Improving efficiency of knowledge and technology diffusion using community seed banks and farmer-to-farmer extension: experiences from Malawi

Abstract

Background Agri-innovations are mostly delivered to farmers through private and public sector-led institutions around the world, with various degrees of success in Malawi. These distribution systems, on the other hand, do not meet everyone's production and productivity needs, particularly those of smallholder farmers. Alternative gap-filling systems are therefore required. Over the course of 7 years, we performed two studies in Malawi to assess the efficiency of integrated farmer led agri-innovation delivery mechanisms, in order to advise programming and delivery improvements. The first study looked at the impact of farmer-led technology delivery on agricultural output and productivity. It was split into two phases: learning (2010–2015) and scaling-out (2016–2019). The second study looked at how smallholder farmers changed their behaviour, after receiving instruction during the scaling-out phase. A farmer-led social network, community seed banks, was used as the research platform. Results The number of farmers who had access to improved seed increased by 35-fold from 2.4% in the baseline year. Groundnut, the major study crop, had a 1.8-fold increase in productivity. In sorghum, and common bean, the difference in grain yield between beneficiaries and control populations was 19% and 30%, respectively. The lowest aflatoxin contamination was found in groundnut grain samples from trained farmers, showing that learning had occurred, with three training sessions sufficient for initiating and sustaining adoption of agri-innovations. Conclusions Many developing country economies have limited investments in agricultural extension and advisory services, and as well as inefficient agri-input delivery systems, limiting access to science solutions needed to boost productivity. The farmer-led technology and knowledge dissemination systems examined in this research, are appropriate for a variety farming contexts, especially for crops underinvested by private sector, and where public extension and advisory services are poorly funded.

Breeding dryland legumes for diverse needs: Using multi‐location trials and participatory variety selection to develop farmer‐preferred groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) and pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) varieties

“…Productivity, external and household consumption patterns are the key factors that inform farmer selection of a good groundnut variety. This is consistent with the fact that groundnut is both a food and income crop for smallholder households in ESA drylands agro‐ecologies (Mugisha et al, 2019; Nigam, 2015; Okori et al, 2022). Thus, the focus of the homestead in production will help in reconciling the choice of variety for adoption.…”

“…Groundnut was bred at ICRISAT‐Malawi, whereas pigeon pea was bred at ICRISAT‐Kenya. On‐farm trials were conducted in all three agroecologies, that is, low altitude (200–700 m above sea level); mid‐altitude (650–1300 m above sea level) and high altitude (>1300 m above sea level) (Monyo et al, 2012; Okori et al, 2022), in four districts (Supplementary Table 1).…”

“…These trials were conducted to enable farmers to select genotypes that are well adapted to their agro‐ecological and cropping system needs that capture market‐preferred traits. The mother‐baby technology evaluation approach was used (Okori et al, 2022; Snapp, 2002). The mother trials were researcher‐managed as described above but established within farming communities, whereas the baby trials were farmer‐managed.…”

“…These trials were conducted to enable farmers to select genotypes that are well adapted to their agro-ecological and cropping system needs that capture market-preferred traits. The mother-baby technology evaluation approach was used (Okori et al, 2022;Snapp, 2002).…”

“…Smallholder production systems vary in size ranging from 0.5 to 2 ha (Eastwood et al, 2010;Gollin, 2014) but are diverse, involving several crops and livestock enterprises. Enterprise diversification in these systems secures harvests and livelihoods against uncertainties common in underresourced agriculture (Gollin, 2014;Makate et al, 2016;McGuire & Sperling, 2013;Okori et al, 2022;Peng et al, 2020). Most farmers, including smallholders, see new agricultural technologies as a means of unlocking productivity for their subsistence (Makate et al, 2016;Piesse & Thirtle, 2010).…”