Co-learning cycles to support the design of innovative farm systems in southern Mali

Abstract

Farm systems were re-designed together with farmers during three years (2013–2015) in Southern Mali with the aim to improve income without compromising food self-sufficiency. A cyclical learning model with three steps was used: Step 1 was the co-design of a set of crop/livestock technical options, Step 2 the on-farm testing and appraisal of these options and Step 3 a participatory ex-ante analysis of re-designed farm systems incorporating the tested options. Two iterations of the cycle were performed, in order to incorporate farmers' point of view and researchers' learning. We worked together with 132 farmers representing four farm types: High Resource Endowed with Large Herd (HRE-LH); High Resource Endowed (HRE); Medium Resource Endowed (MRE) and Low Resource Endowed (LRE) farms. In the first cycle of 2012–2014 farmers re-designed their farms and the reconfigurations were assessed ex ante using the average yields and gross margins obtained in the 2013 on-farm trials. HRE-LH farmers experienced a disappointing decrease in food self-sufficiency and MRE farmers were disappointed by the marginal improvement in gross margin. In a second cycle in 2014–2015, farmer insights gathered during field days and statistical analysis of trial results allowed a better understanding of the variability of option performance and the link with farm context: niches were identified within the farms (soil type/previous crop combinations) where options performed better. The farm systems were re-designed using this niche-specific information on yield and gross margin, which solved the concerns voiced by farmers during the first cycle. Without compromising food self-sufficiency, maize/cowpea intercropping in the right niche combined with stall feeding increased HRE-LH and HRE farm gross margin by 20–26% respectively (i.e. 690 and 545 US$ year−1) with respect to the current farm system. Replacement of sorghum by soyabean (or cowpea) increased MRE and LRE farm gross margin by 29 and 9% respectively (i.e. 545 and 32 US$ year−1). Farmers highlighted the saliency of the niches and the re-designed farm system, and indicated that the extra income could be re-invested in the farm. Our study demonstrates the feasibility and the usefulness of a cyclical and adaptive combination of participatory approaches, on-farm trials and ex-ante analysis to foster learning by farmers and researchers, allowing an agile reorientation of project actions and the generation of innovative farm systems that improve farm income without compromising food self-sufficiency. The re-designed farm systems based on simple, reproducible guidelines such as farm type, previous crop and soil type can be scaled-out by extension workers and guide priority setting in (agricultural) policies and institutional development. (Résumé d'auteur

Agricultural intensification and policy interventions: Exploring plausible futures for smallholder farmers in Southern Mali

“…This change was based on findings of a series of co-learning cycles involving farmers of the four farm types (HRE-LH, HRE, MRE and LRE) during three years of research in the study area. The co-learning cycles were composed of (i) on-farm testing of intercropping and stall-feeding options by about hundred farmers in nine villages of the Koutiala region, (ii) appraisal of options by farmers, and (iii) farm system re-designs and ex-ante analysis assessed by farmers (Falconnier et al, , 2017. The co-learning process indicated that maize-cowpea intercropping is a low-risk, profitable option, which can be combined with stall feeding of lactating cows for increased milk production without compromising food self-sufficiency of the household.…”

“…S1) so that no labour shortage had to be expected. Falconnier et al (2017) showed that with actual household size and cropland area, there is no human labour shortage for cropping activities; the shortage is rather in the availability of oxen. If higher out-migration rates had to be considered in other studies, leading to lower number of people compared with the baseline, an effect of labour loss on yield could be introduced in the modelling framework.…”

From targeting to tailoring : baskets of options for legume cultivation among African smallholders

“…Most previous studies applied the DEED cycle once (Tittonell et al, 2009;Rufino et al, 2011;Franke et al, 2014). However, an iterative application of this cycle allows farmers to test the options, provide feedback on them and to be engaged in the re-design of options (Dogliotti et al, 2014;Falconnier et al, 2017). Moreover, following up on farmers who (dis)continue using options provides insight in the actual relevance of options for different types of farmers, as well as farmers' own adaptations to the options that could further inform the re-design of technologies.…”

“…The re-design of the technologies in the demonstrations each season allowed taking into account treatments that farmers valued, but at the same time this meant that treatments could not always be compared over multiple seasons. This presented a trade-off between reflexive design on the one hand (Mierlo et al, 2010;Falconnier et al, 2017), and agronomic research requirements on the other. However, even those treatments that could be compared over multiple seasons showed a large variation in yield (in line with earlier findings on farmers' fields of Franke et al, 2016;.…”

“…Central to the DEED cycle is the co-learning between researchers, farmers and other stakeholders (Descheemaeker et al, 2016b). An iterative application of this cycle in which farmers test the options, provide feedback and are engaged in the re-design of options can help to develop a number of tailored, locally relevant optionstogether considered a 'basket of options'for a diversity of farmers (Dogliotti et al, 2014;Falconnier et al, 2017).…”