Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
area, Snapp et al. (2010) ran an economic analysis that varied fertilizer input prices and
found that as input prices increased, diversified legume-based systems maintained their
value, while the profitability of fertilized maize monocultures decreased. Interestingly, the
profitability of D1 fertilizer-based systems was diminished for the poorer farmers com-
2004. This raises concerns about the distributional impacts of fertilizer subsidies for farm-
ers from different resource groups.
A detailed discussion of adoption and preference for the different legume systems can be
found in the work of Sirrine, Shennan, and Sirrine (2010). Here, we present a brief synop-
sis of the findings to illustrate the importance of addressing the socioeconomic context
when developing and recommending alternative production strategies. In 2003, farmers
were asked which of the three legume species they preferred to intercrop with maize. The
majority of farmers (55%) stated a preference for pigeon pea, primarily due to its versatil-
ity. Farmers valued it as a secondary food source, as a source of firewood, and for soil
improvement. The farmers who preferred
T. vogelii
(26%) referred to its ability to improve
soil quality, its secondary use as a fish poison, and its low labor demand. The remaining
19% preferred
S. sesban
for its capacity to enhance soil quality, increase maize yields, and
perceived larger growth compared to the other two legumes.
We also asked farmers what they actually planted on their own land to determine if
stated preferences were reflected in actual adoption. At the onset of the project, essentially
all farmers recalled growing some pigeon pea, and 16% grew some
T. vogelii
(none grew
S. sesban
). Farmer recall data on pigeon pea presence and
S. sesban
absence coincide with
that reported in the regional literature. Regional cropping history of
T. vogelii
is less well
known in terms of quantity, although interviews consistently clarified it had been used
in the region as a fish poison for quite some time. In 2003, pigeon pea was still grown
on 97% of farms, and
T. vogelii
planting had risen to 20% (
Figure 9.5
)
. Only 6% of farmers
had adopted
S. sesban
by 2003, with the additional labor demands (including growing it
in a nursery, transplanting it during a time of peak agricultural labor needs, and cutting
the larger trunks it tended to produce) and poorly understood germination requirements
being stated as impediments to its adoption.
Patterns of both preference and adoption varied among farmers depending on wealth
ranking, gender, landscape position, and other factors. We hypothesized that the poorest
farmers would have the strongest preference for pigeon pea due to the immediate liveli-
hood benefits it had as a food source, but while the poorest farmers did have a strong
preference for pigeon pea, farmers in the middle-income bracket had an even stronger
preference
(
Figure 9.5
)
. Interestingly, 40% of the poorest farmers preferred
T. vogelii
due to
the immediate livelihood benefit it offers by selling or using the biomass as a fish poison.
Clearly, short-term considerations were critical to the poorest farmers who only planted
pigeon pea or
T. vogelii
on their own land
(
Figure 9.5
)
. Bezner Kerr et al. (2007) also found
that immediate food security concerns were more influential than soil quality in dictat-
ing northern Malawian farmers' cropping system preference. Here, the wealthiest farmers
were most likely to prefer, and the only ones to adopt,
S. sesban
, indicating they were best
positioned to accommodate the higher labor requirements necessary to benefit from yield
gains and the longer-term soil quality improvement likely to accrue over a number of
years (Franzel and Scherr, 2002).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search