and minimize crop yields fluctuations (Kotschi et

al. 1989)

The first concept of Ecofarming first originated in Germany. They found that it was

possible to apply agricultural practices in an ecological and organic way. The Ecofarming

project conducted in Mali allows farmers to use fertilizer and pesticide in an amount that

is not harmful to the environment. The main purpose of the use of chemicals is to

improve soil quality. The main concern of Ecofarming is to increase crop yields in an

environmentally sustainable way. That is why the spread of such practices could be

beneficial to small-scale farmers in developing countries, faced with challenges such as

population growth, climate change, poor market infrastructure, low purchasing power and

inputs availability (Kotschi et al. 1989).

The important characteristics in Ecofarming techniques are categorized as “vegetation

design, use of biological symbionts, green manuring, mulching, composting, integrated

plant protection and integration of livestock and/or aquaculture.” (Kotschi et al. 1989, p

10) Key Ecofarming techniques mentioned here are:

Vegetation design: It is the incorporation of both multiple cropping and agroforestry

into a farming system. Multiple cropping allows two or more crops to be grown

simultaneously or in sequence, which improves the protection of soil from evaporation

and erosion, increases crop yields and lowers production risks. Agroforestry allows the

protection of agricultural land from erosion, insures water balance and nutrient cycling.

5

Biological symbionts: It is the incorporation of leguminous species helping bacteria’s or

fungi with the fixation of nitrogen in the soil.

Green manuring: It is the incorporation of green manure crops grown in a balanced crop

rotation. This allows a production of large amounts of biomass that can fix large quantity

of nitrogen to the soil.

Mulching: the covering of top layer soil with organic or inorganic matter; this protects

the soil against erosion and evaporation.

Composting: the controlled decomposition of both animal and plant wastes for the

increase quality production of humus, which helps maintain nutrients within the farm

system.

Integrated plant protection: the incorporation of methods, which reduces the

dependency of chemical pesticides.

Integration of livestock: It is the incorporation of animals in a farming system for the

provision of organic fertilizer, and for the use in land preparations.

2.2 Soil fertility Soil fertility, according to Troeh and Thompson (2005), is all processes involved in the

creation of nutrient pool in the soil, from the mineralization of organic matter and of the

weathering of minerals, capable of supplying plants and crops with nutrients for their

development and growth.

The most important soil nutrients are composed of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium,

found on the topsoil layer. Weischet et al (1993) describes this topsoil layer as the

“solum”, where “humus” contributes in changing organic matter into inorganic matter

through a “mineralization” process. They also look at three determining property factors

that are important in understanding the ecological aspect of the soil:

6

The reserve of primary minerals: these minerals found near the “Parent rock” deep in

the soil, which after chemical weathering becomes the plants first source of nutrients

absorbed by their roots.

The organic matter: these substances decompose to produce plants second source of

nutrients. Through a process of “humification” and “mineralization”, organic matter

converts into inorganic matter, which plants roots takes up.

The cation exchange capacity: This is a property of the soil, which involves the

prevention of valuable nutrients leaching further down into the soil. This process then

goes through “electrostatic attraction” where the positively charged cations stick to the

negatively charged soil particles.

Weischet et al (1993) states the importance of the humification and mineralization

processes in soil fertility, which depends on the annual availability of organic matter and

of its decomposition rate. They further explain that the higher the mineralization process

there is in the soil, the lower the presence of humus will be found, and vice versa. The

rate in which the soil is capable of changing organic matter into inorganic depends on

factors of soil acidity, climate, and of its quality.

Since crops and plants take up nutrients from the soil, Troeh and Thompson (2005)

mentions that most of the soil nutrients looses its contents with the removal of these crops

and plants in each harvest, and that little is returned back to the soil as organic matter;

this process is explained as the breaking of nutrient cycle. Troeh and Thompson (2005)

emphasises the use of fertilizers to compensate the soil loss of nutrients, namely of

nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. This process as depicted in figure 1:

7

Figure 1: Nutrient cycle

Source: Troeh and Thompson (2005)

According to Frangenberg (2007), agriculture production is conditioned by the

availability of nutrients in the soil, and of the protection of nutrient cycle, which is made

vulnerable when more is taken out than put in within a farming system. He goes further

by saying that the application of fertilizers and manure, with good farming methods not

only increases productivity but also improves soil quality. However, he also adds that

there is a need to understand the exact requirements of fertilizer use, to prevent soil

damage and to apply it with good agricultural practices. He also talks about preventing

erosion effects from adopting techniques that allows farmers to reduce the tillage to a

minimum.

In the Sahelian regions of West African, reduced levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in

sandy soils have negatively affected crop yields of main crops such as millet and

sorghum (Buerkert et al. 2001). Fertilizer application can be very beneficial for

increasing crop yields in places where soil fertility is low and when erosion is prevalent

(McIntire 1986, cited in Buerkert et al. 2001). Buerkert et al. (2001) explains further by

saying that applying fertilizer locally gives remarkable plant growth, but can ultimately

PLANT

SOIL MINERALS

Uptake SOIL ORGANIC MATTER

Fixation Weathering Mineralization

AVAILABLE NUTRIENT POOL

Leaching and Erosion

Fertilization Harvest

8

lead to a bad harvest caused by “rapid water depletion in the dense root zone around the

placed fertilizer.”

2.3 Micro- fertilization Micro-fertilization is the application of small amount of fertilizer to increase crop yield

(Aune et al.2007). They have two micro-fertilizer technologies that involve the

application of phosphorus fertilizer of 0.3 g per pocket in a ratio of 1:1 with seeds, and of

6g of fertilizer per pocket. Their results show that the technology involving the

application of fertilizer of 0.3 g per pocket is more economically efficient and demands

low labour requirements. From these technologies, they have shown that it is possible to

increase yields by applying small amount of fertilizer and that micro-fertilization should

be supplemented with alternative ways of maintaining soil fertility that simulates the

natural processes of humification and mineralization.

The recycling of crop residues - which is transformed into organic matter, and the

fertilization of the soil, seems to be positive ingredients that sustains soil fertility (Aune

et al, 2007; Troeh and Thompson, 2005; Frangenberg, 2007). Micro-fertilization

according to Aune et al (2007) can be farmers’ best starting point to increase crop yields.

2.4 Soil degradation For years, land degradation in drylands was associated with man made activities to the

environment. However, a new paradigm shift gives us a better understanding of the

problematic in which it entails. According to Øygard et al (1999), land degradation is not

a result of poor land management as depicted in old paradigm, but of climate change

especially in the changing rainfall pattern over the years, and of the loss of biodiversity

from expending agricultural land.

Juergens (2006) identifies land degradation with several processes important for scientific

understanding of dryland resources concerning soil, biodiversity, water, climate change

and human interaction with nature. It is these resources, which needs the most attention in

finding solution against land degradation. These processes mentioned as:

9

Soil related degradation: the loss of important nutrients in the soil, which decreases soil

fertility and breaks down the nutrient cycle.

Biodiversity related degradation: the loss of biodiversity through overexploitation of

agricultural land and through vegetation cover shifts to agriculture.

Climate related degradation: the increase in temperature and the reduction and erratic

rainfall patterns.

Human interactions with nature related degradation: population pressure encroaching

on local resources.

Soil degradation is one form of land degradation where the soil looses its nutrients

contents. According to Conacher (2006), soil degradation is a principle understood by

looking at the soils biological, chemical and physical properties:

Biological related degradation: When the soil is no longer able to provide nutrients or

retain water, it is an indication that the soil is poor in humus.

Chemical related degradation: When the soil experiences chemical imbalances such as

increase in acidity, salinity and sodium, it brings about loss of soil structure and erosion

making it difficult for plants to uptake nutrients in the soil.

Physical related degradation: When the soil has lost its topsoil properties or has

become hard.

2.5 Livestock management Having animals in a farming system is not only seen as a physical asset used in time of

need, but a resource that can provide organic matter needed to increase soil fertility

(Savory, 1999; Kotschi et al, 1989; Powell and Williams, 1993; Williams et al, 2000).

Farmers can incorporate their livestock management into their cropping system, through

10

what Savory (1999) calls “crop rotation”, where farmers plant fodder type plants where

their livestock can graze and at the same time deposit manure which in turn helps to

increase the soil’ fertility. He also adds that feeding livestock with crop residuals, weeds,

and household food waste ensuring the cycle of nutrients into the farming system.

The incorporation of livestock and crop systems, according to Powell and Williams

(1993), could be beneficial to farmers living in the Sahel regions of West Africa where

there is a known problem of low soil organic matter (S.O.M.). Livestock manure

increases the soil organic matter and improve water-holding capacity.

Herders in the Sahel as Powell and Williams (1993) explains, usually lead their livestock

herds to grazing areas away from the homestead, and rely on wells for water, resulting in

a accumulation of manure and urine in places which are not suitable for agriculture. An

alternative to this problem would be to provide fodder to livestock without having to take

them to grazing areas far off, and by transporting manure droppings onto the fields. This

usually means feeding them with roughages or with forages rich in carbohydrates,

allowing an enrichment of organic mater that would increase nutrient efficiency and

productivity of sandy soils.

2.6 Intensification of Sahelian farming system Farmers in the Sahel regions are aware of the benefits of adopting mixed farming; this is

a good approach to intensify agriculture (Williams et al, 2000; Harris, 1996). Williams et

al (2000) describes this intensification as increasing agricultural inputs such as labour, in

order to increase the output of agriculture land per unit area according to its farming- and

livestock production. It is this kind of intensification that secures not only the

economical and production progress of farmers, but make sure that the nutrient cycle

within the system is unbroken.

When intensifying a farming system, it is also important for farmers to adopt ways of

production that is sustainable to avoid any interruption of nutrient cycle through soil

degradation (Williams et al, 2000).

11

According to Harris (1996), population density plays an important role in the

intensification of a farming system. A high number of people living within a system

increase the availability of labour. An increase of labour force due to high population

density creates a positive crop –livestock system, where the combination of farming and

pastoralism gradually intensifies (Boserup 1965, cited in Harris, 1996). This assures a

crop- and fodder production within a farming society.

Harris (1996) shows the interaction of population density and agriculture intensification:

Figure 2: Population density and agricultural intensification

Source: Harris (1996)

Figure 2 shows that with higher population density, the average length of fallow

period declines but the labor input constantly increases. In other word as the density

increases, so will be the need to increase food production in a farming system that

naturally relies on soil nutrients, which are here overexploited. Intensifying the farming

system, as shown in the figure, cannot be successful on its own in a growing population

and is therefore low. When introducing both crop and livestock into a system there is an

increase of crop residue use, which helps increase soil fertility per hectare from animal

manure in a gradual way. This tends to provide quality fodder, increasing the Tropical

Intensification Level CROP & LIVESTOCK INTEGRATION Crop residue use High Labour use CROP & LIVESTOCK INTERACTION FARMING TLU/ hectare PASTORALISM Average length of fallow period Low Low High Population density

12

Livestock Unit (TLU) per hectare allowing higher livestock production. The result of

integrating both crop and livestock is a higher agricultural intensification. Crop residues

will be in sufficient quantity to satisfy fodder needs for livestock and at the same time

provide increasing crop yields for the farmers.

In accord with the benefits of intensifying agriculture in semi-arid areas in West Africa,

Williams et al (2000) mentions the presence of constraints and difficulties due to the

absence of good institutions, policies and infrastructures and the prevalence of risks, that

can hamper processes for integration of crop and livestock systems. These risks are

mostly of climatic and economical nature, which can be solved by farmers diversifying

their economical activities by using locally adopted seeds, incorporating mix farming and

intercropping. Farmers should also have dispersed fields as a security measure against

erratic rainfall patterns. Investment and saving are other risk preventive measures farmers

can adopt, of income derived from surplus grain storage or accumulated livestock.

The intensification of farming system would not only secure the nutrient cycle of the

system but also allow farmers to store surplus grains from their harvests in order to sell

them at a more favourable time, allowing them to invest more in their farming activities

(Harris, 1996).

13

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA

3.1 Geography This study conducted in two out of the eight administrative units of the region of Mopti

situated within the Sahelian belt, called Koro and Bankass.

Koro is located between 14° 6’ 0 latitude and 3° 11’ 0 longitude. It borders with Burkina

Faso to the East, and with the administrative unit Bankass to the South West. The three

communes chosen in Koro were Madougou, Barapireli and Diankabou.

Bankass is located between 14° 4’ 0 latitude and 3° 52’ 0 longitude. It also borders with

Burkina Faso to the South, and with the administrative unit Koro to the North East. The

three communes chosen in Bankass were Bankass, Baye and Diallassagou.

3.2 Climate In the Sahelian belt, the dry seasons are long and the rainy seasons are short with

unpredictable patterns. The average annual precipitation for Koro and Bankass is above

750 mm; there is also a seasonal variability in rainfall in these areas. Differences for

rainfall can explain farmers’ differences in crop production in, for example, a same

district.

3.3 Soil type The soil type mostly found in the area is sandy and clayey. Soil moisture is an important

factor for plant development, which in turn helps increase crop yields in drylands

agriculture.

The topography of the Sahelian zone, where Koro and Bankass are located, named the

Gondo-Mondoro. It lies between 200 to 300m above sea level South East of the Dogon

Plateau (Coulibaly 2003).

14

Figure 3– Annual precipitation of Mali

15

3.4 Agriculture Agriculture is the most important, and in most cases the only activity assuring household

subsistence in food. The important crops grown in the region are millet, groundnuts,

cowpeas, sorghum, and sesame. Of the mentioned crops, millet has a capability to endure

long periods of drought and in places with erratic rainfall patterns. It is a staple food high

used to make porridges and bread. Cowpeas and groundnuts are also drought resistant

and grown as nutritional complements to millet and sorghum.

Agricultural activities usually start at the beginning of the rainy season, in mid July.

These activities involve land preparations and planting. Usually farmers do their planting

after rainfalls. From the end of October to the start of November, farmers are busy

harvesting their crops, which can take place over two months. Between the planting and

harvesting periods, farmers also conduct weeding activities.

The most important complaints or problems farmers face in this area are the sudden stop

of rainfall and low soil fertility. The increasing population growth and insufficient

cultivable areas (Boon 2004) could explain the low soil fertility.

3.5 Livestock Farmers in the area keep cattle, sheep, goats, donkeys and poultry. These animals provide

manure. Donkeys reared for transportation purposes, and the cattle for milk products.

Farmers are experiencing lack of sufficient fodder due to overexploitation of grazing

areas. This has been a major reason for conflicts between sedentary agriculturalists and

semi nomadic pastoralists in the region, especially when their livestock graze and brows

everywhere including on farmers’ plots - divagation is still a common problem.

3.6 Household economy Farmers rely heavily on agriculture for survival although they may sell some cash crops,

such as cowpeas or groundnuts, for income. When a surplus of important crop such as

millet occurs, its sale depends on the size of the household. In times of need, the sale of

some ruminants for money is common for instance for the repayment of debts.

16

The rearing of animals for sale is a common livelihood strategy adopted by farmers,

which involves the fattening of male goats by feeding them with crop residuals. Farmers

may obtain good prices during high festivities at the end of the year.

There are no financial credits given to farmers in the area since they lack collateral.

Farmers complained about this saying that it would greatly help them in the purchasing

of fertilizer, and other agricultural inputs, and even help them to diversify their livelihood

strategies by rearing goats for example. Some farmers are members of local organisations

where they collect a sum of money distributed rotationally to members. Women have

greatly benefited from this, helping them with their empowerment.

Rural-urban migration is very common in the region. Young men and head of households

usually practice this in search for money, to help their family left behind in rural areas

when there are no farming activities taking place. They usually come back to help

especially during the harvest period. The incomes brought back from the urban areas are

very helpful to their families, especially in time of needs.

3.7 Soil fertility present situation Farmers usually plant their crops early in the season in order to take advantage of the

early flux of plant nutrients.

There are more nutrients removed from the soil in each harvest, than nutrients that

returns to the soil. The planting of leguminous fodder crops on larger scale is not

possible, and livestock owned by the farmers usually graze outside the farming area,

loosing valuable organic matter. Powell and Williams (1993) also adds the loss of

vegetation cover in some area leaves the soil exposed to the sun, increasing the

evaporation and erosion rate, resulting in the decline of soil fertility.

17

4. MATERIALS AND METHODS

4.1 Sample selection The sampling process already done by a non-governmental organization (CARE), since

they had a list of all farmers involved with the ecofarm prototypes in Koro and Bankass

handed out to me upon my arrival to Mopti. Villages’ selection was according to their

past performances and on their membership to local associations or structures such as the

O.E.R.N. or G.M.J.T. Village chefs had the task to select farmers who they knew were

hard working, and who could perform various tasks involving the project. These farmers

then summoned to village meetings, received presentations of various activities of the

project. The selected farmers had to have the means and capabilities to adopt one of the

activities offered.

The numbers of farmers selected were three per village. The project operated in three

municipalities in both the communes of Koro and Bankass. For each municipality, three

villages took part, making 27 farmers for each site.

4.2 Sample size For this study, I was concerned with farmers who adopted agricultural systems involving

microdosage techniques of either mono cropping or intercropping. Out of the 54 farmers

who already listed as peasant tests, I picked all 37 farmers (16 farmers from Koro and 21

from Bankass) who choose to try out the microdosage activities. The sampling technique

used was convenient sampling.

4.3 Data Collection The data collection using was a closed ended questionnaire. Respondents, who were head

of household, received a set of questions about their socio-economical situation, their

current agricultural system, and on the adopted agricultural techniques tested on their

fields. Through out the first few interviews the questionnaire underwent changes; due to

irrelevancy, some questions from the questionnaire underwent reformulation and some

18

excluded. NGO agents helped me with translating and interpreting answers given by the

farmers into French, since the questionnaire was in French. Agents working in the district

of Bankass received questionnaires in order to assist me with the data collection, since I

was not able to travel to Bankass due to logistical constraints.

4.4 Limitations of the survey Some questions in the survey were left untouched due to the fact that some farmers could

not answer when they were asked for example about last years harvests of different

cultures or about household consumption. There were some interviewed farmers who

gave little input (who did not say much) because of neighbours interrupting and

answering for them. There were also situations in villages where farmers, who were

about to be interviewed on the same day, were all present during an interview given that

it was supposed to be individual interviews; at the end of the day most of the answers

were more or like similar for some questions.

When it came to intercropping, farmers that harvested cowpeas mixed all cowpeas results

- from the different treatments, into one bole, thinking that the end-result was

insignificant. Maybe they did not understand that the yields would later be used for yield

estimations. This has led into the non-inclusion of most cowpeas results in this study.

4.5 Data extrapolation In this study, all quantitative data from experimental plots underwent metric conversion

into hectare since farmers had to test the new techniques on a small parcel of their

cultivated fields. This gives us an approximation about results that farmers would have

got if they had applied the techniques on a larger area. In order to understand the

procedure of metric conversions used in this study it is important to know the

requirements of both pure cropping and intercropping.

4.5.1 Mono cropping and intercropping and their harvest procedures The total experimental plot per farmers was 0.5 ha of land, divided into four treatment

parcels measuring each 0.125 ha. Before the harvest period, extension workers gave clear

explanations to farmers on how they should harvest the experimental plots, and harvest

19

procedures were to be performed exactly as they were instructed to, in order to have

correct and reliable data information about the yields of each experimental treatment.

For those who employed the mono cropping system, they were instructed to take the

square harvest of each treatment parcels. Each square had 100 poquets of pearl millet (10

poquets x 10 poquets) in an area measuring 12.5m x 12.5m.

For those who choose intercropping, the harvest of the contents of both millet and

cowpeas, in an area measuring 12.5m x 25m of each treatment parcels went as instructed.

Farmers separated the grain yields of each treatment parcels as instructed, to store it in a

safe place for the extension workers to weigh later on after the harvest.

There were no biases in the choice of harvest squares since it was already decided upon

between the extension workers and the farmers during the planting period.

Table 1 - Description of treatments for each microdosage systems

Treatments Mono cropping Intercropping T1 No treatments applied: Simple cropping of traditional millet: traditional T2 Millet seeds soaked Intercropping of millet before planting and cowpeas T3 Application of fertilizer Intercropping with in a ratio of 1:1 soaked seeds + application of fertilizer ratio 1:1 T4 Application of 2g of T2 + T3 with the fertilizer per poquets, application of 15 day after planting pesticide

20

4.5.2 Calculating into hectare The ideal measurement of land area is the hectare for this study. Since the experimental

harvested plots for mono cropping measure 0.01562 ha each; the yields multiplied by

10000 m2 and then divided by 156.6 m2.

The experimental harvested plots for intercropping measure each 0.03125 ha - the yields

multiplied by 10000 m2 and then divided by 312.5 m2.

4.6 Data analysis All obtained data was analysed using descriptive statistics, variance with the help of

statistical packages SPSS and MINITAB.

To look at whether there are significant differences in mean yields and net profits

benefits between treatments from both, pure cropping and intercropping - within Koro

and Bankass, a statistical program used was MINITAB.

I used the Two-Way ANOVA analysis tool, which allowed me to look at levels of

significance between treatments and systems, for yields and net benefits of each site. All

levels of p-value, which are less than 5%, show significant levels of variation, more so if

the p-value is less than 1%.

4.7 Economical analysis For this study, I used the partial budget analysis for the investigation of systems most

beneficial to farmers in terms of economical gain from adopting the types of techniques

offered by the project. This analysis done in stages, starting from the calculation of gross

benefits, total costs that varies, was to look at the partial budget of each system. This

followed by a dominance analysis of the different treatments. Finally, the calculation of

the marginal rate of return helped me to look at the best possible beneficial treatment

changes.

21

4.7.1 Partial budget By subtracting the average total variable cost from the average gross benefits of each

treatment, the calculation of the partial budget was calculated.

The average gross benefit calculated by multiplying the averages of each treatment,

depended on the system and site of the regions kilogram prices of millet and cowpeas.

Millet was sold at 100 FCFA and cowpeas at 202 FCFA in 2007. According to the

Agricultural Technical Service of Koro, the prices of millet and cowpeas undergo

fluctuations during a year. These prices correlated with the total production of millet and

cowpeas, explains the differences in prices found in different communes in the area.

Having said this, the prices of millet and cowpeas used in this study reflected the average

prices found in the six communes in Koro and Bankass during the time of my stay in the

region of Mopti.

The total costs that vary between the different treatments are inputs costs and labour

costs; input costs attached with phosphate fertilizer price of 283 FCFA per kg, and the

Caïman pesticide bag of 400 FCFA. According to the director of the Agricultural

Technical Service of Koro, the prices of fertilizer and pesticide, unlike the prices of

millet and cowpeas, have not changed and remained stable throughout the year. I

estimated the requirements of fertilizer for T3 to be 5 kg per hectare in both systems.

However, for the mono cropping system I estimated 13 kg of fertilizer in T4 application

per hectare. I also estimated two bags of pesticide per hectare.

Labour cost was set at 1000 FCFA per person per day. Depending on the number of

persons used for labour in activities involving land preparations, seeding application of

fertilizer and pesticide and weeding from each farmer, I was able to estimate the average

labour used by each farmer, for each treatment. The data collected would later on help

me to assess the average labour cost per system and by site for treatments T3 and T4, by

multiplying the number of persons employed by 1000 FCFA (table 16).

22

Farmers also gave the time spent on the different activities for each treatment parcels

measuring each 1250m2. From these data, I was able to estimate the hours spent per

hectare of each farmer test, and give the average time for each site. Calculations was first

done by multiplying the average time of each treatment parcels by 10000 m2, and then by

dividing it with 1250 m2. The sum is then divided by two, giving a representation of the

time spent, of more than one individual working on the fields. (Table 17)

4.7.2 Dominance analysis Looking at the net benefices of each treatment is not enough to evaluate the economical

gain of the farmers adopting new techniques. There is a need to analyse each treatment

by looking at their costs and ranking them from the least costly to the most expensive.

When ranking, if we come across a treatment which has a higher average total costs that

vary and at the same time has lower average net benefit than the previous treatments, this

treatment according to the CIMMYT (1988), becomes dominated and will be ruled out

when calculating the marginal rate of return. The advantage of this method is to rule out

any treatment that is not beneficial in the experiment, which makes it possible to

calculate the marginal rate of investment of treatments that are beneficial to the farmers.

4.7.3 Marginal rate of return According to CIMMYT (1988), the sole purpose of calculating the marginal rate of

return is to look whether local farmers are able to regain all of their investments from

their obtained profits. It also shows us how big a marginal rate can be from changing

treatments, which could helps us make special recommendations.

The calculation of marginal rate of return has to be on treatments which are not

dominated (CIMMYT, 1988). Let say we want to calculate the marginal rate of return

from treatment X to Y. We subtract the net benefits of treatments Y from X, and the sum,

divided by the subtracted sum of the total cost of Y from X. Here is the formula:

23

MRR = (By – Bx) / (Cy – Cx)

MRR = Marginal Rate of Return

B = Benefits

C = Total costs

24

5 RESULTS

In this section I will present the results into diffent parts. Firstly on households and farm

characteristics, secondly on the yields patterns, and thirdly on the economics of adopted

systems.

5.1 Household and farm characteristics This study looks at 37 households who volunteered to adopt agro-ecological techniques

to improve crop production, in a farming system highly dependent on rain availability in

an area closely located to the Sahara desert.

5.1.1 Household characteristics In this study area, I came across many households that consist of one family head with

one or more wives, their children and in some case with other family members all living

together as an extended family unit. In a household, head of household are responsible

for on average 20.8 people. The positive effect of having a large family is that it

contributes to the family’s field labor. However, the down side of it is food shortages

when their food stock goes empty. There is an average hunger period of 3 months,

usually 4 to 5 months after a harvest. Assuring food security in an area with erratic

rainfall is something that head of households are concerned about, especially when there

is an average of 5.76 children under the age of 5 years in each family unit.

Of the 37 head of households, 26 answered to have no other income generating activity

outside of agriculture, which represent 70 %. Out of the same number, 40% have said to

have no formal education, and 75% do not even have access to credits or loans. It is these

indicators, size of household, number of months with food shortages, access to credit,

off-farm income and formal education, which gives us an overview of the socio-

economic conditions, which explains the current situation of peasants living in drylands.

The men and women interviewed are all over the age of 35 years. 32.5 % are in the group

between 50 and 60 years of age.

25

Table 2- Farmer’s age groups

Age groups Number Percentage %

35 to 40 8 21.6

40 to 50 10 27

50 to 60 12 32.5

60 to 70 5 13.5

70 > 2 5.4

Table 2 shows us that most of respondents are middle aged. There were 10 women

interviewed and 27 men. Table 3 also shows that 60% of women are between the ages of

50 to 70.

Table 3 – Farmer’s age groups and gender

Age groups Males Females

35 to 40 7 1

40 to 50 9 1

50 to 60 9 3

60 to 70 2 3

70 > 0 2

Total 27 10

5.1.2 Farm characteristics The peasants interviewed in this study have an average land size of 13 hectare, which

they use to cultivate millet, sorghum, as main crops for subsistence, and other crops such

as groundnuts, sorrel and cowpeas. The average production from last harvest in 2006 was

4273 kg. All of the respondents have said to possess livestock and animal traction is

highly used during field preparations.

26

In order to differentiate the peasants who are well off, farmers who are able to sell parts

of their own production are economically well off.

Crops partially sold are usually millet, cowpeas and groundnuts. In both sites, there are

15 individuals, representing 40.5% of all respondents, who are not able to sell any of

these crops. This means that they are not able to produce enough surpluses to sell, thus

continuing living in extreme poverty. Nevertheless, for the remainder 22 local farmers,

they were able to sell on average 9.67% of their total harvest production. The crop which

is least sold are groundnuts followed by millet.

Table 4 – Percentage table showing type of crops sold from farmers’ last harvest

Millet Cowpeas Groundnuts

Percentages sold 13.5% 59.4% 10.8%

Percentages not sold 86.5% 40.6% 89.2%

Table 4 shows that farmers that are able to sell some of their crops mostly prefer to sell

cowpeas since millet production assures the subsistence consumption of households. The

same applies for groundnuts, which are usually households’ main source of protein.

These results reinforces the idea that people, regardless of climatic differences, will

always try to find new ways of adapting to their environments for physical and

economical survival(Adams, 2004).

All of the 37 farmers interviewed, named in a hierarchal fashion what they thought to be

the best way to improve their crop production.

27

Table 5- Farmer’s perceptions on how to improve crop productivity

Farmer’s perceptions Responses in %

Manure application 43.2

Fertilizer application 24.3

Land preparations 18.9

Rainfall 5.4

No idea 5.4

Crop diversification 2.7

Table 5 shows that 43 % of respondents thinks highly of manure application as the main

way to improve productivity. This explains the potential availability of organic matter

from their livestock and of herds from transhumant pastoralists. The peasants also prefer

fertilizer, but it is not always affordable for most of them or is available in insufficient

quantity. Only 5.4% of respondents see rainfall as an important factor; this explains that

the majority of local farmers are adapted to the harsh environment, and are trying to cope

with the existing rainfall.

Respondents were also asked about the patterns of main crop yield variations through out

the last 20 years, whether it has increased or decreased over the years.

Table 6- Farmer’s perceptions of main crop yield patterns over the last 20 years.

Farmer’s perceptions Responses in %

Too young to say 10.8

Decreased 54.1

Increased 32.4

No idea 2.7

Table 6 shows that over 50% of respondents agree that there has been a decrease in

yields over the last 20 years. They link this problem with the irregularities of rainfall,

crop diseases (Striga), pest invasions and decreasing soil quality over the years. The

32.4% of those who responded that there has been an increase, link this with the

availability of fertilizer and the manure from moving herders.

28

When asked about the quantity of millet that had increased or decreased over the years, I

received different answers from the respondents corresponding to their sites. Out of 13

respondents capable of recollecting past yield patterns in Koro, only six of them could

give estimation in kilograms; five answered that there was a decrease and one answered

that there was an increase. In Bankass out of the 19 respondents who were able to

recollect past yield patterns, only seven of them could not give estimation in quantities;

three answered that there was a decrease and nine answered that there was an increase.

Only one respondent could not recollect past yields patterns.

Table 7 – Average production increase and decrease per farm of millet over the last 20

years in Koro and Bankass

Average value Decrease in kg Increase in kg

Koro 3480 2600

Bankass 2400 2567

5.1.3 Chosen technology In this study, farmers had a choice between adopting one of the two agro-ecological

farming systems offered by the Ecofarm project. The first involves the microdosage with

mono cropping (millet or sorghum), and the second the microdosage using intercropping

of either millet or sorghum with cowpeas. 54.1% of both genders chose the microdosage

with mono cropping while 45.9% chose the other alternative.

Table 8 – Percentages of systems chosen according to farmer’s gender

Microdosage with Microdosage with Gender mono cropping in % intercropping in % Male 66.6 33.3 Female 20 80

Table 8 shows us that 80% of women preferred to adopt the system involving

intercropping, while nearly 70 % of men chose the system involving mono cropping.

29

5.2 Yield characteristics All experimental yields in this study underwent metric conversion into kilograms per

hectare, which gives us an idea or estimation of the amount farmer’s could have obtained

if they had applied the techniques offered on a larger scale.

5.2.1 Differences between the experimental yields and past harvest yields One way of measuring the effectiveness of an experimental project would be to compare

it with recent and actual situation. Based on the data collected on general production

from the harvest of 2006, and of their cultivated land size, I was able to calculate the

average general production and land size of each farmer.

Table 9- Average land size and last harvest average production.

Average land Average production Average yield

size in ha in kg per hectare in kg

Total no of farmers

37 13 4273 328

The average experimental yield of each treatment, of mono cropping and intercropping of

the two sites combined, is shown in table 10:

Table 10- Average experimental yield of millet of each treatment of both sites by system.

Treatments Mono cropping in kg Intercropping in kg

T1 303 282

T2 427 276

T3 627 449

T4 612 490

When extrapolating the data from table 9 into one hectare, the average production per

hectare becomes 328 kg. When comparing this number with the yields produced in

treatments involving mono cropping, we can see that soaking seeds before planting gives

a 30% potential increase in yield. We can also see that the application of fertilizer of ratio

1:1 gives a 91% potential increase and the application of fertilizer after 15 days gives an

30

86% potential increase in yields. When comparing with the yields produced in treatments

involving intercropping, we can see that intercropping with the application of fertilizer

gives a 30% potential increase in yields. We can also see that intercropping with the

application of both pesticide and fertilizer of ratio 1:1 gives a 50% potential increase in

yields.

5.2.2 Differences in treatments and systems for Koro and Bankass It is clear that the different experimental yields vary from treatments and system. This

section will look at the yield differences in treatments and systems of each site.

5.2.2.1 Koro

With the system involving mono cropping, figure 4 identifies treatment 4 to be the most

yielding treatment.

Figure 4- Plot of yield versus treatments for mono cropping, Koro

Treatment

Yield

4321

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

31

Table 11 looks at the yields of each farmer who applied mono cropping techniques.

There were eight farmers in Koro.

Table 11 Individual farmer’s yields for pure cropping with variance analysis on

treatments

T1 T2 T3 T4

Farmer 1 384 371 320 371 Farmer 2 717 416 499 397 Farmer 3 160 448 1024 1088 Farmer 4 192 486 512 768 Farmer 5 128 192 256 320 Farmer 6 76 128 384 384 Farmer 7 544 544 544 544 Farmer 8 264 384 567 608 AVERAGE 308 371 514 560

P-value 0.036* * = significant (p< 5%)

Table 11 shows us that treatments 3 and 4, involving the application of fertilizer of ratio

1:1 and the application of fertilizer 15 days after the first weeding, gave higher yields

than treatments 1 and 2, which were the control plot and the planting of soaked seeds.

By looking at the variance analysis of the different treatments, there is a significant

difference in yields between treatments in mono cropping since the p-value is below 5 %.

With the system involving intercropping, treatment 4 is also most yielding.

Figure 5 - Plot of yield versus treatments for intercropping, Koro

Treatment

Yield

4321

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

32

Table 12 looks at the yields of each farmer who applied intercropping techniques. There

were also eight farmers in Koro.

Table 12 Individual farmer’s yields for intercropping with variance analysis on

treatments

T1 T2 T3 T4


P-value 0.051

Table 12 shows us that both treatments involving fertilizer and pesticide application, T3

and T4, give much higher yields than the control plot and intercropping alone in T1 and

T2. There is no sign with the variance analysis of the different treatments, which

indicates no significant difference in yields between treatments in intercropping since the

p-value is higher than 5%.

When comparing the two systems in Koro, table 12 shows that system using mono

cropping has outperformed the system of microdosage with intercropping in Koro - the

application of fertilizer of ratio 1:1 with pesticide, and the application of fertilizer after

15 days have given better results than the other treatments in Koro.

5.2.2.2 Bankass

With the system, involving pure cropping figure 6 identifies treatment 3 to be the most

yielding treatment.

33

Figure 6 – Plot of yield versus treatments for mono cropping, Bankass

Treatment

Yield

4321

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Table 13 looks at the yields of each farmer who applied mono cropping techniques.

There were 12 farmers in Bankass.

Table 13 Individual farmer’s yields for pure cropping with variance analysis on

treatments

T1 T2 T3 T4

Farmer 17 360 400 800 600 Farmer 18 400 600 1200 1000 Farmer 19 400 500 800 700 Farmer 20 300 360 400 600 Farmer 21 160 800 1200 1040 Farmer 22 200 880 1600 1080 Farmer 23 400 560 920 760 Farmer 24 384 372 476 484 Farmer 25 170 302 326 380 Farmer 26 360 462 488 496 Farmer 27 260 269 297 412 Farmer 28 216 279 350 403 AVERAGE 300 482 738 663 P-value 0.000** * * = highly significant (p<1%)

34

Table 13 shows us that the treatment involving the application of fertilizer of ratio 1:1,

T3, gave higher yields than the other treatments. This shows by the variance analysis of

the different treatments, a significant difference in yields between treatments in pure

cropping since the p-value is less than 1%.

With the system involving intercropping, treatment 4 is the most yielding.

Figure 7 – Plot of yield versus treatments for intercropping, Bankass

Treatment

Yield

4321

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Table 14 looks at the yields of each farmer who applied intercropping techniques. There

were nine farmers in Bankass.

Table 14 Individual farmer’s yields for intercropping with variance analysis on

treatments

T1 T2 T3 T4

Farmer 29 700 325 375 475 Farmer 30 200 75 100 165 Farmer 31 300 150 190 300 Farmer 32 360 560 1520 1520 Farmer 33 480 760 1320 1480 Farmer 34 480 680 1080 1000 Farmer 35 520 640 1440 1280 Farmer 36 284 0 0 0 Farmer 37 421 20 26 21 AVERAGE 416 356 672 693 P-value 0.050* * = significant (p< 5%)

35

Table 14 shows that the treatment involving the application of fertilizer of ratio 1:1 using

soaked seeds and pesticide gave higher yields than the other treatments.

When comparing the two systems in Bankass, the application of fertilizer of ratio 1:1

(T3) in pure cropping has outperformed all other treatments involving in Bankass.

5.3 Economical results and analysis The only way to investigate which type of farming technique is most suitable for the area

in terms of economical gain is first to make a partial budget of each technology by

calculating the cost of inputs and required labour for each treatment.

5.3.1 Partial budget analysis In this economical analysis, it is important to use costs that vary for each treatment since

it gives a better understanding of the necessary changes farmers need to take in order to

gain from a certain technology (CIMMYT, 1988). In this study, there are four costs that

vary in each treatment; the purchase cost of fertilizer and pesticide, and the cost of labor

involved in applying pesticide and fertilizer.

5.3.1.1 Inputs costs

Both treatments 1 and 2 have no cost since there is no pesticide or fertilizer application.

In T3 and T4 there are different requirements of fertilizer use with each different

quantities applied. During the time of my stay in Mali, the price of phosphor fertilizer

was at 284 FCFA per kilogram and the price of Caïman pesticide was at 400 FCFA per

bag. I estimated the requirements of fertilizer for T3 to be 5 kg per hectare in both

systems. However, for the mono cropping system I estimated 13 kg of fertilizer applied

in T4 per hectare. I also estimated two bags of pesticide per hectare.

36

Table 15 - Input prices requirement for T3 and T4 in both systems

Fertilizer requirement Pesticide requirement

in FCFA in FCFA

Pure cropping system

T3 1425 _

T4 3705 800

Intercropping system

T3 1425 _

T4 1425 800

I find it also necessary to add that farmers may have used pesticide in T4 for the system

with mono cropping, in areas were attacks of pests was most likely to occur.

5.3.1.2 Labour costs

The cost of labour involved for the application of inputs was set at 1000 FCFA per

person per day.

Table 16-Average labor costs per system in both sites

KORO Fertilizer application Pesticide application

in FCFA in FCFA

Pure cropping

Inter cropping

T3 3000 _

T4 4000 2000

T3 5000 _

T4 6000 5000

BANKASS

Pure cropping

Inter cropping

T3 9000 _

T4 10000 2000

T3 6000 _

T4 7000 4000

37

From table 16 we can see differences in the number of persons employed for labour tasks

in T3 and T4 explained by the hours spent on each treatment shown in table 17.

Table 17– Average hours per hectare spent for each system in both sites

Mono cropping in h/ha Intercropping in h/ha Koro T1 28 32 T2 28 32 T3 40 40 T4 44 48 Bankass T1 20 20 T2 20 24 T3 24 28 T4 28 32

Table 17 shows that farmers in Koro used more hours of labour than in Bankass. More

hours spent on the field tend to indicate that there are few workers for tasks. This is why

we have significant differences in labour costs between Koro and Bankass.

5.3.1.3 Partial budget

A partial budget of each technology requires the investigation of the type of farming

technique most suitable for an area in terms of economical gain. The gross benefits of

each treatment are the average yields of each farmer multiplied by 100. This is because I

used the price approximation of 1 kg of millet, which is 100 FCFA, and for 1 kg of

cowpeas to be 202 FCFA; then the net benefits of each treatment calculated by

subtracting the average total variable cost from the average gross benefits of each

treatment.

38

Table 18 -Table showing the partial budget of both systems in Koro

Gross benefits Total costs that vary Total benefits in FCFA in FCFA in FCFA Mono cropping T1 30822 0 30822 T2 37121 0 37121 T3 51445 4425 47020 T4 56008 10505 45503 Intercropping T1 14740 0 14740 T2 21340 0 21340 T3 20504 6425 14079 T4 31108 13225 17883

Table 19 -Table showing the partial budget of both systems in Bankass

Gross benefits Total costs that vary Total benefits in FCFA in FCFA in FCFA Mono cropping T1 29753 0 29753 T2 48201 0 48201 T3 73813 10425 63388 T4 66303 16505 49798 Intercropping T1 41613 0 41613 T2 38218 0 38218 T3 71353 7425 63928 T4 78974 13225 65749

From the tables 18 and 19, we can clearly see differences in gross benefits, costs that

vary and the net benefits of the two microdosage techniques. The tables also show us that

the overall net benefits and total costs in Bankass are higher than that of Koro. The total

costs that vary are highest for the system using mono cropping in Bankass.

39

5.3.1.4 Variance analysis on net profit benefits of Koro

This section look at whether there are differences in the total net benefits of each

treatment in Koro.

Table 20 looks at the net benefits from mono cropping of each farmer and by treatments.

Eight farmers choose mono cropping.

Table 20 Individual farmer’s net profit for pure cropping with variance analysis on

treatments

T1 T2 T3 T4


P-value 0.270

Table 20 shows us that T3, involving the application of fertilizer 15 days after the first

weeding, gives higher profits than the other treatments. Nevertheless, the variance

analysis here does not show any significant differences between the four treatments when

it comes to net profits for mono cropping, since the p-value is higher than 5%.

Table 21 looks at the net benefits of farmers who adopted intercropping techniques and

by treatment. In addition, eight farmers choose intercropping.

40

Table 21 Individual farmer’s net profit for intercropping with variance analysis on

treatments

T1 T2 T3 T4

Farmer 9 7040 5760 -1626 -7145 Farmer 10 15680 13440 2055 20375 Farmer 11 4800 6400 -665 -6825 Farmer 12 64000 96000 95975 114775 Farmer 13 19200 38720 19367 38359 Farmer 14 4000 4000 -2424 -9225 Farmer 15 0 0 -6425 -13225 Farmer 16 3200 6400 6375 5975 AVERAGE 14740 21340 14079 17883

P-value 0.270

Table 21 also shows us that T2, involving the intercropping of millet and cowpeas, gave

higher net profits than the other treatments. The variance analysis indicates no significant

differences in net profits between the treatments, since the p-value is higher than 5%.

When comparing the two systems in Koro, the mono cropping system gave higher net

profits than treatments involving intercropping.

5.3.1.5 Variance analysis on net profit benefit of Bankass

This section look at whether there are differences in the total net benefits of each

treatment in Bankass.

Table 22 looks at the net benefits from pure cropping for each farmer and by treatment.

Twelve farmers used the mono cropping system.

41

Table 22 Individual farmer’s net profit for pure cropping with variance analysis on

treatments

T1 T2 T3 T4

Farmer 17 32000 40000 69575 43495 Farmer 18 40000 60000 109575 83495 Farmer 19 40000 50000 69575 53495 Farmer 20 30000 36000 29577 43496 Farmer 21 16000 80000 109575 87495 Farmer 22 20000 88000 49575 91495 Farmer 23 40000 56000 81575 59495 Farmer 24 38400 37216 37175 31895 Farmer 25 17000 30200 22175 21495 Farmer 26 36040 46200 38435 33095 Farmer 27 26000 26900 19275 24765 Farmer 28 21600 27900 24575 23865 AVERAGE 29753 48201 63388 49798 P-value 0.001** * * = highly significant (p<1%)

Table 22 shows us that T3, involving the application of fertilizer of ratio 1:1, gave higher

net profits than the other treatments. The variance analysis indicates a significant

difference in net profits between treatments since the p-value is below 1%.

Table 23 looks at the net benefits form intercropping of each farmer and by treatments.

Nine farmers choose the intercropping system.

42

Table 23 Individual farmer’s net profit for intercropping with variance analysis on

treatments

T1 T2 T3 T4

Farmer 29 70000 47800 47925 57225 Farmer 30 20000 9050 7675 10925 Farmer 31 30000 21120 26755 32075 Farmer 32 36000 56000 144575 138775 Farmer 33 48000 76000 124575 175575 Farmer 34 48000 68000 100575 86775 Farmer 35 52000 64000 135575 114775 Farmer 36 28400 0 -7425 -13225 Farmer 37 42120 2000 -4825 -11157 AVERAGE 41613 38218 63928 65749 P-value 0.143

Table 23 shows us that T4, involving both the application of fertilizer and pesticide, gave

higher net profits that the other treatments. The variance analysis indicates no significant

difference in net profits between the treatments, since the p-value is higher than 5%.

When comparing the two systems in Bankass, treatments in intercropping gave higher net

profits than treatments involving pure cropping, except for T2, a treatment involving the

intercropping of millet and cowpeas without any special applications

5.3.2 Dominance analysis Looking at the net benefices of each treatment is not enough to evaluate the economical

gain of the farmers adopting new techniques. There is a need to analyse each treatment

by looking at their costs and ranking them from the least costly to the most expensive.

When ranking, if we come across a treatment which has a higher average total costs that

vary and at the same time has lower average net benefit than the previous treatments, this

treatment according to the CIMMYT (1988), becomes dominated and will be ruled out

when calculating the marginal rate of return. The advantage of this method is to rule out

any treatment that is not beneficial in the experiment, which makes it possible to

calculate the marginal rate of investment of treatments that are beneficial to the farmers.

43

Table 24- Dominance analysis table of microdosage with pure cropping in Koro

Variable costs FCFA Net benefits FCFA

T1 0 30822

T2 0 37121

T3 4425 47020

T4 10505 45503 Dominated

Table 25- Dominance analysis table of microdosage with intercropping in Koro


T1 0 14740

T2 0 21340



Table 26- Dominance analysis table of microdosage with pure cropping in Bankass


T1 0 29753

T2 0 48201

T3 10425 63388


Table 27- Dominance analysis table of microdosage with intercropping in Bankass


T1 0 41613


T3 7425 63928

T4 13225 65749

Tables 24 to 27 show the dominance analysis of the different technologies in different

sites. All treatments involving special application of fertilizer and pesticide (T4) in Koro

44

underwent domination. An exception to this was the application of fertilizer in a ratio of

1:1 for the microdosage with mono cropping .On the other hand only T4, involving the

application of fertilizer 15 days after planting in pure cropping, also went through

domination in Bankass.

5.3.3 Marginal rate of return analysis According to CIMMYT (1988), the sole purpose of calculating the marginal rate of

return is to look whether local farmers are able to regain all of their investments from

their obtained profits. It also shows us how big a marginal rate can be from changing

treatments, which could helps us make special recommendations.

5.3.3.1 Koro

When it comes to microdosage with mono cropping, there is a gradual increase of net

profit from treatment 1 up to treatment 3. The marginal rate of return analysis shows that

farmers can obtain more than 300% in profit from changing from a more traditional

farming system to the application of fertilizer in a ratio 1:1 (T3), than changing to a

technique using soaked seeds (Table 28).

When it comes to microdosage with intercropping, both treatments involving the

application of fertilizer and pesticide (T3, T4) were dominated. The analysis shows us

that farmers, moving from traditional pure cropping to intercropping, can obtain an

additional 144% in profit (Table 28).

5.3.3.2 Bankass

For the microdosage with mono cropping, only treatment 4 was dominated. The table

also shows us that farmers can gradually increase their profit from shifting from

treatment 1 to treatment 3. The marginal rate of return analysis shows that farmers can

expect to obtain more than 300% in profit from changing from a more traditional farming

system to using the technique involving the application of fertilizer of ratio 1:1 (Table

28).

45

For the microdosage with intercropping, farmers can make 300% profit from also

changing from a more traditional system to adopting intercropping with fertilizer

application ratio 1:1 (Table 28).

Table 28- Marginal rate of return table for Koro and Bankass

Treatment change Marginal Rate of Return KORO Mono cropping T1 → T2 1.20 T1 → T3 3.66 T2 → T3 2.23 Intercropping T1 → T2 1.44 BANKASS Mono cropping T1 → T2 1.62 T1 → T3 3.22 T2 → T3 1.45 Intercropping T1 → T3 3.00 T1 → T4 1.82 T3 → T4 0.31

Table 28 shows that the minimum accepted rate of return of a 100% is possible in nine

out of the 10 possible treatment changes that farmers can make. The interviewed farmers

also mention that they would be using the new technologies next season on a larger land

area and that their surplus production planned to reinvest in agricultural products and in

income generating activities such as animal rearing.

46

6. DISCUSSION Micro-fertilization, can help farmers reap economical benefits and improve their social

situation in an environmentally sustainable way as depicted in figure 8.

Figure 8 -Potential contribution of agro-ecological techniques with the use of micro-

fertilization

INCREASE CROP YIELDS

PRODUCTION SURPLUS CROP

RESIDUES

HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION

FOOD WASTE

LIVESTOCK FODDER

MANURE

ORGANIC MATTER

SOIL NUTRIENT POOL

INVESTMENT

INCOME GENERATING ACTIVITIES

MICRO-FERTILIZATION

LIVELIHOOD IMPROVMENT

47

6.1 Household and farm characteristics From the result section, the men and women interviewed were mostly middle aged. In a

rural setting, this usually means that a person has responsibility over a number of people

living within a household. There are present socio-economical and environmental

problems that keep most of these farmers in extreme poverty.

Socio-economic problem in this study was identified as the non-assurance of food

security, the non-existence of other income generating activities and the non-availability

of credit.

Environmental problem linked to climate change, comes with the rise of temperature,

erratic rainfall, and the low quality of soil; viewed from over 50% of respondents to be

the reason for a decrease in yields over the past 20 years.

Figure 9– Sociological and environmental problems and poverty

Figure 9 shows us that extreme poverty lead farmers into bad agricultural practices for

subsistence reasons that often leads to reduced soil quality, which is part of an

environmental problem that could lead to desertification (Cullet, 2004).

POVERTY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM

SOCIO-ECONOMICAL PROBLEM

BAD FARMING PRACTICES

CLIMATE CHANGE FOOD INSECURITY

48

When it comes to physical assets, farmers have said that they possess livestock, which

they use for draft power, manure procurement, perceived as the most important

component to improve crop productivity, and for sale in times of need.

The present household and farm characteristics show favourable conditions for farmers to

intensify their agricultural system as depicted in figure 10.

Figure 10- Potential agricultural intensification

This intensification process is possible to achieve through integration of livestock and

crop varieties that are adapted to the environmental setting, intercropped with other

plants as a means of risk prevention (Williams et al, 2000).

The Ecofarm project offers several agricultural technologies, which involves micro-

fertilization techniques in either mono cropping or intercropping. This study shows that

of the 37 respondents, 54.1% chose the system involving mono cropping and 45.9%

choose the system involving intercropping. There also seem to be a difference between

the male and female respondents over the system choices. Nearly 70% of male

respondents preferred the system with mono cropping, while 80% of females respondents

preferred the system with intercropping. This difference explains women’s role in

households concerning food security since intercropping is about diversifying risk.

LABOR AVAILABILITY

CROP PRODUCTION

LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION

AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION

49

6.2 Yield characteristics In general, when analysing the yields, the combined experimental treatment plots of Koro

and Bankass, show that farmers can greatly increase their production. The micro-

fertilization treatments have shown to be higher yielding compared to the other

treatments.

In Koro, the system that yielded the most was mono cropping. The micro-fertilization

treatment that has shown to be successful involved the application of fertilizer 15 days

after the planting during the first weeding (T3). The micro-fertilization treatment that

yielded the most in intercropping was the application of fertilizer ratio 1:1 with soaked

seeds plus pesticide (T4).

In Bankass, there is no significant difference between the two systems. The micro-

fertilization treatment that yielded the most in mono cropping was also the application of

fertilizer after 15 days of planting (T3). In intercropping it was the application of

fertilizer ratio 1:1 with soaked seeds plus pesticide (T4) that yielded the most, although

there is almost no difference in yields when compared with treatment T3 which is similar

to treatment T4, but without the use of pesticide.

There is a difference in overall yields between Koro and Bankass. The explanation of this

difference is because Bankass had better rainfall distribution than Koro during the rain

season, which resulted in better yield. That is why most of the intercropping system in

Koro turned out to be a total failure, especially in treatments involving the soaking of

seeds, which makes it more susceptible to pest attacks.

6.3 Economical results and analysis In order for farmers to adopt a particular micro-fertilization treatment, it has to meet

certain economical criteria in order for adoption on a larger scale. These criteria’s

involves the identification of inputs and labour costs of each treatment as depicted in

figure 11:

50

Figure 11- Criteria that plays a role in future adoption of techniques

The input prices differ greatly between T4 treatments in both systems. The reason for this

is that the T4 treatment in mono cropping requires more fertilizer per hectare than in

intercropping (table 15).

The average labour cost of fertilizer and pesticide application varies from site and by

system.

In both mono cropping and intercropping labour costs seems to be higher in Bankass than

in Koro, which tends to indicates that there is a higher availability of labour in Bankass

(table 16). Looking at the average hours spent per hectare on the application of fertilizer

in mono cropping, farmers in Bankass spend less time on the fields compared to farmers

in Koro (table 17). Alternatively, this could simply mean that farmers in Bankass have a

higher labour productivity than that of farmers in Koro, reducing the number of hours

spent on treatments T3 and T4.

Profits re-invested are possible in agricultural inputs and in income generating activity. In

Koro treatment T3 on average for mono cropping gave higher profits than treatment T4

while in intercropping, treatment T2 gave higher profits since it had no costs attached to

INPUTS COSTS

LABOUR COSTS

FUTURE ADOPTION OF TECHNIQUE

51

it. In Bankass, treatment T3 gave on average for pure cropping higher profits, while in

intercropping treatment T4 gave the highest profits.

After conducting a dominance analysis on the different treatments, the marginal rate of

return calculated in order to identify the treatments most beneficial to farmers in terms of

regaining all investment, show that activities yielded important profits when it comes to

changing from one activity to another.

The results identify 9 out of 10 possible treatment changes that have a minimum

acceptable rate of return of 100%. The results also show three treatment changes that

stand out from all the other possible changes that have at least a minimum acceptable rate

of return of 300%. These three changes demonstrate farmers’ possibilities to increase

crop yields and to make important profits, just by moving from a more traditional

farming system into the application of micro-fertilization techniques involving the

application of fertilizer in ratio 1:1 from treatments T1 to T3.

Like mentioned earlier, Koro received less rainfall distribution than Bankass, which

makes mono cropping the most suitable system to increase yields and applying fertilizer

in ratio 1:1 (T3) to reap important profit. Having said this, areas where rainfall

distribution is favourable, farmers may choose either mono cropping or intercropping. If

they chose mono cropping the treatment most favourable to the system - when it comes

to yield and profit, is the application of fertilizer ratio 1:1 (T3), and if they choose

intercropping the treatment should be the application of fertilizer ratio 1:1 with soaked

seeds (T3).

52

Figure 12- Micro-fertilization capability

As depicted in figure 12 above, applying micro-fertilization into a farming system

secures households with enough food, increases their chances to invests in other income

generating activities that could help sustain the household during for example periods of

drought (Aune et al 2007); these agro-ecological systems can help alleviate poverty

without damaging the fragile ecological structure of the area.

The farmers were all satisfied with the results produced by adopting micro- fertilization

techniques into there farming systems. Farmers using these techniques generated

curiosity among their neighbours who also think of adopting these techniques in the next

planting season. Up scaling information about the benefits of micro-fertilization to

farmers is a good and important way to spread farming practices that could help farmers

with food security, and increase investment opportunities. Acquiring fertilizer is not easy

for ordinary farmers due to its high price; government could subsidy fertilizers to farmers

in regions where micro-fertilization can be very beneficial. The Malian government

could also help diffuse these techniques through radio broadcast, and agricultural

technical policies with the help of extension officers.

MICRO-FERTILIZATION

INCREASE YIELDS

INCREASE PROFITS

FOOD SECURITY

INVESTMENTS

POVERTY ALLEVIATION

53

7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this study was to evaluate agro-ecological techniques of micro-

fertilization in semi arid environment; whether these techniques have the potential of

improving the livelihood of farmers living in extreme poverty and at the same time

insuring the conservation of soil nutrients for future harvests.

The analysis of the experimental treatments plots reveals significant differences in yields

between treatments, indicating the possibilities for farmers to increase yields by adopting

micro-fertilization techniques. The study also reveals that the system best suited for areas

with low rainfall distribution is mono cropping as the average yields of this system

greatly outperformed the intercropping system.

Answering the first objective of this study, I can therefore conclude that the technologies

offered by the eco-farming project could help farmers increase their crop productivity

and food security.

As a recommendation, the Malian government should improve physical and financial

infrastructures to facilitate farmers’ transportation of their crops for sale to nearby

markets. The government should furthermore stimulate farmers’ access to fertilizers.

54

REFERENCES Adams, R.M. (2004), CLIMATE CHANGE AND AGRICULTURE, in Climate Change, Human Systems and Policy., [Ed. Antoaneta Yontava], in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK, [ http://www.eolss.net ] [ Retrieved January 19, 2008 ] Altieri, M.A. (2007), AGROECOLOGY: ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND AND SOCIALLY JUST ALTERNATIVES TO THE INDUSTRIAL FARMING MODEL, in Productivity of Crops and Livestock., [Ed. Robert J. Hudson], in Encyclopedia of Life Support Sytems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK, [ http://www.eolss.net ] [ Retrieved January 19, 2008 ] Aune, J.B., Dombia M., Berthe A. (2007), MICROFERTILIZING SORGHUM AND PEARL MILLET IN MALI, in Outlook on AGRICULTURE, Vol 36 No 3: 199-203 Boon, E.K. (2004), AN OVERVIEW OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA, in Regional Sustainable Development Review: Africa, [Ed. Emmanuel Kwesi Boon], in Encyclopedia of Life Support Sytems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK, [ http://www.eolss.net ] [ Retrieved January 22, 2008 ] Buerkert,A., Bationo,A., Piepho,HP. (2001), EFFICIENT PHOSPHORUS APPLICATION STRATEGIES FOR INCREASED CROP PRODUCTION IN SUB-SAHARAN WEST AFRICA, in Field Crop Research, Vol 72 No1: 1-15 Elsevier Science B.V. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(01)00166-6 ] [ Retrieved April 10, 2008] CIMMYT (1988), From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics Training Manuel. Completely revised edition. Mexico, D.F. pp 1-54 Conacher, A. (2006), LAND DEGRADATION AND DSERTIFICATION: HISTORY, NATURE, CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES, AND SOLUTIONS, in Geography, [Ed. Maria Sala], in Encyclopedia of Life Support Sytems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK, [ http://www.eolss.net ] [ Retrieved January 21, 2008 ]

55

Coulibaly, A. (2003), COUNTRY PASTURE / FORRAGE RESOURCE PROFILES MALI, (online) Octobre 2003, http://www.fao.org/ag/Agp/agpc/doc/counprof/Mali/mali.htm [ accessed 08 Mars 208] Cullet, P. (2004), DESERTIFICATION, in Conventions, treaties, and other responses to global issues, [Ed. Gabriela Maria Kutting], in Encyclopedia of Life Support Sytems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK, [ http://www.eolss.net ] [ Retrieved January 19, 2008 ] De Pauw, E.F. (2006), MANAGEMENT OF DRYLANDS AND DESERT AREAS, in Land Use, Land Cover ans Soil Science, [Ed. Willy H. Verheye], in Encyclopedia of Life Support Sytems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK, [ http://www.eolss.net ] [ Retrieved January 19, 2008 ] Frangenberg, A. (2007), SUSTAINABILTY OF AGRICULTURE, in Interdisciplinary and Sustainability Issues in Food and Agriculture,[Ed. Olaf Christen], in Encyclopedia of Life Support Sytems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK, [ http://www.eolss.net ] [ Retrieved January 21, 2008 ] Harris, F. (1996), INTENSIFICATION OF AGRICULTURE IN SEMI-ARID AREAS: LESSONS FROM THE KANO CLOSED-SETTLED ZONE, NIGERIA, in Gatekeeper series, No. SA 59: 3-15 Jayne, T.S., Day, J.C. and Dregne, H.E. (1989), TECHNOLOGY AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN THE SAHEL: RESOURCES AND TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE, in US Department of Agriculture Economic Report, No 612: 1-17 Juergen, N. (2006), COMBATTING DEGRADATION IN ARID SYSTEMS, in Biodiversity: Structure and Function, [Eds. Wilhelm Barthlott, K. Eduard Linsenmair, and Stefan Parembski], in Encyclopedia of Life Support Sytems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK, [ http://www.eolss.net ] [ Retrieved January 19, 2008 ] Kaya, B., Hildebrand, P.E. and Nair, P.K.R. (2000), MODELING CHANGES IN FARMING SYSTEMS WITH THE ADOPTION OF IMPROVED FALLOWS IN SOUTHERN MALI, in Agricultural systems, No 66: 51-54

56

Kaya, B., Traore, C.O. and Aune, J.B. (2005), ETUDE D’IDENTIFICATION DES PROTOTYPES D’ECOFERME AU MALI: RAPPORT DIAGNOSTIC ET PLAN D’ACTION POUR 2005, in Drylands Coordination Group Report, No 37: 1-14 Kone, M. and Akeredolu, M. (2004), INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS FOR MULTIFUNCTIONA AGRICULTURE IN THE BAMBARA CULTURE OF MALI, in ALAEE (2004) Proceedings of the 20th Annual conferense, Dublin , Ireland, pp 834-850 Kostch, J., Water-Bayer, A., Adelheim, R. and Hoesle, U. (1989), Ecofarming in Agriculture Development, Tropical Agroecology 2, Verlag Joseph Margraf, Weikersheim. Chapters 1-3 Leder, I. (2004), SORGHUM AND MILLETS, in Cultivated Plants, Primarily as Food Sources, [Ed. Gyorgy Faleky], in Encyclopedia of Life Support Sytems (EOLSS), Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK, [ http://www.eolss.net ] [ Retrieved January 22, 2008 ] Powell, J.M. and Williams, T.O. (1993), LIVESTOCK , NUTRIENT CYCLING AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE IN THE WEST AFRICAN SAHEL, in Gatkeepers Series, No. SA 37: 1-10 Savory, A. with Butterfield, J. (1999), A New Framework for decision making, Holistic Management 2nd Edition, [Ed. Allan Savory], Island Press, Washington D.C., Chapter 40 Troeh, F.R., Thompson, L.M. (2005), Soils and Soil Fertility, Sixth Edition, Blackwell publishers, Ames, Iowa, Chapter 10 Weischet, W. and Caviedes, C. (1993), The Persiting Ecological Constraints of Tropical Agriculture, Longman Group, UK Limited, pp 79-88 Williams, T.O., Hiernaux, P., Fernandes-Rivera, S. (2000), CROP-LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA: DETERMINANTS AND INTENSIFICATION PATHWAYS, in Property rights, risk and livestock development in Africa, [Eds. McCarthy, N., Swallow, B., Kirk, M., Hazell, P.], International Food Policy Research Institute, pp 132-154

57

World Trade Press (2007), PRECIPITATION MAP OF MALI: multi colour digital map of Mali showing average and precpitation, (online) 2007, http://www.worldtradepress.com/precipitation_Map_Mali.html [accessed 19 mars 2008] Øygard, R., Trond, V., Aune, J.B. (1999), Good Practices in Drylands Management, [Ed. Starke L], The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank, Washington D.C, pp 43-62 http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/essd.nsf/0/49cce26c9e0c8530852568fe00695cb0/$FILE/Good%20Practices.pdf [accessed 21 mars 2008]

58

Appendices Appendix 1 Socio-economical factors

Number of persons living with the family

_________

Education

With Without __________ _____________

Number of children under the age of 5

__________

Access to credit

Yes No ______ _______

Income generating activities outside of agriculture

Yes No _______ ________

Demand for labour during field preparations

__________

Village

Name of farmer

Sex of head of household

Male Female __________ _____________

Age of head of household

_________ years

59

Present agricultural system

1. What is the size of your land used for cultivation? ______ Ha 2. Which of the following crops do you cultivate in intercropping? Millet _____ Sorghum _____ Maize _____ Rice _____ Cowpeas _____ 3. What were the yields of these different crops last year? Millet _____ sac Sorghum _____sac Maize _____sac Rice _____ sac Cowpeas _____sac 4. How much was used for household consumption? Millet _____ sac Sorghum _____sac Maize _____sac Rice _____ sac Cowpeas _____sac 5. How much was sold? Millet _____ sac Sorghum _____sac Maize _____sac Rice _____ sac Cowpeas _____sac 6. According to you, how did the yields of the different crops change during the last

20 years in the same cultivating field? (For those who are over 40 years old) Diminution Augmentation Millet _____ sac _____sac Sorghum _____ sac _____sac Maize _____ sac _____sac Rice _____ sac _____sac Cowpeas _____ sac _____sac

7. What were the reasons for these changes in yields? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 8. Can you classify them starting with the most important ones?

________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

60

9. During the last 10 years, how many years did you experience having no crop

harvest? 1 year _____ 2 years _____

3 years _____

4 years _____

10. What were the reasons for the bad harvests?

________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 11. Can you classify them starting with the most important ones?

________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 12. What do you think could be the best way to increase your agricultural

productivity? _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 13. Can you classify them starting with the most important ones? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 14. Do you have livestock? Yes____ No ____ 15. Do you have enough fodder for your livestock? Yes _____ No _____ 16. What type of fodder do you give to your livestock? ___________________________________________________________________ 17. Do you use draft power from your animals? Yes _____ No _____ 18. What are the constraints mostly encountered in animal rearing? _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 19. Can you classify them starting with the most important ones? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 20. Are you satisfied with the size of your garden? 21. Yes _____ No _____ 22. What kind of vegetable do you consider very important in your garden? Tomatoes _____ Onions _____ Lettuces _____ Aubergines _____ Gombo _____

61

Papayas _____ Mungbeans _____ Soya _____ 23. How much is the cost of inputs for your garden? __________ 24. Which of the following trees do you think are the most important in your field? African Locust Bean (Parkia biglobosa) _____

Boabab (Adansonia digitata) _____

Tarmarind (Tarmarindus indica) _____

Shea (Vitellaria paradoxa) _____

Poir (Boscia senegalensis) _____

Moringaceae (Moringa oleifera) _____

Jujube (Ziziphus mauritania) _____

Poir (Pterocarpus erinaceus) _____

Banana _____

25. How many hours on average do you use to water your garden during the dry season?

_____ Hours 26. What are the constraints do you often encounter in your garden? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 27. Can you classify them starting with the most important ones?

________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 28. How many months do you have food shortages in your household? ______ Months 29. How do you manage during these periods __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

62

New technologies adopted from the Ecofarm project used in gardening

30. From the technologies offered by the project used in gardening, which of them are most familiar to you?

Growing of cultivates (Moringa, Baobab) _____ Making composts _____ Introducing of improved varieties of vegetables _____ 31. Which of these techniques do you use in your garden? Growing of cultivates (Moringa, Baobab) _____ Making composts _____ Introducing of improved varieties of vegetables _____ 32. For the technique of growing cultivates:

Costs of establishing cultivates

Labour used

Moringa Baobab

For the technique of fabricating compost:

Cost of establishing the fabrication of compost

Labour used

Tomatoes Onions Lettuces Aubergines Gumbo Papayas Mungbeans Soya

63

For the technique of improving varieties of vegetables: Yields Cost of

establishing vegetable cultivates

Labour used Income

Tomatoes Onions Lettuces Aubergines Gumbo Papayas Mungbeans Soya Vegetable leaves

64

New technology of microdosage adopted from the EcoFerme project used in agriculture: 33. Number of persons and the time spent in pure cropping:

T1 : Without any use of fertilizer and soaked seeds

T2 : The use of soaked seeds

T3 : Soaked seeds + mix of fertilizer in ratio 1 :1

T4 : Soaked seeds + application of 2g of fertilizer after 15 days of planting in each pocket

T1 T2 T3 T4 Tillage Planting Application of fertilizer

Weeding Application of pesticide

Weeding 34. Specifications on yields in kg and plot size :

T1 T2 T3 T4 Millet Sorghum Cowpeas Area

35. Specifications on income:

T1 T2 T3 T4 Millet Sorghum Cowpeas

65

36. Number of persons and the time spent in intercropping of cowpeas/sorghum or cowpeas/millet:

T1 : Sorghum or millet cultivate

T2 : Sorghum or millet with cowpeas intercropped

T3 : T2 + soaked seeds+ microdosage ratio 1 :1

T4 : T2 + T3 + application of pesticide

T1 T2 T3 T4 Tillage Planting Application of fertilizer

Weeding Application of pesticide

Weeding 37. Specification about the area, quantity of grains harvested, fertilizer and pesticide

used T1 T2 T3 T4 Area Quantity of grain harvested

Quantity of fertilizer used

Quantity of pesticide used

38. What were, after you, the benefits of using micro- fertilization techniques? _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 39. What were the constraints attached to this technique?

_________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

66

New technologies adopted from the Ecofarm project used in livestock production

40. Which of the Ecofarming techniques used in livestock production are familiar to

you? Growing fodder crops ______ Enclosure of animals’ ______ Hay treatment ______ Improvement of livestock pastures ______ 41. Which of these techniques do you use? Growing fodder crops ______ Enclosure of animals’ ______ Hay treatment ______ Improvement of livestock pastures ______ 42. Consumption impact of crop residues derived from millet and cowpeas on

livestock : According to the methodology adopted by Cheick Traore, researcher at ICRAF, two sheep will be given different diets; one will be given a ration of 400 g of crop residues derived from millet and between 300g and 600g of residues derived from cowpeas, while the other sheep will be given a normal diet. The two sheep must have in the beginning of the treatment the same sex, age and weight. Their weight will be taken every two weeks starting from the week after the first harvest.

Weeks Weight of animal given special diet

Weight of animal with no special diet

Price of millet hai

Price of cowpeas residues

67

Effect of the Ecofarm project 43. What were the effects of the project when it comes to your health and of those in

your household? _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ 44. Can you class them starting from the most important? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 45. Did you notice any effect regarding your livestock, when it comes to health and

productivity? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ 46. Can you class them starting from the most important? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

68

Appendix 2

1. Results for: Pure cropping Koro Yields Two-way ANOVA: YIELDS versus FARMERS, TREATMENTS Source DF SS MS F P FARMERS 7 669279 95611 2.92 0.027 TREATMENTS 3 336406 112135 3.43 0.036 Error 21 687285 32728 Total 31 1692970 S = 180.9 R-Sq = 59.40% R-Sq(adj) = 40.07% Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev TREATMENTS Mean --------+---------+---------+---------+- 1 308.225 (--------*-------) 2 371.214 (--------*--------) 3 514.459 (--------*--------) 4 560.081 (--------*--------) --------+---------+---------+---------+- 300 450 600 750

YIELDS

FARMERS

TREATMENTS

87654321

43214321432143214321432143214321

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Boxplot of YIELDS by FARMERS, TREATMENTS

69

2. Results for: Intercropping Koro Yields Two-way ANOVA: YIELDS versus FARMERS, TREATMENTS Source DF SS MS F P FARMERS 7 2868895 409842 46.42 0.000 TREATMENTS 3 81043 27014 3.06 0.051 Error 21 185417 8829 Total 31 3135355 S = 93.96 R-Sq = 94.09% R-Sq(adj) = 91.27% Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev TREATMENTS Mean ---------+---------+---------+---------+ 1 147.4 (---------*---------) 2 193.0 (---------*--------) 3 217.8 (---------*---------) 4 286.6 (---------*---------) ---------+---------+---------+---------+ 140 210 280 350

YIELDS

FARMERS

TREATMENTS

87654321

43214321432143214321432143214321

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0


70

3. Results for: Pure cropping Bankass Yields Two-way ANOVA: YIELDS versus FARMERS, TREATMENTS Source DF SS MS F P FARMERS 11 2054862 186806 5.29 0.000 TREATMENTS 3 1377560 459187 12.99 0.000 Error 33 1166309 35343 Total 47 4598732 S = 188.0 R-Sq = 74.64% R-Sq(adj) = 63.88% Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev TREATMENTS Mean +---------+---------+---------+--------- 1 300.867 (----*-----) 2 482.013 (----*-----) 3 738.133 (-----*----) 4 663.033 (----*-----) +---------+---------+---------+--------- 200 400 600 800

YIELDS

FARMERS

TREATMENTS

12

11

10987654321

432143214321432143214321432143214321432143214321

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0


71

4. Results for: Intercropping Bankass Yields Two-way ANOVA: YIELDS versus FARMERS, TREATMENTS Source DF SS MS F P FARMERS 8 5351111 668889 7.47 0.000 TREATMENTS 3 808968 269656 3.01 0.050 Error 24 2148749 89531 Total 35 8308828 S = 299.2 R-Sq = 74.14% R-Sq(adj) = 62.29% Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev TREATMENTS Mean --+---------+---------+---------+------- 1 416.133 (---------*---------) 2 356.667 (---------*---------) 3 672.333 (----------*---------) 4 693.409 (----------*---------) --+---------+---------+---------+------- 200 400 600 800

YIELDS

FARMERS

TREATMENTS

987654321

432143214321432143214321432143214321

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0


72

5. Results for: PURE CROPPING KORO PROFITS Two-way ANOVA: PROFITS versus FARMERS, TREATMENTS Source DF SS MS F P FARMERS 7 6.69279E+09 956113014 2.92 0.027 TREATMENTS 3 1.37628E+09 458760885 1.40 0.270 Error 21 6.87285E+09 327278703 Total 31 1.49419E+10 S = 18091 R-Sq = 54.00% R-Sq(adj) = 32.10% Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev TREATMENTS Mean -----+---------+---------+---------+---- 1 30822.5 (----------*----------) 2 37121.4 (----------*----------) 3 47020.9 (----------*----------) 4 45503.1 (----------*----------) -----+---------+---------+---------+---- 24000 36000 48000 60000

PROFITS

FARMERS

TREATMENTS

87654321

43214321432143214321432143214321

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0

Boxplot of PROFITS by FARMERS, TREATMENTS

73

6. Results for: INTERCROPPING KORO PROFITS Two-way ANOVA: PROFITS versus FARMERS, TREATMENTS

Source DF SS MS F P FARMERS 7 2.93401E+10 4191446048 41.81 0.000 TREATMENTS 3 2.66038E+08 88679171 0.88 0.465 Error 21 2.10530E+09 100252445 Total 31 3.17115E+10 S = 10013 R-Sq = 93.36% R-Sq(adj) = 90.20% Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev TREATMENTS Mean ---------+---------+---------+---------+ 1 14740 (------------*-----------) 2 21340 (------------*-----------) 3 14079 (-----------*------------) 4 17883 (-----------*-----------) ---------+---------+---------+---------+ 12000 18000 24000 30000

PROFITS

FARMERS

TREATMENTS

87654321

43214321432143214321432143214321

125000

100000

75000

50000

25000

0


74

7. Results for: PURE CROPPING BANKASS PROFITS Two-way ANOVA: PROFITS versus FARMERS, TREATMENTS Source DF SS MS F P FARMERS 11 1.77615E+10 1614683486 3.75 0.002 TREATMENTS 3 4.40852E+09 1469505945 3.41 0.029 Error 33 1.42270E+10 431121437 Total 47 3.63970E+10 S = 20763 R-Sq = 60.91% R-Sq(adj) = 44.33% Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev TREATMENTS Mean --------+---------+---------+---------+- 1 29753.3 (-------*-------) 2 48201.3 (-------*-------) 3 55188.5 (-------*-------) 4 49798.4 (-------*-------) --------+---------+---------+---------+- 30000 45000 60000 75000

PROFITS

FARMERS

TREATMENTS

12

11

10987654321

432143214321432143214321432143214321432143214321

160000

140000

120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0


75

8. Results for: INTERCROPPISNG BANKASS PROFIT Two-way ANOVA: PROFITS versus FARMERS, TREATMENTS Source DF SS MS F P FARMERS 11 2.05570E+10 1868820131 5.31 0.000 TREATMENTS 3 6.87405E+09 2291349578 6.51 0.001 Error 33 1.16219E+10 352179016 Total 47 3.90530E+10 S = 18766 R-Sq = 70.24% R-Sq(adj) = 57.62% Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on Pooled StDev TREATMENTS Mean --------+---------+---------+---------+- 1 29753.3 (-------*------) 2 48201.3 (------*------) 3 63388.5 (------*-------) 4 49798.4 (------*-------) --------+---------+---------+---------+- 30000 45000 60000 75000

PROFITS

FARMERS

TREATMENTS

12

11

10987654321

432143214321432143214321432143214321432143214321

160000

140000

120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0


DRYLANDS ECOFARMING: An analysis on ecological · PDF fileDRYLANDS ECOFARMING: AN ANALYSIS ON...

Documents

Transcript of DRYLANDS ECOFARMING: An analysis on ecological · PDF fileDRYLANDS ECOFARMING: AN ANALYSIS ON...