development and transfer of technologyoar.icrisat.org/658/1/ra_00022.pdftransfer of technology as...

Development and Transferof Technology

For Rainfed Agriculture and the SAT Farmer

Proceedings of the Inaugural Symposium at ICRISAT

Proceedings of the

International Symposium

on Development and Transfer

of Technology for Rainfed Agriculture

and the SAT Farmer

ICRISAT Center

Patancheru, India

28 August - 1 September 1979

Vr inda K u m b l e , Ed i tor

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

ICRISAT Patancheru P.O.

Andhra Pradesh. India 502 324

The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-AridTropics (ICRISAT) is a nonprofit scient i f ic educational insti tutereceiving support from a variety of donors. Responsibility for theinformation in this publication rests with ICRISAT or the indi-vidual authors.

The correct citation for these Proceedings is ICRISAT (Interna-tional Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.). 1980.Proceedings of the International Symposium on Development andTransfer of Technology for Rainfed Agriculture and the SATFarmer, 28 August-1 September 1979, Patancheru, A.P., India.

Foreword

The work of an international agricultural research institute becomes meaning-ful only when the results can be effectively conveyed to their ultimateuser — the farmer — through the scientists and extension agencies of themany nations served by that institute. It seemed appropriate to us that a symposium inaugurating the new facilities of ICRISAT Center should focus onthe development and transfer of technology for rainfed agriculture — a vitalbut hitherto largely neglected area of agricultural production that ICRISAT hasa mandate to improve.

The symposium was held 28 August to 1 September 1979 as a major event ofinaugural week activities. It was attended by scientists and developmentofficials from 28 countries and by representatives of four internationalorganizations —the UNDP, World Bank, FAO, and the Consultative Group onInternational Agricultural Research (CGIAR), which supports the work of theinternational research centers. Collectively, the participants represented manyyears of extensive and varied experience in research and development ofagriculture in the semi-arid tropics (SAT).

They reviewed ICRISAT's research since the inception of the Institute in 1972and the relevance of that research to the theme of the symposium. Theyexplored the philosophy, concepts, and practice of technology transfer and itsproblems and potential, particularly in the semi-arid areas of India, Africa, andLatin America where ICRISAT pursues its mandate. Scientists working invarious countries of the SAT shared their experiences and the particularproblems of their own regions, as did representatives of other internationalorganizations.

Finally, integrating all these topics, was a session on establishment oflinkages for the transfer of technology — the problems and prospects. A six-member panel of scientists representing different regions defined areas ofhigh priority in the development of technology and its transfer to theresource-poor small farmer of the rainfed semi-arid tropics.

ICRISAT is pleased to present this volume of the papers delivered andsummaries of discussions held. We hope it will serve both as an up-to-datereview of work being done and as a stimulus for further consideration of howbest to convey to the small farmers of the SAT technological advances thatshould improve their crops, their farming systems, and their lives.

We acknowledge with gratitude the efforts of all of those who came from farand near to share the benefits of their experience and make the symposium a success. I also thank Dr. J. S. Kanwar, Director of Research, and those staffmembers who assisted him in planning and organizing the symposium. TheInstitute benefitted immeasurably f rom this experience.

L. D. SwindaleDirector General

CONTENTS

Opening Session

The Mission of ICRISATResearch at ICRISAT — an Overview

Session 2 — ICRISAT Researchesfor Development of Technology for the SAT

Cereals ImprovementPulses ImprovementGroundnut ImprovementFarming SystemsSocioeconomic Constraints

and ICRISAT's Approach

Summary of Discussion — Session 2

S e s s i o n 3 — T r a n s f e r o f A g r i c u l t u r a l T e c h n o l o g y

Problems and ConceptsAgroclimatic AnaloguesOrganizations Involved

Climatic ApproachBenchmark Soil StudiesWatershed ManagementVillage-Level Studies


Session 4 — ICRISAT Cooperative Programsfor Transfer of Technology

An Overview

Upper Volta

The AmericasTraining


L. D. SwindaleJ. S. Kanwar

1

35

11

13172739

5769

71

7383

8993

103111

121131

133

135

143151

159165

L. D. SwindaleHenry NixFrederick E.

HutchinsonS. M. VirmaniTejpal S. GillJacob KampenHans P. Binswanger

and James G. Ryan

R. C. McGinnisand C. Charreau

W. A. Stoop andC. M. Pattanayak

Leland R. HouseD. L. Oswalt and

A. S. Murthy

J. C. DaviesJ. M. GreenR. W. GibbonsJacob Kampen

James G. Ryan andHans P. Binswanger

Session 5 — Interphase on Research and Development

Relevance of a Research Programfor Meeting the Needs of SmallFarmers

International InstitutesNational ProgramsISNARIADS ProgramsCrop and Livestock Integration


Session 6 — Experience in the Semi-Arid Tropi

India

Maharashtra

NigeriaUpper VoltaSenegalSahelBrazilThailandThe Philippines


Session 7 — Linkages

Linkages for Transfer of TechnologyLinkages for Implementation

of ProgramsSummary of Panel Discussion — Session 7

Plenary SessionChairman's Summary

Appendix 1 — French Abstracts of Englishpapers and Texts of Frenchpapers

Appendix II — Participants and Observers

Sir John CrawfordRalph W. CummingsM. S. SwaminathanKlaus J. LampeD. S. AthwalD. J. Pratt and

C. de Haan

ics

N. S. Randhawa andJ. Venkateswarlu

A. B. Joshi,N. D. Patil, andN. K. Umrani

M. B. AjakaiyeJoseph KaboreDjibril SeneNalla 0. KaneA. BlumenscheinAmpol SenanarongJ. D. Drilon, Jr., and

Ed. B. Pantastico

B. N. Webster

W. K. Agble

J. S. Kanwar

167

169173179183191

199203

205

207

221227231235239243247

251265

267

269

275277

281283

287

313

Opening Session

C h a i r m a n : C . F. Ben t ley Rappo r teu rs : L. R. HouseD. S. M u r t h y

The Miss ion of ICRISAT

L. D. Swindale*

It is my pleasure indeed to welcome to Patan-cheru and ICRISAT Center so many friends ofICRISAT, so many people who have contributedto the development of ICRISAT, so many peoplewho are interested in ICRISAT, who want tocooperate with the Institute, and want to learnmore about it. I am very pleased to see you here.

There were times I thought this buildingwould never be finished. The fact that you aresitting here today and that we have startedthis session is testimony that it is indeedfinished — enough, at least, for us to hold aninternational symposium on Development andTransfer of Technology for Rainfed Agricultureand the Semi-Arid Tropical Farmer.

This is a very important subject, and a veryfitting one, I think, for a symposium connectedwith the Inaugural Week of ICRISAT. Only if wehave a reasonable ability to transfer agriculturaltechnology will ICRISAT's work — particularlyits work in farming systems — be really worthdoing. The same is true for the work of all theinternational agricultural research centers — indeed, it is also true for national systems ofagricultural research — both because theythemselves are able to accept the benefits oftransfer of technology as well as contributeto it internationally and because within anycountry, however rich, it is never possible to setup research units for every single environmen-tal and sociological niche. Transfer of technol-ogy is necessary to ensure that all can benefitfrom its value.

In spite of the importance of this subject,however, the literature about it is fairly sparse. I know; I have long been concerned with andinterested in the subject, particularly in relationto my work in the Benchmark Soils Project of theUniversity of Hawaii, and, more recently, inpreparing a paper for this symposium on theproblems and concepts in the transfer oftechnology. There is not a great deal in theliterature about the concepts and even lessabout testing their efficiency and validity. Sothis symposium will do an essential job in the

* Director General of ICRISAT.

field of international agricultural research andits transfer and communication around theworld, giving us some idea of the state ofknowledge in this field.

As many of you know, ICRISAT was the firstcenter created by the Consultative Group onInternational Agricultural Research. Fiveother centers — CIMMYT, IRRI, CIAT, IITA,CIP — existed prior to the formation of theConsultative Group itself. But in late 1971, theConsultative Group decided on the basis of a 1970 report by Clarence Gray that the lack of anupland crop research institute constituted a major gap. They called upon an expertteam — Hugh Doggett, Louis Sauger, andRalph Cummings — to recommend the natureof such an institute. As a result, ICRISAT wasformed with a mandate to serve as a worldcenter for the improvement of the genetic po-tential of sorghum, pearl millet, pigeonpea, andchickpea; to develop farming systems; to helpincrease and stabilize agricultural productionthrough more effective use of natural andhuman resources in the seasonally dry semi-arid tropics; to identify socioeconomic con-straints and to evaluate means of alleviatingthem; and to communicate informationthrough conferences, training programs, etc.

The first mandate of ICRISAT did not includegroundnuts but the report of the experts hadrecommended that this crop be added at a laterdate, and this was done in 1976.

This is where our stated mandate standstoday. But I believe a significant change oc-curred in 1977 and 1978, when the GoverningBoard accepted requests made by the Inter-national Board for Plant Genetic Resources tohave ICRISAT serve as a primary repository forgenetic resources of its five crops and for minormillets. This decision has increased our work inthe Genetic Resources Program significantly.We will serve not only to collect these re-sources, but also to describe them, to maintaincollections, and to distribute the germplasmitself.

Now, the mandate of any international insti-tute covers a broad field of activities — far morethan we can do at any one time. So it is

3

necessary, for any given period of years, tofocus on some particular aspect or group ofaspects of the mandate and leave others for a later t ime. Our Governing Board at the presenttime has focused our attention upon the smallfarmer of limited means working in rainfedagriculture.

This is clearly in accord with the desires of theConsultative Group. First, the Center was set upto work specifically on crops that are moresubsistence than commercial. Second, the Con-sultative Group itself has made several state-ments that clearly indicate its belief in theimportance of working for this particular sectorof humanity. In the words of a Swedish delegateto the CG meetings a couple of years ago, "theresearch should be problem-oriented and pro-duce results that benefit the majority of farmersin low-income countries, on food commoditieswhich are widely consumed and collectivelyrepresent a majority of the food resources of thedeveloping wor ld." ICRISAT accepts this di-rective. In our work you will see emphasis uponbiological and technological research. But ourgoal also has social content, with an importantinput from the social sciences. All these inputsare designed to serve the needs of this particu-lar group of disadvantaged people. So it is onlyfair to say that ICRISAT is people-oriented. Withthat in mind, we look forward to receiving yourviews on how newtechnology, once developed,can best be transferred to those it is intended tobenefit — in our case, the small farmers of thesemi-arid tropics.

4

Research at ICRISAT — an Overv iewJ. S. Kanwar*

Abstract

In recognition of the need to improve the well-being of the farmers of the semi-arid tropics and bridge the gap between food production and demand, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research constituted ICRISA T in 1972. The Institute has a global responsibility for crop improvement research in sorghum, millet, chickpea, pigeonpea, and groundnut. It also has a special mandate for research in farming systems, socioeconomic constraints, and transfer of technology for the seasonally dry semi-arid tropics, to catalyze a breakthrough in the agricultural production of the region.

ICRISA T has established a gene bank of 48 OOO accessions and exchanged more than 250 OOO seed packets with research workers in 67 countries. It is improving crop yield potential and stability consistent with good nutritional quality and is developing concepts and practices for optimizing production and increasing monetary returns to farmers. Our scientists are working and interacting with national scientists in Asia, Africa, and South America to develop and transfer a more efficient and more remunerative technology to produce a visible change in the food production of the SA T.

As the name implies, ICRISAT is a crop researchinstitute that is international in character. It hasglobal responsibility for five crops — sorghum,millets, pigeonpea, chickpea, and ground-nu t— and a special responsibility for researchfor the development and transfer of technologyin the seasonally dry rainfed areas of the semi-arid tropics (SAT). All five crops of concern toICRISAT are of major significance in the SAT,where 44% of the world's sorghum, 55% of thepearl millet, 90% of the chickpea, 96% of thepigeonpea, and 67% of the groundnut areproduced and consumed directly as humanfood. They are the main source of calories,protein, and fat for about 600 million peopleliving in 49 countries of the semi-arid tropics.

To appreciate the challenges facingICRISAT's scientists, one has to keep in mindthe following specific characteristics of thesemi-arid tropics:

1. Most of the cropping in the SAT is, and willcontinue to be, under rainfed conditions; a majority of the farmers are small farmerswith meager resources — our targetgroup, as Dr. Swindale has aptly calledthem. ICRISAT's technology must berelevant to these resource-poor farmersand be transferable to them. This does not

* Director of Research, ICRISAT.

mean that one searches for a technologybased on no inputs, but rather one basedon a range of inputs, with high payoff. Itshould result in greater monetary returnthan the traditional technology in use bythe farmers, even under the normal condi-tions in which they operate. Thus, relevantand excellent technology for the SATfarmer is the mandate of ICRISAT; how todevelop and how to transfer such a technology to small farmers of the SAT isthe focus of this symposium.The crops of concern to ICRISAT are low-value crops and generally do not enter theworld market, except for groundnut; thusprice incentives for their production areoften missing.These are the least researched crops in thedeveloped countries and are also ignoredby the LDCs; thus most of the new groundin research must be broken by ICRISAT.Fertilizer-responsive genes like those thatproduced the so-called "miracle seeds" ofwheat and rice are yet to be discovered inmany ICRISAT crops, especially in pulsesand groundnut.Technology based on high inputs is notpracticable for these crops.Their yields are low and production isunstable due to too much aberrant

5

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

weather and a high incidence of diseasesand pests.

The yield data in Table 1 show the averageyields in the SAT and the potential yields ofthese crops realized at ICRISAT under rainfedconditions.

Table 1. Average yields and experimentalyields of ICRISAT's five crops (Kg/ha).

From these results it may be observed that,even under low fertility conditions the newtechnology can give yields two to three timeshigher than the average yield obtained by SATfarmers. These yields give some idea of theprospects for the new technology. How tobridge this gap is a big question with techno-logical and socioeconomic aspects.

Historical Background

ICRISAT was constituted in 1972, but most of itsactivities started in 1973, after the Director,Associate Director, and several scientistsjoined. Without waiting for the buildingfacilities that are being inaugurated this week,the Institute started work in earnest to attain thegoals that the Doggett-Cummings-SaugerCommittee had mentioned in its feasibility re-port and that ICRISAT's Governing Boardadopted as the mandate. These objectives canbe briefly summarized as:

• Genetic resources and crop improvementresearch

• Farming systems or resource manage-ment research

• Socioeconomic research relevant to theabove themes

• Transfer of the knowledge acquired, thematerial generated, and the concepts de-veloped

To appreciate the value of the research ac-tivities, it may be desirable to examine ourresearch organization and the mandate area ofthe SAT.

ICRISAT has six main research programs — sorghum, millets, pulses, groundnut, farmingsystems, and economics — and seven supportprograms. Every research program has an in-terdisciplinary team of specialists who worktogether to achieve the common goal.

The Government of India generously pro-vided 1394 hectares of land at Patancheru forthe research farm and the campus of the Insti-tute. The area is comprised of both Vertisols andAlfisols, the two important soil groups of thesemi-arid tropics. ICRISAT's research activitiesare not confined to this one station; it hasaccess to a number of cooperative researchstations in different environments in India andAfrica. It also has a cooperative network withthe national programs in the SAT. Withoutthese facilities, the Institute would not havebeen able to fulfill its global responsibilities.

ICRISAT's geographical mandate area isrestricted to the SAT as defined by Troll.1

ICRISAT's agroclimatologists are trying notonly to define the boundaries of the SAT but todevelop models of cropping systems based onthe climatological and soil parameters and theinformation collected by ICRISAT biologists,engineers, physical scientists, and economists.

I need hardly emphasize that in all our re-searches we are keeping in mind the overallconstraints of water and capital in the SAT. Todevelop technologies relevant to the smallfarmers of the SAT, spread over 49 countries ofthe world, we have set apart special areas inboth Alfisols and Vertisols at ICRISAT Center.These include:

• a low-fertility area comparable to thefarmer's situation for testing crops with noor low inputs

1. D. Troll, 1965, Seasonal climates of the earth, Page28 in World maps of climatology, eds. E. Roden-waldt and H. Jusatz. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

6

Crop

SorghumPearl milletChickpea

PigeonpeaGroundnut

Averagey ie ld

in SAT

842509591

666794

Experimental yield at ICRISAT

Under highsoil

fertility

4900*34823055

(Hissar)1450

(Hyderabad)2530*2573*

* Farming Systems' operational-scale trials

Under lowsoil

fertility

2627*16363079

(Hissar)1399

(Hyderabad)23261712

• a pesticide-free area for evaluation ofmaterial under natural conditions — i.e.,without an umbrella of pesticides

• a number of watersheds with natural to-pography sui table for test ing alltechnologies under natural environments

We have also developed an internationalsystem of cooperative work for sampling therange of environments of the SAT. This is donethrough international nurseries that evaluatematerial under natural pressures of diseases,pests, climate, and soil conditions.

We have recognized that an internationalcenter can act only as a catalyst, pacesetter, andconcept builder; it has to work with the nationalprograms to develop and transfer appropriatetechnology and reach its target group of far-mers and its client group of scientists.

Research Overview

Let me now give you an overview of ourresearch efforts. My colleague program leaderswill give you a comprehensive picture of theresearch, so I wil l only stress some importantpoints.

The high priorities in crop improvement re-search have been:

• Collecting genetic resources and evalua-t ion, storage, and exchange of these re-sources

• Increasing yield potential through geneticengineering for rainfed conditions and lowmonetary inputs

• Increasing stability of high yield by incor-porating resistance to yield reducers

• Developing appropriatetechnology for theSAT

• Improving nutritional quality of cropsThe first task before us was assembling,

collecting, evaluating, and cataloging germ-plasm of sorghum, pearl millet, pigeon-pea, chickpea, and groundnut. Special im-portance has been given to the collection ofwild species of those crops that provide a richsource of resistance to diseases and pests andof tolerance to environmental stress. Table 2 shows the number of germplasm lines in ourcollection today. The present collection of morethan 48 000 accessions is the world's largest inthese crops. It also includes the wi ld speciesthat our scientists have collected from hitherto

inaccessible areas all over the world. On behalfof the International Board for Plant GeneticResources (IBPGR) and our clients, we alsomaintain germplasm collections of minor mil-lets. Much of this material was in danger ofextinction, and ICRISAT was requested to movein quickly to become the world repository for it.Dr. Melak Mengesha and his colleagues aremaking a strenuous effort to complete the collec-tions and make this rich heritage available tousers all over the world. The information hasbeen computerized and is being updated sys-tematically. We are in a position to supply lineswith specific tra its to the national programs andthus catalyze and strengthen their research. Inthe last 5 years, our Quarantine Unit has beenable to exchange more than 250 000 seed sam-ples from our gene bank and breeders' labs withscientists in 67 countries. We have also de-veloped seed-exchange arrangements withChina, the USSR, and gene banks in the USA,besides the 49 countries of the SAT.

Table 2 . Number o f accessions w i t h the Gene-t i c Resources Un i t .

S o r g h u m

Our sorghum research is confined to sorghumgrain for human food. We realized that for a breakthrough in its production, first priorityshould be given to research on yield and onquality reducers such as downy mildew, headmold, Striga, shoot fly, stem borer, and droughtand soil stress. Genotypes resistant or tolerantto these stresses need to be developed. Incor-porating genes for high lysine and high proteinhas been given consideration, but we realizethat considerable basic research is needed to

7

Crop

SorghumPearl milletPigeonpeaChickpeaGroundnutMinor millets

Accessions ofcultivated spp

16 5795 3325 971

112257 0002 076 (6)*

* Numbers In brackets Indicate species.

Accessions ofwild spp

145 (8)*33 (17)*56 (14)*47 (20)*27 (20)*

attain any tangible results. Our conclusion isthat nothing should be done at the cost of theyield and its stability; however, we must ensurethat high yield is consistent with optimumprotein and lysine content and consumer ac-ceptability.

When ICRISAT started its work, majoremphasis in the world was on development ofsorghum hybrids. Our scientists realized thatpopulation breeding needed emphasis. A number of lines from this program that per-formed well in overseas and local trials wereselected for use in the national programs inEthiopia, Niger, Mali, Upper Volta, Sudan, andIndia. Several entries showed lowest moldscore in the international nurseries of grainmold for 3 years successively. Five other entrieshave shown resistance to downy mildew. Oneline, QL3, has been found immune to downymildew in Africa, Asia, and South America. Inthe future, breeding for resistance to charcoalrot, stem borer, and midge will be intensified.

We have observed that the consumer's ap-praisal of the product — chapati in India andenjira in Africa — gives a good idea of thequality of the grain. Our scientists have con-sidered this in making evaluations.

P e a r l M i l l e t

Downy mildew had been identified as the villainaffecting the future of hybrids and all improvedvarieties of pearl millet. Development of a technique for screening for resistance to downymildew and breeding for resistance was givenhighest priority. Today we have controlled thisproblem and made the resistant lines availableto national programs. In fact, all the hybrids,experimental varieties, and synthetics beingdeveloped by ICRISAT have low susceptibilityto downy mildew.

In the case of pearl millet, the populationbreeding approach has paid rich dividends;many of the experimental varieties and syn-thetics developed by ICRISAT have proved theirmerit in international tests in Africa and India.Some of them are under testing at prereleasestage. This has opened a new chapter in thedevelopment of pearl millet. An outstandingexample is WC-C75, which has gone to minikittrials on farmers' fields in India. Even bettermaterial than this has entered the national

testing programs. In 1978, ICRISAT contributed19 entries to the trials under the All IndiaCoordinated Millet Improvement Project — onehybrid (ICH-105) and three experimental varie-ties (WC-C75, IVS-A 75, and MC-C75) are inadvanced trials; two new hybrids (ICH-154 andICH-165), two experimental varieties (SSC-H76,MC-P76), and a synthetic (ICMS-7703) haveentered initial trials; and ten elite restorer linesare in parental trials.

Breeding work to combine high yield andgood protein is under way, as the data over thelast 3 years indicate the possibility of selectingfor increased protein content without detrimentto yield or seed size.

The Pearl Millet Improvement Program hasentered a very exciting phase. Breeding forresistance to ergot is receiving the greatestattention, and many promising lines are undertest. Resistance to smut, rust, and Striga willreceive more attention in future. The prelimi-nary studies by our microbiologists show thatsome lines of sorghum and millets have evenup to ten times as much nitrogenase activity asthe check; the consistency and practical sig-nificance of these results are yet to be de-termined.

P u l s e s

In chickpea and pigeonpea, the major handicaphas been the absence of photoperiod-insensitive plant types responsive to monetaryinputs such as fertilizer, irrigation, and pes-ticides. Also, the "green revolution" has pushedthese crops onto marginal lands, thus reducingthe production and availability of pulses toconsumers. As a consequence the prices ofpulses have shot up to abnormally high levels,thus putting them out of reach of poor people incountries like India.

Thanks to our cooperators in India and atICARDA, the research on chickpea is pro-gressing very well. A few lines with high-yieldpotential have already entered the coordinatedyield trials in India. International nurseries areproviding valuable information. The pulsepathologists have made considerable progressin identifying disease-resistant genotypes anddeveloping techniques to help breeders in pro-ducing lines that combine high yield and dis-ease resistance. The confusion about chickpea

8

wilt has been resolved, and genotypes resistantto wilt have been identified.

In pigeonpea,the male-sterile lines have beenidentified, and hybrids capable of giving 30 to40% higher yields have been developed. Breed-ing lines resistant to sterility mosaic and wilthave also been developed. Eight early matur-ing, two medium-maturing, and one hybridhave been entered in tests of the All IndiaCoordinated Program. High yield potential ofpigeonpea planted in the rabi (postrainy)season in areas of the Indian subcontinent hasbeen demonstrated, and the possibility of ra-tooning has been studied. Vegetable-typepigeonpeas are being developed. Other impor-tant developments are in prospect for the fu-ture.

Groundnut

The program on groundnut started in 1976. Firstpriority has been given to building up a germplasm bank and incorporating disease re-sistance, particularly to rust, leaf spot, andviruses. Breeding for high-yield potential is inprogress. It is gratifying to note that the hybrid-ization technique in groundnut has been suc-cessfully employed; the success rate, which wasless than 10% in the field, has been increased tomore than 50%. Interspecific hybrids of culti-vated and wild species are promising sources ofresistance to diseases. The segregating elitepopulations are being supplied to national prog-rams in India, Africa, and Southeast Asia.

Our breeders have found new sources ofresistance to groundnut rust and have de-veloped techniques for screening material in therainy and postrainy seasons. Our work ongroundnut virus diseases is entering an excitingphase. Many new virus diseases have beendiscovered and sources of resistance identified.The microbiologists have identified some prog-enies of normally nodulating groundnuts thatdid not nodulate. This seems to be a usefulindicator for nitrogen-fixation studies. A newassay method, based on measurement ofAllantoin concentration as an index of nitrogenuptake from biologically fixed nitrogen as com-pared to soil nitrogen, seems to be promising.

Farming Systems

The main goal of farming systems research is to

develop concepts and techniques for increasingproduction through better use of natural andhuman resources in the seasonally dry semi-aridtropics. These areas are characterized by harshclimate, erratic rains, and impoverished soils;they are inhabited by some of the world'spoorest farmers, with meager resources for in-novative and efficient agriculture. Rainfed cropsand subsistence farming, intercropping, low in-tensity of cropping, use of human muscle andanimal power are common features of agricul-ture of these areas. Keeping this background inmind, ICRISAT's Farming Systems Programhas developed:

• a technology for double cropping of deepVertisols, 20 million ha of which normallyare single cropped in SAT India.

• efficient intercropping that improved pro-duction 20 to 70% over sole cropping;millet/groundnut on an average recorded 25to 30% advantage.

• a small-watershed concept for land andwater management and increased cropproduction, with a broadbed-and-furrowsystem and the Tropiculteur or bullock-drawn wheeled tool carrier serving askingpins of the technology.

• a technique of harvesting, storing, andreusing runoff water for life-saving irri-gation, extending the cropping season, orincreasing the intensity of cropping. It is a concept of using rainwater in situ againstthe concept of irrigated farming based ontransported water or mined water.

• a concept and technique of combiningvarious steps in technology for a syner-gistic effect on increasing production inboth Alfisols and Vertisols.

Farming systems research is integrating allaspects of research in a holistic way and studyingthe possibility of its transferability under far-mers' conditions. With this objective in view,operational-scale trials on cultivators' fields havebeen started in three villages — Shirapur(Sholapur), Kanzara (Akola), and Aurepalle(Mahbubnagar) in the states of Maharashtra andAndhra Pradesh, India. This work is being donein cooperation with the national and state re-search organizations.

The farming systems research is also beingextended to West Africa, and it is interacting withnational and regional programs in SouthAmerica and Southeast Asia. We feel that in the

9

future farming systems research will advancemore in the direction of on-farm trials, enteringinto this phase with the help of national pro-grams and with the cooperating farmers actingtogether to bring about a revolutionary change inthe agriculture of the SAT.

S o c i o e c o n o m i c R e s e a r c h

Our economists are interacting with the farmingsystems scientists to measure the efficiency andeconomic feasibility of various practices. Ananalysis of the operational-scale data fromICRISAT watersheds has confirmed that thebroadbed-and-furrow system on deep Vertisolswas more profitable than the traditional flatbedsystem; this has not yet been proved to be thecase on the medium-deep Vertisols and onAlfisols. The Village-Level Studies have indicatedthe relevance of intercropping research byICRISAT, and the unsuitability of chemical weedcontrol for the low-wage situation of SAT India,where the price of herbicides is high and labor isplentiful. Studies on risk aversion have shownthat both small and large farmers are moderatelyrisk averse. In the next phase in India, the Village-Level Studies will be extended to the chickpea-,groundnut-, and peart-mil let-growing areas ofnorthern India.

Transfer of Technology

All these researches that I have discussed areaimed at fulfill ing ICRISAT's mission. Theyfocus on the development of suitable techno-logy and lead to the last, but not the leastimportant, aspect called Transfer of Techno-logy. In the next few days you will hear fromour colleagues and cooperators about themechanism of transfer of technology. I mayonly mention at this stage that to transferknowledge and exchange information, we haveheld ten international workshops, trained 216research workers, and facilitated visits toICRISAT of a few thousand visitors who couldsee our experiments in field and lab and ex-change ideas with our scientists.

Looking Ahead

We recognize that ICRISAT's task is difficult butknow it is well worth the effort. Our scientists

are engaged in problem-solving research, keep-ing in mind its relevance and excellence to meetthe needs of our target group in the SAT. Webelieve that with the dedicated efforts of ourscientists and cooperators, the support of ourdonors, and the participation of farmers, a technology highly remunerative, appropriate,and transferable to farmers of the SAT willbecome available. It is a slow process, but weare on the right path. ICRISAT has entered a distinctly new and exciting phase in the de-velopment of technology and its transfer tofarmers of the semi-arid tropics for improvingtheir well-being.

10

Session 2

ICRISAT Researchesfo r Deve lopment o f Technology

fo r t he SAT

C h a i r m a n : R. W. C u m m i n g s Rappor teu rs : J. R. Bur f o r dCo-Cha i rman : A m p o l Senanarong K. L. S a h r a w a t

R. J a m b u n a t h a nS. C. Gup ta

Cereals Improvement Research Techno logyfo r the Semi -Ar id Trop ics

J. C. Davies*

A b s t r a c t

The major cereals of concern to ICRISAT are sorghum and millet, which rank fourth andfifth in terms of wor ld cereal production. They are grown extensively in the semi-aridtropics as staple foodstuffs, since they have an ability to withstand dry conditions. Theyhave a low cash value and are usually grown as subsistence crops in poor agriculturalsituations; hence, they cannot stand high agrochemical or expensive technologicalinputs. The Cereals Program at ICRISA T has been formulated with these points in view.Research in al l disciplines has focused on production of seed with desirable characteris-tics to help to reduce the impact of the major yield-reducing factors — drought, insectpests, diseases, and parasitic weeds. Major advances have been made in the area ofscreening and breeding for resistance to these factors. Many of these techniques arealready being used extensively in India and Africa.

The two cereals of concern to ICRISAT aresorghum (Sorghum bicolor Moench) and pearlmillet (Pennisetum americanum Leake). These,with maize, are classified as coarse grains andrank fourth and fifth, respectively, in terms ofworld cereal production. This is not a reflectionof their real importance however, as they areoften the main subsistence food crops of someof the poorest and least privileged people onearth. The relative importance of sorghum andmillet in terms of total cereal area and pro-duction in the world is shown in Table 1.

If the People's Republic of China is included inworld figures, some 58% of the world's sor-ghum area (about 59 million ha) and 65% of theworld's millet area (about 55 mill ion ha) arein the SAT. However, only 44% and 55%, re-spectively, of the production is obtained fromthis area. The yields from the SAT sorghumareas are about 800 kg/ha; from millet areas,about 500 kg/ha, both significantly lower thanthe world average. In the non-SAT area ofAfrica, for instance, mean sorghum yields of1771 kg/ha are quoted, whereas in the de-veloped world the figure is 4194 kg/ha. There is,therefore, considerable scope for technologicalinnovation to improve the situation in the SAT.

* Leader, Cereal Improvement Program, ICRISAT(now Director for International Cooperation,ICRISAT.)

Table 1. Relative importance of sorghum andmillet to total cereal area and pro-duction in the world.

There is also a need for it. Although pro-duction of coarse grains has been increasingsteadily, if not spectacularly, since 1964, there isa deficit forecast for West Africa in 1980, with a supply/demand balance in India — a very con-siderable producer — in the same year. Thedemand for coarse cereals is projected to in-crease at about 2.4% annually, and there areforecasts that by the mid-1980s there will bedeficits of 8 to 10% in India and 28% in easternand west-central Africa. By the 1990s, the LDCswill have deficits of about 37%.

Against this background, our cereals pro-gram seeks, as a basic objective, to increasefood supply in the SAT countries through thenational programs. It recognizes that severalmajor yield-reducing factors are in operation inthe SAT, such as insect pests, plant diseases,

13

Percentage of world cereal

Crop Area

World sorghum 8.1World millets 7.5World sorghum & millets 15.6

Production

4.92.47.3

parasitic weeds, and drought. By combatingthese, it seeks to include an element of stabilityin the higher yield levels that we hope will bedeveloped by breeders from exploitation ofgermplasm being assembled at ICRISAT. Tosucceed in this aim, a fully integrated approachis being used, in which all the majordisciplines — genetic resources, entomology,pathology, physiology, and microbiology — contribute to the new genotype produced bybreeding.

Research Technologyfor the SAT

The technology currently used and the cultivarsgrown by subsistence farmers in the SAT haveoften evolved together over eons and producean equilibrated, if low-yielding, situation. Pat-terns of agriculture are adapted to suit con-ditions, but the existing technology and pat-terns cannot cope with the rapidly increasingSAT populations.

Knowledge in agriculture and progress in theagricultural sciences have made quantum leapsin the last 40 or so years in temperate climates,and modification and adaptation of this know-ledge can contribute to research in the SAT.However, many of the innovations developed inagriculture in temperate zones have alreadybeen shown to be environmentally question-able; some are downright exploitive and, oflate, highly energy-consuming, which serves tounderline the care that must be taken to studyand explore thoroughly the prospectivetechnology for the SAT. There also exists a needto develop suitable research technology thattakes into accountthe known facts and possiblefuture trends in agriculture for the benefit of theSAT farmer, and to consider political andsocioeconomic factors involved in introductionof new research technology that can, furtherdown the line, have significant effects on theeconomics of nation states.

Clearly, with sorghum and millet, there arestrict economic limitations on what can be doneby way of technological innovation, and theseshould be reflected in the type of researchcarried out at an institute such as ICRISAT, atleast in the short term. Although the crops areso crucially important to indigenous popu-lations of the SAT, they are low in cash value

and are essentially items of internal trade.Obviously they will not stand big agrochemi-cal inputs — either fertilizer or pesticide — although both can usually be demonstrated toprovide considerable yield advantages. Theseknown constraints have fashioned the ap-proach we have taken in the ICRISAT CerealProgram. We have accepted that both thebreeding stock and any technology comingfrom research programs must be applicable tothe situation existing on the peasant farmer'sland and research techniques developed mustbe of use to scientists working in less than idealconditions.

It is convenient to consider developments inour research technology in cereals improve-ment in the light of this, under the differentdiscipline headings. It is necessary to stress thateach discipline has its part to play in cropimprovement but that success in our objectivewill come only by a close integration of researchat all stages, and by adoption of input fromnational researchers, who are close to thefarmer.

Patho logy

Serious yield-reducing diseases affect sorghumand pearl millet; severe downy mildewepidemics, for example, decimated the Indianpearl millet hybrid crop during the early 1970s.The major aim of the ICRISAT Cereal Pathologyteam is to identify, and help the breeder utilize,stable disease resistance. Effective screeningtechniques are basic to this work, and they needto be based on a sound understanding of thebiology and epidemiology of the diseases. A major part of the technology generation incereal pathology has been the development ofnew, or adaptation of existing, screeningtechniques so that truly resistant sources can beidentified.

A good example is the work with the pearlmillet downy mildew mentioned earlier. Ourscientists elucidated the role of sporangia in theepidemiology of this disease and, based on this,developed highly efficient screens. The jointuse of this technique by breeders andpathologists has enabled us to rapidly selectdowny mildew resistant versions of our popu-lations and to develop resistant hybrids andvarieties, several of which are performing wellin the All India Coordinated Millets Improve-

14

ment Project (AICMIP). The technique is beingsuccessfully used in ICRISAT cooperative prog-rams and increasingly by national programscientists. Similar screens have been developedfor a range of other diseases — pearl milletergot, sorghum grain molds, and charcoal rot,for example — and are already in use both hereand overseas. This is an important, thoughnonquantifiable, technology development andcontribution.

E n t o m o l o g y

Several innovations and adaptations have beenmade with regard to screening for two of themajor insect pests of sorghum — shoot fly andlowland stem borer. These involve, for shootfly, the use of susceptible spreader rows andfish meal attractant for large-scale germplasmscreening and, for stem borer, the developmentof an artificial diet that enables extremely largenumbers of larvae to be reared and to beavailable at the blackhead stage by the verybeginning of the sorghum season. These larvaeare introduced into the funnels of sorghum atthe appropriate stage for infestation, using a gun developed at CIMMYTand modified for useat ICRISAT. Between five and seven larvae areintroduced into each plant in a measuredquantity of finger millet seed. Whole fields ofmaterial undertest can be rapidly treated by thismethod, enabling us to screen both germplasmand breeders' material. The diet is already beingsuccessfully used by several cooperators.

These are examples of adaptation of existingtechniques and rapid dissemination of ideas, 3 task which an institute such as ICRISAT isunquestionably well set up to carry out.

In the field of insect population dynamics, oneof the major research areas is development oftrapping methods — light, chemical attractant,and pheromone. A technique using fish meal,ammonia, and brewers' yeast proved highlysuccessful in attracting female shoot fly and isnow used in India and Africa to assess shootfly populations, particularly in the off-seasonbetween crops. Tests were carried out withpheromones of stem borer moths, largenumbers of which were trapped, and the al-dehyde was shown to be the major attractivesource. Subsequently, experiments have beendone on loading and ratios; results will becompared with those obtained from light traps.

Collaborative work to test pheromones fromother major pest species is under way, utilizingvarious trap designs and techniques that willhave applicability elsewhere.

It is possible that control techniques will beevolved from such work; certainly thepheromones will be used in detecting pests andtheir numbers and will possibly be of use intiming accurately any insecticide applicationsthat may be economically possible on cereals.

P h y s i o l o g y

Undoubtedly the major constraint to increasedproduction of sorghums and millets in the SATis availability of water. It is normally inadequatein quantity and erratic in delivery. While a majorthrust of the ICRISAT Farming Systems Pro-gram is to ensure that all the rain that falls isproperly utilized, it is also recognized that land-race cultivars exist that are able to toleratewater stress relatively better than others. Thedetection and confirmation of these lines andtheir utilization in breeding programs could be a significant technological breakthrough in SATagriculture. Field techniques for location andconfirmation of stress resistances have beendeveloped so that the lines detected are usedand refined in breeding programs as a priority.The complexities of the situation make progressslow, but technology is being developed thatwill be transferable to other research workers.

Our physiologists are also involved in assist-ing breeders to make selections of plants withresistance to insect pests and plant parasiteweeds. This has necessitated development oflaboratory techniques to identify factors as-sociated with resistance, such as trichomes anddegree of lignification in seedlings and study ofhaustorial attachment on the roots of growingseedlings. These techniques are already beingused in both developed and developing coun-tries in an effort to hasten breeding of resistantcultivars.

M i c r o b i o l o g y

It has been recognized for some time thatcertain cereals and grasses possess an ability tofix atmospheric nitrogen. This is potentiallyextremely important, as poor nitrogen avail-ability is a major limiting factor in productionand fertilizers are seldom available to poor

15

farmers. It has been demonstrated at ICRISATthat some wild Pennisetums have considerablepotential to fix nitrogen, and a field techniquehas been devised that uses acetylene reductionto detect plants with enhanced fixing ability.Some problems have been experienced initiallywith plant-to-pi ant variability, but a techniquewill soon be available to research workers in theSAT. Additionally, technology is being de-veloped for differentiation of various strains ofN2-fixing bacteria and for culturing of usefulstrains.

Breeding

Considerable progress has been made in test-ing and comparing different breeding methodsfor the two crops. Full analysis of data accumu-lated over several sites in several seasons wil lenable breeders to assess which breedingmethods give most rapid advances and also todetermine which methods enable desirabletraits to be incorporated simultaneously andmost rapidly in seed material. ICRISAT haspioneered research into populations breedingmethodology in pearl millets, and breedingmaterial is already under test in the AICMIPtrials; several ICRISAT hybrids have shownpromise both in India and overseas.

Our breeders have also been particularlyconcerned with nutritional and food prepa-ration quality. In collaboration with thebiochemists, they have determined some of thedesirable quality traits in sorghum and milletsfor a range of food preparations. Work is con-ducted with scientists in several countries — and this is proving an interesting exercise — for use of these cereals in tortillas in Mexico, beerin East Africa, teau in Upper Volta, chapati inIndia. It is in the breeding programs that thetechnologies and techniques developed in alldisciplines come together to interact on thegermplasm base. Here we are at the farmer'slevel — the seed.

The Future

These few examples may serve as an indicationof the type of technology that is being developedfor use in the SAT. It is not complex; if it were, itwould be unlikely to have an impact where it isneeded — on food production. It is stronglyfield-oriented and hence has the greatest chance

of being used, and it does not involve the use ofexpensive or complicated machinery. It can bequickly communicated and utilized by researchworkers under difficult conditions. We believethat this technology will be a real contribution inthe struggle to feed the rapidly increasing popu-lation of the semi-arid tropics.

16

Pulse Improvement Research Techno logyfor t he Semi-Ar id Tropics

J. M. Green*

A b s t r a c t

Pulse crops, with higher nutrient requirements than cereals but without markedresponse to added fertilizer, present difficult problems to researchers trying to increaseproduction. Promising results have been obtained in increasing yields of pigeonpeas byusing hybrids and in chickpeas by modifying plant type, and in stabilizing yields of bothcrops by incorporating genetic resistance to diseases. Innovations in agronomy haveresulted in promise of increased production outside of traditional systems.

When we speak of "developing a pulsestechnology," we are very largely speaking of a technology that can becontained in a seed. If welimit our considerations to chickpea (Cicerarietinum L.) and pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan [L ]Millsp.), we are dealing with food crops that (1)are not produced in adequate quantity, (2) areoverpriced as a result of short supply, (3) areplanted on a slowly diminishing acreage, and(4) are experiencing no noticeable change inaverage farm yield.

Of two alternatives for increasing pro-duct ion— either increasing the yield per unitarea on land currently used for the crop orextending the area on which it is grown —thefirst option favors the small farmer who cur-rently grows the crop and contributes to anincreased total food supply; the second alterna-tive implies either competition with other cropsfor land, or extending the adaptation of chick-pea or pigeonpea to land currently submarginalfor crop production. Success in the first optionwill result in something of an increase in ac-reage also, but increased yield per hectare isessential.

A natural expectation (to some) of the combi-nation of an international agricultural researchcenter and a crop mandate is that there shouldbe a "green revolution": a breakthrough ingenetic potential for yield, combined with a responsiveness to fertilizer, that will provide a quantum jump in yield. Unique circumstancesthat were peculiarly similar provided themechanism for such breakthroughs in the cases

•Leader, Pulse Improvement Program, ICRISAT.

of rice and wheat; the combination of dwarfgenes that reduced plant height and permittedbetter standability of the crop plus responsive-ness to high levels of fertilization resulted inquantum jumps in yield of these grains.

We must recognize atthe outsetthattherearefundamental differences between cereal cropsand legumes. The consequences of these dif-ferences are illustrated by the progress of thesoybean and the maize crops in the USA.

Hartwig, in reviewing cultivardevelopment in1973, reported a 17% yield advantage for thecultivar Lincoln over introduced strains previ-ously grown in the midwest, and an advantage of30% for the cultivar Ogden over introductions inthe southern United States. Aside from a men-tion of a 25% yield advantage for cultivar Clarkover the same introductions compared with theLincoln cultivar, there is no other mention ofnotable yield gains in the history of soybeancultivar development in the United States to1973.

Soybeans were a new crop in which the baseyields were produced by direct introductions,and cultivars from the latitude of the sourcearea in northern China were limited in adapta-tion to the central Corn Belt of the United States.The potential for yield advance through breed-ing in areas of the United States where soybeanintroductions were not adapted should havebeen greater than is the opportunity for improv-ing yields of chickpeas and pigeonpeas in areaswhere local landraces have evolved overthousands of years.

Such is the challenge facing us in increasingproduction of pulses. To help us to keep our

17

perspective on realistic goals, a comparison ofchickpea and pigeonpea yields in India withsoybean and maize yields in the United Statesover 33 years is presented in Figure 1. With a background of intensive research on maizefor many years, and a breakthrough in theteens that started reaching the farmers in thelate 1920s and early 1930s, productivity hasincreased dramatically. Soybean yields haveincreased, but only in a linear fashion, and re-searchers are still looking for a breakthrough.

Sources: Maize - U.S. Dept. Conm., 1975; FAO 1978Soybeans - Probst and Judd, 1973; FAO 1978Chickpeas - Govt, of IndiaPigeonpeas - Govt, of India

Figure 1. Annual mean yield (kglha) at 5-year intervals of maize and soybeans in USA and chickpeas and pigeonpeas in India, 1924-1977.

Prospects for Improvement

A brief description of the crops in question willbe helpful in identifying possibilities for im-provement. Chickpea is an annual plant, short instature, with a relatively high harvest index(40-60%), adapted to growing in the absence ofrainfall, either on residual moisture or withirrigation. Conventional wisdom in Syria is thata minimum of 400 mm of rainfall is required to

accumulate enough stored moistureto producea chickpea crop, but in India the crop is grown inareas receiving less than 400 mm. There are twomain market types: kabuli (garbanzo) whichhas relatively smooth, generally large, light-colored seeds and is most often grown as a summer crop in the Middle East, the Mediterra-nean region, and in the Americas; and the desi(garbanzo porquero), which can have yellow toblack seed (generally smaller and with a rougher surface than seed of the kabuli) and isusually grown as a winter crop in more tropicalareas. World production statistics, indicatingour best estimates of relative proportions ofkabuli and desi types, are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 .

AfricaAsiaEuropeMexicoSouth

America

Totals

Wor ld p roduc t i on1977.

Areaharvested8

(1000 ha)

3099 504

175210

40

10 238

Yielda

(kg/ha)

703786763833

674

745

of ch ickpeas in

Total production b

Kabuli

(1000tonnes)

57.51401.2

9935

23

1615.7

Desi

1000tonnes)

1235035

0140

0

5298

a. From FAO production yearbook, except Tunisia data fromBouslama, 1979.

b. Kabuli-desl division by author on basis of informationgleaned from contacts in the countries.

Pigeonpea is a perennial shrub, with a quan-titative short-day photoperiod response, rela-tively high total biological production, and lowharvest index (15-30%). Stems and primarybranches are woody. When planted at ICRISATCenter soon after the longest day, maturityranges from 4 to 10 months, and height fromless than 1 to more than 2 m. However, the samecultivar that is over 2 m tall and matures in 10months will be less than a meter tall and willmature in 5 months if planted from 30 to 60 daysbefore the shortest day. (These descriptions

18

apply at ICRISAT Center, latitude 17° 40'N;reactions vary with latitude and resulting differ-ences in daylength.) Pigeonpea generally has a slow growth rate for 45 days, foJIowed bymaximum growth between 45 days and flower-ing. This is apparently an adaptation to thetraditional intercropping; more than 90% of thecrop is grown in this fashion in India. Pigeonpeagrows well during the rainy season but per-forms best when flowering and podding occurafter the rains cease. Production statistics for 14countries are listed in Table 2, we have hadcontact or correspondence with 59 countries inwhich pigeonpeas aregrown and utilized, but in

Table 2. Wor ld p roduc t i on o f pigeonpeas bycount r ies and use as repor ted fo r1973 ( last year in w h i c h FAO re-por ted pigeonpeas as a separatecrop) .

many countries the crop is scattered in smallpatches and does not enter normal crop produc-tion statistics.

Increasing Yields in Tradit ionalProduct ion Systems

Fert i l izer Response /N i t rogen F ixa t ion

Comparison of the nutrient requirements pertonne of grain of three cereal and three legumecrops (Table 3) shows that nutrient require-ments for legumes are actually higher than forcereals; the N requirement is approximatelytwice as high. However, neither pigeonpea norchickpea gives marked response to fertilization;slight increases from applied phosphate andlow levels of nitrogen in infertile soils have beenreported (Saxena and Yadav 1975).

A search for chickpeas responsive to phos-

Country

IndiaBurmaBanglade;PakistanUgandaKenya*Malawi

TanzaniaDominica

RepubliHaitiPuerto Ri<TrinidadVenezuelaPanama

a. Source:

b. Author"!contacts

F = FAO esTr= Trace

Area a

harvested Yielda

(1000 ha) (kg/ha)

233065

sh 3 2F

90F6135F

22Fnc** 14

7F:o 3

110F2F

750348723500444NA

571

523

2191

53811541585403750

Drygra in b

(1000tonnes)

174823

21

40NA20

12

2

Greenb

peas

(1000tonnes)

Tr

Tr

NA

30431.621.5

FAO 1973, except:* F. N. M. Onlm (Pigeonpea Project Breeder and

Coordinator, University of Nairobi, Kenya:personal communication, 1976) and

** J. Diaz Gomez (Assistant to the Director, Incharge of Investigation Project, State Sec-retariat of Agriculture, Dominican Republic;personal communication, 1976).

i allocation based on Information gleaned fromIn the countries,

itlmate

Table 3.

Crop

Tota l uptake of r cer ta in crops, arr ien t requi rement !p roduced.

Grainyield

(kg/ha) N

Maize 9418 247

Rice 5000 100Wheat 4036 140

Soybeans 2690 163

Chickpeas 3000 144Pigeonpeas 2000 132

MaizeRiceWheat

Mean, three cereals

SoybeansChickpeasPigeonpeas

Mean, three legumes

najor nu t r ien ts byd ca lcu la ted nut-

s per 1000 kg gra in

Uptake (kg/ha)

P2O5

90

4656

45

3125

(kg/10(

26.220.034.7

27.0

60.648.066.0

58.2

K2O Source

219 Donahueet al. 1971

120 Athwal 1972123 Donahue

et al. 197184 Donahue,

et al. 197180 Singh 196964 Rao 1974

00 kg grain produced)

9.6 23.39.2 24.0

13.9 30.5

10.9 25.9

16.7 31.210.3 26.712.5 32.0

13.2 30.0

19

phate fertilization has not been successful, andhigh levels of N fertilization have not resulted inincreased yields, either under rainfed condi-tions or limited irrigation. Modest yield re-sponses to foliar application of N during flower-ing and pod development have been observed.All of these results indicate that nutrient star-vation is not a likely factor in limiting yieldsunder rainfed conditions. If optimum moisturesupply and temperature were provided, nut-rients might become limiting, but such condi-tions are not likely to exist in our mandate area.

Significant differences have been observedamong cultivars in N2 fixing ability, and also inthe effectiveness of different Rhizobium strains.It is not unreasonable to expect to realize yieldgains from utilization of favorable combi-nations of cultivars and Rhizobium strains, andvigorous research in this area is under way.

P l a n t S t a n d s

Farmers' yields of both crops could be in-creased through improved plant stands.Pigeonpeas planted atthe onset of the rains canbe planted to the desired stand. However,pigeonpea is often the secondary crop in inter-cropping, and its stand is l imited, by design, tomaximize production of the primary crop.Studies at ICRISAT have shown that it is possi-ble with cereal intercrops to produce normalcereal yields and up to 70% of the sole-cropyield of pigeonpea.

Poor stands of chickpea often limit yields infarmers' fields. In theshort term, improvementsin land preparation practices and in plantingequipment can correct this problem. Sincechickpea yields are depressed by planting tooearly, farmers are faced with the problem ofdelaying planting to the optimum date, even inyears when the rains stop early. Long-termapproaches to a solution of this problem in-clude development of cultivars capable of ger-minating at low moisture potential and/or thedevelopment of cultivars tolerant to heat at thebeginning of the growth cycle. Preliminary re-search on these aspects has shown that geneticdifferences for both exist; in both cases thebreeding process will take time. Aside fromimproving stands, planting of cultivars thatcompensate for low plant population will resultin higher yields. We have identified cultivarsthat wil l give equal yields with four plants or

with 33 plants m2 (Hissar, Table 4); the latterdensity is recommended as constituting a fullstand. Displacement of nonresponsive locallandraces with such "plastic" cultivars wouldresult in substantial yield improvement.

Table 4. Y ie ld response of ch ickpea cu l t ivarsto o p t i m u m and s u b o p t i m u m plantpopu la t ions a t Hissar in 1978 ( k g /ha).

Cultivars

Density 850-3/27 L-550 G-130 L-144

W e e d C o n t r o l

Loss of yield to weeds does not appear to be a major factor in the traditional system. Whilethere are occasional examples of disasters, wedo not consider this an area of urgent need orhigh potential payoff.

D i s e a s e C o n t r o l

Nene (1979) has listed the diseases reported inthe literature and observed by ICRISAT person-nel in producing countries. In India, 25 patho-gens have been reported on chickpeas and 26on pigeonpeas, but on each crop few diseasesare generally serious. The occurrence of twomajor diseases of pigeonpea in six states ofIndia in recent years is shown in Table 5. Ingeneral, diseases are regional in occurrence,and the breeding of adapted cultivars withspecific resistances can be best accomplishedthrough local programs. However, we recog-nize the opportunity to increase yields throughdisease control as one to be shared, and have anactive program that has (1) provided diagnosticcharacters for disease identification, (2) de-veloped screening techniques and identified

20

(Plants/m2)33 3060

8 2967

LSD. (0.05): For comparisoncultivar = 765For comparisonspacing = 507

3610 30873090 3043

of Means of Plants/m:

of Means of Cultivars

34272200

2 within a

: within a

State

Andhra PradeshKarnatakaMadhya PradeshMaharashtraTamil NaduUttar Pradesh

Distancecovered(approx)

(km)

400020005000400020003000

Samples(farmers'

fields) Districts(no.) (no.)

102 1937 1483 2782 1946 11

109 44

State averageincidence5

Wilt Sterilitymosaic

(%) (%)

5.26 1.591.12 9.775.42 3.65

22.61 1.091.36 12.848.50 16.10

Range infarmers' fields

Wilt Sterilitymosaic

(%) (%)

0-92 0-430-17 0-950-96 0-990-93 0-470-65 0-920-86 0-93

sources of resistance, and (3) incorporated re-sistance in advanced breeding lines with highyield. Advanced lines — including pigeonpealines with resistance to sterility mosaic, wilt,phytophthora blight, and combinations ofthese, and chickpea lines with resistance to wilt,stunt, root rots, and combinations of these — have been supplied to national programs.

specific feeder than Heliothis, it may be easier tocontrol through host plant resistance.

In traditional systems in India, little insec-ticide is used. It is our intent to reduce losses topests without increasing use of chemicals.Pest-management-systems research comple-ments our research on host plant resistance.

Host plant resistance to both diseases and

Pest Con t ro l

The pests that damage pigeonpea and chickpeahave been identified, and pod damage inpigeonpeas has been assessed in parts of India(Table 6). In either crop Heliothis armigera is a major pest. Losses in chickpea are less seriousthan those in pigeonpea and, interestingly,more progress has been made in identifyingless susceptible genotypes in that crop. Thespectrum of damaging pests is broader inpigeonpea, and losses are higher. Both crops,by virtue of flowering and podding in the dryseason, tend to escape the peak populations ofpod borers, and both are capable of compensat-ing for damage by the production of successiveflushes of flowers.

We have found mechanisms of pod borerresistance in wild relatives of pigeonpea, andattempts are being made to transfer these. Theproblem in pigeonpea is complicated by thepodfly (Melanagromyza obtusa), which tends tobe more serious where pod borers are lessserious; in recent years this pest appears tohave been spreading southward. A much more

Table 6. Pigeonpea pod damage observed invar ious states of India 1976—78.a

Uttar Pradesh

BiharAssamRajasthanMadhya

PradeshGujaratMaharashtra

19771978197619781978

197819781978

Andhra Pradesh 1976

KarnatakaTamil Nadu

197819771977

4328223828

257031

112<13742

7.0 25.632.810.028.94.5

27.212.647.838.434.123.113.7

25.925.712.615.0

22.625.324.9

1.85.45.24.2

a. Based on unpublished survey data collected by ICRISATscientists In cooperation with national scientists.

b. Percent pod damage does not directly indicate crop loss.Actual crop losses were not determined.

21

Table 5. Prevalence of w i l t and s te r i l i t y mosaic in pigeonpea in selected states of India.a

a. Roving surveys carried out between 1975 and 1979.b. Arithmetic average of all fields surveyed.

FieldsYear sampled

(no.)

Pod damage b

Borers Podfly(%) (%)State

insects would help stabilize yields and raiseaverage production. This is a priority area ofresearch at ICRISAT Center.

Increased Y ie ld Po ten t ia l

For the traditional farmer, the best technology isa cultivar that will produce higher yields and fitinto his cropping system without additionalinputs and meet his requirements in visible (andinvisible) quality characteristics.

We currently have two approaches to de-veloping higheryielding chickpea with a goal ofexceeding the small incremental increasesoften attained in pulse breeding. One is todevelop taller plants with more pod sites, betterlight penetration, and stems stiff enough tosupport the superstructure. This is not an origi-nal idea with us; IARI in New Delhi is using thesame approach, and there are already tallRussian cultivars adapted to mechanical har-vest. We are encouraged, however, for as earlyas the F3 generation we found substantiallyhigher yields in the new plant type (Table 7).Beyond the description above, we are not wed-ded to a specific ideotype, but will evaluate tallplants with varying degrees of branching, in-cluding one found this year with zero branches.

Table 7. Compar ison of 10 best F3 l inesselected fo r ta l l s ta tu re and h ighy ie ld , w i t h s tandard check and ta l lcu l t i vars .

GrainHeight yield(cm) Maturity (g/plot)

Standard checksAnnigeri 30-35 E 995K-4 35-40 ML 985G-130 35-40 L 889

10 best Fa lines 54-68 M 995-1293

Tall checksK-1170 65-70 VL 78K-1184 65-70 VL 187K-1481 65-70 VL 280

The other approach now in use is breeding forhigh yield as a single objective, using a quan-

titative approach (Byth, Green, and Hawtin1979). We will evaluate early generation bulks inmultilocation tests, derive lines in the F4 gener-ation, and test the derived lines in multilocationtests. We believe that yield, for which selectionon a visual basis is relatively ineffective, can beshifted upwards if we conscientiously ignore allother characters in the selected program. If (orwhen) we have derived lines giving quantumyield increases, simply inherited characters canbe incorporated by backcrossing. (We are al-ready capitalizing on reduced generation timeand can complete four generations per year.) If,on the other hand, we develop an exceptionallyhigh-yielding line that has nonpreferred colorand shape of seed, it might be surprising to seehow rapidly esthetic preferences could changeto accommodate profitable yields.

In pigeonpea, our major hope for a sub-stantial increase in yields is in the use ofhybrids. We have tested two groups of hybridsmade on male-sterile female lines, using stan-dard cultivars and selected germplasm lines aspollinators, during the past 2 years. In bothyearsa hybrid gave the highest yield; last year itwas 31.5% above the best cultivar, and this yearthe best hybrid's advantage was 17%. The realadvantage of hybrids in the traditional produc-tion system is that the gain can be realized insingle rows on rice bunds, in pure stands ofpigeonpeas, and anywhere in between. We alsoexpect better stability of performance inhybrids.

There is a need for purification of the male-sterile lines in hand and converting more linesto sterile; both activities are under way. There isa need for testing many hybrid combinations.

We have multiplied seed of available sterilesand have distributed lots to cooperating breed-ers, suggesting thatthey use part of the seed forincrease of the sterile and part for hybrid seedproduction, using their best local cultivar aspollinator. We have demonstrated the hybridi-zation technique to visiting breeders; it requiresremoval of 50% of the plants in the female rowsat flower initiation (the genetic male sterile ismaintained by sibbing) and then cross polli-nation by bees, which at ICRISAT Center areexclusively wi ld bees of several differentspecies.

Pigeonpea hybridization is much less labori-ous and much less expensive than cotton hy-bridization, which has flourished in India.

22

Looking Beyond the Tradit ionalSystems

ICRISAT works with its mandate crops in itsmandate area but is also concerned withthese crops wherever they are grown. On thisbasis, the chickpea programs of ICRISAT andICARDA have been integrated. At both centers,emphasis is placed on extending the adaptationof the crop. In Syria, much higher yields havebeen obtained in winter (Nov planting) than inthe normal spring (Feb planting) crop. Rains fallon the winter crop, and the development ofascochyta blight resistance is essential. Therehas been excellent progress in identifyingsources of resistance, and cultivars adapted towinter planting will soon be available. Evenwithout such a cultivar, a Syrian farmer planted50 acres of winter crop in November 1978(which received fungicidal sprays to controlAscochyta) to test this new technology he hadseen in ICARDA's research plots.

Chickpeas are temperature sensitive andreact badly to excessive heat at the beginningand at the end of the season. Early plantings atICRISAT Center and late planting at Hissar (29°1 TIM) are being made for screening germplasmlines and breeding material for heattolerance. Itis too early to tell if the evolutionary pathwayhas led chickpeas into a box, but observeddifferences perhaps reflecting more heat toler-ance is desis and more cold tolerance in thekabulis suggest that hybridizing these twotypes — being done by almost all chickpeabreeders — might provide the needed variabil-ity. The advantage of early season heat toler-ance has been mentioned; heat tolerance laterin the season would permit normal senescenceand maturity — and higher yields.

In Chile, chickpea is grown between latitudes32° 30' and 39°S on conserved moisture in thesummer. In that area, there is a need for a high-yielding short-season legume crop,adapted to mechanized production, for animalfeed. A photoperiod insensitive pigeonpea line,which matures in 110 days, has been selected atthe University of Queensland, Australia. NearBrisbane, 2500 kg/ha of grain have beencombine-harvested from a field planted withthis line at 400 000 plants/ha. (The UQ programis supported in part by ICRISAT to provideresearch on breeding for and agronomy of

mechanized production.) The new line has notyet arrived in Chile, but it has been sent forstudy at IARI, New Delhi, and to Senegal forsummer production (1 March planting) underirrigation.

In West Africa, pigeonpea lines adapted to theICRISAT Center area have produced grain yieldsof 1000 to 2000 kg/ha grown without intercropand without monetary inputs. In that area,farmers'yields of sorghum are about 400 kg/ha,and of the cowpea intercrop about 100 kg/ha.This is outside the traditional area for drypigeonpea consumption, and the adoption ofthe higher-yielding crop will require changes indietary habits.

Pigeonpea as a rabi (postrainy season) crop inIndia is not new; it was reported as a practice inGujarat by Watt in 1908. Until recently, thispractice was still largely limited to Gujarat, withlimited acreages planted in Nepal. Investiga-tions at ICRISAT Center showed (1) Octoberplantings at 300 000 plants/ha gave grain yieldsequal to June/July plantings at 44 000 plants/ha,(2) September plantings gave higher yields thanlater plantings, and (3) medium- and late-maturing cultivars yielded higher than earlycultivars in this season. This technology hasmoved out from ICRISAT; a number of researchcenters in India have active programs, someexclusively, on postrainy season pigeonpea.

Implicit here is a "substitution technology."Farmers in a frost-free area, faced with earlyloss of soil moisture, can substitute pigeonpeafor chickpea.

We have demonstrated the feasibility of har-vesting a crop of forage and two additionalgrain crops following the first season's harvestof pigeonpeas planted in the postrainy season.Planting a dense stand in October, harvestingpods in March, removing two-thirds of theplants for forage after onset of the monsoon,harvesting a grain crop in November/December(and under favorable conditions a ratooncrop3months later) is a system that saves throughelimination of land preparation and weedingafter the first establishment of the crop. Thistechnology is also under investigation by theIndian national program.

Internat ional Interchangeof TechnologyThe international center must have a strong

23

core program of sufficient scope to be produc-tive. The research effort must be planned sothatuseful genetic material can be supplied in themandate area. Along with genetic material,research technology must be projected to localprograms. Since the ultimate objective is self-sufficiency of national research programs, theclear warning of Weiss (1979) that the Centerprogram not " s w a m p . . . national institutions itis supposed to serve" must be heeded.

We initiated international cooperation byhosting a workshop in 1975; since then mostscientists from abroad who missed the work-shop have visited ICRISAT Center. We havevisited many of the local research centers andfollowed up with a workshop for chickpea in1979. One for pigeonpea is planned for 1980.Our continuing communication with scientistsis through: (1) the conduct of international trialsand distribution of results of yield and diseasenurseries, (2) annual progress reports, whichare detailed summaries of research in progressin each discipline at ICRISAT (they describeexperiments in progress, give results to date,and indicate what we think about the problemsto be solved), and (3) annual breeders' meetingsat ICRISAT and ICARDA research plots, wherenational breeders identify plants, populations,and germplasm lines for use in their ownprograms. Unfortunately, budget constraintsseverely l imit the number of scientists we canbring from abroad for these annual meetings. InIndia, working relationships are formalizedfurther in the All India Coordinated Pulse Im-provement Workshops.

We are dependent on our colleagues at thelocal level for their inputs in the overall im-provement program. Where there are identi-fiable deficiencies in their programs, we mustseek resources to correct those. Unfortunately,recognition of the need for intensive work onthe problem of witches' broom in the Domini-can Republic, developmental agronomic workin the Cape Verde Islands, West Africa, and a genetic resource center in East Africa have notresulted in action programs by ICRISAT.

From training of technicians in researchmethodology to extended seminars withspecialized scientists, worthwhile experienceshave been made available to pulse researchworkers. We would like to see, for countrieslimited in scientific manpower, much moreavailability of support for advanced study.

Conclusion

We are optimistic about the probability of in-creasing production of these two pulse crops.The optimism is generated by (1) encouragingresults in the improvement program, (2) in-creasing cooperation and interaction withnational programs, and (3) the possibilities ofbroadening the adaptation of both crops.

The results achieved in improvement ofchickpea and pigeonpea will pay off to theextent that local adaptive research is possible,to the extent that extension efforts are effective,and only to the extent that local seed-production facilities are effective. The t ime laginvolved will be inversely related to the sense ofurgency felt by personnel involved in the pro-gram. We try continually to communicate a sense of urgency; our best method of com-munication is by example.

A c k n o w l e d g m e n t

Contributions of ICRISAT pulse scientists to theresearch developments reported herein and to thepreparation of this report are gratefully acknowl-edged. The positive response of many national scien-tists to our various cooperative efforts has contri-buted significantly to the program; their cooperationis greatly appreciated.

References

ATHWAL, D. S. 1972. IRRI's current research program.Pages 41-64 in Rice, Science, and Man: Proceed-ings, 10th Anniversary Celebration of the Inter-national Rice Research Institute (IRRI), 20-21 Apr1972, Los Banos, Philippines.

BOUSLAMA, M. 1979. Chickpea improvement inTunisia. Presented at the International Workshop onChickpea Improvement. ICRISAT, 28 Feb-2 Mar1979, Hyderabad, India. Proceedings in prepa-ration.

BYTH, D. E., GREEN, J. M., and HAWTIN, G. C. 1979.ICRISAT/ICARDA chickpea breeding strategies. Pre-sented at the International Workshop on ChickpeaImprovement. ICRISAT, 28 Feb-2 Mar 1979,Hyderabad, India. Proceedings in preparation.

24

DONAHUE, R. L, SHICKLUNA, J. C, and ROBERTSON, L. S.

1971. Soils: An introduction to soils and plantgrowth, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice Hall.320 pp.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations). 1973. 1973 FAO production yearbook.Rome: FAO Basic Data Unit, Statistics Division.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1978. 1978FAO production yearbook, Vol 31. Rome: FAO BasicData Unit, Statistics Division.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. (Appropriate years). (1) Esti-mates of area, production, and yield of principalcrops; (2) Agricultural situation in India. New Delhi.

HARTWIG, E. E. 1973. Varietal development. Pages187-210 in Soybeans: Improvement, production,and uses. Monograph 16. Available from AmericanSociety of Agronomy (ASA), Madison, Wis, USA.

NENE, Y. L. 1979. A world list of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan [L.] Millsp.) and chickpea (Cicer arietinum [L.])pathogens. ICRISAT Pulse Pathology progress re-port 3.

PROBST, A. H., and JUDD, R. W. 1973. Origin, U.S.

history and development, and world distribution.Pages 1-15 in Soybeans: Improvement, pro-duction, and uses. Monograph 16. Available fromAmerican Society of Agronomy (ASA), Madison,Wis, USA.

RAO, J. V. 1974. Studies on fertilizer management ofwheat in 'maize-wheat' and 'arhar-wheat' croppingsystems. Ph.D. thesis, Indian Agricultural ResearchInstitute, New Delhi. (Quoted from Saxena andYadav, 1975.)

SAXENA, M. C, and YADAV, D. S. 1975. Some ag-

ronomic considerations of pigeonpeas andchickpeas. Pages 31-61 in Proceedings, Interna-tional Workshop on Grain Legumes. ICRISAT, 13-16Jan 1975, Hyderabad, India.

SINGH, K. 1969. Response of four Bengal gram va-rieties to different fertilizer treatments. M.Sc. thesis,Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi.(Quoted from Saxena and Yadav, 1975.)

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1975. Historical sta-tistics of the United States, Bicentennial ed.Washington, D. C: U.S. Government Printing Office.

WATT, SIR G. 1908. (Reprinted 1966). Cajanus indicus (arhar). Pages 196-200 in The commercial productsof India. New Delhi, India: Today and Tomorrow'sPrinter and Publisher.

WEISS, C, Jr. 1979. Mobilizing technology for de-veloping countries. Science 203:1083-1089.

Groundnut Improvement Research Technologyfor the Semi-Arid Tropics

R. W. Gibbons*

A b s t r a c t

Groundnut is one of the most important legume crops of the semi-arid tropics (SA T) andserves as a source of food, cooking oil, and a cash income. Yields, however, are low in theSAT due mainly to losses caused by pests, diseases, and unreliable rainfall patterns. Themain emphasis of the program is on producing high-yielding breeding material withstable resistance to the major pathogens, which include rust, leaf spots, and Aspergillusflavus. Viruses and insect pests also cause large yield reductions, and sources ofresistance are being sought. Large-scale breeding programs are under way and earlyand advanced segregating populations are being distributed to cooperating nationalbreeders. Efforts are being made to improve the nitrogen-fixing capacity of groundnuts.Yield advantages are being achieved by intercropping groundnuts with pearl millet.Wild Arachis species are being exploited for sources of useful genes.

Groundnut became the fifth ICRISAT mandatecrop in 1976, some 4 years after the Institutewas created. In 1974, a team of four consultantswas invited to Hyderabad to review the worldresearch needs of groundnuts, to considerwhether ICRISAT ought to help meet thoseneeds, and, if so, to suggest a possible programof international research. It was concluded thatthe crop required international research, that itwould be an appropriate subject within themandates of the international agricultural re-search system, and that ICRISAT was the ap-propriate center, as groundnuts are primarily a crop of the semi-arid tropics (Bunting et al.1974). In mid-1976 a detailed plan of researchwas accepted by the Governing Board ofICRISAT (Gibbons 1976) and breeding,germplasm, pathology, and microbiology pro-grams commenced. Since then entomology,cytogenetics, and some preliminary physiologyprojects have commenced.

Groundnuts in WorldAgr icu l tu re

P r o d u c t i o n

The cultivated groundnut, Arachis hypogaea L,

* Leader, Groundnut Improvement Program,ICRISAT.

originated in South America and is now grownon a commercial scale in some 82 countries. In1976, it was estimated that 19 million hectareswere planted and over 18 mill ion tonnes wereharvested at an average yield in shell of 958kg/ha (FAO Trade Statistics). The limits of pre-sent commercial production are within thelatitudes 40°N and 40°S. Asia is the largestproducer (10.3 million tonnes), followed byAfrica (5.4 mill ion tonnes), North and CentralAmerica (1.8 mill ion tonnes), South America(0.9 mill ion tonnes), Oceania (0.29 mill ion ton-nes) and Europe (0.24 million tonnes). Thelargest individual producer is India, which in1976 produced 5.7 million tonnes of groundnutsin shell from 7 mill ion hectares of land. Large-scale producing countries in Africa are Nigeria,Senegal, and Sudan. Approximately 70% ofworld production comes from the developingcountries, many of which lie in the semi-aridtropics.

A d a p t a t i o n

Groundnut is generally considered to be a day-neutral plant although Wynne et al. (1973)have suggested that sensitivity to daylengthdepends on temperature. The relative insen-sitivity to daylength means that cultivars de-veloped anywhere in the world can beevaluated at any latitude where favorable grow-ing conditions exist (Varnell and McCloud

27

1975). The ideal soil for groundnuts has beendefined (York and Colwell 1951) as a well-drained, light-colored, loose and friable sandyloam, well supplied with calcium and organicmatter; in practice, however, groundnuts aregrown on a variety of soils that vary from alkaline to acid, and from clays to fine sands.

Generally, under rainfed conditions wheresupplemental water is not available, the choiceof cultivar depends on the length of growingseason available. Where season length is limit-ing, cultivars of A. hypogaea subsp. fastigiata (Spanish and Valencia) are grown; where therainy season is longer, cultivars belonging tosubsp. hypogaea (Virginia) are selected. Mat-uration also depends on temperature, radiantenergy, and elevation. In the West Africanlowlands, for example, Valencia and Spanishtypes may mature in 90 days, whereas in theCentral African plateau areas, 1200 m above sealevel, development can take 120 days. Similarly,Virginia cultivars may take only 120 days tomature in West Africa and 150 to 160 days inCentral Africa (Smartt 1976).

Traditional SAT exporters of groundnuts forcrushing are Nigeria and Senegal, but there is a trend for local oil expressors to be built and thesurplus oil exported (Smartt 1976). Nigeria nowhas a capacity to crush 0.8 mill ion tonnes ofgroundnuts annually (Harkness et al. 1976).

The export of kernels or unshelled pods forconfectionery purposes is also an importantsource of revenue for countries in the SAT. Thetraditional main sources of confectionerygroundnuts are China, India, and the USA,although the export performances of China andIndia have been erratic due to large domesticdemands. A number of African countries in theSAT — including Malawi, Nigeria, and theSudan —each supply about 10% of the totalworld confectionery groundnuts (Wilson 1975).

Groundnut hay is used extensively in the SATas cattle feed and can command high prices,particularly in urban areas for stallfed cattle(Harkness and Dadirep 1978). The shells may beused as a fuel, as a soil conditioner, in cattlefeed, and as a source of building material andorganic chemicals (Patel 1964).

U s e s

Groundnut is the most important legume cropof the semi-arid tropics (Table 1). With 25%protein and approximately 50% oil, groundnutis also an important food crop in the SAT and,after soybean and cottonseed, is the mostimportant source of edible oil in the world. Tothe subsistence farmer, it may be another pulsecrop and consumed at home but as a cash cropit may be considered too valuable to consumeand the total crop is sold (Smartt 1976). It isestimated that about 66% of the total worldproduction is crushed for oil (Woodroof 1973).

Product ion Constraintsin the SATYields in the SAT are low, around 800 kg/ha,compared with yields of around 3000 kg/ha — or even higher in localized areas — in the de-veloped world (Gibbons 1977). The major con-straints are pests, diseases, and the unreliablerainfall patterns of the SAT. Certain pests anddiseases are worldwide in their distribution andare being studied intensively as part of theICRISAT research program.

Relatively small numbers of groundnut re-searchers are available to combat the natural

Table 1. Semi-arid tropical production of food legumes (1971) (1000 tonnes)

Legume crop

Region of semi-arid tropics Dry beans Soybeans Chickpeas Cowpeas Pigeonpeas Groundnuts

AsiaAfricaCentral and South AmericaTotal: Semi-arid tropicsTotal: World

2 265613

3 4416319

11 073

122865

2 2273 520

48 457

5770205173

59486594

101069

10791195

19105126

19872024

6 9773 8471459

12 24218211

Source: FAO Production Yearbook 1972, Rome, Italy (vide Bunting et al. 1974)

28

hazards that restrict groundnut production. Fewprograms have been mounted to actively breedfor resistance to pests and diseases, whichannually cause serious reductions in yield.Without the means to control these pests anddiseases, the small-scale farmers of the SAT desperately need sources of resistant materialthat will allow reasonably stable yields ofgroundnuts to be harvested. Once the farmershave this material, they will become much moreamenable to adopting other improved farmingpractices. Many farmers have become discour-aged because they know that even with goodagronomy and much hard work the naturalhazards of pests, diseases, and drought will stillravage their groundnut crop.

Objectives of the ICRISATGroundnut Program

The main objective of the program is to producehigh-yielding breeding lines with resistance tothe main factors presently limiting production.Stability of yield is important over years andacross sites. However, because of the diversityof groundnut environments, and the uses towhich the crop is put (oil crushing or con-fectionery), it is not possible to foresee the useof relatively few cultivars over very wide areas;nor is it desirable to flood whole areas withsingle, or closely related, cultivars because ofthe dangers of genetic vulnerability (Hammons1972). Requirements vary greatly, even within a country. For example, in the Sudan, large-seeded, long-season groundnuts are grownunder irrigation in Wad Medani for export; butunder rainfed conditions, small farmers culti-vate short-season cultivars that are moreadapted to these conditions (Osman 1978). InMalawi, long-season groundnuts, primarily forthe confectionery export trade, are grown onthe plateau areas; oil-crushing cultivars aregrown on the lakeshore; and short-season cul-tivars are adapted in the low-elevation, drier andhotter areas of the Shire Valley (Gibbons 1972).

Research Organizat ion

Although the groundnut research program isdivided into subprograms of breeding,cytogenetics, pathology, entomology, physi-ology, and microbiology, the relationship bet-ween these groups is close and fully integra-

ted. Similarly, there are close ties wi th other ICRISAT programs concerned with groundnutresearch; these include the Genetic ResourcesUnit and Farming Systems Program, as well asthe Training Unit.

As the program is still young, no formal outreach activities have yet been formulatedalthough they have been planned (McGinnis1979). Linkages with national programs, over-seas institutions, and individual scientists arebeing evolved and will be discussed under theindividual research technology approaches.

Germplasm Base

ICRISAT has been designated as a world centerfor the collection, preservation, and documen-tation of the genus' Arachis by the InternationalBoard for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR).Since the inception of the Genetic ResourcesUnit in January 1979, all staff and materialshave been transferred to this unit. In September1979, an ad hoc working party consisting ofexperienced groundnut scientists represent-ing different areas of the world will meet atICRISAT, under the auspices of IBPGR, to:

1. assess the present known collections ofgermplasm, their geographical represen-tation, and adequacy,

2. identify priority areas for collection ma-terial,

3. explore quarantine problems and obsta-cles, and

4. draw up a list of essential descriptors anddescriptor states for characterization ofaccessions.

Much anticipatory work has been done by thegroundnut germplasm botanist at ICRISAT.

A c q u i s i t i o n and Quarant ineProcedures

After 3 years our groundnut accessions nowtotal over 7000 entries (Table 2).

Initially, in 1976 and 1977, we received veryclose cooperation from Indian research centerswhich handed over to us duplicates of their entirecollections. These collections consisted of bothexotic and local accessions. The importationof exotic material also commenced in 1976 andaccelerated over the subsequent 2 years. Be-cause of the danger of seed-borne viruses ingroundnut, the plant quarantine arrangements

29

were fully discussed and agreed upon with theGovernment of India. The present arrange-ments are as follows. Small quantities of seedare received at the Central Plant ProtectionTraining Institute (CPPTI), at Rajendranagar,near Hyderabad. They are examined by quaran-tine officials and apparently healthy seeds aregrown in 80 mesh screenhouses; the plants areexamined regularly for up to 6 or 8 weeks. Plantsshowing any sign of disease are destroyed. The

Year

1976197719781979*

Accessions received Totalduring the year accessions

24433565

92579

2443600869337012

healthy plants are then transferred to the post-entry quarantine area at ICRISAT Center, Patan-cheru, and are again monitored on a weeklybasis by CPPTI quarantine staff. Only at maturityare the seeds released to us from the healthyplants. Any diseased plants are uprooted andburned. Although the procedures are stringent,and the release of exotic material is slow, wefeel that they are necessary to prevent anyintroduction of new diseases into India.

Main tenance , M u l t i p l i c a t i o n ,and Eva lua t ion

After release of material from quarantine, theinitial multiplication takes place on the ICRISATfarm under optimal conditions, includingassured irrigation. Apart from germplasm per-sonnel who record a wide range of plant charac-ters, other scientists from the program regularlyvisit these plots and assess characters such asreaction to pests and diseases, nodulationcapacity, and yield potential. New sources ofresistanceto rust (Puccinia arachidis) and insectpests such as thrips and jassids have alreadybeen identified from the germplasm collec-t ion. Long-, medium-, and short-term storage

facilities are being developed, but the activeexploitation of a dynamic working collection isemphasized.

Dissemina t i on o f Ge rmp lasm

Germplasm has been distributed to manycountries and requests are becoming morefrequent. Some requests are for specific mate-rial and others are for large collections to initiatenew research programs. Upto April 1979 nearly3500 accessions had been dispatched tocooperators.

Collection

Although the ad hoc working group will decidecollecting priorities in September, five ICRISATgroundnut-collecting trips have been made inIndia. An expedition to Malawi, mainly forcereal germplasm, also collected groundnutsamples during 1979. The groundnut germ-plasm botanist is currently collecting inSomalia. Earlier this year a groundnut breederaccompanied an IBPGR expedition to SouthAmerica to collect wild Arachis species andprimitive landraces. We also collaborate withother international institutes; for instance, thegermplasm unit of the International Institute ofTropical Agriculture in Nigeria has collectedgroundnuts for us in West Africa and we havecollected one of their mandate crops, cowpeas,for them in India.

D o c u m e n t a t i o n

Groundnut germplasm catalogs have beenreceived from 11 institutes in nine countries.Data on all known accessions of wild Arachis species have been entered into the computerand will be constantly updated, with the print-out serving as a newsletter to scientists in-volved in their study on a worldwide basis. A paper entitled "Development of a descriptivelanguage for groundnut (4. hypogaea)" hasbeen jointly prepared by ICRISAT scientists andstaff of the Information Sciences/Genetic Re-sources Program of the University of Colorado,USA, to be discussed by the ad hoc workinggroup in September.

We consider that the germplasm program isthe base of the research program and techno-logy being developed.

30

* To end of February only.

Table 2. Accessions of groundnut germplasmat ICRISAT.

Integrated ResearchTechnology

Some of the research approaches to solve themajor problems restricting good yields arediscussed below:

D i s e a s e R e s i s t a n c e

Rust

Rust of groundnuts, caused by the fungusPuccinia arachidis Speg., has become a worldwide problem since 1969 (Subrah-manyam et al. 1979). Although this disease canbe controlled by certain fungicides, they arecostly and are not readily available to small-scale farmers in the SAT. At ICRISAT thegermplasm collection was thoroughly screenedfor new sources of resistance in addition to thecultivars already known to be resistant (Table 3);the new sources were found and are listed inTable 4. In a cooperative program, all the previ-ously reported sources of resistance, which hadbeen assembled in Georgia, USA, have beentransferred here and, together with the newsources, they will be jointly assessed by USDAand ICRISAT scientists later this year. With anassured inoculum at Patancheru, suitable sc-reening techniques have been evolved. Knownsusceptible cultivars are sown systematicallythrough the test fields and infected with rusturedospores. Spreader plants, already infectedwith rust, are also placed systematically

Table 3 . Sources o f marked resistance to rustin Arachis hypogaea L.

Plantintroduction Botanical

Identification (PI) numbers type Origin

Tarapoto

Israel line136

DHT 200FESR lines

1-14

259747, 341879350680, 381622,405132298115,315608

314817Hybrids between298115 and anunknown pollendonor

Valencia

Virginia

Valencia

Tarapotoregion ofPeruIntroductionto Israelfrom theUSAJuanji, Peru

Segregating Puerto Rico,from theUSDA rustnursery

Table 4 . N e w sources o f resistance to rus t InArachis hypogaaa L., iden t i f ied atICRISAT.

through the field. During the postrainy seasonfurther screening of material is possible with a perfo-irrigation system to ensure high humidityand disease development (Subrahmanyam etal. 1978).

The rust-resistant cultivars PI 259747, PI298115, NC Ace 17090, and EC 76446 (292) havebeen used extensively in hybridization pro-grams with a wide range of high-yielding sus-ceptible parents. Segregating populations aresubjected to the previously described screeningprocedures, and resistant selections are ad-vanced. Basic studies on the inheritance ofresistance to rust are being carried out. Some F3

populations received from the USDA rustnursery in Puerto Rico have been carefullyscreened and studied here on an individual andfamily basis to the F8 generation. From these, itappears that resistance is controlled by at leastseveral genes. These advanced selections arenow being yield-tested here, and they willshortly be sent out for multilocational testing.Early generation hybrids, bred at ICRISAT, havealso been sent out for selection to variouscenters.

The biology, distribution, and dispersion ofthe fungus have been extensively studied inIndia initially (Subrahmanyam et al. 1979). A collection of cultivars with known reactions torust has been distributed to centers in India toascertain whether races of the fungus occur ona national basis. Negotiations are also underway for rust samples from all over the world tobe studied in the United Kingdom, which is not a groundnut-growing country, to identify races ifthey exist.

31

Cult ivar

* NC Ace 17090

* EC 76446 (292)NC Acc 17129

NC Acc 17130N C A c c 17132N C A c c 17135N C A c c 17124

Origin

PeruUganda

Peru""

"

"

* Cultivars with greater resistance to rust at ICRISAT than theTarapoto lines PI 259747 and Israael line PI 298115.

Leaf Spots

The leaf spots caused by Cercospora ara-chidicola Hori and Cercosporidium per-sonatum (Berk, and Curt.) Deighton are themost serious diseases of groundnut on a worldwide scale. Bunting etal. (1974) estimatedthat these fungi alone cause a loss of about 3 million tonnes of kernels per year. Losses inkernel yields of around 10% have been esti-mated in the USA, where fungicide applicationis normally practiced (Jackson and Bell 1969). Inthe SAT, where chemical control is rare, lossesin excess of 50% are commonplace (Garren andJackson 1973).

Although fungicides are being tested atICRISAT, the main emphasis is on incorporatingresistance to these diseases. Limited resistancehas been reported in the cultivated groundnut,and these accessions are being studied. Thegermplasm has also been extensively screenedat ICRISAT for resistance to C. personatum andcultivars have been identified that have re-stricted lesion growth, sparse sporulation onthe lesions, and infected leaves that do notreadily defoliate. Interestingly, some of thesecultivars are also rust resistant and include NCAcc 17090, EC 76446 (292), and PI 259747. Thecultivar PI 259747 has also been reported asshowing resistance to C. arachidicola in theUnited States (Sowell et al. 1976). Therefore,progenies in the rust-breeding nurseries arealso being screened for their reaction to the leafspot fungi. C. personatum is the dominant leafspot pathogen at Patancheru; therefore, sitesare also being selected where C. arachidicola dominates to test material for resistance to thisfungus as well. Laboratory and field-screeningtechniques are being jointly used, as it has beenshown that the former alone can give mislead-ing results (Hassan and Beute 1977).

An intensive program has been establishedat ICRISAT to utilize the wild relatives of thecultivated groundnut as sources of resistanceto the leaf spot fungi. Within section Arachis two wild diploid species, GKP 10017 (A. cardenasii-nomen nudum, Krap and Greg.,unpub.) and GKP 10602 (A. chacoense -nomen nudum, Krap and Greg., unpub.) have beenreported as immune and highly resistant to C.personatum and C. arachidicola, respectively(Abdou 1966, Sharief 1972, Abdou et al. 1974).Hammons (personal communication) observed

that HLK 410, another diploid species in sectionArachis {A. stenosperma -nomen nudum, Krapand Greg., unpub.), was not infected with eitherleaf spot in the field in Georgia, USA. Hybridsbetween these wild species and the cultivatedgroundnut have been made in the United States(Sharief 1972), the United Kingdom (Spielmanand Moss 1976), and at ICRISAT. The F, hybrid istriploid and sterile. Colchicine treatment re-stores fertility at the hexapioid level (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Method of producing interspecific hexaploids for leaf spot resistance.

Hexapioid progenies have been assessed atICRISAT, under a high incidence of C. per-sonatum, and in Malawi with C. arachidicola asthe dominant fungus. Leaf spot resistanthexaploids are currently being backcrossed tothe cultivated groundnut; the pentaploids ob-tained will again be backcrossed to obtainnear-tetraploid, high-yielding, leaf spot re-sistant cultivars. Alternative methods are alsobeing used to produce tetraploid interspecifichybrids for use in the leaf spot resistancebreeding program (Fig. 2).

Aspergillus flavus and Af la tox ins

Aflatoxins are toxic secondary metabolites pro-duced by strains of fungi of the Aspergillus flavus group growing on suitable substrates.Research on aflatoxins dates back to 1960 andthe outbreak of Turkey 'X' disease, which killed

32

young birds fed on a diet containing groundnutmeal (Blount 1961).

Hybrid te t rap lo id

PRODUCTION OF HYBRID TETRAPLOID FROM DIPLOIDS

Figure 2. Method of producing tetraploid in-terspecific hybrids for leaf spot re-sistance.

Factors found to favor invasion of groundnutseed by A. flavus include damage to pods byother fungi, perforation of pods by termites andother insects, mechanical damage to pods dur-ing cultivation and at harvest, overmaturity bydelayed harvesting, and drought stress. Poordrying conditions are also a common reason forfungal invasion and aflatoxin contamination.

Simple recommendations for growing thecrop and handling the produce to minimizeaflatoxin contamination have been made butare often not followed by the small farmer of theSAT.

Research technology at ICRISAT includes theincorporation of resistance to invasion of thetesta by the fungus. Two breeding lines withthis character have been identified in the UnitedStates (Mixon and Rogers 1973). However, if thetesta becomes damaged or split, this resistancebreaks down. The new approaches beinginitiated at ICRISAT include the testing of cul-tivars that may support the growth of A. flavus but in which the toxin is not produced. Thishappens with seeds of soybean and cowpea,which get infected, but in which aflatoxin is

rarely produced. Preharvest and postharvestinfection, or lack of infection, is being studied ondeveloping and mature pods and seeds of manycultivars. The entomologist is also studyingcultivars for resistance to pod damage by soilfauna.

Other Fungi

Many other fungi affect groundnuts, but rust,leaf spots, and A flavus are the major ones on a worldwide scale. We are interested in seedlingdiseases, and germ plasm is being screened forsources of resistance to such common fungi asA. flavus, A. niger, Fusarium, Pythium, Rhizoc-tonia, etc. Any cultivars with reported sourcesof resistance to any disease are being acquiredby the germplasm unit.

Viruses

Virus diseases of groundnuts are common andserious. In Africa, groundnut rosette virus (GRV)is important south of the Sahara. Approxi-mately 0.5 mill ion hectares of groundnuts weredestroyed by this disease alone in Nigeria in1975 (Yayock et al. 1976). Peanut mottle virus(PMV) was estimated to cause losses amount-ing to $11.3 mill ion in Georgia alone in 1973(Kuhn and Demski 1975). This disease isworldwide in distribution. In India, bud necrosisvirus (BNV) can cause serious yield losses of upto 50% (Chohan 1972).

However, much confusion exists in the litera-ture on the distribution and identification ofthese viruses. Identification has often beensolely on the appearance of symptoms, whichare confusing and variable. At ICRISAT we areattempting to identify precisely the causativeviruses by purification and electron micro-scopy. Sensitive serological techniques arebeing used to help in the identification of theviruses (Reddy et al. 1978). Antisera are alsobeing prepared and sent to cooperatinglaboratories to aid them in their studies. Mass-screening techniques are being developed toidentify sources of resistance both in the culti-vated and wild species oiArachis. So far, PMVhas been identified in India (Reddy et al. 1978)and BNV has been shown to be caused bytomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV). A new dis-ease of economic importance in northern Indiahas been shown to be caused by a soil-borne

33

virus. This virus has been purified and anantiserum has been produced (Reddy et al.1979). Cooperative projects are being estab-lished with workers in West Africa who areinvestigating a similar soil-borne virus. Cul-tivars with resistance to rosette are being usedin our breeding programs and have been cros-sed with high-yielding cultivars and with cul-tivars resistant to other diseases.

Insects

Although many insect pests are limited in theirdistribution and importance, some are ofworldwide importance. Among the latterare aphids, jassids, thrips, and termites. AtICRISAT, screening of germplasm has com-menced to identify sources of resistance tothese important pests. Sources of apparentresistance to jassids and thrips have been iden-t i f ied; they are presently being reassessed inspecial pesticide-free areas specifically setaside for this purpose at the ICRISAT farm.Control of pests by insecticides and agronomicpractices is also being examined.

Two species of thrips have been identified asthe vectors of bud necrosis virus (BNV), and thebiology and bionomics of these pests are beingstudied. Alternative hosts of BNV, includingboth crop plants and weeds, have been iden-tified (Amin, unpub.). Observations made inbreeding blocks by the entomologist haveshown that some advanced rust-resistant linesshow promise for thrips resistance also. Ma-terial emanating from the entomology programwill be tested over different environments forstability of resistance and will be extensivelyused in the breeding programs.

N i t r o g e n F ixa t ion

Very little work has been done outside theUnited States on groundnut symbiosis. AtICRISAT, we are trying to manipulate both theRhizobium and host-plant component of thesymbiosis in an attempt to increase nitrogenfixation — and yields — as well as the residualbenefit to subsequent crops.

We have collected, isolated, and tested fornitrogen-fixing ability some 40 Rhizobium strains. Surveys of farmers' fields indicate a large range in nodulation capacity and nit-rogenase activities.

Nitrogen fixation has been measured forseveral released cultivars during the growingseason, using N uptake and acetylene reductionassays. The nitrogenase activity per gram ofnodule tissue in groundnuts is probably thehighest recorded for any legume. Withgroundnuts, nitrogen fixation continues wellinto the pod-filling stage, but there are largedifferences between cultivars, as well as sea-sons, in nodule number, nodule weight, andnitrogenaseactivity(Fig.3). Nodule distributionalso varies considerably between cultivars.Some lines have nodules extending to thehypocotyl and even to the bases of the stems.From this array we are selecting lines for thebreeding program to try to incorporate desir-able features into high-yielding or disease-resistant cultivars. Close cooperation existsbetween the groundnut microbiology pro-grams at ICRISAT and North Carolina State Uni-versity, USA. We are jointly assessingmaterial — under both advanced farming andSAT farming conditions — to try and enhancefixation by this widely adapted crop.

Two new discoveries will aid us in this pro-gram. Nonnodulating lines of groundnuts havebeen identified in crosses between two nor-mally nodulating parents. These will be veryuseful controls for any N-balance studies. A new field assay technique for simultaneouslymeasuring plant nitrogen uptake from thenodules and from soil is based on recentfindings that legume nodules export more than90% of the fixed nitrogen from their nodules asallantoin. This substance and nitrate can bemeasured in very small quantities in bleedingxylem sap or extracts of stem tissues. Thisassay will provide us with a method for compar-ing nitrogen fixation and soil nitrogen uptakeover a wide range of field situations, which wasnot possible with previously used techniques.

Cropp ing Sys tems

Although intercropping is part of the FarmingSystems Program, we have been cooperatingparticularly in the choice of cultivars to fit intopearl millet/groundnut combinations. Thismethod of intercropping is common in manyparts of the SAT, particularly in Africa (Okigboand Greenland 1976). Willey and Rao (1979)have demonstrated yield advantages up to 25 to30% when these combinations have been tried

34

Figure 3. Seasonal variation in nodule number and nodule weight per plant and nitrogenase activity per gram nodule weight and per plant in cv Kadiri 71-1 and Comet grown during rainy season 1976 and postrainy season 1977 at ICRISA T Center. The postrainy season planting was irrigated.

35

at ICRISAT. The magnitude of the yield advan-tage was mainly determined by the groundnutgenotype, whereas the proportion of groundnutyield to millet yield was mainly determined bythe millet genotype (Reddy and Willey 1979).

We are also breeding for earliness ingroundnuts. A very early cultivar would fit intorelay cropping systems, particularly after therice crop is harvested in Southeast Asia.Sources of earliness (Chico 91176 and 91776)have been identified and are being crossed withhigh-yielding and disease-resistant cultivars.

Yield

Although we feel that the incorporation ofstable disease resistance is a primary objectiveto help the small farmer of the SAT, yield per seis also obviously important. This is not beingneglected. High-yielding cultivars are beingused to generate breeding material on a largescale (some 60 000 pollinations can be madein the two growing seasons per year at theICRISAT farm). Replanting normally dormantcultivars or progenies immediately after har-vest, to ensure a rapid advance of generations,is achieved by treating seed with a commercialethylene-releasing dust. Since the programcommenced in 1976, we are now able to sendout F5to F6 generations for national breeders totest and select f rom.

The Future

We have been operating for a very short t ime,so we obviously have a long way to go beforewe can achieve marked success for the farmerof the SAT. We feel, however, that our majorresearch emphasis on stable disease resistanceand increased yield will begin to be achieved inthe not too distant future. We need to expandour programs at ICRISAT, particularly ourcooperation with national and regional pro-grams. We have the capacity to generate largequantities of breeding material with desirablecharacteristics. It is now our duty to disseminatethis in a logical manner to areas with specificrequirements for their groundnut crops.

Major developments are needed at ICRISATCenter. One is a full-scale physiology programwith emphasis on drought resistance; anotheris to expand our entomology program; and a

third is to exploit the untapped sources of thewild Arachis species. The species are not yetfully collected and those collected have notbeen completely assessed for desirable charac-ters. We do know, however, that sources ofresistance to diseases, insects, and nema-todes— as well as sources of desirable yieldand quality aspects — are available (Moss1979). But incompatibility barriers occur bet-ween sections of the wi ld species and with A.hypogaea; these have to be overcome beforeuseful genes can be incorporated into the culti-vated groundnut. Much basic work is beingdone on this aspect at North Carolina StateUniversity, with which we have close workingrelationships. These joint ventures of basic andapplied research will pay dividends in thefuture.

R e f e r e n c e s

ABDOU, Y. A. M. 1966. The source and nature ofresistance in Arachis L. to Mycosphaerella arachidicola Jenk. and Mycosphaerella berkeleyiJenk. and factors influencing sporulation of thesefungi. Ph.D. thesis, North Carolina State University,Raleigh, NC, USA.

ABDOU, Y. A. M., GREGORY, W. C, and COOPER, W. E.

1974. Sources and nature of resistance to Cercos-pora arachidicola Hori and Cercosporidium per-sonatum (B & C) Deighton in Arachis species.Peanut Science 1:6-11.

BLOUNT, W. P. 1961. Turkey 'X' disease. Journal of theBritish Turkey Federation 9:52.

BUNTING, A. H., GREGORY, W. C, MAUBOUSSIN, J. C,and RYAN, J. G. 1974. A proposal for research ongroundnuts (Arachis) by ICRISAT. ICRISAT. 38 pp.(Mimeographed.)

CHOHAN, J. S. 1972. Research on important diseases ofgroundnut in the Punjab. ICAR progress report forperiod 1957-1967. Department of Plant Pathology,Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India.

GARREN, K. H., and JACKSON, C. R. 1973. PeanutDiseases. Chapter 13 in Peanuts — Culture andUses. American Peanut Research and EducationAssociation.

GIBBONS, R. W. 1972. Peanut disease control inMalawi, Central Africa. Proceedings, AmericanPeanut Research and Education Association 4:1-7.

36

GIBBONS, R. W. 1976. Groundnut improvementprogram — priorities and strategies. ICRISAT.(Mimeographed.)

GIBBONS, R. W. 1977. An international approach topeanut improvement. Proceedings, AmericanPeanut Research and Education Association 9:97-100.

HAMMONS, R. 0. 1972. Soybeans and other ediblelegumes. Chapter 13 in Genetic vulnerability ofmajor crops. Washington, DC:U.S. NationalAcademy of Science.

HARKNESS, C, KOLAWOLE, K. B., and YAYOCK, J. H. 1976.

Groundnut research in Nigeria. Samaru conferencepaper 7. Zaria, Nigeria. (Mimeographed.)

HARKNESS, C, and DADIREP, B. H. 1978. Groundnut

variety adaptation in Nigeria. Presented at the Na-tional Seminar on Groundnut Production, Kano,Nigeria. (Mimeographed.)

HASSAN, R. N., and BEUTE, M. K. 1977. Evaluation of

resistance to Cercospora leafspot in germplasmpotentially useful in a breeding program. PeanutScience 4:78-83.

JACKSON, C. R., and BELL, D. K. 1969. Cercospora

leafspots. In Diseases of peanut caused by fungi.University of Georgia Agricultural Experiment Sta-tion research bulletin 56. 137 pp.

KUHN, C. W., and DEMSKI, J. W. 1975. The relationship

of peanut mottle virus to peanut production. Uni-versity of Georgia research report 213, Athens, Ga,USA. 19 pp.

MCGINNIS, R.C. 1979. A long-term plan for developingICRISAT programs in Africa. ICRISAT. 47 pp.(Mimeographed.)

MIXON, A. C , and ROGERS, K. M. 1973. Peanuts

resistant to seed invasion by Aspergillus flavus. OI6agineaux 28:85-86.

Moss, J. P. 1979. ICRISAT seminar on cytogenetics ofArachis. 33 pp. (Mimeographed.)

OKIGBO, B. N., and GREENLAND, D. J. 1976. Pages

63-101 in Multiple Cropping, American Society ofAgronomy (ASA) special publication No. 27, Madi-son, Wis, USA.

OSMAN, A. B. 1978. Peanut production in the Sudan.Virginia-Carolina Peanut News, p. 12.

PATEL, M. S., BHUSHAN, D., and PRAKASA RAO, C. S.

1964. Wealth from groundnut waste — a review.Indian Oilseeds Journal 8:380-382.

REDDY, M. S., and WILLEY, R. W. 1979. A study of pearlmillet/groundnut intercropping with particular em-phasis on the efficiencies of leaf canopy and rootingpattern. Presented at the International Workshopon Intercropping. ICRISAT, 10-13 Jan 1979,Hyderabad, India. Proceedings in preparation.

REDDY, D. V. R., IIZUKA, N., GHANEKAR, A. M., MURTHY,

V. K., KUHN, C. W., GIBBONS, R. W., and CHOHAN, J. S.

1978. The occurrence of peanut mottle virus in India.Plant Disease Reporter 62:978-982.

REDDY, D. V. R., IIZUKA, N., SUBRAHMANYAM, P., RAJES-

WARI, R., and MCDONALD, D. 1979. A soil-borne virus

disease of peanuts in India. Abstract in Proceedings,American Peanut Research and Education Associa-tion (11).

SHARIEF, Y. 1972. The inheritance of Cercospora leafspot resistance in Arachis species. Ph.D. thesis,North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.

SMARTT, J. 1976. The economic importance of pulsecrops. Chapter 10 in Tropical Pulses. London:Longman.

SOWELL, G., SMITH, D. H., and HAMMONS, R. O. 1976.

Resistance of peanut plant introductions to Cercos-pora arachidicola. Plant Disease Reporter(60): 494-498.

SPIELMAN, I. V., and Moss, J. P. 1976. Techniques forchromosome doubling in interspecific hybrids inArachis. OIeagineux 31:491-495.

SUBRAHMANYAM, P., GIBBONS, R. W., NIGAM, S. N., and

RAO, V. R. 1978. Screening methods and furthersources of resistance to peanut rust. Abstract inProceedings, American Peanut Research and Edu-cation Association 10(1):64.

SUBRAHMANYAM, P., REDDY, D. V. R., GIBBONS, R. W.,

RAO, V. R., and GARREN, K. H. 1979. Current distribu-tion of groundnut rust in India. PANS 25:25-29.

VARENLL, R. J.,and MCCLOUD, D. E. 1975. Pages 1-19/nGermplasm preservation and genotype evaluationin Arachis. International Peanut Program — Gainesville, Fla, USA.

WILLEY, R. W., and RAO, M. R. 1979. Genotype studiesat ICRISAT. Presented at the International Workshopon Intercropping. ICRISAT, 10-13 Jan 1979,Hyderabad, India. Proceedings in preparation.

WILSON, R. J. 1975. The market for edible groundnuts.Tropical Products Institute Report G96. London.

WOODROOF, J. G. 1973. Peanut oil. Chapter 10 inPeanuts — Production, Processing, Products. 2nded. Westport, Conn, USA: Avi Publishing Co.

WYNNE, J. C, EMERY, D. A., and DOWNS, R. J. 1973.

Photoperiodic responses of peanuts. Crop Science13:511-514.

37

Farming Systems Research and Technologyfor the Semi-Arid Tropics

Jacob Kampen*

Abstract

ICRISA T's farming systems research contributes to raising the quality of life in the SA T through interdisciplinary and cooperative efforts to improve the use of natural, human, and capital resources. It has been found that dry sowing on Vertisols is successful if the early rains are dependable; introduction of tool carriers results in greater timeliness and improved efficiency of draft-animal use; the broadbed-and-furrow system controls excess water and facilitates cultural operations; double cropping on Vertisols appears promising; intercropping increases total yields substantially on Vertisols and A/fiso/s; and effective weed control can be attained through the integration of mechanical, biological, and chemical means. Watershed-based resource development and man-agement contributes to increased and more stable yields; the combined effect of different production factors applied together far exceeds the total effect of these factors applied singly; and improved farming systems tested in operational-scale research watersheds consistently result in three- to five-fold increases in rainfall productivities. On-farm studies to involve farmers in appropriate technology development and to search for effective forms of group action have begun.

The farmers of the semi-arid tropics (SAT) inAsia, Africa, and Latin America have foundthrough long and often bitter experience thatthere is no certainty in agriculture becausenature itself is so unpredictable. They know thattheir systems of farming are a hazardous way oflife. Because of the uncertainties and ever-present risk of drought (or flood), farmers arereluctant to use high-yielding varieties, fertiliz-ers, and other inputs even when available. Thusunstable food production and low crop yieldsare common in the SAT (Kampen et al. 1974,Krantzetal. 1974, Virmanietal . 1979). For manydeveloping countries in this ecological zone,rainfed agriculture has failed to provide eventhe min imum food requirements for the rapidlyincreasing populations.

The Consultative Group on International Ag-ricultural Research (CGIAR) recognized the lackof suitable technology for soil- and water-management and crop-production systems asprimary constraints to agricultural develop-ment in the nonirrigated SAT and includedfarming systems research in ICRISAT's initial

* Principal Scientist, Land and Water Management,ICRISAT.

mandate (Doggett et al. 1971). The Institute'sobjectives of special relevance to its FarmingSystems Research Program (FSRP) are:

• To develop farming systems that will helpto increase and stabilize agricultural pro-duction through better use of natural andhuman resources in the seasonally drysemi-arid tropics.

• To assist national and regional researchprograms through cooperation and sup-port and by sponsoring conferences,operating international training programs,and assisting extension activities.

This paper attempts to highlight ICRISAT'sapproaches to farming systems research. Itmust be realized that this is done at a stagewhen our concepts are still evolving, particu-larly with regard to cooperative research net-works and technology transfer methods. Someselected areas of work will be discussed forillustrative purposes; it is impossible within thescope of this paper to give a detailed account ofFSRP results.

We believe that substantial progress hasbeen made since June 1972 when the first fewexploratory farming systems experiments wereplanted. At that t ime "farming systems" was a

39

vague, unknown phrase in the SAT. Now, 7 years later, ICRISAT's FSRP is providing leader-ship in farming systems research to scientists inmany regions, cooperative systems researchactivities have begun, and on-farm studies todevelop more effective means for technologytransfer have been initiated (Krantz et al. 1978,Kampen and Doherty 1979).

The credit for the development of ICRISAT'sFSRP and its early achievements goes to a dedicated interdisciplinary team of scientistsassisted by a highly motivated technical staff,and especially to Dr. B. A. Krantz, programleader during the critical early years.1 The con-tributions of our colleagues from nationalresearch programs in Africa, Brazil, and inparticular the All India Coordinated ResearchProject for Dryland Agriculture of the IndianCouncil of Agricultural Research (ICAR), arealso acknowledged.

Goals, Ac t iv i t ies , andOrganizat ion of ICRISAT's FSRP

Erratic rainfall results in a low effective use2 ofprecipitation, and the water-use efficiencies3 ofpresent farming systems are also low. Thus,low rainfall productivities4 are an importantcharacteristic of agriculture in the SAT (Kampenand Krishna 1978). Improved land- and water-

1. The present research team consists of: R. K.Bansal, V. S. Bhatnagar, J. R. Burford, K. S, Gill, A.K. S. Huda, F. P. Huibers, Harbans Lal, J. Kampen,M. C. Klaij, J. H. Krishna, M. Natarajan, P. Pathak,M. R. Rao, A. N. Rao, M. S. Reddy, S. J. Reddy, T. J.Rego, Sardar Singh, R. C. Sachan, K. L. Sahrawat,M. V. K. Sivakumar, O. P. Singhal, K. L. Srivastava,P. N. Sharma, S. K. Sharma, S. V. R. Shetty, G. E.Thierstein, S. M. Virmani, and R. W. Willey.

2. "Effectively used rainfall" is defined as the propor-tion of the growing season precipitation actuallyused for evapotranspiration of the soil-crop com-plex (expressed as a percentage).

3. "Water-use efficiency" is defined as the agricul-tural production (in kg/ha or the monetary equiva-lent) in relation to the actual evapotranspirationcontributing to crop growth (in cm).

4. "Rainfall productivity" (RP) is defined as the ag-ricultural production (in kg/ha or the monetaryequivalent) in relation to the seasonal precipitation(in cm); it is the product of the effectively usedrainfall and water-use efficiency.

management technology and the developmentof opt imum cropping systems are required toincrease effective utilization of rainfall. To im-prove water-use efficiencies, better varieties,cropping systems, and crop-managementtechniques must be developed. These com-ponents are considered basic elements of farm-ing systems offering the greatest potential toattain higher and more dependable yields.

During the past 30 years, populations in manyareas have doubled, and farmers have thereforeattempted to double agricultural production.Since there has been no substantial increase inper hectare yields, increased agricultural pro-duction could be achieved only through a tremendous increase in cropped area and live-stock numbers. This trend seriously endangersthe conservation of the natural resource base.Steeper and more erodible lands are frequentlybeing overcropped and overgrazed and forestlands are being denuded, causing permanentdamage to vast areas (Figs. 1-2). The decreas-ing productivity of the land in turn increases thequest for more land. To break this vicious circle,more stable forms of land use that preserve,maintain, and better utilize the productivecapacity of all resources are urgently needed.

We therefore believe that farming systemsresearch at ICRISAT must be "resource cen-tered" and "development oriented." The majorgoals of the FSRP are:

• To generate economically viable, labor-

Figure 1. Existing practices studied at ICRISA T; runoff, soil erosion, and sedimentation observed on a rainy season fallowed Vertisol in 1974.

40

Figure 2. Resource degradation in its final stages; cattle grazing sparse vege-tation on rocky subsoils in Bijapur, India.

intensive technology for improving, utili-zing, and conserving the productive poten-tial of natural resources.

• To develop technology for improved land-and water-management systems that canbe implemented and maintained duringthe extended dry seasons, resulting inadditional employment for people andbetter utilization of available draft power.

• To contribute to raising the economicstatus and the quality of life for the peopleof the SAT by developing farming systemsthat increase and stabilize agriculturaloutput.

If new technology is to be successfullyapplied to existing production systems, it isimportant to recognize the particular con-straints and characteristics of the farming sys-tems to be improved. In the semi-arid tropics,these generally consist of: intense rainfall in-terspersed with unpredictable droughts, shortrainy season, variable rainfall between seasons,high evapotranspiration, low infiltration ca-pacity of soil, great water erosion hazard, smallfarms, fragmented holdings, limited capital re-sources, mainly animal or human labor forpower, severe unemployment in the dry sea-son, l imited biological resources, lack of creditfacilities and seasonal labor shortages at peaktimes (Kampen and Burford 1979, Krantz et al.1974, Ryan et al. 1979, Virmani et al. 1979).

ICRISAT's FSRP aims at assisting in the de-velopment of agriculture in the seasonally drytropics with a special focus on the problemsencountered by small farmers of limited means.The FSRP recognizes that the applicability offood production technology will vary by agro-climatic region and therefore focuses its re-search efforts on the development of principles,concepts, and methodologies that are transfer-able and have broad application. To meet itsobjectives, the FSRP is involved in the fol lowingactivities (Binswanger et al. 1975):

• The assembly and interpretation of exist-ing baseline data in several research areasrelevant to agricultural development in theSAT.

• The communication to cooperators ofbasic and applied research results relatingto improved farming systems in the SAT.

• The analysis of farming systems and theexecution of simulation and modelingstudies based on climatic, soil, and crop-ping systems information to identifyregional research priorities.

• The organization and coordination of in-ternational cooperative trials to rapidlygain information about the performance ofa practice, technique, or approach overtime at one location and/or across lo-cations.

• The provision of support and expertise forthose ICRISAT training programs related tofarming systems research.

• The conduct of basic and supportive re-search in several disciplines and thedevelopment of systems research meth-odology.

• The performance of interdisciplinary re-search on resource development andmanagement, crop production, and re-source conservation at selected, represen-tative benchmark locations.

In addition to the seven subprograms ad-ministratively part of FSRP, ICRISAT scientistsfrom other disciplines participate in farmingsystems research and cooperate closely inmany research projects. The FSRP is also linkedto other ICRISAT programs and national re-search organizations; this is illustrated in theorganizational chart (Fig. 3). All subprogramsare involved in the operational-scale systemsresearch and in the on-farm cooperative studieswith national programs.

41

Figure 3. Organizational chart of the Farming Systems Research Program.

Concepts, Selected Problems,and Hypotheses

To those involved in farming systems researchat ICRISAT, it was clear from the beginning thata holistic, interdisciplinary approach to re-search on soil, water, and crop managementand the integrated application of new techno-logy would be essential to successful agri-cultural development in the SAT. Single-component approaches were not expected tosolve the complex problems encountered in theSAT. Undependability of the crop-water en-vironment is the most limiting factor to cropproduction; therefore, earlier approaches con-sisting of only varietal improvement, crop andfertility management, fal lowing, or bunding,

etc., could not result in substantial effects.Emergency relief remained common in manyareas. Even conventional irrigation projectswere considered inadequate to meet the realneeds of agriculture in the SAT (Kampen et al.1974).

To develop relevant approaches and to moldthe FSRP, attention was focused on some majorproblem areas that were not intensively re-searched by national programs and the solutionof which appeared to have great potential im-pact.These were:

• About 18 mill ion hectares of deep Vertisolsin India and millions of hectares in Africaare being fallowed during the rainy season.The low productivity of postrainy seasoncrops grown on residual moisture seemedto indicate inefficient use of available wa-ter. The exposure of uncropped soils tointense rains appeared to result in seriousrunoff and erosion in spite of the presenceof soil conservation structures.

• Alfisol areas in India and many similarsoilsin other regions of the SAT lose largequantities of water as runoff; however,rainy season crops frequently suffer frommoisture stress. In India, water from wellsand that stored in small reservoirs is beingused mainly on such crops as rice andsugarcane. Few research efforts have beenmade to explore how limited water re-sources can be used to back up, rather thanto replace, rainfed agriculture.

In researching these problems, importanthypotheses, considered basic to ICRISAT'sfarming systems research strategy, were de-veloped:

• In the SAT, water is most limiting and theentire farming system must be geared toits optimum use.

• Intercropping is practiced widely in exist-ing farming systems and its improvementand development is a crucial step ingenerating more productive, resource-conserving, and reliable systems.

• Soil erosion is serious and new soil- andwater-conservation methods that simul-taneously increase yields are urgentlyneeded.

• Most soils are low in fertility; although theonly short-term solution is increasedchemical fertilizer use, research on lower

42

cost inputs, nitrogen fixation, and nutrientcycling is essential.

• Rainfall is the only source of water, thus thewatershed (catchment) is the logicalframework to investigate water as a man-ageable input and also for resource de-velopment.

• Agroclimatological analysis, based onexisting data and a quantitative under-standing of the processes involved in thesoil-plant-atmosphere continuum, can as-sist in priority research problem identifi-cation and in the extrapolation of researchresults.

• Runoff, erosion, drainage, infiltration,groundwater recharge, etc., do not expressthemselves in relevant terms on smallplots; such hydrologic factors are beststudied on watersheds.

• Efficient and appropriate farm equipmentof low cost is essential to implement moreefficient soil-, water-, and crop-man-agement systems and to attain adequateweed control.

• Most farmers depend upon animals andtheir own labor for power. Rapid access tomechanical power is neither probable nordesirable. Thus, in developing viabletechnologies, the use of available energyresources must be optimized.

• Many of the gaps between results derivedat research stations and the farmers' realneeds can be bridged by operational-scalesystems research.

• Improved varieties, cropping systems, fer-tilization, and crop-management practicesto better utilize the available natural andhuman resources are essential ingredientsto help increase and stabilize production toimprove the quality of life of the people ofthe SAT.

Research on Vert isolsand Al f isols at ICRISAT

basis in relation to crop moisture demands haveshown that frequently the water requirementsof crops may not be met (Figs. 4-5) . Thus yieldsare very low and the risk to crop production isgreat.

Resource-management approaches andcropping systems principles developed andapplied at ICRISAT led to promising results onthe Alfisols and the deep Vertisols (Kampen andBurford 1979). The attributes of these soils atICRISAT have been listed earlier (Krantz et al.1978).

A W a t e r s h e d - b a s e d S y s t e mf o r R e s o u r c e C o n s e r v a t i o n ,M a n a g e m e n t , a n d U s e

Watershed-based resource utilization involvesthe optimum use of the watershed5 precipi-tation through improved water, soil, and cropmanagement for the improvement and stabili-zation of agriculture on the watershed. Betterutilization of water can be facilitated by one ormore of the following means: (1) by improvinginfiltration of rainfall into the soil; (2) throughrunoff collection, storage, and use; and/or(3) by recovery from wells after deep perco-lation.

To improve resource utilization, manage-ment, and agricultural productivity, the follow-ing factors were studied (ICRISAT 1974, 1975,1976, 1978, 1979).

Precipi tat ion and Cropp ing Sys tems

Weekly rainfall records were used to developprobabilities of soil-moisture availability re-lated to the water-holding capacity of soils andthese werethen matched with the requirementsof widely different systems of cropping. The useof monthly data is not satisfactory because ofthe importance of variability over shorter timeperiods. These analyses resulted in the sel-ection of cropping systems especially suited to

The mean monthly values for rainfall and poten-tial evapotranspiration of many areas indicatethat, on average, sufficient moisture is availableto grow at least one, and sometimes two, cropsper year. However, studies of the probabilitiesof dependable (> 70%) rainfall on a weekly

5. "Watershed," strictly defined, refers to the divideseparating one drainage basin from another.However, the use of the term to signify a drainagebasin or catchment area has now become predo-minant. In this context the terms watershed,catchment, and drainage basin are consideredsynonymous.

43

Figure 4. Initial and conditional rainfall probabilities* of RIPEb >0.33 at two selected semi-arid locations. Initial as well as conditional rainfall probabilities are below the generally accepted dependability level of 70% during substantial periods of the rainy season at Hyderabad; the situation is even more serious at Sholapur (Source: Virmani et al. 1978).

The probability of receiving certain amounts of rainfall during a given week is indicated by the initialprobabilities P(W); the probability of rain next week, if rain was received this week by the conditionalprobability P(W/W); and the probability of rain next week if the current week has been dry, by the conditionalprobability P(W/D).

b. R = Rainfall;PE = Potential evapotranspiration.

44

a.

different soil situations. These studies alsopointed out the problems involved in doublecropping under many soil and climatic condi-tions in the SAT and the potential advantage ofintercropping systems. This type of analysis hasgreat potential for use in priority settings foragricultural research in new areas (Virmani etal. 1979).

Figure 5. Computed (^) and measured (•) water quantities in the surface 20 cm of a rainy season fallow Vertisol at ICRISAT in 1977. The approxi-mate level of water present in that layer when seedlings would be seriously stressed is given by (-—);the rainfall distribution is also indi-cated. Note the risky situation that would have occurred thrice during the early growing season if a crop had been planted (Adapted from Russell 1979).

Infiltration

Provided storage capacity is available in theroot profile, maximizing infiltration is of thehighest importance so that water is locatedwhere it is required. This is especially relevantto the deep Vertisols, whose capacity to store up

to 250 mm of available moisture makes itfeasible to support plants through mid- orlate-season spells of drought. Improved infil-tration is also needed on Alfisols, where theinfiltration rate may be 75 mm/hr shortly aftercultivation; however, this can diminish to lessthan 10 mm/hr due to the surface sealingcreated by high-intensity rainfall.

Erosion and Control of Excess Water

Moisture in excess of available storage or inexcess of the infiltration rate must be directedaway from the land to prevent waterloggingand the attendant difficulties in agriculturaloperations, particularly on Vertisols. A majorproblem on all soils is the removal of excesswater without allowing the development ofhigh-velocity, high-volume streams that are a severe erosion hazard.

Reuse of Excess Water

The collection of runoff water is required so thatit can be used for supplemental irrigation dur-ing drought periods. This would be particularlyimportant on Alfisols and shallow Vertisolsbecause of their limited water-retention ca-pacity. Severe mid-season droughts can beexpected at least once every 4 or 5 years inmany areas of the SAT. If a water-storagefacility is developed, the early runoff can becollected, stored, and used later as a supple-mental "life-saving" irrigation until further raincomes.

Based on these studies of the characteristicsof existing farming systems, several com-ponents were researched and adapted orchanged.

Reappraisal of the Cropping Season

Only a small portion (20%) of the deep Vertisolsin India are cropped during the rainy season, incontrast to the common practice of rainy-season cropping on Alfisols and shallow andmedium-deep Vertisols (Krantz et al. 1974). Thereason is largely the poor workability of theseheavy soils once the rainy season starts, thuspreventing land preparation and adequateweed control. Therefore, these soils are usuallyfallowed; the profile becomes saturated by Julyor August, and considerable runoff and erosion

45

Figure 6. An intercrop of maize and pigeonpea on a Vertisol water-shed; this combination was found particularly advantageous on deep Vertisols because of con-tinuous crop cover; no land prep-aration for the second crop is re-quired and continuity in crop canopy aids in erosion control.

occurs during the remaining part of the rainyseason (Fig. 1).

However, if a crop can be established onthese soils during the early rains, the wholeprofile is usually near saturation only for shortperiods during the latter half of the season;water is more efficiently utilized, and there isless need for runoff collection and storage. A possibility is also created for double croppingby means of intercropping or sequential crop-ping (Figs. 6-7); the large water-storage capac-ity of these soils supports growth more easilyduring the subsequent dry (but cooler) post-rainy season. In small-scale experiments it wasfound that intercropping systems can increaseyields per hectare very substantially comparedwith sole cropping (Krantz et al. 1976, Stoop1977, Willey et al. 1979). For many combina-tions, these advantages are most evident athigh plant population densities. Since inter-cropping is very important to small farmers,improvements will benefit ICRISAT's maintarget group.

Dry Sow ing

An important factor that has facil itated croppingthe deep Vertisols during the rainy season hasbeen the realization that crops can be sown dry

Figure 7. A sequentially sown chickpea crop after maize on a Vertisol watershed; the stubble of the previous crop is left to minimize land preparation. The pigeonpea of a maizel pigeonpea intercrop can be seen in the background.

(shortly ahead of the rains) in areas where theprecipitation commences fairly reliably andwhere there is a good probability of follow-uprains to ensure establishment of the germinat-ing crop. One problem was the difficulty ofpreparing a seedbed during the dry season,when tillage on these hard, clayey soils isdifficult. However, in most years, one or twopreseason rains occur to moisten the surfacesoil, and the development of new tillagetechniques and suitable equipment makeadequate land preparation ahead of the rainyseason feasible.

An ima l -d rawn Precision Equ ipment

Operations research in 1973 and in 1974 clearlyindicated that in order to provide the requiredprecision and to improve the efficiency ofdraft-animal use, improved animal-drawnequipment was necessary (Thierstein 1979).Accordingly, a tool carrier was adapted to pro-vide the same vertical and horizontal precisionas tractor-mounted equipment at lower speedbut at only a fraction of the cost. This tool carrierconsists of a frame on two rubber-tired or steelwheels with a toolbar to which various imple-ments (moldboard and disc plows, harrows,

46

planters, cultivators, fertilizer applicators,scraper, cart body) can be attached. The use ofanimal-drawn wheeled tool carriers and modi-fied equipment has resulted in considerableimprovements of this segment of farming sys-tems.

The animal-drawn tool carriers have beensuccessfully used for land smoothing anddrainageway construction (Fig. 8). Since 1973,four fully equipped tool carriers and eight pairsof bullocks have been sufficient to grow twocrops each growing season on about 60 ha ofVertisol watersheds, conducting all operationsof tillage, planting, and interrow cultivation (Fig.9). Several lower cost units are presently beinginvestigated (Thierstein 1979).

Year - round Weed Managemen t

The feasibility of dry season primary tillage hasfacilitated the development of the year-roundweed management concept. This approach isespecially suited to the SAT where a warmhumid season, a cool dry postrainy season, anda hot dry season can be distinguished. Weedcontrol during the two growing seasons can beaccomplished (in intercropping systems)through a combination of mechanical andbiological control. On soils such as Vertisols,where weeds are a serious problem, particularlyin the rainy season, some herbicide use may berequired. However, the hot dry season lendsitself best to thorough tillage to reduce peren-nial weeds and weed seeds (Shetty and Krantz1979).

Figure 8. Tool carrier with scraper construct-ing drains on an Alfisol.

Figure 9. Tool carrier used for dry season primary tillage on a Vertisol.

Narrow r i d g e s and fu r rows are on l y adapted to 75 cm rows.

A pigeonpea/sorghum intercrop or a pigeonpea/maize in tercrop

Figure 10. Alternative cropping systems and row arrangements on broadbeds (150 cm). All dimensions in cm.

47

Broadbed-and-Furrow System

The system found to be most successful, both tofacilitate cultural operations and to control ex-cess water, is a broadbed-and-furrow systemwith an amplitude of 150 cm (Fig. 10). Thebroadbed is about 100 cm wide and the sunkenfurrow about 50 cm. Initial experience withnarrow graded ridges of 75-cm amplitudes atICRISAT indicated instability of this system,particularly on Alfisols. The ridges were notwide enough to prevent "breaching," which canbe catastrophic for soil conservation (ICRISAT1978); they also had too limited a flexibility toaccommodate the wide range of crops grown inthe SAT. With the broadbeds, it is possible toplant two, three, or four rows at 75-, 45-, and30-cm rowspacings, respectively. Comparisonsof flat planting with cultivation on broadbedsindicate substantial yield advantages of thegraded broadbed system on deep Vertisols(Table 1). In 1976, values of crop yields infield-scale experiments were about Rs. 800/hahigher on broadbeds at a 0.4 to 0.6% slope thanunder flat cultivation at that slope (Kampen andKrishna 1978).

Erosion and runoff are relatively low in thebroadbed system on deep Vertisols, becausethe excess water is led off the land at a con-trolled velocity in many furrows rather than inconcentrated streams down the steepest slope.Drainage during wet periods is also facilitated.The preliminary data obtained at ICRISAT in-dicate that the optimum slopes along the fur-rows on Vertisols are in the range of 0.4 to 0.8%.

The furrows are graded so that water dis-charges into grassed waterways, which maylead to a runoff-collection facility consisting of a dug tank or earth dam (Figs. 11-12). Researchon watershed-based resource utilization is con-ducted on natural watersheds of a size similarto farm holdings in the SAT. Alternativeresource-management methods and croppingsystems are simulated on these watersheds,under conditions similar to those on real farmsin terms of available labor and draft animals.

Investigations on runoff and soil loss duringhigh-intensity, long-duration storms on op-erational-scale research watersheds show thattotal runoff and peak runoff rates on Vertisolsare much lower with broadbeds than with othertreatments. This is particularly true in compari-son with the fallow treatment with repeatedcultivations presently practiced onalmost 20 million ha in India (Fig. 1, Table 2).

In brief, operational-scale research on water-sheds has shown thatthe broadbed-and-furrowsystem:

• Reduces soil erosion.• Provides surface drainage.• Concentrates organic matter and fertilizer

in the plant zone.• Reduces soil compaction in the plant zone.• Is adaptable to supplemental water appli-

cation.• Can be laid out on a permanent basis.• Is easily maintained with minimum tillage.• Facilitates land preparation during the dry

season.

Table 1.

WatershedNo.

1,2, 3A1,2,3AMeans3B, 4B3B,4BMeansLSD. (.05)CV(%)

Mean monetary vawatersheds using

Landmgt.

BedsBeds

FlatFlat

Year

19761977

19761977

I ues of f la t vs semipermanent b roadbed-and- fur row sys tem onimproved techno logy in 1976 and 1977 (ICRISAT 1979).

Maize

(Rs/ha)

28402270

25302450

Intercrop

Pigeonpea

(Rs/ha)

20802770

16801810

Total

(Rs/ha)

49205040

42104260

Sequential crop

Maize

(Rs/ha)

27302880

23002790

Chickpea

(Rs/ha)

9502400

5702200

Total

(Rs/ha)

36805280

28704980

Ver t i so l

Means

Bothsystems(Rs/ha)

43005160

35404620

Bothyears(Rs/ha)

4730

4080280

9.2

48

Figure 11. The watershed concept of soil and water conservation and utilization. The key elements are: the forma-tion of a graded broadbed-and-furrow system to increase infiltra-tion, to control excess water, and to facilitate timely soil-management practices; the de-velopment of a drainage system to convey excess water; and, where desirable, the introduction of water collection facilities.

• Reduces the power and time requirementsof agricultural operations.

• Provides furrows for animals to follow.• Is adaptable to many row spacings.

Water Balances

Studies of the water balance of alternativefarming systems on Alfisols and Vertisols usingbroadbeds indicate that the relative quantity ofrunoff is still considerable on both soils. Theseasonal runoff on Vertisols exceeds 10% of the

rainfall in many years. On Alfisols 20% runoff isnot unusual due to the surface-sealing charac-ter of these soils (Table 2); also large quantitiesof the rainfall percolate beyond the root zone.Thus, effectively used rainfall on Alfisols mayremain relatively low, often in the range of 50 to60% of the seasonal precipitation (ICRISAT1975, 1976).

Runof f Col lect ion and Supp lementa lI r r igat ion

The collection of surface runoff during periodsof excess rainfall, and its subsequent use duringdry periods in the rainy season or early in thedry season, markedly decreases the risks in-volved in rainfed agriculture. A particularexample is the response observed in the rainy

Table 2. Rainfall and runoff on a croppedAlfisol (RW2B) and a cropped deepVert isol (BW1) watershed w i thbroadbed-and-furrow systems ato.6% slope and a rainy season fal-lowed watershed (BW4C) (ICRISAT1976).

Date

23 June2 July

21 July3 Aug4 Aug

19 Aug

20 Aug21 Aug26 Aug3 Sept4 Sept

Total ofeight sMAstorms

Total

Rainfalla

(mm)

2324892632

105

391088

20

ll115

499

Alfisol

Runoff

Deep Vertisol

Cropped Cropped(mm)

1.83.0

25.20.88.5

77.5

16.5

0.50.22.3

4.3

140.6

(mm)

.01.7

16.90.22.3

27.0

19,54.20.10.00.4

0.7

73.0

Fallow(mm)

0.50.2

49.41.6

21.495.4

37.18.53.22.9

11.1

6.9

238.2

Figure 12. An airphoto of the BW5 Vertisol watershed at ICRISAT.

a. Includes only rainfall from the 19 runoff-producing storms.The total rainfall for the rainy season (June-Oct) was 679mm.

49

season of 1974, when a 30-day dry periodcoincided with the grain-formation stage(ICRISAT 1975). A supplemental irrigation of only5 cm to sorghum and maize in operational-scaleresearch watersheds maintained yields nearoptimum levels, while yields of rainfed cropsdecreased by about 50%. The gross values ofthe increases due to this water application intwo watersheds were (in Rs/ha) 3120 for maize,2780 for sorghum, 1085 for pearl millet, and 650for sunflower.

The deep Vertisols rarely require supplemen-tal irrigation for the rainy season crop. How-ever, supplemental water can always be usedon a postrainy-season crop, and growing a second crop can sometimes be facilitated by a small initial quantity of water (Kampen andKrishna 1978).

Thus, the potentials for use of collected sur-face or ground water as a backup resource needto be further explored. The direct effect ofimproved water-utilization technology appearssubstantial in years of ill-distributed rainfall.Asimilar effect may be expected in producing a second crop in the dry season. However,another consequence of decreased risk of pro-duction may be of even greater importance:reduced uncertainty will provide the basis formore assured profitability and also greaterassured responses to other inputs such asimproved seeds and fertilizers. This meansgreatly increased yields during years ofadequate and well-distributed rainfall and thusbetter opportunities to "harvest the goodyears."

Crop Product ion and Rainfal lProduct iv i ty

Data collected on Vertisol watersheds indicatethat broadbed cultivation — even withoutrunoff collection — has the potential to use a much higher proportion of the rainfall for cropproduction than most present systems. Theeffectively used rainfall on double-cropped Ver-tisol watersheds, cultivated to graded broad-beds, was about 75, 65, and 65% in 1974, 1975,and 1976, respectively; this was two to threetimes the effective rainfall utilized by existingrainy season fallow systems (ICRISAT 1975,1976, 1978). Intercropping systems on broad-beds usually resulted in a somewhat greaterrainfall utilization than sequential cropping sys-

tems, due to the temporary absence of canopyin the latter sequence. However, the total re-turns per hectare from sequential croppingsystems exceeded those from intercrops(ICRISAT 1976, 1978).

The effectively used rainfall on Alfisols underimproved systems of farming was found to beonly about 55% in 1975 and 1976. Withouttechnically appropriate and economically via-ble systems for runoff collection and use, largeincreases in effectively used rainfall appeardifficult to achieve on these soils.

An attempt has been made to obtain prelimi-nary estimates of the "rainfall productivity"achieved by alternative systems of farming(Kampen and Krishna 1978). The RP values in1975-77 showed wide differences among vari-ous farming systems. In 1975, sequential crop-ping of rainy season maize and supplementallyirrigated postrainy season sorghum resulted inthe highest RP value on deep Vertisols. Rainfallproductivity increased from Rs. 12/cm per ha ina traditional farming system of single postrainyseason cropping on rainy season fallowed landto Rs. 58/cm per ha on double-cropped Vertisolscultivated to graded ridges (ICRISAT 1976). A very high RP value of Rs. 133/cm per ha wasobtained on an Alfisol watershed where pearlmillet grown on graded ridges in the rainyseason was followed by supplementally irri-gated tomato in the postrainy season.

The range of RP values obtained on deepVertisols illustrates the production potential ofthis environment in the SAT if an improvedsystem of farming can be developed and im-plemented. Such systems are now being furtheradapted and tested in on-farm research, con-ducted cooperatively with national programs inIndia.

Synerg i s t i c E f fec ts

The development and implementation of im-proved technology involves many facets orsteps. Researching the effects of each individualfacet independently would make the totalnumber of experiments unmanageably large.Moreover, the yield-increasing effects of manyof these single steps (fertilizer type, placement,quantity, t iming, etc.) have already been estab-lished in small-scale, controlled experiments,often under otherwise optimum conditions.Therefore, in one set of experiments these

50

many facets were grouped into four phases:variety, fertilization, soil and crop management,and supplemental water. To determine the ef-fects of these four phases, at alternative levelsof technology, the studies were executed on a field scale using exclusively animal-drawnequipment for all cultural operations. In 1976,this "steps in technology" experiment wasconducted with sorghum, involving a com-parison of "tradit ional" versus " improved"technology on an Alfisol (Fig. 13). During therainy season, the rainfall was adequate and thedistribution reasonably uniform so that no sup-plemental water was required. Thus, only thefirst three phases are considered.

There was a significant response to improvedfertilization intraditonal systems; unfortunatelychemical fertilizers are an expensive input andtherefore the risk of applying these in therainfed setting is great. Improved variety andimproved management as single factorsshowed an upward trend but this effect was notsignificant. Improvement of either one of thesetwo factors alone did not result in substantialnet benefits (ICRISAT 1978). However, treat-ments involving two or three steps in combina-tion resulted in large yield increases. The yieldincrease of " improved" over "tradit ional"technology from the three steps combined wasdouble that of the sum of the increases from thesame three steps applied singly (Fig. 13). Thisillustrates that large benefits can be gainedfrom the synergistic effects obtained whendifferent steps are applied together in a system.Similar results were obtained with sorghum onthe same soil in 1975 and with maize on a Vertisol in 1976 (ICRISAT 1976, 1978). The ra-toon crop resulted in low yields. This was due toserious shoot-fly damage and illustrates thedevastating effect that one missing facet mayhave on yields of an improved technologysystem. Unpredictability of yields, due toweather uncertainty or to missing elements inan improved farming system that requires moreexpensive inputs, will be a serious barrier toimplementation on small subsistence farms.

A Look Ahead

From 1974 onwards, several international con-ferences, workshops, and reviews have aided inshaping the orientation and majorthrusts of the

FSRP (TAC 1978, Krantz et al. 1977). None ofthese resulted in fundamental changes in theobjectives of the FSRP. However, it has beenrepeatedly recommended that greater em-phasis be placed on: meaningful agroclimaticclassifications of the widely diverse SAT, re-search methodology development, cooperativeresearch with national programs, in-depthanalysis of farming systems and simulationstudies, farming systems research at ben-

Traditional technology: Variety-PJ8K;Fertilization — 50 cartloads farmyard manure in1975, none in 1976; soil and crop managementsimulates present farmers' practice with fertilizerbroadcast, sowing done with a local seeder andminimum insect control if required.

Improved technology: Variety-CSH6;Fertilization — 75 kg/ha of 18-46-0 and 67 kg/ha ofnitrogen top-dressed; Crop and soilmanagement — all operations executed with im-proved implements, fertilizer banded and seedplanted on graded broadbeds, atrazine applied at75 kg/ha, minimum insect control if required.

51

Figure 13. Sorghum grain yields (tonnes per hectare) from traditional* (T) technology from the single application of im-provedb management (M), variety (V) or fertilizer (F) and from the application of these three factors in combination on an Alfisol in 1976(ICRISAT 1978).

chmark locations, and studies of improvedfarming systems under on-farm conditions.These are expected to be the areas of primaryfocus in the years ahead.

Major Research Areasin t h e Nex t Five Years

Classif icat ion

In order to serve the farmers of the SAT, wemust know more precisely the characteristics,resources, and constraints in different regions.The initially accepted definition of the SATemphasizes the length of the wet season, isecological, and is based on readily availabledata (Virmani et al. 1979). However, more de-tailed work on the identification of isoclimesbased on climatic and soils data is now requiredto assist in the transfer of suitable crop im-provement and farming systems technologydeveloped at ICRISAT, its benchmark locations,and by national programs. It is also important toprovide indices of moisture availability for suc-cessful crop production in seasonally dry areas.Risk is an important factor governing presentand potential farming systems; it is thereforenecessary to quantify the risk levels associatedwith agriculture in diverse regions and toidentify basic climatic constraints (Virmanie ta l . 1979).

Research Me thodo logy

Farming systems research must be concernedwith the development and dissemination ofprinciples and results that are transferable andcapable of speeding up the development andimplementation of specific farming systems bynational research centers and action agencies.Work on the development of researchmethodology, basic principles, and the concep-tualization of research approaches will there-fore be strengthened. Thus, in the future,substantial emphasis will remain directed to-ward developing a better understanding of theprocesses involved in water and nitrogendynamics, competitive claims for resources inintercropping systems, factors influencingweed susceptibility, etc. These studies willstimulate interdisciplinary approaches andfacilitate model development.

The Environmental Physics subprogram is

leading an effort to develop accurate, reason-ably simple, and reliable techniques for fieldstudies of the dynamics of water as it movesthrough the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum.The scientists concerned seek to understand thephysical processes operating and to measure insitu the quantities of water involved and thequantitative effects of the properties of thesystem that controls them. The ultimate aim isto contribute to the modeling of transpirationand crop yields to facilitate the extrapolation ofresearch results (ICRISAT 1978, Russell andSingh 1979).

The Cropping Systems subprogram isspearheading an effort to discover the funda-mental relationships that wil l provide a scien-tific basis for intercropping improvement.Central to this effort is a set of research projectsexamining the efficiencies with which the re-sources of light, water, and nutrients are utilizedand identifying the agronomic practices leadingto greater yield advantages. Particular attentionis also directed to experimental design de-velopment (Willey et al. 1979).

Modeling

ICRISAT is one base where new concepts,approaches, and methods to arrive at improvedfarming systems are generated. However, theseprinciples have to be integrated, tested, andadapted into viable systems before their appli-cation in the diverse regions of the SAT. Model-ing and simulation can effectively contribute tothis process. Where areas characterized byvarying conditions are to be served, the firststep is to collect detailed information on thephysical and biological settings in the differentregions. Climate, soils, crops, and croppingsystems are the building blocks for improvedfarming systems. The FSRP will notbe pioneer-ing in model development; available modelswill be tested and adapted to the requirementsof different agroclimatic regions.

Two objectives of modeling at ICRISAT can bedistinguished: (1) a greater understanding ofthe physical processes involved and at theidentification of gaps in knowledge, which canassist in the setting of research priorities, and(2) the generation of predictive models that canbe used to evaluate the relative potentials forvarious prospective technologies under a widerange of crop-resource situations. Although

52

most early results wil l relate to the first ob-jective, long-term efforts are aimed at the gen-eration of predictive models to better fulfillICRISAT's objectives across varying resourceenvironments.

It is our hope that such process-based,weather-driven soil and crop modulatedmodels will be useful in: (1) explaining andgeneralizing the results of site- and season-specific field experiments, (2) identifying ag-roclimatic analogues, (3) analyzing the likelyconsequences of alternative systems of soil,water, and crop management under differentsets of soil and climatic conditions, (4) quan-tifying the risks associated with alternativefarming systems, (5) assisting national pro-grams in setting research priorities.

Benchmark Research

To make simulation techniques effective, it willbe necessary to identify a limited number ofbenchmark locations in Asia, Africa, and LatinAmerica. The diversity of the resource baseencountered in the SAT dictates the need forassociated research efforts at such sites. Theselocations will be carefully chosen in cooper-ation with national programs to represent dis-tinctly different climatic, soil, and topographicconditions, and to cover the spectrum of en-vironments with a minimum of locations. Re-search at these benchmarks will be developedin cooperation with the national and state in-stitutions; it is expected that in many cases,ICRISAT's Crop Improvement cooperativeprograms may also be located at or in closeproximity to these sites.

Experimental results from the past few yearsjustify the assumption that the farming systemspresently found in much of the SAT cannot besignificantly improved by introducing bettertechnology for any single production factoralone. The climate and soils environment, thetraditional cropping systems, and the behaviorof farmers in the face of risk create a situation inwhich improvement of one component of theproduction system rarely results in adequatereturns for the long run. The implications forfarming systems research are clear: severalcomponents of new technology must be identi-fied and integrated in operational-scale re-search. This should be done in such a mannerthat the synergistic effects of these components

make their concurrent introduction feasible andrewarding, while conserving the resource baseto assure long-term stability. Once technicallyand economically viable farming systems havebeen developed for different areas of the SAT,further research on successful implementationin the setting of existing farming systems mustbe pursued.

Cooperat ive Research

Preliminary results from research by nationalprograms in the SAT and by ICRISAT indicatethat improved resource conservation and utili-zation, along with improved technology appliedto all phases of crop production, has greatpotential for generating economically andtechnically viable farming systems capable ofincreased and more stable agricultural pro-duction (Kampen 1979, Krishnamoorthy 1977,Krantzetal. 1978, Spratt and Chowdhury 1978).However, the resource base (climate, soil,people, crops and cropping systems, livestock,capital, etc.) is characterized by great diversity.Even at a given location, the environment forcrop growth will differ from year to year due to thevariability in rainfall. Therefore, appropriatefarming systems technology will have to beflexible to perform well under a range of con-ditions.

Two major questions must be answered bycooperative farming systems research:

1. Through studies of the existing resourcesand management techniques as well asthe requirements of new croppingsystems, a clear answer must be obtainedto "what " is to be done to improve the cropgrowth environment and to maintainproductivity; investigations with these ob-jectives and the determination of the rela-tive probability of success for alternativeapproaches are primarily conducted atresearch centers, and past research hasalmost exclusively focused on these ques-tions.

2. Knowledge gained on the first set of ques-tions must be translated into " h o w " thisnew information is to be fitted into existingfarming systems. Site-specific, applicableresource management and utilizationtechnology must be generated under di-verse agroc l imato log ic and socio-economic conditions. Such problem-

53

solving investigations are most effectivelycarried out through farming systemsstudies on an operational scale at researchstations and on farms (Kampen 1979).Cooperative research programs aimed atthese goals are presently being initiated inthe seasonally dry regions of southern andsoutheastern Asia, West Africa, and north-eastern Brazil.

On-farm Research

In its cooperative research programs on realfarms, ICRISAT's FSRP does not envisage thedemonstration effect or the implementationof new technology as a major goal. Thoseactivities are the exclusive responsibility ofnational organizations for research and exten-sion. However, it is expected that the results ofsuch cooperative research projects will greatlyfacilitate later implementation of new technol-ogy across large regions ofthe SAT by adaptingthat technology to what farmers require, byidentifying bottlenecks, and by developingguidelines for appropriate village- and farmer-level organizational structures (Kampen 1979).

In view of the more limited resources offarmers, the performance of technology infarmers' fields may differ from what has beenobserved at research stations. Testing underreal world conditions can provide informationon the actual economic viability of watershed-based technology. It is therefore important thatthe technology be studied in farmers' fieldsituations so that constraints to adoption can beidentified and specifically addressed by furtherresearch to improve the technology (Kampenand Doherty 1979).

On-farm research provides for participationof farmers in the development of technology.Ideally, agricultural research does not start atresearch stations; it starts on farms. Only in thissetting will feedback to the research programsbe generated. Such feedback is consideredessential to assure the continuing relevance oftechnological solutions to the problems offarmers.

Research on watershed-based systems inon-farm situations also has an advantage in thatciritical questions can be addressed regardingthe initiation of group action among farmerswho operate plots on a watershed area. Indeed,these issues only express themselves in an

on-farm situation. With farm sizes in the IndianSAT averaging around 1 to 2 ha, and withfarmers having several plots comprising thisarea (often in locations that are spatially sepa-rated), and with watershed sizes generallymany times larger than individual farms, it isimperative that operational guidelines for elicit-ing group action be defined.

We envisage that the information generatedfrom these cooperative research projects willhave impact far beyond the actual locations ofproject execution. Improved understandingofthe technology-generating process — and ofeffective organizational structures identified asprerequisites to the effective implementationof new farming systems — may facilitate ag-ricultural development not only in the regionsconcerned but in the entire SAT.

Participation in Training Programs

Training programs are an essential part offarming systems research. The concepts andapproaches for farming systems research arenew, and guidelines are not as well developedas in more established research activities. Farm-ing systems research is also highly interdisci-plinary, involving integration of many discip-lines to develop efficient resource use andproductive cropping systems technology. TheFSRP staff has been active in ICRISAT trainingprograms and expects to greatly expand thisactivity by providing special courses in farmingsystems research. In the early stages, this effortwill be oriented primarily toward cooperatingscientists. Later, training of those charged withteaching technical officers involved in de-velopment projects will be emphasized.

Conclusions

Over the past 6 years, ICRISAT's FSRP de-veloped a research strategy which consists of:(1) identification of major problems in a rep-resentative ecological zone and the focus ofinterdisciplinary research on the solutionthereof; (2) development, investigation, andtesting of hypotheses and the generation ofapproaches and methodologies that can beused by national programs to tailor solutions tospecific conditions; (3) the simultaneous inves-tigation in depth of single production com-

54

ponents and the integration of new technologyinto improved farming systems through oper-ations research; (4) the development of mod-els to extrapolate results; and (5) the study ofimplementation methods on real farms.

In the process of developing a researchstrategy, several important factors have beenrecognized. Some of these are:

• Recognition of the small agriculturalwatershed as a focus of research and a framework for development.

• Reevaluation of animal power as a majorresource in farming systems in the SAT ifappropriate machines and tools can bedeveloped.

• Demonstration of the value of agroclimaticquantification in research priority-setting,in the selection of improved soil-, water-,and crop-management systems, and inextrapolation of research results.

• Understanding of the advantages tofarmers in the SAT of intercroppingsystems under high levels of managementand inputs.

• Appreciation of the critical importance ofmodel development to extrapolate re-search results in t ime and space.

• Advantages of year-round tillage andweed-management approaches, es-pecially on Vertisols.

• Potentials of operational-scale systems re-search to partially overcome gaps betweenresearch results and farmers' require-ments.

• Substantial synergistic effects that can beobtained by combining important produc-tion factors.

• Utility of on-farm research to involvefarmers in technology development and asa feedback mechanism for identification ofpriority research needs.

There are no shortcuts to development inthe SAT. Sustained increased production,employment, and income will result only if im-provement can be effected simultaneously inseveral production factors. The soil and thewater that falls on it are precious resources thatrequire careful husbandry. Soil and crop man-agement, as implemented by farmers, appearsto be the most critical of the factors now limitingproduction. The research results obtained showpotential and justify hope that problem-focused

farming systems research can effectively con-tribute to the realization of ICRISAT's goals.

R e f e r e n c e s

BINSWANGER, H. P., KRANTZ, B. A., and VIRMANI,S. M. 1976. The role of the International CropsResearch Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics infarming systems research. Hyderabad, India:ICRISAT.

DOGGETT, H.,SAUGER, L, and CUMMINGS, R.W. 1971.Proposal for an international crops research insti-tute for the sem i-a rid tropics. Consultative Group onInternational Agricultural Research, Technical Ad-visory Committee. Rome: FAO.

ICRISAT (International Crops Research Institute forthe Semi-Arid Tropics). 1974,1975,1976,1978,1979.ICRISAT Annual Reports, 1973-74 through 1977-78,Hyderabad, India.

KAMPEN, J., and associates. 1974. Soil and waterconservation and management in farming systemsresearch for the semi-arid tropics. Pages 3-44 inProceedings, International Workshop on FarmingSystems. ICRISAT, 18-21 Nov 1974, Hyderabad,India.

KAMPEN, J. 1979. Research on soil and water man-agement for rainfed lands. Presented at Workshop,All India Coordinated Research Project for DrylandAgriculture, 7-11 May 1979, Hyderabad, India.

KAMPEN, J., and HARI KRISHNA, J. 1978. Resourceconservation, management, and use in the semi-arid tropics, Presented at the American Society ofAgricultural Engineers, Summer Meeting, Logan,Utah, USA.

KAMPEN, J., and BURFORD, J. R. 1979. Production sys-tems, soil-related constraints and potentials in semi-arid tropical regions with special reference to India.Presented at the Conference on Priorities for Al-leviating Soil-related Constraints to Food Pro-duction in the Tropics. International Rice ResearchInstitute, 4-8 June 1979, Los Barios, Philippines.Proceedings in preparation.

KAMPEN, J.,andDoHERTY, V.S. 1979. Methodologiesto attain improved resource use and productivity.Report on a cooperative ICAR-ICRISAT on-farmresearch project. Patancheru, A.P., India: ICRISAT.

55

KRANTZ, B. A., and associates. 1974. Cropping pat-terns for increasing and stabilizing agricultural pro-duction in the semi-arid tropics. Pages 217-248 inProceedings, International Workshop on FarmingSystems. ICRISAT, 18-21 Nov 1974, Hyderabad,India.

KRANTZ, B. A., VIRMANI, S. M., SARDAR SINGH, and RAO,

M. R. 1976. Intercropping for increased and morestable agricultural production in the semi-aridtropics. Pages 15-16 in Proceedings, Symposiumon Intercropping in the Semi-Arid Areas. Interna-tional Development Research Centre (Canada),10-12 May 1976, Morogoro, Tanzania.

KRANTZ, B. A., K A M P E N , J . , RUSSELL, M. B„

THIERSTEIN, G. E., VIRMANI, S. M., WILLEY, R. W.,

and associates. 1977. The Farming Systems Re-search Program, prepared for TAC Stripe Review,ICRISAT, Hyderabad, India.

KRANTZ, B. A., KAMPEN, J., and VIRMANI, S. M. 1978.

Soil and water conservation and utilization forincreased food production in the semi-arid tropics.Presented at the 11th Congress of the InternationalSociety of Soil Science, 19-27 June 1978, Edmon-ton, Canada.

KRISHNAMOORTHY, Ch., CHOWDHURY, S. L, ANDERSON,

D. T., and DRYDEN, R. D. 1977. Cropping systems formaximizing production under semi-arid conditions.Presented at the Second FAO-SIDA Seminar onField Food Crops in Africa and the Near East, 18Sept-5 Oct 1977, Lahore, Pakistan. Available fromIndian Council of Agricultural Research, All IndiaCoordinated Research Project for Dryland Agricul-ture, Hyderabad, India.

RAO, M. R., and WILLEY, R. W. 1978. Current status ofintercropping research and some suggested ex-perimental approaches. Presented at the SecondINPUTS Review Meeting, 8-19 May 1978, East-WestCenter, Honolulu, Hawaii.

RUSSELL, M. B., and SARDAR SINGH, 1979. Water use

by maize, sorghum, pigeonpea, and chickpea. Un-published paper available from authors, ICRISAT,Patancheru, A. P. 502 324, India.

RYAN, J. G., and associates. 1974. Socioeconomicaspects of agricultural development in the semi-aridtropics. Pages 389-432 in Proceedings, Interna-tional Workshop on Farming Systems. ICRISAT,18-21 Nov 1974, Hyderabad, India.

RYAN, J. G„ GHODAKE, R. D., and SARIN, R. 1979. Labor

use and labor markets in semi-arid tropical ruralvillages of peninsular India. Presented at the Inter-national Workshop on Socioeconomic Constraintsto Development of Semi-Arid Tropical Agriculture.ICRISAT, 19-23 Feb 1979, Hyderabad, India. Pro-ceedings in preparation.

SHETTY, S. V, R., and KRANTZ, B. A. 1979. Weed

research at ICRISAT. International Session, WeedScience Society of America, Annual Meeting, SanFrancisco, Calif, USA.

SPRATT, E. D., and CHOWDHURY, S. L. 1978. Improved

cropping systems for rainfed agriculture in India.Field Crops Research 2:103-126.

STOOP, W. A. 1977. Program annual report, ICRISATAgronomy Program, Upper Volta. ICRISAT/UNDP,Ouagadougou, Upper Volta.

TAC (Technical Advisory Committee). 1978. Report ofthe TAC Quinquennial Review Mission to the Inter-national Crops Research Institute for the Semi-AridTropics. Consultative Group on International Ag-ricultural Research, Technical Advisory Committee.Rome: FAO.

THIERSTEIN, G. E. 1979. Possibilities for mechanizingrainfed agriculture in the semi-arid tropics. Pre-sented at the Ninth International Agricultural En-gineering Congress, 8-13 July 1979, East Lansing,Mich, USA. Available from Commission Inter-nationale du Genie Rural, 17 rue de Javel, Paris75015, France.

VIRMANI S. M., SIVAKUMAR, M. V. K., and REDDY, S. J.

1978. Rainfall probability estimates for selectedlocations of semi-arid India. ICRISAT research re-port 1.

VIRMANI, S. M., SIVAKUMAR, M. V. K., and REDDY, S. J.

1979. Climatological features of the semi-aridtropics in relation to the Farming Systems ResearchProgram, ICRISAT. Presented at the InternationalWorkshop on the Agroclimatological ResearchNeeds of the Semi-Arid Tropics. ICRISAT, 22-24 Nov1978, Hyderabad, India. Proceedings in preparation.

WILLEY, R. W., RAO, M. R., REDDY, M. S., and NATARA-

JAN, M. 1979. Some physiological and agronomicaspects of intercropping research at ICRISAT. Pre-sented at the Eleventh Annual Workshop of the AllIndia Coordinated Model Agronomic ExperimentScheme, 25-29 Apr 1979, Jawaharlal Nehru KrishiVishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, India.

56

Soc ioeconomic Const ra in ts to Agr i cu l tu ra lDeve lopment in the Semi-Ar id Tropics

and ICRISAT's Approach

James G. Ryan and Hans P. Binswanger*

Abstract

This paper discusses how socioeconomic constraints to agricultural development are evaluated at ICRISA T in order to better formulate research priorities in an ex ante sense as well as to improve the efficiency with which new technologies, once they are developed, are "marketed" to farmers. The constraints discussed include variations in population densities, the heterogeneity of the resource endowments in the SA T, the role of risk in farmers' decision making, marketing institutions, human institutional require-ments, and, finally, efficiency and equity concerns in research resource allocation.

One of the important mandates of ICRISAT is tohelp identify socioeconomic and other con-straints to agricultural development in the SAT,and to evaluate alternative technological andinstitutional means of alleviating them. This is a recognition that agricultural research must bedesigned and implemented keeping thesocioeconomic environment of target and clientgroups clearly in view; agricultural researchinvestments that consider only the poten-tialities and constraints of the agrobiologicalenvironment do not lead to the highest possiblereturns. Viewing agricultural research as a mul-tidisciplinary exercise can enhance the returns,not only in terms of efficiency but also in termsof human welfare and equity.

The importance of carefully targeting re-search allocations cannot be overstressed inview of the extremely limited amount of re-search expenditures in the SAT. Theyamounttoonly 0.008 U.S. cents per hectare of geographicarea and only 0.14 cents per hectare of the fiveICRISAT c rops—sorghum, pearl mil let,pigeonpea, chickpea, and groundnut. Total re-search expenditure in the SAT amounts to $14mill ion, of which over 50% is ICRISAT's. Thelow level of national research expenditures forSAT agriculture is in itself an importantsocioeconomic constraint that needs to be em-phasized at the outset of this paper.

* Principal Economist and Leader; and PrincipalEconomist, ICRISAT Economics Program.

Socioeconomic Constraints

P o p u l a t i o n D e n s i t i e s

The 48 less developed countries with semi-aridtropical climates had an estimated populationof around 600 million in 1975. These are sup-ported on a SAT geographical land area ofapproximately 17.6 million km2 representing a population density of 0.34 people/ha.1 Or, to putit another way, there are about 3 ha of geo-graphic land available per person in the SAT toprovide food, clothing, shelter, and the where-withal to invest for the future, as well as toaugment the necessities of life at the presentpopulation level. In some SAT countries, thepopulation/land equation is far in excess of the0.34 average. For example, in India the densityis almost five times the SAT average, while inNigeria it is twice. This means in SAT India thereis only 0.6 ha of land for each person, while inNigeria there is 1.5 ha. Since not all this land isarable, the picture is even more serious thanthese figures indicate.

It is the generally high population/land pres-sure in the SAT — along with the primary de-pendence on uncertain rainfall and nutrient-deficient and often eroded soils — that posesthe most significant physical constraint to de-

1. Land areas are on a geographical basis. The sourcefor most of these data are Ryan (1974,1978), withappropriate updating.

57

velopment. When this is combined with thehigh population growth rates, the problems foragricultural research become urgent. Thesepopulation growth rates are as fol lows:

SA T region

AsiaAfrica south of SaharaSouth and Central

AmericaNear East and North

West Africa

Total SAT

Population growth2

(% p.a.)2.452.50

2.70

2.90

2.50

More than 75% of the population of thesecountries depend on agriculture for their liveli-hood, particularly the people who reside in theSAT regions.

These statistics reveal to some a gloomyprospect for the SAT. However, at the sametime there are some hopeful signs. First, morerecent population growth rate calculationssuggest that in many of the less developed SATcountries the rates of increase have begun toslow down (World Bank 1974). The reasonsseem to be that the rapid increases in lifeexpectancies since World War II — resultingfrom substantial public health programs aimedat controlling malaria, tuberculosis, smallpox,cholera, etc. — have begun to taper off. Also,birth rates have been declining as people incor-porate this information about increased lifeexpectancies into their decisions on family size.To have one's children alive when one reachesold age is now much more probable than it was25 years ago. Since 1950, the life expectancy atbirth in many low-income countries has in-creased 40% or more (Ram and Schultz 1977).For India, male life expectancy at birth between1951 and 1971 rose from 32.4 to 47.1 years, anincrease of 45%; for females, the increase was44% — f r o m 31.7 to 45.6 years. To the extentthat part of the demand for children in lessdeveloped countries is to provide social sec-urity for old age (Mamdani 1972), these in-creased life expectancies must further reducethe demand for children.

2. These are simple averages of individual countrygrowth rates as reported in Ryan (1974). Data coverthe period prior to 1971.

The increase in life expectancy, resultingprimarily from improved health and/or nutri-t ion, also implies an increase in the quality oflabor — or enhanced human capital. These im-provements have positive impacts on produc-tion (Ram and Schultz 1977). Increased invest-ments in schooling, which are also occurring inlow-income countries, further augment theirstocks of human capital. Preston (1976)suggests that the decline in mortality leads toincreased incentives for people to invest inschooling.

Hence, while demographic events in lessdeveloped countries on the surface have re-sulted in what many would call physical con-straints on development, a more informed viewsuggests that these same events have also ledto an increased investment in humans; this, inturn, is expected to lead to a greater potentialfor populations to deal with the economic dis-equilibria that characterize economic moderni-zation (Schultz 1975).3 Viewed in this perspec-tive, the high population/land ratios of much ofthe SAT need not be a negative factor in theprospects for growth of food production andenhanced development in these countries.

The predominance of subsistence-orientedfarming in SAT countries is a current fact;ICRISAT is designing its technologies toexplicitly recognize this, especially in the shortrun. However, we are not restricting ourselvesto this concept in the long run. There is evidence(Doherty 1978) that in commercialized agricul-ture, where reliance on unskilled and familylabor is less than in subsistence-oriented ag-ricultural sectors, birth rates are also consider-ably less. Planning agricultural technology thatallows or even encourages commercializationitself can have a restraining influence on popula-tion growth.

Hete rogene i t y o f ResourceE n d o w m e n t s

The heterogeneity of the SAT is a factor whichmakes technology design a difficult exercise foran international center. This is why we have

3. We do not have precise information on health andschooling in countries other than India at this time.However, similar trends in life expectancies andfertility are occurring in many developing coun-tries (World Bank 1974).

58

devoted considerable effort to characterizingthe SAT, to ensure that our research is focusedon the priority problems and regions. In Indiathe SAT population/land ratio is about 1.7persons/ha, while in SAT Africa it averages only0.14; this means that technology design inthese two regions must embody differentcharacteristics.4 In SAT India, with its abun-dance of animal draft power, ICRISAT has optedfor technologies that use labor and animals butsave scarce land. On the other hand, in SATAfrica the emphasis may be more towardlabor-saving and land-using technologies, withthe possibility of mechanical innovations also(Ryan 1974, Subrahmanyam and Ryan 1975). InSAT India, it seems from the work ofBinswanger (1978a) that, except in special cir-cumstances, tractors may not be a desirablecomponent of newtechnologies. Therefore, ourprimary focus at ICRISAT — particularly infarming systems research for India — has beenon developing improved soil, water, and crop-ping systems that can be implemented withanimal-powered implements supported byhuman labor, resources that are relativelyabundant.

The heterogeneity in the resource endow-ments of the SAT regions of the world has ledICRISAT to use the concepts of induced inno-vation espoused by Hayami and Ruttan (1971)in their now-famous book Agricultural De-velopment: An International Perspective, andsubsequently elaborated by Boyce and Even-son (1975) and Binswanger et al. (1979). Thishas helped guide research resource allocationdecisions and the search for new techniques ofproduction. Although this has often been moreat the macro end of the spectrum (Ryan 1974,1978, Doherty 1978), these concepts are increas-ingly being applied at the micro or farm level(Binswanger et al. 1976, Binswanger and Ryan1977, Ryan and Rathore 1978, Jodha 1978,Doherty 1979).

I n f r as t ruc tu re

There are substantial differences in the infra-structural support systems in the 48 less de-

4. The differences are even more extreme betweencountries: the lowest ratio is in Botswana, with0.02 people/ha, or 1% that of India.

veloped SAT countries. India has a well-developed marketing system for crops (vonOppen 1978a); a widespread road, rail, electri-city, and communications network; rural creditfacilities that are improving each year; large-scale fertilizer and pesticide manufacturing anddistribution facilities; and a sophisticated ag-ricultural research and training network. OtherSAT countries such as Brazil, Mexico, Thailand,Nigeria, Senegal, Rhodesia, and Argentina arealso relatively well-endowed with infra-structural facilities of this type. Even in thesecountries, however, there is an imbalance in theregional distribution of facilities, with the urbanareas and the non-SATagricultural regions withhigher and more assured rainfall generally re-ceiving a disproportionate share of infrastruc-tural investments. Nevertheless, these coun-tries are in a far better position than such SATcountries as Mali, Chad, Sudan, Ethiopia, Niger,and Upper Volta.

In the short run, infrastructural constraintswill mean that all SAT farmers will notbeabletofully adopt technologies that offer high payoffsto investments in purchased inputs such asfertilizers, pesticides, and improved imple-ments; rather, adoption will be a sequentialprocess. ICRISAT must therefore evolvetechnological options that wil l fit the varyinginfrastructural support systems prevailing indifferent SAT countries. At the same time, itshould be recognized that a prerequisite forinfrastructure improvement in these countriesis a demand for improvements such as fertili-zers, credit, roads, markets, and communica-tions, resulting from development of techn-ologies that make profitable use of these inputs.We believe this demand must be there in orderto convince governments and inter-national donor and aid agencies of the need tosupply improved infrastructural facilities. Theseare the precursors of development and growth.Research in the Economics Program by vonOppen and his colleagues (1979) has de-monstrated the gains in productivity that can beachieved from investments in establishingmarkets, in improving roads and communi-.cations, and in enhancing interregional tradeopportunities. Gains from improvements in in-terregional trade flows were shown to be sub-stantially greater under circumstances wheretechnological change is occurring differentiallyin the regions concerned.

59

International and national agricultural re-search institutions must not focus solely oninput and management-intensive technology;other technological options, which make betteruse of the extremely limited infrastructuralfacilities found at present in many SAT coun-tries, must also be a part of the portfolio.5 AsRyan and Subrahmanyam (1975) have shown,there seems to be a real scope for developmentof technological options that offer substantialpayoffs to farmers with limited access to infra-structural facilities while at the same time allow-ing those with better access to reap additionalbenefits. There need be no trade-off made herein designing technologies that offer improvedproductivity and income to farmers regardlessof where they are located on the infrastructuralspectrum; a single package-of-practices ap-proach will not be the correct philosophy in thiscontext.

At ICRISAT we have adopted an approach toresearch that embraces the concept oftechnological options. In the Farming SystemsResearch Program, for example, a series ofexperiments has been under way for severalyears to evaluate the individual and com-plementary effects on yields and yield stabilityof various levels of fertilization, soil and watermanagement, and crop varieties. These aretermed "steps in improved technology"experiments.

The watershed-based research of the FSRPhas aimed at development of soil- and water-management technologies that make use of thenatural drainage unit. In this, we have examinedthe differential effects of various sized water-sheds, with particular emphasis on the scopefor group action among farmers (Doherty andJodha 1977). Are there benefits to be gained byindividual farmers from adoption of parts of thecomplete watershed-management technology,such as the broadbed-and-furrow method ofcultivation? Or will several farmers with con-

5. There is increasing evidence that the national and.international community is recognizing the keyrole of agriculture and its associated infrastructurein the economic growth of less developed coun-tries. For example, after the Sahelian drought ofthe early 1970s, substantial funds were madeavailable to the Sahelian countries to develop theiragricultural sectors.

tiguous land parcels on a watershed have toagree to manage their parcels jointly in order toreap significant gains?6 In addition to beingexamined on research stations at ICRISAT andin cooperating national programs, these issuesare being taken to carefully selected villages inthe SAT. It is only at the village and farm levelsthat such questions can be satisfactorilyanswered, through cooperative experimentswith farmers, national program scientists, andICRISAT scientists working together to identifythe viable elements of prospective technologiesand to learn from each other. (See Binswangerand Ryan, this symposium.)

In the crop improvement program ofICRISAT, the advanced cultivars and lines arebeing selected under high and low levels offertility and management. Before elite lines arereleased to national programs, they are testedto ensure that they are not only superior toexisting cultivars at the higher fertility man-agement levels, but also that they are clearlysuperior at very low levels.

Risk

The SAT environment is a risky one. The risksderive from various sources. Weather is oftenthought of as the most significant factorinfluencing the riskiness of farming in the SAT;however, weed, pest, and disease inci-dence— along with fluctuations in marketprices — are among some of the other majorcontributors. Studies conducted by Barah atICRISAT and reported in Binswanger et al.(1979) have shown that in the regions of SATIndia where there is little irrigation and lowaverage rainfall, the largest component of over-all risk is crop-yield variability rather than pricevariability.7 In the higher rainfall regions and/orthose with a substantial proportion of irrigatedland, the contribution of price risk is higher thanthat of yield risk.

Ryan (1974) calculated the coefficient ofvariation (CV) of yield for the two major SAT

6. In India there are almost five parcels of spatiallyseparated land comprising the average holding(Ryan 1974).

7. Risk was measured as the variance of gross returnsover time from the cropping patterns of the dis-tricts comprising each region.

60

cereals as fol lows:

Coefficient of variationof yields (%)

SAT region

IndiaOther AsiaAfrica south

of SaharaSouth and Central

AmericaNear East and

North west Africa

Average SAT

Sorghum

9.49.8

11.5

17.0

2.3

11.7

Millets

22.214.1

14.9

12.4

11.6

14.4

Generally the CV of annual rainfall in the SATregions rises as the average annual rainfalldecreases; that is, those regions where rainfallis generally lowest are also those where fluctua-tions in annual rainfall are larger. This isreflected in the above table, where the vari-abilities in millet yields are greaterthan those insorghum. Millets are primarily grown in theregions where rainfall is lower and more highlyvariable. In eastern Rajasthan, India, for ex-ample, where millets are mainly grown, theprobability of a drought of moderate or worseseverity is almost one in three. In the sorghum-growing areas such as Andhra Pradesh,Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, and Maharashtra,the probabilities are less than one in four (Ryan1974).

Research at ICRISAT explicitly recognizes thenature and significance of risk facing farmers ofthe SAT. In the Farming Systems ResearchProgram, much of the research is predicated onthe notion that water isthe most limiting naturalfactor in SAT crop production. Research in soiland water management, agroclimatology, en-vironmental physics, and cropping systems isaimed at making more effective and economicuse of rainfall, soil moisture, runoff, andgroundwater for increasing and stabilizingcrop production. In crop improvement, ento-mologists, pathologists, physiologists, andmicrobiologists are working with plant breed-ers to develop cultivars resistant or tolerant tosuch "yield reducers" as insects, pests, patho-gens, drought, and soil nutrient deficiencies.

Success in these programs would mean lessrisk of crop failures.

The field-scale research in development ofimproved soil, water, crop, and implementmanagement technologies at ICRISAT is care-fully monitored by the agronomists, engineers,economists, and anthropologists in a multi-disciplinary team approach extending beyondthe research station into the villages. Not only isthe technical, economic, and social viability ofprospective technologies analyzed, but theireffects on risk are also gauged. For example,such analyses have confirmed that intercrop-ping is not only more profitable than doublecropping but also less risky (Ryan et al. 1979).

Economists have researched the extent anddeterminants of risk in the SAT and of theattitudes of farmers to these risks. In a studyof 330 ruralists in Andhra Pradesh andMaharashtra, Binswanger (1978) found all far-mers moderately risk averse when faced withchoices of varying profits and risks. If thisreflects risk attitudes of SAT farmers in general,it suggests that separate technologies withdifferent risk characteristics for small and largefarmers are not required. Farmers will invest intechnologies that have some risk, provided theprofits are attractive. The fact that small farmersoften may not have participated as much aslarge farmers in previous technological inno-vations may have been due more to unequalaccess to infrastructural support facilities thanto any great aversion to taking risks. Thisresearch therefore suggests that institutionalpolicies are required to give small farmers equalaccess with large farmers to credit and moderninputs.

M a r k e t Parameters and Preferences

The two cereals of ICRISAT's mandate, sor-ghum and pearl millet, and to a lesser extent thetwo pulses, chickpea and pigeonpea, are whatmay be termed staple food in the SAT. As suchwe expect them to be faced with relatively smallprice and income elasticities of demand. That isto say, if their prices fall by 10%, we expectconsumer demand to increase far less than that.If income increases by 10%, we expect con-sumption of these staples to increase onlymarginally and possibly even to decrease.

Very little precise information is available ondemand elasticities. What is available is at an

61

aggregative level, often not suitable for the typeof policy analyses to be undertaken.

The picture with respect to market infor-mation on groundnut is similar to that of thefour foodgrain staples, except that this is a com-modity that enters commercial market channelsto a much greater extent. Raju (1976) estimatedthat in India around 60% of total groundnut pro-duction reaches markets. The figure for sor-ghum and millets is 15 to 20%; for chickpea andpigeonpea, 35 to 40%. With groundnuts, wherenational and international trade occurs in threecomponents — hps (hand-picked selection)kernels, oil, and oilcake — the parameters ofdemand for the various countries are muchmore complex, but still are as necessary toknow as are the parameters of staple foodgraindemand.

If staple foodgrain demand is as inelastic asexpected, then technological change that shiftssupply functions will generate substantial pricedeclines. Hence, the market demand for themcould place constraints on sustained increasesin foodgrain supplies, as farmers subsequentlyreact to their depressed relative prices. By howmuch will farmers' supply respond to changesin these prices? Again, we know very little aboutfarmers' supply response to market pricechanges and to other variables for these fourfoodgrain staples and for groundnuts. ICRISAThas been undertaking research into these ques-tions to help fill the void (Bapna 1976, vonOppen etal. 1979). With the aid of these marketparameters, price and trade policy questionscan be more adequately addressed bypolicymakers in SAT countries, especially thosewhere supplies of these commodities becomemore abundant following technological ad-vances. Policies designed to enhance technol-ogy adoption and increase welfare can also beformulated with these more precisely estimatedparameters.

Consumer preferences for evident and crypticquality characteristics in foodgrains are oftenwell defined and are reflected in differentialprices in the market (von Oppen 1978b, 1978c).Failure of researchers to develop new cultivarswith characteristics acceptable to consumerscan adversely affect adoption and relativeprices. Past experience with some of the newwheat and rice cultivars testifies to this. In SATIndia, for sorghum and pearl millet, we need toconsider factors such as seed size, color mix,

swelling capacity in water, cooking time,chapati-making quality, and protein and caloriecontent. For the pulses, instead of chapati quali-ty, we need to consider dhal-making qualities.In the African SAT, other preparations such ascous-cous, beer, and gruel are considered forthe two cereals.

ICRISAT breeders, biochemists, and econ-omists are working together to determinemore precisely what characteristics consumersprefer, by how much, and whether there isgenetic scope for breeders to manipulate thesevarious attributes into viable grain types thatlose none of the other important characteristicswe are breeding for, such as high and stableyields (von Oppen and Jambunathan 1978).

Human Nut r i t ion

One might say that the problems of inelasticdemands and consumer preferences for thestaple foodgrain crops of the SAT are concernsfor ICRISAT in the short to medium term only.To an extent, this is true, as in the longer runpopulation and income growth are projected bymany agencies to place excessive strains onfood supplies, particularly in SAT countries. Inthe less developed countries, demand forcoarse grains is expected to triple by the year2000. Some 60% will be for human consump-tion and the rest for animals (Kanwar and Ryan1976). Demand for coarse grains in all lessdeveloped countries is estimated to grow by3.23% per year in the future. In the decade from1964 to 1974, the SAT production of sorghumand millets together rose at a compound rate ofonly 2.11% per year, made up of 2.81% forsorghum and 1.24% for millets (Table 1). If thiscontinues into the future, serious imbalances insupply and demand will occur in the less de-veloped countries of the SAT. Studies reviewedby Ryan (1978) suggest these cereal deficitscould be between 17 and 37% by 2000 A.D. If notcorrected by trade flows from developed coun-tries, which are projected to have a demandgrowth of only 2.14% per year with recentproduction trends of 3.48%, the nutritional wel-fare of some of the poorest people in theworld—those of the SAT — will be severelyreduced. This will be especially true in Africa,where cereal deficits are expected to be worsethan in Asia.

A more adverse long-run supply/demand

62

Table 1. Annual compound growth rates offive major crops in the less developedcountries of the SAT during 1964-74.

Crop

SorghumMillets a

ChickpeaPigeonpeaGroundnut

Area(%)

0.710.04

-1.29-0.08-0.40

Yield(%)

2.081.201.460.830.02

Production(%)

2.811.240.150.75

-0.38

a. Includes pearl millet (Pennlsetum amerlcanum), as well asthe minor millets such as Setarias, Panlcums, andEleuslnes.

Source: Ryan (1978).

balance is projected for the pulses than for thecereals. Here the deficit in the less develppedcountries is estimated to be around 50%. Foroilseeds, it will be closer to 40%. India andAfrica are likely to have equally large deficits ofpulses and oilseeds.

The long-run answer to alleviating these pro-jected food deficits is increased crop yields. AsTable 1 and Figure 1 indicate, yields have beenvirtually stagnant for groundnuts and pigeon-peas in less developed countries of the SAT.They have been moderately better for chickpea,millets, and sorghum. In view of the increasingpressure on arable land, particularly in SATAsia, the long-run need is for land-augmentingand capital-saving technological change thatwill have the effect of increasing yields per unitof land and capital. In SAT Africa and SouthAmerica, where land constraints are not asimmediately binding, emphasis should also begiven to labor-augmenting technological inno-vations.

Emphasis on technologies that increase foodproduction per unit of the scarcest resourceswill also directly contribute to the alleviation ofthe major nutritional constraint in the SAT — energy. Studies by Ryan, Yadav, and Sheldrake(reported in Ryan 1977) showed that calories,vitamin A, vitamin B complex, and selectedminerals were the primary nutritional deficien-cies in diets of the people in the SAT, even thosewith low incomes (proteins and amino acidswere not found to be as deficient as was earlierbelieved). Breeding strategies that emphasize

Year ( t )

Figure 1. Yield of five crops grown in less developed countries of the SAT from 1964 to 1974. (Figures in parentheses are t-values.)

yield and yield stability offer the best prospectsfor improving the nutritional well-being of theleast nutritionally and economically affluentgroups in the SAT. This is the primary strategyof ICRISAT, and it finds more support from ananalysis of the net nutritional impact of the newdwarf cultivars of wheat introduced into India inthe mid-1960s. Ryan and Asokan (1977) foundthat, even allowing for the reductions in pulseproduction to which the new wheats contri-buted, the net production of energy, proteins,and amino acids was substantially higher with

63

the new wheats than it would have been with-out them.

Increased yields and production of food-grains have a direct impact on prices and realincomes of the least affluent groups, who spenda large amount of their incomes on thesefoodgrains. Increased real income will enablethem to purchase additional foodgrains andimprove their nutrition. If yield potentials ofcereals, pulses, and oilseeds could all be in-creased, nutritional improvements would fol-low, as these crops have complementary nutri-tional compositions. ICRISAT will continue tosearch for cultivars with better nutrient compos-itions also, as long as this does not unaccepta-bly affect the attainment of increased yield andyield stability.

Ef f i c iency a n d Equ i t y Concerns

As a whole, the SAT region is probably thepoorest in the world, with an average grossdomestic product of about $160/yr per capita(Ryan 1974). The fact that ICRISAT was es-tablished to undertake research for the benefitof the SAT signifies that any productivity gainsthat might result from its efforts wil l directlybenefit the poorest sector of humanity. Theinitial choice of the SAT region and its staplefoodgrain and oilseed crops as the mandates ofICRISAT ensures that efficiency and equity con-siderations at the macro-level are not in conflict.However, there are potential conflicts betweenefficiency and equity concerns as we move tothe regional, village, and farm levels within theSAT.

The first of these relates to the allocation ofresearch resources amongst regions and coun-tries within the SAT, and also among the vari-ous research programs. Research resourcesshould be allocated to achieve maximum pro-ductivity gains consistent with interests of thevarious potential beneficiaries. This is not aneasy task in an ex ante framework (Binswangerand Ryan 1977). It is one where techniques suchas Boyce and Evenson's (1975) congruencetechnique can be helpful, as indeed it has beenat ICRISAT (Ryan 1978).

A second concern is the effect of the unequaldistribution of land on the allocation of researchresources. Biological innovations are usuallydivisible and hence scale-neutral. Scaleeconomies generally arise with mechanical in-

novations. A strategy favoring small farmersshould thus discourage research resource allo-cation to techniques requiring large-scale orexpensive machines. In this context, littleconflict between efficiency and equity shouldarise, since most mechanical innovations arelabor-saving and unlikely to result in largeefficiency gains in low-wage countries. This hasguided ICRISAT in its strategies regarding trac-tors, as mentioned earlier.

There is evidence that large and small far-mers in SAT India do not fit uniformly into twodistinct factor endowment ratio groups. Al-though Ryan and Rathore (1978) found sig-nificant differences in mean levels of factorendowment ratios, these differences were re-duced when factor use ratios were considered.The operation of factor markets in the villageswas such as to tend to equalize factor use ratios,although not completely. Even more relevantwas the fact that variability of factor ratioswithin farm size groups was so large that it wasimpossible to delineate small from large farms.It would seem from this that at the micro-level,the type of technology relevant for large far-mers will not be basically different from that forsmall farmers in factor saving/using charac-teristics. There need not necessarily be a searchfor substantially different technologies forsmall and large farmers. Improving factor mar-ket access and providing for technology optionsshould be all that is required, as was mentionedearlier in this paper.

There may be research activities that mightfavor particular socioeconomic groups andthat can be identified after careful study offarming systems at the village level. For ex-ample, Jodha (1977) found from ICRISAT'sVillage-Level Studies that the practices of inter-c ropp ing and ra iny-season fa l l ow ing /postrainy-season cropping of deeper Vertisolswere more prevalent on the smaller farms inSAT peninsular India. This suggests that suc-cessful research on new intercroppingtechnologies and on technologies that allow a rainy season crop to be grown on deeperVertisols wil l not only have large productivityeffects but will also be of relatively large benefitto smaller farmers. These two problems arereceiving major attention in ICRISAT's FarmingSystems Research Program.

In the Asian SAT, there is a large population oflandless agricultural laborers. There are signs

64

in some of the more densely populated AfricanSAT countries, such as Nigeria, of an emerginglandless labor class. In designing agriculturaltechnology, the interests of this group must notbe forgotten. Labor-using technology will al-ways be in the interests of landless labor;labor-sav ing techno logy w i l l not, asBinswanger and Shetty (1977) point out is thecase with herbicide technology.8

Hired females are a major source of labor inSAT agriculture, especially in India. They aregenerally the most disadvantaged in terms ofwage rates and employment probabilities. Thisseems especially true for those from the land-less households (Ryan and Ghodake 1979). Forthis reason, and because of the negative effectof work participation on female fertility, theirrole must be explicitly considered in the designofnewtechnology. ICRISAT has recognized thisfrom the outset.

Conclusions

The SAT being the poorest region in the world,ICRISAT is committed to strategies that wil l helpalleviate constraints on its food production anddevelopment. Indeed, it seems clear that themajor factor involved in enhancing SAT de-velopment is improving the productivity andstability of food production, thereby allowingthe release of necessary resources for otherdevelopmental activities. The source of much ofthese gains will be agricultural research, towhich national and international programs inthe SAT and other countries are contributing,frequently in cooperation.

In attempting to make these contributions, itis our contention that socioeconomic factors orconstraints must be explicitly considered. Thisis true both in the ex ante framework of researchresource allocation questions and whentechnology is being "marketed." This is a con-tinuing process requiring close collaborationamong scientists of many disciplines. Newsocioeconomic constraints arise almostweekly; research institutions must be able to

8. As the landless also are at the low end of theincome spectrum, ICRISAT's research on thestaple foodgrains will further benefit the landlessvia reduced relative prices of these major items intheir consumer budgets.

evaluate the likely effect of these on agricultureand design appropriate strategic responses.

A good example of this was the substantial oiland fertilizer price rise in the early 1970s. Manyinferred that the oil price rise caused the fer-tilizer price rise; therefore, as oil prices werelikely to rise further in future, new cultivars thatcould yield well wi th zero fertilizers should bethe major focus of plant breeders. The answerwas not as simple as that. Fertilizer prices areindeed affected by oil prices, but not propor-tionately; oil is a small component of fertilizercosts. Fertilizer prices are now almost at theirlowest ebb (in real terms), whereas oil prices areat their highest — a complete reversal of theimplied relationship after the early 1970s oilcrisis! Other factors, such as fertilizer plantcapacity, growth, and demand, are more impor-tant in determining fertilizer prices. The prob-lem of how to respond to the likely futurefertilizer situation still confronts research insti-tutes such as ICRISAT. It involves questionssuch as the likelihood of future relative pricechanges, the scope for developing fertilizer-saving technologies, and their gestationperiods. Scientists of many disciplines are re-quired to sit down and assess these types ofissues together. The stakes are high.

The SAT farmers may be poor in resourcesbut are certainly economically rational agentswil l ing to take some risk on attractive rewards.

Given appropriate incentives from superiortechnologies and appropriate economic poli-cies, farmers can be expected to innovate intheir production and marketing practices. If webetter understand their aspirations and theconstraints under which they operate, technol-ogy design and economic policies are morelikely to fit their needs.

References

BAPNA, S. L. 1976. Production of coarse cereals inIndia: past performance and future prospects.Presented at the Symposium on Production, Pro-cessing, and Utilization of Maize, Sorghum, andMillets. Central Food Technological Research Insti-tute, 27-29 Dec 1976, Mysore, India.

65

BINSWANGER, H. P. 1978a. The economics of tractorsin South Asia: An analytical review. New York:Singapore University Press, ADC/ICRISAT.

BINSWANGER, H. P. 1978b. Risk attitudes of ruralhouseholds in semi-arid tropical India. Economicand Political Weekly (Review of Agriculture) 13 (25).

BINSWANGER, H. P., and RUTTAN, V. W. (eds.). 1978.

Induced innovation: Technology, institutions, anddevelopment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.

BINSWANGER, H. P., and RYAN, J. G. 1977. Efficiency

and equity issues in ex ante allocation of researchresources. Indjan Journal of Agricultural Economics32(31:217-231.

BINSWANGER, H. P., and SHETTY, S. V. R. 1977.

Economic aspects of weed control in semi-aridtropical areas of India. ICRISAT EconomicsProgram occasional paper 13.

BINSWANGER, H. P., JODHA, N. S., and BARAH, B. C. 1979.

The nature and significance of risk in the semi-aridtropics. Presented at the International Workshop onthe Socioeconomic Constraints to Development ofSemi-Arid Tropical Agriculture. ICRISAT, 19-23 Feb1979, Hyderabad, India. Proceedings in prepa-ration.

BINSWANGER, H. P., KRANTZ, B. A., and VIRMANI, S. M.

1976. The role of the International Crops ResearchInstitute for the Semi-Arid Tropics in farmingsystems research. ICRISAT Economics Program re-port.

BOYCE, J. K., and EVENSON, R. E. 1975. Agricultural

research and extension programs. New York: Ag-ricultural Development Council.

DOHERTY, V. S. 1978. Human population in relation toagricultural development. ICRISAT EconomicsProgram discussion paper 6.

DOHERTY, V. S., and JODHA, N. S. 1977. Conditions for

group action among farmers. ICRISAT EconomicsProgram occasional paper 19.

HAYAMI, Y., and RUTTAN, V. W. 1971. Agricultural

development: An international perspective. Balti-more: Johns Hopkins University Press.

JODHA, N. S. 1977. Resource base as a determinant ofcropping patterns. ICRISAT Economics Programoccasional paper 15.

JODHA, N. S. 1978a. Effectiveness of farmers'adjustment to risk. Economic and Political Weekly(Review of Agriculture) 13 (25).

JODHA, N. S. 1978b. Production patterns anddynamics of resource use in arid and semi-aridtropical India. ICRISAT Economics Program discus-sion paper 4.

KANWAR, J. S., and RYAN, J, G. 1976. Recent trendsin world sorghum and millet production andsome possible future developments. Presented atthe Symposium on Production, Processing, andUtilization of Maize, Sorghum, and Millets. CentralFood Technological Research Institute, 27-29 Dec1976, Mysore, India.

MAMDANI , M. 1972. The myth of population control.New York and London: Monthly Review Press.

PRESTON, S. H. 1976. Causes and consequences ofmorality declines in less developed countries duringthe twentieth century. New York: National Bureau ofEconomic Research.

RAJU, V. T. 1976. Market surplus of farm products inIndia: Literature review. ICRISAT Economics Prog-ram report.

R A M , R., and SCHULTZ, T. W. 1977. Some economicimplications of increase in life-span with specialreference to India. Chicago: University of ChicagoHuman Capital Paper 77:4.

RYAN, J. G. 1974. Socioeconomic aspects of agricul-tural development in the semi-arid tropics. ICRISATEconomics Program occasional paper 6.

RYAN, J. G. 1977. Human nutritional needs and cropbreeding objectives in the Indian semi-arid tropics.Indian Journal of Agr icu l tura l Economics32(3):78-87.

RYAN, J. G. 1978. Agriculture and research in thesemi-arid tropics. In Quinquennial Review ofICRISAT. Patancheru, A. P., India: ICRISAT.

RYAN, J. G., and ASOKAN, M. 1977. Effect of green

revolution in wheat on production of pulses andnutrients in India. Indian Journal of AgriculturalEconomics 32(3):8-15.

RYAN, J. G., and GHODAKE, R. D. 1979. Labor marketbehavior in rural villages of peninsular India: effectsof season, sex, and socioeconomic status. Pre-sented at the ADC/ICRISAT Conference on Adjust-ment Mechanism of Rural Labor Markets in De-veloping Areas. ADC/ICRISAT, 22-24 Aug 1979,Patancheru, A. P., India. Proceedings in prepa-ration.

RYAN, J. G., and RATHORE, M. S. 1978. Factor propor-

tions, factor market access, and the developmentand transfer of technology. Presented at the seminaron Economic Problems in Transfer of Technology.Indian Agricultural Research Institute, 9-10Nov 1978, New Delhi, India.

RYAN, J. G., and SUBRAHMANYAM, K. V. 1975. An

appraisal of the package-of-practices approach inadoption of modern varieties. ICRISAT EconomicsProgram occasional paper 11.

66

RYAN, J. G., GHODAKE, R. D., and SARIN, R. 1979.

Labor use and labor markets in semi-arid tropicalrural villages of peninsular India. Presented at theInternational Workshop on Socioeconomic Con-straints to Development of Semi-Arid Tropical Ag-riculture. ICRISAT, 19-23 Feb 1979, Hyderabad,India. Proceedings in preparation.

SCHULTZ, T. W. 1975. The value of the ability to dealwith disequilibria. Journal of Economic Literature8:827-846.

SUBRAHMANYAM, K. V., and RYAN, J. G. 1975. Live-

stock as a source of power in Indian agriculture:brief review. ICRISAT Economics Program occa-sional paper 12.

VON OPPEN, M. 1978a. An attempt to explain theeffects of consumers' quality preferences on pricesof foodgrains at different levels of productivity.-ICRISAT Economics Program discussion paper 8.

VON OPPEN, M. 1978b. The effects of interregionaltrade and market infrastructure on aggregationproductivity of agriculture. ICRISAT EconomicsProgram report.

VON OPPEN, M. 1978c. A preference index of foodgrains to facilitate selection for consumer accep-tance. ICRISAT Economics Program discussionpaper 7.

VON OPPEN, M., and JAMBUNATHAN, R. 1978. Con-

sumer preferences for cryptic and evident qualitycharacters of sorghum and millet. Presented at theDiamond Jubilee Scientific Session of the NationalInstitute of Nutrition, Hyderabad, India.

VON OPPEN, M., RAJU, V. T., and BAPNA, S. L. 1979.

Foodgrain marketing and agricultural developmentin India. Presented at the International Workshop onthe Socioeconomic Constraints to Development ofSemi-Arid Tropical Agriculture. ICRISAT, 19-23 Feb1979, Hyderabad, India. Proceedings in preparation.

World Bank. 1974. Population policies and economicdevelopment: a World Bank staff report. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.

67

Summary of Discuss ion — Session 2

Dr. Govindaswamy asked what the incentivesare for farmers to adopt innovations. Dr. Ryanreplied that the availability of technologicaloptions would be one of the primary incentives.Sometimes these must be accompanied byinstitutional incentives, such as the provision ofinfrastructure support, to enable effective use ofthe technology. Thus, technology and institu-tional policy would provide the major in-centives for innovation.

Dr. Daulat Singh asked how one deals withsocial and economic stratification in providingincentives for the farmer who has no surplusproduce to market. Dr. Ryan said that this was inthe realm of governmental policy and thusoutside the proper scope of ICRISAT research.However, ICRISAT is aware of and sensitive tothe implications of these socioeconomicrealities. Operationally, the Institute addressesthe issue by developing technological optionsrather than a single package of practices thatmight be at variance with the resources availa-ble to farmers in this stratum. But it must also berecognized that there is a limit to how muchtechnological change can do to redress socialbiases.

Dr. Cummings observed that although solv-ing some of these problems was outside therealm of research in an international institute,identifying the problems might well be withinits scope.

Dr. Ryan was asked what strategy ICRISATwas adopting to cover or reduce risk in SATfarming. He said the strategy is definitely di-rected at the risk question and cited four in-stances:

1. As the papers on crop improvement indi-cated, research is aimed at alleviating theadverse effects of diseases, pests,drought, and other yield reducers on themain SAT crops. This will automaticallyincrease yields. This strategy of attackingthe yield reducers will probably be a majorcontribution to reducing or diffusing risksof farming in the semi-arid tropics.

2. The performance of new technology — whether involved in crop improvement orfarming systems — is assessed not only in

terms of the average rate of profitabilitybut also of the variability of those profitsand the probability with which they can beachieved.

3. It is important to understand the farmer'sattitudes towards risk. Thus ICRISAT isstudying the attitudes of SAT Indian far-mers to different options that generatedifferent types of risks and payoffs.Though this needs further study, thefindings thus far indicate that it may not benecessary to develop one type of technol-ogy (in terms of risk) for the small farmerand another for the large farmer.

4. ICRISAT is studying the institutional orpolicy mechanisms — crop insurance, forexample —that also help diffuse risk. Dr.Cummings added that the institutional fac-tors to be considered would include pricesupport and price stabilization policies,storage facilities, and availability of mar-kets and of input supplies.

The three papers on crop improvement iden-tified a number of the risks — such as diseases,pests, parasites, weeds, and the technology forovercoming these. One of the major risks is theuncertainty of moisture supply. Intercropping,intercepting water, and improving infiltration toget through dry periods more effectively aretechnological means of overcoming at leastsome of the risks involved. If these risks and theextent to which technology can reduce themcan be identified and quantified, this might givethe farmer a better chance to make choices.

Dr. Kampen was asked whether it would bepossible for a research program such asICRISAT's to indicate the kinds and magnitudeof assistance that might be given to rainfedagriculture in comparison wi th the subsidiesand assistance given to irrigated agriculture.

He said that, while it was not the task ofICRISAT to develop any prescriptions in thisregard, it could indicate what the alternativesare. Today traditional large-scale irrigation pro-jects are implemented at costs ranging fromRs. 15 000 to Rs. 30 000 ($1875 to $3750)/ha inthe developing world. Region-specific andlocation-specific researchthat closely examines

69

how to make the best use of available resourcescould lead to substantially decreased risk andincreased security at a fraction of the cost oflarge-scale irrigation.

Dr. Cummings commented that governmentsinvest large sums in drought relief and publicworks in times of stress. If quantitativeparameters could be worked out around thecosts and benefits of some of these programs,governments might have better guidelines formaking investment decisions.

It was suggested that construction of largereservoirs continue to be needed as they servemany other purposes — electricity generation,flood control, etc. — besides irrigation. How-ever, small farm ponds have been used over theages to store excess rainwater in South Indiaand this practice could be extended to otherSAT regions. The government could undertaketo desilt existing tanks and expand them, on a watershed basis. Relative costs of such opera-tions should be worked out.

Dr. Ryan was asked to what extent ICRISATprograms — herbicide research or nutritionalstudies, for instance — are assessed beforethey are undertaken, for the possible or proba-ble benefits that would accrue to the targetgroup.

He stated that economists at ICRISAT areencouraged to look closely at the value anddesirability of programs from this perspective.Herbicide research in the Indian context, forinstance, is unlikely to form a desirable compo-nent of improved farming systems unless her-bicides can give substantial yield advantagesover conventional weed control methods. Her-bicide use might displace large numbers offemale hired laborers, the most disadvantagedgroup in SAT India. In the SAT African context,the picture is quite different, because laborconstraints loom large there; any herbicideresearch, therefore, must focus on SAT Africa.

Regarding nutritional priorities in the breed-ing program, nutritional status and needs in theSAT have been closely examined; this hasgenerated much basic research on questions ofprotein and lysine content, for instance. Scien-tists are always on the lookout for a something-for-nothing in this area, but other priorities willnot be sacrificed for this.

Dr. Patil observed that the development ofweed-resistant varieties would be a welcomeaid to small and marginal farmers, who work for

wages on large farms and are seldom able toattend closely to their own crops during thecritical first 30 or 40 days when weed competi-tion is strongest.

In answer to a question on the interactionbetween desirable rates of fertilization andwater management and water supply, Dr.Kampen stated that this was extremely impor-tant in terms of model development aimed atextrapolating results. Substantially improvedwater conservation and water use would gohand in hand with increased use of other inputs,including fertilizer. Dr. Cummings added thatwhile this had been an important philosophicconsideration in planning the research pro-gram, quantitative evaluation has not yet takena prominent place in the program.

Dr. Blumenschein asked whether, in terms oftechnology transfer, ICRISAT built up a farmingsystem from its components or attempted totransfer the entire system. Dr. Kampen statedthat ICRISAT's objective was to identify viablesystems and critical components in thesesystems, at different levels of sophistication.Dr. Ryan added that hardly any farmer wouldadopt the entire package at one time. Depend-ing on managerial capabilities, he might adoptone component or another; however, he mighttake the package sequentially.

70

Session 3

Transfer of Agr icu l tu ra lTechnology

Chairman: K. M. Badruddoza Rapporteurs: R. J. Wil l iamsCo-Chairman: A. R. Melv i l le R. P- Thakur

F. R. BidingerG. Alagarswamy

Problems and Concepts o f Ag ro techno logyTransfer Wi th in t he Trop ics

L. D. Swindale*

Abstract

Agrotechnology transfer among countries or between regions within countries has constraints and problems additional to those associated with the diffusion of innova-tions. Site-factor constraints, the appropriateness of the transferred technology, social, economic, and institutional constraints must all be recognized and conceptualized.

Seechcentered technology has the fewest constraints and has been a major means for agrotechnology transfer. New soil management or cropping systems technology is more difficult to transfer. Stratification of the environment either through soil or climate classification is an essential element.

A national capacity for agricultural research is also essential. The international agricultural research centers assist in the research needed for transfer and in the creation of awareness of the existence of technology and its acceptance.

Over the last 7 years on the research farm atICRISAT, Dr. Bert Krantz (now retired) and hiscolleagues in the ICRISAT Farming SystemsResearch Program developed a newtechnologythat could enable rainy-season use of the deepblack Vertisols of the semi-arid tropics. Weestimate that 15 mill ion hectares of these soilslie fallow at the t ime of the year when water ismost available — in the rainy season — forwant of a technology suited to the needs of thegenerally poorly endowed farmers who live inthese areas. Dr. Krantz and his colleagues atICRISAT chose a small number of alternativecombinations incorporating all the many com-ponents required for testing in complete water-sheds at a near-operational scale, on the re-search farm of ICRISAT. Their choices proved tobe wise and effective, and over the last 7 years,making minor modifications as they wentalong, they have developed a technology thatwe believe is scientifically sound and oper-ationally feasible. It offers a hope for sub-stantially increased food production from thesesoils and substantially improved incomes andstandards of living for the small farmers andtheir families.

The technology is complex and complete,involving many factors and many new prac-

* Director General of ICRISAT.

tices; however, as scientists have shown, it canbe adopted piecemeal, although none of thepieces bring the advantages that the entiretechnology does. How, now, do we transfer thisagricultural technology?

There are many examples that can be given,such as the one cited, of biological and physicalresearch in agriculture that is specific to thelocation in which it was conducted. Its value inother areas can only be proven by adaptiveresearch that may take as long to complete asthe initial research did. Many people concernedto help the farmer or busy with developmentprojects decry this fact. But little effort has beenmade in the past to overcome it. The actionpeople are eager to proceed and the re-searchers cautious to recommend.

Let me give you another example in farmingsystems technology. The soils on the centralplateaus of West Africa are typically of lowfertility, highly erodible, and shallow. Vertisols,inherently more fertile and deeper, occur in theriver valleys. Because of the danger of riverblindness, there are few people in the valleysand many people on the poorer soils of theplateaus. Money is being spent to bring riverblindness under control and resettle the peoplefrom the plateaus, and the action agenciesinvolved have recommended that ICRISAT testits new technology in pilot projects on theVertisols in the valleys. Recently a panel of

73

scientists with considerable knowledge of con-ditions in Africa came to ICRISAT to review ourprograms. They looked at our farming systemsresearch and, after careful consideration, re-commended that ICRISATshould conduct moreresearch in African conditions before makingrecommendations there for development pro-jects. This is the quandary. The panel is un-doubtedly correct in saying that ICRISAT musthelp with farming systems research in Africa,and the development agencies are undoubtedlycorrect in pointing out that people need help.

I believe that the solution to this problem liesin the development of concepts and methods ofagrotechnology transfer that wil l allow us todetermine, with reasonable accuracy and forpractical purposes, where new researchfindings can be implemented in pilot-scale de-monstrations and where they cannot. In relationto the example I have given, I am sure that thereare locations in Africa that could benefit fromthe immediate implementation of pilot projectsutilizing the farming systems technology de-veloped for the deep Vertisols at ICRISAT.

I must make it clear that the emphasis in thispaper is on transfer of technology amongcountries or between regions within countries. I wil l make passing reference to the acceptanceof new ideas and technologies by farmers, butthis is essentially another subject, closely inter-related and certainly of great importance andinterest, but outside my purpose.

A second point of clarification is to emphasizethat this paper limits itself to considerations oftropical environments. Although conceptsshould apply generally, we know full well thatthere are serious limitations to the transfer ofagricultural technology between temperate andtropical environments, and I will not addressthem. There are enough problems and con-straints within the tropics.

Technology w i t h LowSite-Factor Constraints

The problems involved in transferring tech-nology are different for technologies that arehighly site-specific and those that are not. Seedis an example of technology with low site-factorconstraints. The value of the international ag-ricultural research centers so far has beenmainly in the transfer of technology throughseed.

Seed is easily transported — with due al-lowance for quarantine — and purchase pricesare comparatively low. The widespread adop-t/on of improved varieties and hybrids through-out the world is clear evidence that seed is aneffective vehicle for agrotechnology transfer.But there are difficulties that cannot be over-looked.

Env i ronmen ta l D i f fe rences

Within the tropics, there are differences in soilsand climates. The more similar the environ-ments, including the spectrum of diseases andpests, the more likely that successful cultivarscan be selected for local use from introductions.In other localities, introductions may contributenothing of immediate value.

In areas where local farmers' varieties arewidely grown, usually with minimum inputs,there is often a balance between the crop and itsdiseases and pests. The balance is precarious.The introduction of new varieties or hybridsmay disturb the balance, with disastrous effectsupon production. Cultivars with single-generesistance to disease are examples.

In response to these problems, the interna-tional agricultural research centers have av-oided narrowly adapted hybrids; they seek outcultivars with wide adaptability, and stability,insensitive to photoperiod and with polygeneticresistance to diseases and pests.

L i m i t a t i o n s o f P lant Breed ing

The number of characteristics considered de-sirable in a plant and its seed exceeds thenumber of criteria a plant breeder can handle inhis research. And different crops have differentlinkages between characteristics and differentdegrees of difficulty in breeding. For many treecrops, for example, local selection for a fewmajor criteria and asexual propagation ofselected cultivars are the only techniques pos-sible, and transferability is very limited. Evenwhere large population breeding programswith cross-pollinated crops are possible, thenumber of criteria incorporable are l imited, andcompromises must be made by the breeder.Every compromise limits the transferability ofthe resulting seed.

Particularly difficult to match are the criteriafor consumer preference, especially for staple

74

cereals and particularly where improved cul-tivars are required to replace traditional va-rieties. Not only are these criteria difficult tomeasure, they are also variable over shortdistances. Much seed is needed in tests foracceptability, and the tests can be carried outonly after harvest. While these problems limitthe ability to breed for quality, they do notreduce the necessity of doing so.

Surprising as it may seem, there are stillexamples of substantial resources being spenton breeding for the wrong criteria. Internationalcooperative networks may be particularly sus-ceptible to this problem. Breeders' or planningagencies' preferences are substituted forfarmers' needs or consumers' preferences.Breeding for the wrong maturity or for nutri-tional criteria or for high levels of managementare examples. In each case the value of the seedis lowered to the extent that it attempts totransfer inappropriate technology.

Trans fe r o f Un f in i shed Techno logy

The clients of the international agricultural re-search centers are the scientists of the nationsof the developing world. It is their responsibilityto produce the agricultural technologies andnew cultivars for their nations. The centers'roles are to undertake research that contributesto that goal. The stronger the national researchprograms, the less need there is for directtransfer of technology. Such national programscan best use unfinished technology and scien-tific knowledge.

For seed-centered technology, the centersmust aim at increasing the genetic diversityavailable to national scientists, provide early-generation breeding material, and develop in-formation about the most efficient breedingmethodologies for different purposes in thevarious commodities. They must emphasizebreeding for broad adaptability to ensure thatsite-factor constraints remain low.

The International Federation for AgriculturalResearch and Development (IFARD), an organi-zation of national administrators of agriculturalresearch programs in developing countries, hasrecommended that in the long run the interna-tional agricultural research centers should con-centrate in their crop improvement work uponthe transfer of unfinished technology and scien-tific principles, that is:

• the collection and maintenance of geneticresources

• the production of advanced breedingmaterial

• basic research on the mandate crops• the organization of symposia• the dissemination of information

Technologies w i t h HighSite-Factor Constraints

Farming systems involving new soil-man-agement practices are examples of tech-nologies with high site-factor constraints. A soil is part of the landscape. Unlike a seed, itcannot be moved physically from place to place.Soils are variable and tropical soils are morevariable than temperate soils (Moorman 1972).Transference of such technology must take intoaccount the differences in environmental andsocioeconomic conditions. Local efforts inadaptive research will always be needed, butthese can be significantly reduced if the en-vironmental differences between the experi-mental location and the transfer location are nottoo marked.

Concep ts o f Trans fer

Nix (1968) has suggested that there are threedifferent, but not mutually exclusive, ap-proaches to predicting the success of the trans-fer of site-specific agricultural technology.

Analogue Transfer

Areas analogous to the experimental site areidentified by soil and/or climatic classification.The attempt is to stratify the environmentsufficiently precisely to ensure successful trans-fer. Three papers in this symposium, by Nix,Virmani, and Gill, will deal in detail with thisapproach. To my knowledge, however, onlyanalogue methods using soil classification havebeen experimentally tested.

The Benchmark Soils Project of the Univer-sities of Hawaii and Puerto Rico in cooperationwith USAID (Swindale 1978, Gill, this sym-posium) provides a successful approach to thetransfer of agricultural technology with highsite-factor constraints. It combines use of thenew Soil Taxonomy with the methods of soil

75

survey interpretations, the benchmark soilsconcept, and a systematic, sequential approachto agronomic research.

Site-factor Me thods

Site-factor methods seek to relate key parame-ters to biological productivity within a givenenvironment (Nix 1968). The most widely usedmethod for this purpose is multiple linear re-gression. An example of such methods is thework of Voss etal. (1970), who used a regressionequation involving variables of N, P, and K levels applied and occurring naturally in thesoils; soil pH; previous soil use; and an index ofsoil type and erodibility to explain and predictmaize yields in a large area of western Iowa.Earlier, Laird and Cady (1969) had producedregression equations relating soils, soil man-agement, and fertilizer applications to maizeyields in Mexico. More recently, Heady (1974)has produced equations for cotton and cornproduction under irrigation in the westernUnited States and Culot (1974) for wheat pro-duction in Chile. In these examples and othersin the literature, site-factor variables are in-cluded in the regression equations, therebyallowing them to be applied over a wide area.To use these methods, experiments are neces-sary in a range of site and environmentalconditions to ensure that the final equationshave validity over the full range of sites.

S imu la t i on

Simulation models attempt to develop, com-bine, and utilize the physical laws that governbiological processes, and inherently theyshould be the most efficient methods for over-coming high site-factor constraints. However,the incompleteness of scientific knowledge andthe complexity of the models are barriers totheir use, and there are few examples of theirsuccessful application outside the immediateenvironments in which they were developed.

The dynamic grain sorghum growth modeldeveloped by Arkin et al. (1976) has been usedsuccessfully at Manhattan, Kansas, USA, in a temperate semi-arid climate and is now beingtested in the semi-arid tropics at ICRISAT by theagroclimatology research group. Some in-teresting early results suggest that opt imumyields of short-duration sorghum may be

obtained in soils with 150-mm water-holdingcapacity, and opt imum yields of long-durationsorghum may be obtained in soils with 200-mmwater-holding capacity. The tests indicate thatadaptive research on the model is necessary.

Trans fe r o f Concep ts a n d M e t h o d s

The work of any research center is necessarilyconfined to a small number of specific lo-cations. The highly site-specific technology itdevelops is not transferable to any significantextent. The center must concentrate instead onextracting concepts or principles from this typeof technology, and explaining and refining themethods used to develop and monitor theeffects. This is more easily said than done.Research to elucidate principles and cause-and-effect relationships requires good under-standing of theory, careful design of experi-ments, and the use of the scientific method.Furthermore, where indigenous research in-stitutions are not strong, the principles andmethods may need to be applied by the centerto one or two locations in cooperation withnational scientists to overcome the complexitybarriers between scientific knowledge and thetechnologies that can be developed from it.

Intercropping research has high site-factorconstraints. ICRISAT's intercropping programhas concentrated on concept and method de-velopment while at the same time it is succeed-ing in developing new information usable inadjacent farming systems (Willey 1979, Natara-jan and Willey 1979). The crop combinationspossible in intercropping are numerous, andthe number of experiments that can be devisedare more numerous still. Careful considerationof the objectives of intercropping, the minimumnumber of crop combinations necessary toinvestigate, the measurements to be used todetermine advance, and the measurements andexperiments needed to understand what physi-cal, chemical, and biological phenomena areinvolved, provide a conceptual and meth-odological framework that is transferable.

The Need f o r On-s i te Tes t i ng

At present, the transfer of technology with highsite-factor constraints can best be made byanalogue methods using soil and climatic'

76

criteria, both from the point of view of precisionand of distance.

Regardless of the methods used for transfer-ring technology, and regardless of the mag-nitude of site-factor constraints, new agri-cultural technology must be subjected to on-site testing. Differences in relative endow-ments, environments, cultures, and institutionsensure that no two regions, indeed no twofarms, are alike.

Testing technology with few components isnot difficult using conventional field plottechniques, but several years of testing arenecessary. More complex technology will takelonger to test and will require operational-scaleresearch and even pilot-scale testing beforesuccessful adoption.

Appropr ia te Technology

The need to develop technologies appropriateto conditions in developing countries is thesubject of much controversy. Inappropriatetechnologies, it is said, lead to unemployment,the waste of scarce resources, destruction of theenvironment and the disturbance of socio-cultural equilibria. The other side of the debateclaims that emphasis on appropr ia tetechnologies will retard development, per-petuate poverty, and shore up degenerate cul-tures. For the international agricultural researchcenters, there is the additional problem ofdetermining whether the technology must beappropriate to client groups of scientists ortarget groups of farmers and consumers.

I nduced Innova t ions

The theory that technical innovations are partlyor largely induced by prevailing economic con-ditions was first explored in agriculture byHayami and Ruttan (1971). According to thistheory, the needs of farmers stimulate laggingtechnical changes, including those produced byresearch in public-sponsored institutions. Re-searchers respond to information on farmprofitability, pressure from farmer organi-zations and agricultural supply firms, and theincentives for professional recognition to de-velop technologies appropriate to needs.

In developing countries, research may benecessaryto col lectthistypeof information. For

the last 4 years, ICRISAT has been carrying out a series of studies in villages at six locations insemi-arid India for such a purpose (Binswangerand Ryan, this symposium). The results havehad profound influences on the direction ofICRISAT's research and the nature of technol-ogy that has been devised. The ecological/environmental area defined by these villageswill determine the boundaries within which thebiological and physical technologies developedare appropriate. Similar information must becollected elsewhere in India, from Africa, andLatin America, or research must be done toobtain it if it is not yet available.

Perce ived Risk

Agriculture is a risky business. Farmers under-invest if the risks of crop loss or catastrophe are,or seem, too high (Binswanger et al. 1979). Weneed, therefore, an accurate idea of farmers'attitudes to risk in different areas, and theriskiness of different technologies. Risk aver-sion is associated with climatic variation, pricesand factor costs, sociocultural conditions, andgovernment famine-prevention policies. Theresults achieved so far in the study mentionedabove are that (a) levels of income risk in theIndian SAT are high and are related more to lossof yield than to loss of price, (b) virtually allfarmers are moderately or slightly risk averse,and (c) they do not have access to cheapself-insurance or effective risk diffusiontechniques.

In view of these results, it is appropriate inseed-centered research to emphasize yields ashigh as are consistent with yield stability. Inresource-centered research, it is appropriate todiscount adverse biological events with rela-tively low probabilities of occurrence — say1 year in 10 or less — and to give researchpriorities to farming systems that farmers usenaturally to diffuse risk, such as intercropping,postrainy-season production, and the provisionof life-saving water where necessary.

Inapp l i cab le or Inappropr ia teTechno logy

Appropriate technology may prove inappro-priate if the information gathered about far-mers' needs and resource endowments is in-applicable or inaccurate. A case in point is the

77

use of bullocks versus tractors in farming sys-tems technology. We are proud of our bullock-powered technology at ICRISAT. To many visi-tors, it is proof of the relevance and appliednature of ICRISAT research. But to some, it isinapplicabletothe socioeconomic conditions inwhich they are working; tractor power may befor them the appropriate answer, and the im-portant question becomes what size of tractorto use. It is necessary for our researchers toconcentrate not on the bullocks themselves, buton the power requirements and efficiencies ofvarious cultural operations. The choice ofpower source is thus released from the tech-nology to be transferred.

Even in semi-arid India, the information onbullocks versus tractors may be inaccurate. Ourresearch gives us many of the reasons whyfarmers decide the way they do, but not all thereasons and perhaps not the significantreasons. If that is so, our technology based onbullocks may yet prove to be inappropriate.

What is essential and possible in agricultureto partly offset the problems of appropriate orinappropriate technology is to provide a rangeof technological options, for example, a numberof alternative cropping patterns for use within a single overall farming system. There is someevidence to suggest that in developing-countryagriculture, there is a range of potentiallyeconomic input choices for important types ofoutput (Hayami and Ruttan 1971). Furthermore,the process of decision-making on small familyfarms is not well understood, and it is surelywrong to assume that maximization of profits inthe customary sense is the main objective onsubsistence farms in which most of the labor issupplied from within the family.

Socioeconomicand Inst i tu t ional Issues

There are institutional and social issues andcosts involved in the transfer of technology, asthere are in the diffusion of innovations. Theissues are often the same and many are coveredin the copious literature on innovation diffusion (see, for example, Beal and Bohlen 1957, Rogers1962). There are, however, some unique issuesinvolved. The largest of these is national plan-ning for development. Centralized planningand the issuance of regular multi-year plans

are normal procedures in most developingcountries. Much of the planning deals with ag-riculture, because in these countries about 65%of the people are directly involved with agricul-tural production. National planning objectivesinclude (Eckhaus 1977):

1. Maximizing of net national output andincome

2. Maximizing of availability of consumergoods

3. Maximiz ing of the rate of economicgrowth

4. Reduction of unemployment5. Redistribution of income and wealth6. Regional development7. Balance of payments relief8. Promotion of political development and

national political goals9. Improvement in the quality of life

10. Self-relianceThe mix of these objectives will influence the

transfer of agricultural technology, particularlyfrom other lands, and transferred technologywill induce changes in the mix of objectives.

S o c i o e c o n o m i c C o n s t r a i n t s

Ryan and Binswanger at this symposium havediscussed the socioeconomic constraints to thetransfer of technology. Population increase andits attendant effects on the allocation of re-sources, factor endowments and use, and dif-ferences in market parameters are described asmajor issues. Information about these con-straints is used at ICRISAT in the design oftechnology appropriate for transfer.

Transfer of technology is not without itscosts. There are the costs of adaptive researchand the costs of inadequate understanding orappreciation of the limitations of conditions.New technology may cause equipment tobecome obsolete before the end of its usefullife.

The input requirements of one technology areusually different from those of another. This canbe a major constra int in the adopt ion oftechnology. Much of the recent literature on theeconomics of technology transfer (for example,Hayami and Ruttan 1971; Evenson andBinswanger 1978) has dealt with this subjectand its relevance to the ex ante analysis of ag-rotechnology transfer.

78

Nat iona l A g r i c u l t u r a l Research

A technological society must be dynamic. Touse an agricultural illustration, the successfulintroduction of the first hybrid seed for any croprequires automatically that further hybrids bedeveloped. No amount of successful transfer ofagricultural technology from outside can re-place the need for an adequate national re-search program.

Hayami and Ruttan (1971) theorize that themost serious constraint to agrotechnologytransfer is the lack of national research capacity.Evenson and Binswanger (1978) have shown byempirical analysis of the transfer of wheat andrice varieties around the world that no transferof improved technology occurs in the absenceof indigenous agricultural research. Someadaptive research is always necessary. A smallnational research effort on a particular com-modity will screen and transfer only relativelysimple technology with low site-factor con-straints. A large, mature national research effortwill have many more options. It will be morecapable of transferring technology with highsite-factor constraints but will tend to be mostinterested in t rans fer r ing pr inc ip les andmethods and advanced scientific knowledge.

The In te rna t i ona l A g r i c u l t u r a lResearch Centers

The international agricultural research centers(lARCs) were created specifically to assist in thetransfer of agricultural technology. Long beforeany of the centers were establ ished, the colonialpowers were conducting agricultural researchin the developing world. The research concen-trated on cash crops of export value. The cen-ters were established for a different purpose: toincrease production of major food crops.

The earliest centers, CIMMYT and IRRI, weregiven the objectives of improving production ofthe major commercial food crops. ICRISAT, onthe other h a n d — t h e first center actual lycreated by the CGIAR after its formation in1971 —was given the objectives of improvingproduction of major subsistence food crops andthe way of life in the tropics.

The work of the centers is well enough under-stood to need no further explanation at thissymposium. Several activities of the centers

have been described in this paper, particularlythose designed to assist easier transfer oftechnology through the development of ap-propriate technology, conduct ing mul t i lo-cational trials, and training. Conferences suchas this are another important aspect of the workof the centers. They help create awareness ofnew technology and provide information to thecenters for planning future activities.

Tra in ing in the Internat ional Centers

Training contributes directly to technologytransfer. It helps create awareness of the ex-istence of the technology. Training is necessaryfor t ransfer of complex techno logy andtechnology with high site-factor constraints, toprovide insight into the underlying principlesand inherent limitations. The international ag-ricultural research centers conduct regulartraining programs.

Probablythe training program with which thelARCs are best identified is the short-term (onecropping season) in-service development ofpractical research skills. Although the programincludes other aspects of research and someexposure to issues of research management, itis strongly oriented to improving technical skillsfor product ion technology and particularlyplant-breeding technology. Implicit in the pro-gram, according to Swanson (1977), is thejudgment that the institutions from which thetrainees come have not themselves developedthese skills well enough, and are therefore notfully effective in producing the new biologicaltechnologies needed for their countries.

Of equal importance in terms of numbers andemphasis in some centers are the programsinvolving research scholars and young scien-tists. The programs also involve the develop-ment of technical ski l ls, but g ive largeremphasis to the development of professionalskills in research design and analysis. Theseprograms make no judgment on the abilities ofnational programs to organize effective agricul-tural research.

Trainees, after they return to their countries,often participate directly in the internationalmult i locational trials conducted by centers.They contribute to making the trials more uni-form and more meaningful. For both of thesereasons, training reduces some of the costs oftechnology transfer.

79

C r e a t i n g A w a r e n e s s a n d A c c e p t a n c eo f T e c h n o l o g y

As mentioned above, training serves the pur-pose of creating awareness of the existence oftechnology. So too do scientific visits and con-ferences and communications and informationservices. Surveying the opportunities to gainknowledge about new technologies gives onethe impression that there should be no difficultyin creating awareness. In fact there is, becausethese services are not always effective. Thereasons lie in certain complexity barriers to theacceptance of new knowledge.

Technology that is both transferable and ap-propriate may not be acceptable because it isnot understood. This wil l be particularly true forcomplex technology evolved from multidisci-plinary efforts and technology sublimed intoprinciples and methods. Scientists generallyare better at analysis than synthesis, and the jobof recapturing technology from its principles isbeyond many of them.

A valuable approach to overcoming barriersto acceptance is the creation of networks formultilocational testing and research. Most ofthe international agricultural research centershave developed such networks with cooperat-ing national institutions.

There is always the possibility of discordantgoal systems between institutions. Where themix of governmental policies requires nationalscientists to work on different priorities towardsdifferent goals than those of the centers, therewil l be barriers to the acceptance of IARC-generated technology. This is a particular pos-sibility for ICRISAT, with its goals towards thepoorest farmers and agricultural workers. Thetechnology developed by ICRISAT would not fitperfectly, for example, into a national programoriented towards maximizing food productionor reducing balance-of-payment problems.

I s N e w T e c h n o l o g y N e e d e d ?

Development aid programs in the 1950s and1960s worked on the theory that sufficient ag-ricultural technology existed for developmentpurposes. Efficient diffusion of extant innova-tions was all that was required. The theoryproved incorrect. Transfer of technology wasneeded and indigenous agricultural researchcapacity had to be created for the adaptive re-

search that was required (Moseman 1970).The transfer of technology through adaptive

research is also not sufficient. Social scienceresearch repeatedly confirms the need for newtechnologies. In the West African semi-aridtropics, for example (Newman et al. 1979), thereis need for improved varieties of sorghum andmillet, new technologies for soil and watermanagement, and whole new farming systems.Many of the principles of these technologiesmay exist, but the technologies do not, Muchresearch must be done, mostly by the nationalagricultural research institutions. ICRISAT andother external research institutions can onlyhelp.

R e f e r e n c e s

ARKIN, G. F., VANDERUP, R. L, and RITCHIE, J. T.1976. A dynamic grain sorghum growth model.Transactions, American Society of AgriculturalEngineers 19:622-630.

BEAL, G. M., and BOHLEN, J. M. 1957. The diffusionprocess. Special report No. 18. Ames, Iowa, USA:Iowa State Agricultural Experiment Station.

BINSWANGER, H. P., JODHA, N. S., and BARAH, B. C.1979. The nature and significance of risk in thesemi-arid tropics. Presented at the InternationalWorkshop on Socioeconomic Constraints to De-velopment of Semi-Arid Tropical Agriculture.ICRISAT, 19-23 February 1979, Hyderabad, India.Proceedings in preparation.

CULOT, J. Ph. 1974. Some examples of the use ofproduction functions to qualify environmentalinfluences on crop productivity. In Proceedings,Workshop on Experimental Designs for PredictingCrop Productivity with Environmental andEconomic Inputs. Hawaii Agricultural ExperimentStation, 20-24 May 1974, Honolulu, Hawaii. (De-partmental paper 49.)

ECKHAUS, R. S. 1977. Appropriate technologies fordeveloping countries. Washington, DC: U.S. Na-tional Academy of Sciences.

EVENSON, R. E., and BINSWANGER, H. P. 1979.Technology transfer and research resource alloca-tion. Pages 164-214 in Induced innovation:Technology, institutions, and development, eds.H. P. Binswanger and V. W. Ruttan. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.

80

HAYAMI , Y., and RUTTAN, V. W. 1971. Agricultural

development: An international perspective.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 367 pp.

HEADY, E. 0.1974. Some considerations in the designand analysis of fertility experiments for developingcountry use. In Proceedings, Workshop on Experi-mental Designs for Predicting Crop Productivitywith Environmental and Economic Inputs. HawaiiAgricultural Experiment Station, 20-24 May 1974,Honolulu, Hawaii. (Departmental paper 49.)

LAIRD, R. J.,andCADY, F.B. 1969. Combined analysisof yield data from fertilizer experiments. AgronomyJournal 61:829-834.

MOORMAN, F. R. 1972. Soil microvariability in soils ofthe humid tropics. Washington, DC: U.S. NationalAcademy of Sciences.

MOSEMAN, A. H. 1970. Building agricultural systemsin the developing nations. New York: AgriculturalDevelopment Council.

NATARAJAN, M., and WILLEY, R. W. 1979. Growth

studies in sorghum/pigeonpea intercropping withparticular emphasis on canopy development andlight interception. Presented at the InternationalWorkshop on Intercropping. ICRISAT, 10-13 Jan1979, Hyderabad, India. Proceedings in preparation.

NEWMAN, M., OUEDRAOGO, I., and NORMAN, D. 1979.

Farm level studies in the semi-arid tropics of WestAfr ica. Presented at the Workshop onSocioeconomic Constraints to Development ofSemi-Arid Tropical Agriculture. ICRISAT, 19-23 Feb1979, Hyderabad, India. Proceedings in prepa-ration.

Nix, H. A. 1968. The assessment of biological produc-tivity. Pages 77-78 in Land evaluation, ed. G. A.Stewart. Melbourne: Macmillan.

ROGERS, E. M. 1962. Diffusion of innovations.Glencoe, New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

SWANSON, B. E. 1977. Impact of the internationalsystem on national research capacity: The CIMMYTand IRRI Training Programs. Pages 336-363 inResource allocation and productivity in national andinternational agricultural research, eds. T. M.Arndt, D. G. Dalrymple, and V. W. Ruttan.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

SWINDALE, L. D. 1978. A soil research network throughtropical soil families. Pages 210-218 in Soil re-sources data for agricultural development, ed. L. D.Swindale. Honolulu: Hawaii Agricultural Experi-ment Station.

Voss, R. E., HANWAY, J. J., and FULLER, W. A. 1970.

Influence of soil management and climatic factorson the yield response by corn (Zea mays L.) to N, P,and K fertilizer. Agronomy Journal 62:736-780.

WILLEY, R. W. 1979. A scientific approach to inter-cropping research. International Workshop on In-tercropping. ICRISAT, 10-13 Jan 1979, Hyderabad,India. Proceedings in preparation.

81

Agroc l ima t i c Ana logues in Transfero f Techno logy

Henry Nix*

Abstract

Basic concepts and methods of agroclimatic classification and homoclime analysis are reviewed and discussed. Reasons for the tardy progress in development, testing, and application of methods of agroclimatic analysis are explored and possible alternative approaches examined. These include concepts of minimum data sets, definition of optimum experimental networks, and development of dynamic interactive systems of crop-climate and crop-weather analysis and synthesis.

This symposium focuses on the general prob-lem of development and transfer of technologybut in specific relation to the farmer of thesemi-arid tropics. What are the goals of the SATfarmer? For many, it may besimply survival andthe emphasis will be on minimizing year-to-year variation in food production. For some,more fortunate, the emphasis will be onmaximizing expectation of profit. For all,maintenance of longer-term stability of thesystem is vital, although population and/oreconomic pressures may subvert this require-ment. Whatever the goals, they must be clearlyidentified if we are to develop and transfertechnologies that are appropriate and relevantto the SAT farmer.

Since each farmer and his farm is unique, andsince there are some hundreds of millions ofSAT farmers, how do we prescribe a technologythat is relevant to the land, labor, capital, andmanagement resources of each individual? If itwere possible to predict the performance of anycrop-production system at any location given a specified minimum set of soil, crop, weather,and management data, then it would be possi-ble to prescribe an appropriate technology. I have argued elsewhere (Nix 1968, 1976) thatthis is an attainable objective, but it does requiresome major shifts in the prevailing logic andmethod of agricultural research, of which agro-climatic analysis is but a part.

* Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO, Division ofLand Use Research, Canberra, Australia.

Methods of Agroc l imat icAnalysis

Climate and weather condition physical andbiological processes and determine much of thestrategy and tactics of crop production. It isdifficult to conceive of any component of a farming system that is not influenced by climateand weather. Yet, the development, testing, andpractical appl ication of methods of agroclimaticanalysis do not receive a very high priority inmost agricultural research programs. Thereasons for this situation are many, but some ofthe more important are:

• basic climatic data are inadequate or un-available

• understanding of crop-climate and crop-weather interactions is limited

• available methods lack generality and tendto be descriptive rather than prescriptive,static rather than dynamic

• truly interdisciplinary research programsare the exception rather than the rule.

These limitations tend to compound, i.e., theyhave a synergistic effect. Thus, data limitationsmay restrict the choice and scope of methodand hence the relevance and utility of theresulting analysis. Because adequate methodsare not available or not accessible to researchand extension workers at the district level,climatic data collected at great cost remainunused. Understandably, it then becomesdifficult to justify arguments for upgrading net-works. Only by a convincing demonstration ofthe utility of climatic data in general and ofagroclimatic analysis in particular and at scalesranging from the continental to the local will

83

this particular nexus be broken.Hopefully, methods and techniques now

available and under active development wil laid in eliminating these limitations. Computertechnology has provided a basis for efficientstorage and retrieval of climatic data. Satellitetechnology holds promise of much finer spatialresolution of key components in the energy andwater balances. Systems analysis and simula-tion techniques permit a much closer couplingof climatic data and the agricultural or biologi-cal system being studied and offer prospects ofquantitative prediction. Adoption of a systemsapproach reinforces the need for interdiscipli-nary research.

Progress towards an ultimate goal of predic-tion of probable outcomes (ecological andeconomic) of any crop-production system atany location has followed an evolutionary pathfrom simple trial and error, transfer by analogy,correlation and regression, and multivariateanalysis to systems analysis and simulationtechniques (Nix 1968). These methods are notmutually exclusive, and various combinationsare normally in use in any given situation.

T r i a l a n d E r r o r

Attempts to relate climatic and weatherphenomena to observed biological and physi-cal phenomena have roots in antiquity. Giventime, stable and successful farming systemshave evolved through keen observationcoupled with generations of trial-and-error ex-periment. Farmer innovation has been, and stillis, a major source of new technology, and asscientists and technicians we should not unde-restimate it. However, the social cost of thefarmer's experimentation can be considerable,since for every success there are manythousands of failures. It can be and has beenargued thata majortask of agricultural researchis to reduce the social cost of such experiments.

In long-established farming systems, thecomplex t iming required to fit farm operationsinto the climatic cycle has been codified byritual and custom. Climatic information thusbecomes an integral part of the total system.Careful analysis of such traditional systems canyield much valuable information about climatichazards and constraints. Before confronting theproblem of transferring a "new" or " improved"technology, we need a thorough understanding

of the existing crop-production systems.Farmer trial-and-error experiments could

provide a valuable additional source of informa-tion if a basic minimum set of soil-crop-weatherdata could be obtained. Regular monitoring ofselected farm areas on such a basis can providethe necessary data base for yield predictions atthe regional and national level. However, usual"ground-truth" procedures concentrate solelyon final yield, and this does not permit anythingbut a superficial analysis of crop-climate andcrop-weather interactions.

T r a n s f e r b y A n a l o g y

Most agricultural research is firmly based onthe concept of information by analogy. Since itis impossible to replicate every experiment onevery farm, a "representative" site is chosen,and results are extrapolated to other sites thatshare similar properties. The central hypothesisis that all occurrences of a defined class shouldrespond in a similar way to management. Soil,vegetation, and climatic classifications exemp-lify this approach. Although the analogueapproach does not require any detailedunderstanding of functional relationships be-tween selected site attributes and crop re-sponse, the better such understanding and themore relevant the attributes, the better will bethe classification.

The more rational and systematic of thegeneral climatic classifications, such as Koppen(1931) and Thornthwaite (1931, 1948), haveplayed an important role in codifying and com-municating climatic information at global andcontinental scales. Thus, for example, Kdppen'sAw class and Thornthwaite's CA'w classbroadly define ICRISAT's sphere of responsibil-ity. This is greatly expanded in area if a prob-abilistic approach is used and year climate isbased on a series of years rather than onlong-term means. Using an extensive networkof stations, Mizukoshi (1971) calculated relativefrequencies of Koppen climatic classes forSouth and Southeast Asia. The resultant patternofdominantyear climates placesa much higherproportion of Thailand, Indochina, and In-donesia in the Aw class.

In an extensive review of methods of agroc-limatic classification, Burgos (1968) concludedthat general, multi-attribute schemes of clas-sification were of limited value in the transfer of

84

technology. The most useful agroclimatic clas-sifications are those developed for a specificpurpose but, until recently, the sheer volume ofdata processing required in each case madesuch an approach impractical. Now, withcomputer-based storage and retrieval of clima-tic data and ready availability of numericaltaxonomic programs, it is easy to generate anynumber of classifications. However, problemsremain in the choice of attributes, weighting ofattributes, choice of classificatory strategy, and,most importantly, interpretation of results. It isnot intended here to review these aspects ofnumerical taxonomy since they are adequatelydetailed in basic texts (Sneath and Sokal 1974,Williams 1976).

The techniques of numerical taxonomy orpattern analysis are objective and repeatableand have been used successfully in a number ofexamples of agroclimatic classification andhomoclime analysis. Plant introduction hasplayed a very prominent role in the develop-ment of agriculture on all continents, but par-ticularly in Australia, where no cultivated plantsexisted before European settlement in 1788. Inrecent years, active plant exploration has beenreinitiated, and identification of homoclimes onother continents has received attention. Thus,Russell and Moore (1970) used selected cli-matic parameters and numerical taxonomictechniques in detecting homoclimes of a de-veloping region in Queensland and, more re-cently (Russell and Moore 1976), in a compara-tive study of the climates of Australia andsouthern Africa.

In any agroclimatic classification, the choiceof attributes is critical. In the simplest case, it is a matter of selection from available raw climaticdata. Usuallytherewil l bea conflict betweenthedensity of geographic network and the rangeof climatic data available. Commonly, onlymonthly or, at best, weekly mean data for pre-cipitation and temperature are readily availablefor an extensive network of stations. Whereverpossible, probability values are to be preferredover mean values. Thus, Nix (1978) in an agroc-limatic classification of east-centra I Queenslandused median, upper, and lower quartile valuesfor summer (November-Apr i l ) and winter(May-October) seasonal rainfall derived froma standard 50-year period (1915-1965). Theresultant regions were used as a basis forselection of representative locations that had

more extensive climatic data for more detailedcrop simulation studies.

Because each crop — indeed each culti-var — has a specific genotype-environmentresponse, it is logical to consider crop-specificand even cultivar-specific classifications as anultimate objective. Advances in our understand-ing of ecophysiological response, coupled withadvances in computer technology, now makesuch an approach entirely feasible. The begin-nings of such a crop-specific approach areevident in the works of Papadakis (1938, 1965,1970), who recognized broad climatic con-straints for a comprehensive array of cultivatedcrop species and developed climatic indicesthat reflect important processes in the cropenvironment.

Following from this approach, a more directcoupling of climate and ecophysiological re-sponse offers even better prospects of morerelevant bioclimatic analysis and classification.Thus, for example, Fitzpatrick and Nix (1970)developed a simple growth-estimation model,using separate functions for light, temperature,and moisture response for each of three majorplant groups (temperate C3, tropical C3, tropicalC4). The model was coupled to a data base ofweekly mean climatic data for some 300 lo-cations and was used to analyze the climaticfactor in the grassland ecology of Australia.Subsequently, the model has been developedand used to derive selected attributes jn a num-erical taxonomic classification of arid-zone mulga(Acacia aneura) environments (Nix and Austin1973). In a further study (Austin and Nix 1978),the objective was to define bioclimatic zones forrangelands research. Edwards and Johnston(1978) used a similar approach in a study of theagricultural climatology of the Upper Murrum-bidgee River Valley, N.S.W.

Given that present agricultural researchstrategy is based on the analogue approach, a network of research and experimental sites is a necessity. But can we define an optimum net-work? Field-based research is expensive butessential. Any rationalization and streamliningof research, extension, and developmentstrategies could have tremendous benefits bothin terms of reduction in expenditure and costeffectiveness. Thus, for instance, we might wishto define the most efficient network of experi-mental sites for the semi-arid tropics in general,or for a selected target crop or crops within that

85

zone. (Separate analyses for individual cropsmight indicate sites of general acceptability.)Such an analysis is being undertaken by theauthor, but the results are not yet fully analyzed.

An example of this approach is provided in ananalysis of dryland wheat environments inAustralia (Nix 1975). A simulation model ofwheat was used to derive measures of the light,thermal, and moisture regimes during the vege-tative, reproductive, and grain-filling phasesof a standard cultivar. Numerical taxonomictechniques were used and the resultant clas-sification suggested that existing research cen-ters were by no means equitably distributed. Incontrast, the study of rangeland environmentsreported earlier (Austin and Nix 1978) foundthat existing research centers were mosteconomically distributed.

Cor re la t ion and Regression

Simple and more complex correlations havebeen sought between practically every primaryand derived climatic parameter and every as-pect of crop growth, development, and yield.The classical example is provided by Fisher(1924) who analyzed wheat yields at Rotham-sted in relation to 6-day rainfall periods. Inenvironments where a single factor, such as thewater regime, dominates crop performance,such correlations may have useful predictivevalue. The use of more refined indices of thecrop's climatic environment, coupled with a phenological rather than a calendar time-scale,usually in more general and more robust pre-dictive equations (Stanhill 1970).

The deficiencies in this approach are dueprimarily to explicit assumptions of linearity ofresponse, implicit assumptions that correlationimplies causation, and the normally location-specific and season-specific nature of the re-lationship. Despite these criticisms, correlationand regression methods remain a valuable toolin fitting functions used in more complexmodes of analysis.

Sys tems Ana lys i s and S i m u l a t i o n

Very simply, systems analysis is concernedwith the resolution of any complex system intoa number of simpler components and iden-tification of the important linkages betweenthem. A graphical presentation (flowchart) may

precede a formalized set of logical statementsand mathematical formulae (program). This,then, is a model of the real system, and when itis developed to the stage when it can mimic thebehavior of the complex system, then experi-ments can be performed using the model. Thisis simulation.

Adoption of a systems approach immediatelyemphasizes the need for interdisciplinaryteamwork, since knowledge and insight gainedfrom biological, physical, social, and economicdisciplines are required. It formalizes what isalready known about the crop-production sys-tem, identifies the more important componentsand processes, and helps to identify significantconstraints to performance. It is only at thislevel that the real significance of climate andweather becomes apparent. These are primaryinputs that drive the biophysical processes ofthe crop system and as such arean integral partof the whole.

A research strategy based on the systemsapproach would center around development ofworking models of crop-production systems.These models would need to be structured sothat they are capable of continuous improve-ment in logical structure and function. It wouldbe advantageous to have a range of modelscapable of application at a range of levels ofscales and a range of levels of precision andaccuracy.

Only by development of such crop models isit possible to begin identification of minimum data sets that are needed for adequate interpre-tation and extrapolation of experimentalresults. It is essential that balanced sets ofsoil-crop-weather-management data be col-lected. Very few agronomic experiments meetthis criterion. Often, very detailed measure-ments and observations are made on one com-ponent or process in the system, while othersare ignored.

Recognizing the different objectives of fieldexperiments and the different scale of facilitiesavailable, one can conceive of a series or hierar-chy of minimum data sets with increasingrange, precision, accuracy, and frequency ofmeasurement and observation. However, at alllevels the emphasis remains on maintaining a balanced monitoring of the whole crop system.Thus, for example, consider a three-levelsystem:

1. Level generally applicable to field trials

86

remote from laboratory facilities. Data col-lected are the absolute minimum requiredfor relating crop performance to the en-vironment and for comparative analysis ofcrop performance at widely spaced sitesand/or seasons. Precipitation must bemeasured at the site, but temperature,evaporation, and solar radiation data canbe obtained from a meteorological stationwithin the general region. Soil data may berestricted to gravimetric soil water contentat or near sowing and at harvest. Crop dataare limited to phenological observations(dates of emergence, floral initiation,flowering, physiological maturity, harvest)and components of final yield. These dataare just sufficient for calculation of empiri-cal biophysical indices and for verificationof the simpler predictive models.

2. Level generally applicable to field experi-ments conducted at or near regional re-search station. A combination of morefrequent and more comprehensive soil,crop, weather measurements and obser-vations permits analysis of crop perfor-mance on a physiological or process basis.This provides a much sounder basis foranalysis of major environmental con-straints and permits the development andtesting pf process-based models ofgrowth, development, and yield.

3. Level applicable only where major data-logging and data-processing facilities areavailable. Greatly increased frequency ofsampling permits a detailed analysis ofcomponent subsystems and componentprocesses. This provides the necessarydata for development and testing of gen-eral crop models that incorporate explicitrepresentation of major processes in thewhole crop system.

The emphasis throughout must be on iden-tifying the absolute minimum data set at eachlevel of complexity. Standardized data collec-tion sheets and crop phenological charts wouldensure comparability of data and permit muchmore comprehensive analyses of crop experi-ments at widely spaced locations. Such de-velopments would benefit agricultural researchand aid in transfer of technology, whatever theresearch methodology adopted, but they are anessential prerequisite for the systems ap-proach.

Conclusions

The systems approach has much to offer indevising newtechnologies. It formalizes what isknown about existing crop systems, their moreimportant components, processes, and feed-back mechanisms, and helps identify significantconstraints that are often subtle and not im-mediately obvious. The possible consequences(ecological, agronomic, economic) of introduc-ing a new technology can be examined usingsimulation techniques and appropriate fieldexperiments designed to test the model pre-dictions.

In the systems approach, climate and weatheroccupy a primary position in the whole hierar-chy of data acquisition, processing, andanalysis and become an integral part of thewhole system. The full flowering of thetechniques of systems analysis and simulationwill not occur until they can be placed in thehands of the agronomist, soil scientist, plantphysiologist, plant breeder, and other subjectspecialists. The development of microproces-sors and small, relatively inexpensive, pro-grammable hand calculators should soon makethis a reality.

References

AUSTIN, M. P., and Nix, H. A. 1978. Regional clas-sification of climate and its relation to Australianrangeland.in Studies of the Australian arid zone. Ill:Water in rangelands. Melbourne: CSIRO.

BURGOS, J. J. 1968. World trends in agroclimaticsurveys. In Agroclimatological Methods. Proceed-ings, Reading Symposium. Paris: UNESCO.

FISHER, R. A. 1924. The influence of rainfall distribu-tion on the yield of wheat at Rothamsted.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal SocietySeries B 213:89-142.

FITZPATRICK, E. A., and Nix, H. A. 1970. The climaticfactor in Australian grassland ecology. In Australiangrasslands, ed. Moore R. Milton. Canberra: ANUPress.

KOPPEN, W. 1931. Grundriss der klimakunde. Berlin:Walter de Gruyter.

87

MIZUKOSHI, M. 1971. Regional divisions of monsoonAsia by Koppen's classification of climate. In Waterbalance of monsoon Asia — a climatological ap-proach, ed. M. M. Yoshino. Honolulu: University ofHawaii Press.

Nix, H. A. 1968. The assessment of biological pro-ductivity. Pages 77-87 in Land evaluation, ed. G. A.Stewart. Melbourne: Macmillan.

Nix, H. A. 1975. The Australian environment and itsinfluence on grain yield and quality. In Australianfield crops. I. Wheat and other temperate cereals,eds. Alec Lazenby and E. M. Matheson. Sydney:Angus and Robertson.

Nix, H. A. 1976. Climate and crop productivity inAustralia. In Rice and Climate: Proceedings, Sym-posium on Climate and Rice. International RiceResearch Institute (IRRI), Los Barios, Philippines.

Nix, H. A. 1978. Land classification criteria: Climate. InLand units of the Fitzroy Region, Queensland. Landresearch series 39. Melbourne: CSIRO.

Nix, H. A., and AUSTIN, M. P. 1973. Mulga: a bioclimaticanalysis. Tropical Grasslands 7 :9 -21 .

PAPADAKIS, J. 1938. Ecologie agricole. Gembloux,Belgium: Jules Duculof.

PAPADAKIS, J. 1965. Crop ecology survey in WestAfrica. Rome: FAO.

PAPADAKIS, J. 1970. Climates of the world: theirclassification, similitudes, differences and geo-graphic distribution. Buenos Aires: Published byauthor.

RUSSELL, J. S., and MOORE, A. W. 1970. Detection of

homoclimates by numerical analysis with referenceto the brigalow region (eastern Australia). Agri-cultural Meteorology 7:455-479.

RUSSELL, J. S., and MOORE, A. W. 1976. Classification

of climate by pattern analysis with Australian andsouthern African data as an example. AgriculturalMeteorology 16:45-70.

SNEATH, P. H. A., and SOKAL, R. R. 1974. Numerical

taxonomy. San Francisco: Freeman.

STANHILL, G. 1970. Simplified agroclimatic proceduresfor assessing the effect of water supply. In PlantResponse to Climatic Factors. Proceedings,Uppsala Symposium. Paris: UNESCO.

THORNTHWAITE, C. W. 1931. The climates of NorthAmerica according to a new classification. Geo-graphical Review 21:633-655.

THORNTHWAITE, C. W. 1948. An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geographical Re-view 38:55-94.

WILLIAMS, W. T. (ed.) 1976. Pattern analysis in agri-cultural science. New York: CSIRO/Elsevier.

88

Organizat ions in Techno logy Transferand Research

Frederick E. Hutchinson*

Abstract

Research designed to develop technology that can be appropriately transferred to small landholders In thedeveloping world is essential for successful agricultural development. The United States Congress has mandated that future agricultural development programs financed through U.S. foreign assistance emphasize transfer of technology appropriate to small landowners. In the past, U.S. organizations working in development found it difficult to coordinate their efforts to maximize their effectiveness; but now must do so under Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1975. This act links agricultural universities, federal agencies, and private organizations in research programs tied to agricultural development strategies. Key elements in forming and maintaining this cooperative effort are discussed.

There are several organizations in the worldthat are presently involved in facilitating orconducting research for appropriate technol-ogy transfer in agricultural development.1 I willnot attempt to name them all because that is notthe theme of my presentation. Instead, I wouldlike to focus on the issues involved in maximiz-ing the opportunities presented by theseorganizations to improve the production andutilization of .major food materials. Oppor-tunities to improve upon the present situationwill be the primary thrust of my remarks, and I shall use an example from the U.S — TitleXII ofthe Foreign Assistance Act of 1975, since that isa recent experiment with which I am veryfamiliar. However, I feel the principal issuesidentified in that example are reasonably ap-propriate to other organizations working in the

* Vice President, University of Maine, and Chair-man, Joint Research Committee, Board for Inter-national Food and Agricultural Development,USA.

1. The term Appropriate Technology is defined as "Atechnology which is most suitably adapted to theconditions of a given situation. It must be compati-ble with the human, financial, and material re-sources which surround its application." A. E.Perez, 1978. The Role of U.S. Universities in Inter-national Agricultural Development (WashingtonUniversity), p. 9

same field of agricultural developmentworldwide.

It is important to begin such a discussion witha clear understanding of the necessity of re-search as the undergirding for a successfulagricultural development program. This meansresearch designed to develop technology thatcan be appropriately transferred to small land-holders in the developing world. If one beginswith the premise that little research has beenconducted that was designed for that specificpurpose, the need for a new research programis evident. Although the U.S. agricultural re-search organizations cannot be expected toattack this problem single-handed, it is logicalto expect the tremendous capability that hasbeen built in that country over the past 100years to make a strong commitment in thisdirection.

I also wish to acknowledge the fact that a large amount of agricultural technology trans-fer to LDCs from the U.S. has been attempted inthe past 25 years by universities, federal agen-cies, and private corporations. The successrecord is spotty, mainly in relation to the degreethe technology implanted was appropriate tothe local conditions — in other words, the de-gree to which the research upon which thetechnology was based happened to coincidewith conditions where it was transferred.

It is also clear from past experience that the"trickle down" theory — which holds that ag-ricultural technology transferred to large land-

89

holders will eventually be adopted by smalllandholders as well — has not worked in mostLDCs. Thus, the U.S. Congress has mandatedthat future agricultural development programsfinanced through foreign assistance must em-phasize transfer of technology specificallyappropriate to small landholders.

In the past, U.S. organizations that wereinterested in development and transfer of tech-nology appropriate to agricultural production inLDCs as well as in the U.S. have found it difficultto coordinate and/or combine their efforts inorder to maximize their effectiveness. Experi-ence with agricultural research in this countryshows us the importance of coordinated prog-rams on commodities such as corn or wheat,whereby the research conducted in each statealso contributes to a major national effort. A recent opportunity for such a coordinated U.S.research effort directed toward worldwide ag-ricultural development was the passage of TitleXII of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1975.

Under the Title XII legislation, U.S. agricul-tural universities, federal agencies, and privateorganizations can become linked in large-scaleagricultural research programs tied to agricul-tural development strategies in the developingworld. The Board for International Food andAgricultural Development (BIFAD) sits with theAdministrator of AID in setting priorities for thefood and nutrition programs funded by theAgency, a funding that presently approximates$600 million per year. The Joint ResearchCommittee (JRC) created by the BIFAD hasworked hard for the past year to identify andprioritize the major opportunities for U.S. ag-ricultural research organizations to intermeshtheir capabilities and interests with the needs inthe developing world. (A prioritized list of 24suggested programs is available from BIFAD.)In the process of establishing such a list andinitiating the first four programs, the JRC hasidentified some of the key elements in formingand maintaining involvement of U.S. organi-zations, especially universities, in such prog-rams. These key elements are as fol lows:

1. long-term commitment by all parties,2. true joint interest in collaboration,3. maximum possible program flexibility for

all participants,4. appropriate balance of the research pro-

gram in U.S. to that in LDCs, and5. an agreement that research is essential to

agricultural development.I will now discuss each of the above points in

some detail, becausethe experience of the JRCindicates that each one is important enough inits own right to essentially defeat any attempt tomount a successful program if it is not properlydealt with in the planning phase.

First, long-term commitment by all parties: Itis clear to me that many past attempts todevelop and transfer technology appropriate tospecific commodities in LDCs have failed be-cause the program was restricted to an un-reasonable time frame, such as 2 or 3 years.Research is by its very nature long-term, requir-ing methodology, design, implementation, andevaluation phases. Consider the time frameover which the agricultural technology in theU.S. has been developed. It is encouraging thatTitle XII legislation recognizes the need forlong-term research and development pro-grams.

Second, a true joint interest in collaboration:It is not easy to develop among 10 or 12 uni-versities and/or other organizations a genuinedesire to collaborate in a formally designedagricultural research program that also in-volves institutions in developing countries. Par-ticipants must be assured of their function in thetotal program and they must be convinced it willbe structured in such a manner that the credi-bility of all participants will be maintained. Inother words, who is prepared to deal with thepossible situation where one participant is notgetting the job done? The JRC has discussedseveral models for structuring these entities,and it appears the problem can be solved.

Third, maximum program flexibility: Many ofthe U.S. research organizations that have con-ducted international agricultural developmentprojects in the past agree that funding agencieshave been excessively restrictive in the mannerin which they allowed them to administer theproject. This type of restriction kills initiativeand tends to l imit the chance for maximumproductivity by the scientists. Title XII offers anopportunity for much more flexibility in projectadministration once a well-designed projecthas been approved.

Fourth, a balance in research effort: It isobvious that effective research on agriculturaltechnology appropriate to other parts of theworld requires involvement in the entire pro-cess of planning and implementation by scien-

90

tists from the appropriate LDCs. Also, some ofthe research will need to be conducted on lo-cation in those countries, even though a sig-nificant part can be conducted in the U.S.,where major research facilities and highlytrained staff are available. These foreign lin-kages take t ime to develop, but they areabsolutely essential to the process.

Fifth, the commitment to research: To thoseof you who are scientists, this seems so obviousthat it does not require further elaboration.However, please realize there are many, bothwithin the U.S. Congress and within the world-wide funding agencies, who do not believefurther research is needed for agricultural de-velopment to occur. It is their assumption thatthe past agricultural research we so loudlyproclaim has answered nearly all of the impor-tant questions or constraints to be encounteredin food production. We must keep stressing theneed for continuing research designed to de-velop technology appropriate to specific LDCcommodities and conditions, social as well asagronomic.

In summary, I believe there are several sub-stantial obstacles to effective research andtechnology transfer programs. These obstaclesare common to most of the organizations thatare active on the world scene today, and theyshould be,carefully considered by all who at-tempt to plan, implement, and evaluate suchprograms. Much has been learned in recentyears concerning the best means to surmountthese obstacles; the experience from Title XII ofthe U.S. Foreign Assistance Program is onecontribution.

91

Cl imat ic App roach to Transferof Farming Systems Technology

in the Semi-Ar id Tropics

S. M. V i rman i *

Abstract

The crop yields in the dry semi-arid tropics are low due to the temporal and spatial variations in rainfall. These areas are characterized by high climatic water demand, and the rainfall exceeds evapotranspiration only from 2 to 41/2 months in a year. Due to the wide spatial distribution of the natural endowments, there exists a strong element of location specificity in terms of moisture environment during the crop growing season. Some techniques employed for quantification of rainfall distribution and soil-moisture availability in relation to crop water needs have been described. Examples of the relevance of agroclimatological analysis for the translocation of farming systems technology are discussed.

Thetropical semi-arid regions l ieto each side ofthe tropical rain forest climates and at higherlatitudes in both hemispheres. Rainfed agricul-ture, laden with uncertainty and instability in itsprecipitation patterns, has failed to provideeven the m in imum food requirements forthe rapidly increasing populations of manydeveloping countries in the semi-arid tropics(SAT). The mean annual temperature of the SATexceeds 18°C. The rainfall exceeds potentialevapotranspiration for 2 to 41/2 months in thedry SAT and 41/2 to 7 months in the wet-dry SAT(Troll 1965). These areas are characterized by a high climatic water demand and by variable anderratic rainfall. It is imperative that any technol-ogy for land and water management and cropproduction in the SAT areas must be aimedat improved resource management that con-serves and utilizes rainfal l and soil moreefficiently and at new crop production systemsthat maintain productivity and assure depend-able harvests (Kampen 1979).

The in t imate re la t ionship between theweather and agricultural production systems,especially the complexities associated wi thvagaries of weather in terms of yield fluctu-ations, has been a subject of wide concern innational and international crop productionplanning. In this context, the situation in the

* Principal Agroclimatologist, ICRISAT.

SAT areas is even more complex because of thelarge variations in the weather parameters thataffect agricultural production. A proper descrip-tion and analysis of these weather parametersis an essential element in the application of ag-rometeorological knowledge for the generationand transfer of farming systems technology inthe SAT areas.

Climat ic Approach in FarmingSystems Technology

Over the past 6 years, a considerable amount offarming systems research at ICRISAT has con-centrated on analysis of the agricultural processfor identifying the constraints to agriculturalproduction and for evolving suitable productionpractices in the removal of these constraints. Asa useful corollary to this exercise, efforts in theagrocl imatoiogy subprogram are aimed atanalyzing the meteorological conditions of a region in order to characterize its agriculturalpotential and identify suitable crops/croppingsystems to reap the full benefit of this potential.A systematic climatological approach in thiscontext comprises the following steps:

1. Description of the rainfall regime in a par-ticular area, including studies on the totalrainfall, rainfall intensities, and rainfallprobabilities.

2. Calculations of potential evapotranspir-

93

ation and its relationships with rainfallregimes to identify the water surplus anddeficit periods.

3. Evaluation of the soil water-holding ca-pacity and other soil physical characteris-tics such as texture, structure, infiltrationrates.

4. Water-balance calculations using the rain-fall and potential evaporation data inconjunction with soil water storage.

Desc r i p t i on o f Rain fa l l Reg ime

Rainfall in the SAT mostly occurs April to Octoberin the Northern Hemisphere and Octoberto April in the Southern Hemisphere; the per-centage of seasonal rainfall to annual total oftenexceeds 90%. Data pertaining to the monthlyrainfall, annual total, and seasonal rainfall per-centage for six selected locations in the SAT areshown in Table 1. For all the locations the strongseasonality in the rainfall is evident.

Hyderabad, located somewhat in the centerof the "heart land" of the SAT, has annual pre-cipitation concentrated in 4 rainy months frommid-June to mid-October. The rainfall is highlyerratic; data for the last 78 years show that itmay vary from 320 mm (1972) to 1400 mm(1971) with a CV of 26%. Variability is by yearsas well as by seasons. Rainfall distribution dur-ing the last 6 years at ICRISAT Center and thenormals (1940-70) for Hyderabad are shown in

Table 2. During 1972-73, June was the wettestmonth, with 107 m m , whereas in 1974-75,October recorded the highest monthly total of279 mm. In 1978, August received a recordamount of rainfall (516 mm), while in 1975 Au-gust was the driest of the last 6 years. The relia-bility of the seasonal rainfall from April to Oc-tober is indicated by the mean amounts as wellas by the low CV.

The marked seasonality of the rainfall in theSAT exerts an overall control on the wateravai labi l i ty and agr icul tura l systems. Thecharacteristics of individual rainstorms are alsoof importance, particularly their intensity andduration. In the SAT, a high proportion of rain-fall occurs in large storms of high intensity.Hudson (1971) concluded that 40% of the rain-fall in the tropics occurs at intensities of at least25 mm/hr, a figure considered as a thresholdvalue at which rainfall becomes erosive. Thehighest rainfall intensity observed at ICRISATCenter was 88 mm/hr recorded on 24 Sep-tember 1975. On 18 August 1976, a rainfall in-tensity of 60 mm/hr was experienced. Thesecharacteristics are of great importance to bothsoil erosion and the effectiveness of rainfall toagriculture; largestorms of high intensity resultin considerable loss as surface runoff and asdrainage beyond the root zone.

Despite the complexity of the moisture sup-ply, certain generalizations can be made. Use ofmonthly average to describe seasonal rainfall

Table 1. Average monthly rainfall (mm) for selected SAT locations.

Location

1. Hyderabad(India)

2. Dakar(Senegal)

3. Bamako(Mali)

4. Maradi(Niger)

5. Sokoto(Nigeria)

6. Ouagadougou(Upper Volta)

0

17

14

12

13

13

12

Latf

27N

44N

38N

28N

01N

21N

Long0

78 28E

17 30W

08 02W

07 05E

05 15E

01 31W

Jan

2

0

1

0

0

0

Feb Mar Apr

10

2

0

0

0

3

13

0

3

0

0

8

23

0

15

4

13

19

May

30

1

60

32

53

84

June

107

15

145

60

89

118

July

165

88

251

164

165

193

Aug

147

249

334

260

252

265

Sept

163

163

220

110

147

153

Oct Nov Dec Annual*

71

49

58

12

15

37

25

5

12

0

0

2

5

6

0

0

0

0

761(93)578(98)

1099(99)642

(100)734

(100)882(99)

* Percentage of seasonal rainfall (April to October) to annual total Is shown In parentheses.

94

Table 2. Rainfall at ICRISAT Center during 1973-78 and normals (1940-70) for Hyderabad.

Month

JanFebMarAprMayJune

JulyAugSeptOctNovDec

Annual

Normal

Mean(mm)

5.511.012.524.026.5

115.5

171.5156.0181.067.023.5

6.0

800.0

cv(%)

3192041991229557

45525794

167254

1973

0.00.00.00.03.0

59.8

161.0230.868.9

216.410.6

1.3

751.8

1974

0.00.00.0

14.815.0

119.8

89.3160.2185.5278.6

4.50.0

867.7

1975

35.00.0

23.90.01.7

98.4

195.2139.4422.3173.515.00.0

1104.4

1976

0.00.00.5

91.022.486.0

219.3298.774.00.6

29.70.0

822.2

1977

0.00.00.07.5

36.066.5

183.5196.440.048.927.8

2.0

608.6

1978

17.220.53.8

56.415.0

181.4

228.2515.8

81.570.510.40.9

1201.6

regimes is often not sufficiently accurate; at cer-tain times in the crop growing season, the pre-sence or absence of water is not critical, andindications of variabil i ty over shorter t imeperiods are of great importance. Many agricul-tural operations revolve around the probabilityof receiving given amounts of rainfall. Farm-scale operational planning often requires de-cision-making with respect to resources, man-power needs, available work days, croppingschemes, and several other factors. A com-prehensive idea regarding the probability ofrainfall is essential in view of the economic im-plications of certain weather-sensitive oper-ations — dry seeding, harvesting, etc.

In agronomic terms, once a seed is planted,water is required on a continual basis until thecrop matures. We therefore utilized the conceptof the Markov Chain to define the probability ofrainfall of a given amount during a given week:initial probabilities or P(W); the probability ofrain next week if rain was received this weekP(W/W); and the probability of next week beingwet if the current week has been dry P(W/D).These are called conditional probabilities.

Poten t ia l Evapo t ransp i ra t ionor Evapora t i ve Demand

Another significant feature of the tropical envi-ronment is the high climatic water demand.

The meteorological factors affecting evaporationinclude solar radiat ion, temperature of theevaporating surface, vapor pressure gradient,and wind and air turbulence. Solar radiation isthe dominant source of energy and sets thebroad limits of evaporation. Values of solarradiation tend to be high in the tropics, modifiedby cloud cover, making the evaporative de-mand of the atmosphere considerable (Jackson1977). The annual values of potential evapo-transpiration (PE) often exceed 1750 mm. Dur-ing the growing season these values are of theorder of 8 to 10 mm/day on clear nonrainy daysand usually are around 3 mm/day on cloudy orrainy days.

When rainfall exceeds PE, soil moisture re-serves are recharged. When rainfall is less thanPE, soil moisture reserves are utilized. Most ofthe t ime in the SAT areas, rainfall is less than PEand actual evapotranspiration (AE) may equalrainfall. As shown in Figure 1, all six selectedlocations show only 2 to 3 months when rainfallexceeds PE, allowing some soil moisture re-charge followed by utilization in the succeedingmonths.

Denmead and Shaw (1962), working withcorn in Iowa, reported that on a clear day, whenthe potential transpiration was as high as 6 to 7 mm/day, the decline in the transpiration rateoccurred at a very low moisture tension, closeto field capacity (Fig. 2). On a heavily overcast

95

Figure 7. Monthly variation in rainfall and potential evapotranspiration (—-) at six selected locations in the SAT. Water deficiency soil moisture recharge.

day, when the potential transpiration rate wasonly 1 to 4 mm/day, the transpiration rate didnot decline until the soil moisture reached 12bars, not much above the permanent wiltingpoint. Since the rainfall distribution in the SAT ishighly erratic, and rainy spells are interspersedwith unpredictable droughts, the crops are ex-posed to considerable stress at different stages

Figure 2. Actual transpiration rate as a func-tion of soil moisture content (Source: Denmead and Shaw 7962).

of growth. Since the crop yields are propor-tional to moisture availability, the semi-aridtropical environment introduces a strong ele-ment of risk to high and stable crop yields.

Soi l Mo i s tu re S to rage

The soils of the SAT show great diversity intexture, structure, type of clay, organic mattercontent, and depth. Among other things, theprecipitation actually entering the soil dependsupon the type, surface conditions, and moisturestatus of the soil.

As shown in Figure 3, the moisture depletionfrom a given soil varies with the soil type(Holmes 1961). The idealized curves show thatin the case of sandy soils, the low moisture-holding capacity and the low colloid contentpermit a rapid removal of much of the soil mois-ture. The depletion rate remains at a high levelalmostto the wilting point. Fora heavy clay soil,on the other hand, the mois ture cannotbe removed rapidly.

The average values of changes in the profilemoisture on the weekly basis in three typicalsoils of the Hyderabad region are plotted in Fig-ure 4. These curves are based on the 1901-70rainfall records. It is apparentthat in the shallowAlfisols there is very little soil moisture storagefor use over extended drought periods. In deep

96

Figure 3. Drying rates of three types of soils as a function of soil moisture con-tent (Source: Holmes 1961).

Alfisols, medium deep Vertisols, and in deepVertisols, there is a fair degree of moisture stor-age for a substantially longer t ime during theg row ing season compared w i th shal lowAlfisols. Thus, under identical rainfall condi-tions, the effects of short-term intraseasonaldroughts on crop moisture status will differ indifferent soil types. The amounts of water lostby runoff would be much higher in the shallowAlfisols compared with the other two soil types,and the potential benefits derived from sup-plemental applications of water would varywith the soil type. Our experience has shown

that it is on the shallow Alfisols that reuse ofrunoff is usually profitable under Hyderabadconditions.

W a t e r B a l a n c e C a l c u l a t i o n s

It is possible to calculate the water balance for a given region for any given crop from the actualrainfall evapotranspiration and soil moisturecharacteristics over a series of years. The use ofcomputers for fast and accurate calculation ofwater balance using various simulation modelshas made this task relatively easy. Water-balance results find useful application in thedetermination of the length of the growingseason and the opt imum sowing date;maximum water use of a crop and maximumwater availability can be matched for optimaluse of available resources.

Transfer of Farming SystemsTechnology:Some Case Studies

For over 2 decades agricultural research hasfocused its major attention on improved cropyields under irrigated agricultural systems. Re-cent crop failures and widespread famines inthe arid and semi-arid areas have brought to theattention of researchers the need for improvedtechnologies for greater yields and productionstability in these areas. The geographical diver-sity and the distance between SAT locationsimpose definite limitations on the technical andfinancial resources for intensive investigationsover large areas in the SAT. Hence, researchconducted at a few important locations for thegeneration of improved technology will have tofind application over large areas.

The climatic approaches for the transfer ofagrotechnology have been described earlier. A few case studies are presented here to showtheapplication of these approaches for some prac-tical problems. These case studies are by nomeans exhaustive but can serve as usefulexamples to illustrate the idea behind theseexercises.

Figure 4. Weekly soil-moisture storage in three soils (based on Hyderabad data, 1901-1970).

L o c a t i o n S p e c i f i c i t y o f M o i s t u r eE n v i r o n m e n t

The distinctive characteristics of the SAT

97

inf luence the d is t r ibu t ion of naturalendowments — soils, rainfall, and climate — introducing a strong element of location spec-ificity in terms of the agricultural environ-ment. This is exemplified by a comparison oftwo locations — Hyderabad and Sholapur,India —situated about 500 km apart at similarlatitude and altitude. They seem agrocli-matologically, ecologically, and edaphicallysimilar (Virmani et al. 1978). At both locations,soils are deep to medium deep Vertisols. Themean annual rainfall at both the locations isabout the same (764 mm at Hyderabad and 742mm at Sholapur) and, on an average, more than75% of their precipitation is received betweenJune and September. Krishnan (1974) com-puted the annual PE at 1757 and 1802 mm,respectively, for Hyderabad and Sholapur; theactual length of the growing season wasestimated to be 130 and 148 days, respectively.The CV of the annual rainfall is 26.1% forHyderabad and 28.6% for Sholapur. Rao et al.(1971) computed Thornthwaite's moistureindex at -56.4 and -58.7, respectively.

With this information, one could expect simi-laragricultural potentialsatthesetwo locations.However, research has shown that this is nottrue. At Hyderabad, on Vertisols, yields in ex-cess of 5000 kg/ha are common in pigeonpea/maize intercropping and in maize/chickpeasequential cropping; rainfall-use efficiencies ofthe order of 6 to 10 kg/mm can be obtainedregularly. However, at Sholapur, rainy-seasoncropping is undependable with sorghum ormaize; a short-duration crop of pearl millet or a grain legume followed by sorghum grown onconserved moisture is somewhat successful.Furthermore, yields from year to year are highlyvariable, ranging from 1000 to 2000 kg/ha; therainfall-use efficiencies are quite low.

Hargreaves (1975) reported extensive rainfallanalyses for defining the agricultural poten-tialities for rainfed agriculture of semi-aridtropical northeastern Brazil. He found that if theamount of rainfall was sufficient to meet one-third of the potential demand (R/PE = 0.33), itwas sufficient to meet water requirements ofdryland crops in soils with a fair amount ofavailable water-holding capacity. The rainfall isdefined as "dependable precipitation" whenthe probability of its receipt is at least 75%. Insuch a scheme of evaluation, consideration isgiven both to the adequacy of rainfall in relation

to crop water needs and the dependability of itsoccurrence.

An analysis for initial and conditional prob-abilities of R/PE>0.33 explains most of thedifferences between Hyderabad and Sholapur(Fig. 5). The rainfall distribution is highly erratic;few of the initial probabilities P(W) exceed the70% threshold level and the (P(W/W) follows a similar pattern. In comparison, the rainfallanalysis for Hyderabad shows that rainfall isdependable (as defined at 70% probability)between 18 June and the end of July, and fromabout mid-August to mid-September. Thus,rainfall characterization based on short-termperiods can be particularly effective in explain-ing differences in agricultural climate and cropyield potentialities.

The illustration of location specificity, asexemplif ied by the rainfall analysis ofHyderabad and Sholapur, clearly brings out thatquantification of the moisture environmentwould be essential for identifying isoclimes andfor the transfer of different elements of thefarming systems technology.

Poss ib i l i t ies o f Dry Seed ingon Ver t i so ls in India

The methodology of rainfall probabilities couldbe used for assessing the risk associated withdry seeding of rainy-season crops in the SAT.From our experience, we have observed thatthe dry seeding period of the crops will be a couple of weeks ahead of the onset of the rainyseason. At Hyderabad, the onset of seasonalrainfall is abrupt at the commencement of therainy season and the probabilities of con-tinuance of rain are fairly dependable. There-fore, this location offers an excellent scope fordry seeding. At Sholapur, on the contrary, theonset of rains at the commencement of theseason is not abrupt and the probabilities of thecontinuity of rainfall after onset are not high;such locations are prone to considerable risk indry seeding. Based on rainfall probabilities ofmore than 90 locations in India, the areasoffering possibilities of dry seeding on Vertisolsare mapped in Figure 6. The technology for dryseeding of crops generated at ICRISAT Centercould be translated with a fair degree of successto Akola, Jabalpur, Indore, and Udaipur;whereas at Sholapur, Dharwar, Jalgaon, andAhmedabad the likely success of dry seeding is

98

Figure 5. Comparison of probabilities of RIPE>0.33 at Hyderabad and Sholapur. a. Initial probabilities (P[W])b. Conditional probabilities (P[WIWV

low due to the high risk associated with thispractice. In such cases it would probably be bestto build up some moisture in the upper horizonsof the soil profile prior to seeding.

Length and Characteristicsof the Growing Season

Thus far our discussion has been mainly on theprobabilities of rainfall and the methodologies

that may be used to employ this information inthe planning of agricultural strategies/operations. The length of the growing seasondepends upon the pattern of rainfall and alsoupon the type of the soil, particularly itsmoisture-holding characteristics.

The soil-moisture availability characteriza-tion could have implications in crop planningand selection of crop cultivars, at least as a firstapproximation. The length of the growing sea-son in the three soils is shown in Table 3. At the

99

Figure 6. Possibilities of dry seeding on Vertisol.

75% probability level, the length of the growingseason in shallow Alfisols would be about 15weeks, while in the Vertisols it extends to about23 weeks. This would mean that — dependingupon the soil water-storage capacity — onecould grow a medium- to long-duration crop at

the Hyderabad location on a deeper soil, asopposed to a short-duration crop on a lowwater-holding capacity soil. Since soil types andrainfall patterns in the SAT show considerablevariations over short distances, such analyseswill assist considerably in deriving estimates of

100

Table 3 . Leng th o f t he g r o w i n g season ( inw e e k s ) * f o r th ree so i l cond i t ions . b

Rainfallprobability

Mean75%25%

Available water-storage

Low(50 mm)

181520

Medium(150 mm)

211924

capacity

High(300 mm)

262330

a. From seed-germinating rains (25 June) to end of season(time when profile moisture reduces EA/PE to 0.5).

b. Low: shallow Alfisol; medium: shallow to medium-deepVertisols; high: deep Vertisol.

the crop g row ing per iods and sui table crops,and in del ineat ing isocl imes for the t ransfer oftechno logy .

References

DENMEAD, 0. T., and SHAW, R. H. 1962. Availability of

water to plants as affected by soil moisture contentand meteorological conditions. Agronomy Journal54:385-390.

HARGREAVES, G. H. 1975. Water requirements manualfor irrigated crops and rainfed agriculture.EMBRAPA and Utah State University PublicationNo. 75-D158.

HOLMES, R. M. 1961. Estimation of soil moisturecontent using evaporation data. In Proceedings,Hydrology Symposium: No. 2, Evaporation.Toronto: Department of Northern Affairs and Na-tional Resources, Water Resources Branch.

HUDSON, N. W. 1971. Soil conservation. London:Batsford.

JACKSON, I. J. 1977. Climate, water and agriculture inthe tropics. London and New York: Longmans.

KAMPEN, J. 1979. Watershed management and

technology transfer in the semi-arid tropics. Thissymposium.

KRISHNAN, A. 1974. Some climatological features ofthe semi-arid tropical regions of the world. Pages53-91 in Proceedings, International Workshop onFarming Systems. ICRISAT, 18-21 Nov 1974,Hyderabad, India.

RAO, K. N., GEORGE, C. J., and RAMASASTRI, K. S. 1971.

Climatic classification of India. Scientific report no.158. Pune, India: Indian Meteorology Department.

TROLL, D. 1965. Seasonal climates of the earth.Page 28 in World maps of climatology, eds. E.Rodenwaldt and H. Jusatz. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

VIRMANI, S. M., SIVAKUMAR, M. V. K., and Reddy, S. J.

1978. Comparison of some methods of characteriz-ing rainfall pattern in semi-arid tropics in relation tocrop planning. Presented at the Seminar on DryFarming, College of Agriculture, Pune, India.

101

Benchmark Soi l S tud ies :A Means fo r Transfer of Ag ro techno logy

Tejpal S. G i l l *

Abstract

A benchmark soil study is a cooperative effort of people dealing with standardizedagronomic research on well-defined soils that belong to the same taxa. It is, by design, a network. Research done on a benchmark soil produces data to be shared among testsites and extended to agriculturists managing the same soils. Experimental resultsobtained in one country can be applied to sites on the same soi l family in anothercountry. As the information base increases, it wi l l enhance a model of agrotechnologytransfer based on soil interpretation and classification. An international benchmark soi lnetwork is already in operation in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Brazil, and the Philippines; it canbe expanded into a worldwide network to enhance food production with the help of theinternational research centers and their outreach programs and the agronomic researchprojects conducted by national programs at numerous in-country locations.

Many specialists combine their talents andknowledge in agronomic research to developimproved soil management practices forincreased economic food production andresource conservation. Technology in discip-lines related to food production changes sorapidly and at so many different places that it isbecoming impractical for all political subdivisionsto undertake experiments to solve eachproblem as it arises. The strain on availableresources — people, t ime, land, and money —-too often overcomes the ability to respondeffectively; thus, shortcuts are needed in thestruggle to alleviate food crises and futurefamines.

An obvious shortcut is a sharing of know-ledge of demonstrated agronomic responses. A major difficulty is sorting out which informationcan be transferred to which location. There aremany options to try, numerous criteria to pro-pose, and millions of previous trials and errors.The fragmented bits of information accumu-lated by generations of agriculturists through-out the world are seldom known by othersbeyond the limits of their restricted communi-cation networks.

* Senior Program Manager, Office of Agriculture,Development Support Bureau, U.S. Agency forInternational Development.

Sharing is a fundamental attribute of humanwell-being, and is akin to love. One person,group, institution, or agency cannot share.Sharing is an active process that involves givingand receiving. Nothing is shared that is notreceived, thus mutual agreement is essential fora meaningful sharing of agronomic knowledge.A benchmark soil study is an efficient way toimprove the certainty and momentum of theprocess of agrotechnology transfer. This pro-cess of transfer is one of sharing.

An Overview

A benchmark soil study is a cooperative effort ofpeople dealing with standardized agronomicresearch on well-defined soils that belong to thesame taxa. Soil sites are carefully selected toprovide homogeneity of soil properties andlocal landscape features that modify inter-actions with external climatic conditions. Thesoils for the study are classified according tosoil taxonomy, and similarslopeand landscapepositions are located for each site.

The agronomic research is carefully designedand standardized for all sites to assure com-parability of results. That is, the same landpreparation techniques; varieties; insect, dis-ease, and other management practices; inputvariables; methods of harvest; and methods of

103

analysis are used. Site variables, mainly cli-matic, are also measured at each location.These cooperative research experiments arecalled transfer experiments because the resultsare evaluated to test the hypothesis of agro-technology similarity among the sites. Addi-tional soil management experiments are con-ducted to expand the kind of information thatcan be linked among the locations.

A benchmark soil study is, by design, a network. The experimental sites may be only a few miles apart, tens or hundreds of miles apart,or even thousands of miles apart. The crucialcriterion is that the soils at the selected sitesbelong to the same soil family in soil taxonomyand that the phase conditions (slope, landscapeposition, erosion, etc.) are very similar.

There are many benefits from a benchmarksoil study. The nature and degree of transfer-ability of soil and crop behavior is quantified;consequently, economic returns can be deter-mined relative to the local economies of thesites. The significance of site variables arebetter understood and the exchange of suchinformation improves predictions of soil-crop-climate interactions. Basic information of soilproperties at the research sites can be evaluatedand suggestions made for updating and im-proving soil classification. A final yield of a cropdepends on so many factors that when a re-sponse surface of one site can reasonably bepredicted from others, there will be lots ofadditional information that can be transferred.The esprit de corps among the experimentersinvolved in the network is high. The anticipationof providing data relevant to a distant locationand of obtaining meaningful results from ex-periments conducted by others, prevailsthroughout the system. There is heightenedexcitement and satisfaction resulting from shar-ing among equal partners in the challenge offood production.

Concep t of a Benchmark So i l

Soils are fixed in space; consequently, cropshave to be grown at specific locations. Someproperties of soils can be modified easily if theresources are available. Nutrients can be addedto soils deficient in nutrients, water can besupplied to some and drainage provided forothers, and surface soil structure can be alteredby mechanical disturbance to improve aeration

and moisture relationships for germination andearly growth of plants. Subsoil properties andlandscape features, such as slope and aspect,are more difficult and costly to modify; thusmany of these characteristics are used to clas-sify and describe soils. Combinations of physi-cal, phemical, and biological properties of soilsprovide meaningful subdivisions of the earth'sunconsolidated upper mantle. Dynamic pat-terns of internal soil temperature and soilmoisture commonly relate to landscapeinfluences on external climatic conditions; theyare important attributes of soils that can bemeasured and used in classification schemes.

A benchmark soil is similar to other kinds ofbenchmarks in that it is a major reference pointthat facilitates comparisons in uncharted areasand also ensures that the current results areaccurate for the intended purpose. A bench-mark soil in agriculture is a well-defined, prop-erly characterized, and correctly classified soil,whose extent, or uniqueness, is significant inthe planning, development, and maintenanceof the agricultural economy of a particularregion.

Recog nition of benchmark soils depends on a classification system that is comprehensive,can be adapted universally, and nas criteria thatare related to soil behavior when used for cropproduction. The soil family category in thehierarchal soil taxonomy stratifies the soils ofthe world into relatively homogeneous groups.A soil family integrates climatic informationimportant to plant growth with physical andchemical features that affect soil response tomanagement. Soil families are subdivided inthe lowest category into soil series that arerestricted locally and in many parts of the worldare not mapped and classified. By using ap-propriate phases at the family level of classi-fication, soils with very similar landscape condi-tions can be identified, mapped, and compared.

A link exists among all soils of the samebenchmark class wherever they occur in theworld. They have a limited range of measuredphysical and chemical properties, as well assimilarcharacteristics of tern peratureand mois-ture regimes. The strength of the linkages de-pends on the consistent application of thecriteria that provide the taxa of interest.

What soils should be considered as bench-mark soils? Collective judgment of planners andscientists is needed to select those soils whose

104

present and/or potential use contributes sig-nificantly to the welfare of people throughimproved food crop production and resourceconservation. Some soils are selected becausethey are extensive and can be used to increasethe amount of land under cultivation. Othersoils may be selected because they respondfavorably to intensive management practices.Where the soils are, and what kind they are, isbased on reliable soil resource inventories thatprovide information about land qualities. Theselection process continues as long as there isneed for refinements in developing and utilizingagronomic research results.

A B e n c h m a r k So i l S tudy

Research done on a benchmark soil producesdata to be shared among the test sites andextended to agriculturists managing the samesoils. Some minimum number of locations orsites is needed so that an important segment ofthe range of conditions for a soil family can beevaluated. Weather patterns often vary overshort distances and yet may be similar at widelyscattered locations; thus, weather is the mostinteresting influence at sites on similar soils.

The present international benchmark soilstudies consist of one primary and two second-ary sites in each country on each benchmarksoil being evaluated. As with other agronomicresearch, it is necessary to have enough ex-perimental sites to obtain sufficient data forstatistically valid estimates of the effects of un-controlled variables on crop yields. It appearsthat five locations are the min imum; theoptimum number of sites has not yet beendetermined.

The underlying principle of a benchmark soilstudy is that experimental results obtained inone country can be applied to sites on the samesoil family in another country. Some experi-ments are conducted to continually test thedegree of transferability of results. Other exper-iments evaluate soil and crop managementpractices and crop varieties. As more sites areadded to a benchmark soil study, the so-called"transfer experiments" may some day becomethe "control or check" plots in an array ofinternationally coordinated experimental de-signs.

At all locations, the field operations, datacollection, and data processing follow standard-

ized procedures and guidelines to assure com-patibility of results among the sites. Guidelinesdeal with land preparation, pest and diseasecontrol, field plot design, water management,harvesting, and data collection of controlledand uncontrolled variables.

As the information base increases frombenchmark soil studies, it will enhance a modelof agrotechnology transfer based on soil in-terpretation and land classification. The detailsof the experiments that should be tried and thecomplexities of multidisciplinary aspects of ag-ronomic research can confidently be handledby the scientists associated with benchmark soilstudies. Being personally involved in sharing isa phenomenal inspiration and reward systemthat scientists readily respond to.

An Internat ional BenchmarkSoil Network

A major goal of a benchmark soil network isincreased agronomic crop production consis-tent with growth and development of overalleconomic and environmental well-being ofsociety.

Increased production refers to more kinds ofcrop production, larger amounts of foodstuffs,and quicker availability. The crops of immediateconcern are those food and feed crops thatsustain and nurture humans. Consistency witheconomic development implies that food andfeed production is a subset of agriculturalproduction and services, which in turn are onesector of importance in national and worldeconomics. Environmental well-being refers tothe urgent need to develop and maintain long-term sustainable agricultural production, not inany one location, but in a perspective of a worldwide network whose interactions affecteveryone.

An international benchmark soil network isnot just a concept or a dream; it is becoming a working reality and will probably expand as theresults of the current soil studies become morewidely known. Sharing finances, sharing com-petent research scientists, and sharing respon-sibilities for a needy world is as appealing as it isjust good common sense.

The ingredients for an agronomic crop pro-duction network founded on well-definedbenchmark soils exist throughout the world.

105

How best to measure and blend these ingre-dients needs the immediate attention of dedi-cated people who want to be active partners insharing. The raw materials need to be refined toachieve better and quicker results.

The important scientific ingredients include:1. A universally recognized system of clas-

sification to identify soils having similarcharacteristics. Soil taxonomy is a work-able scheme that is widely accepted. Therefinements needed to satisfactorily iden-tify and consistently classify soils in thetropics are receiving careful attention, andtestable recommendations will soon bemade. This system is sufficiently com-prehensive, quantitative, and flexible toaccommodate new research results.

2. Adequate soil resource inventories, soilanalysis, and soil interpretation programswithin countries. Sharing experiences ofoperations and quality control of theseprograms needs to be expanded. Helpingeach other in training and evaluation pro-cedures will help ensure consistent use ofsoil taxonomy and its application to soilsurvey activities.

3. A workable international soil correlationnetwork, including a manageable soil databank. High-quality agronomic research isvery expensive and if the soils are impro-perly identified the extent of transfer ispoorly known. A computerized scheme ofdata handling will let soil scientistsadequately backstop the efforts of otherscientists involved in agronomic research.

4. A sound, reliable program for standardiz-ing agronomic research that evaluatestransferability and pinpoints site-specificconditions. Science provides predictionsbased on measured re lat ionships.Techniques and procedures that are notcompatible produce results that cannoteasily be used to test predictions, andprogress in increasing crop production ishindered. Ideas and working conceptsfrom many disciplines are desperatelyneeded to make this program viable.Pathologists, entomologists, agrono-mists , hydro log is ts , economis ts ,pedologists, conservationists, and otherscan contribute to the scientific soundnessof meaningful research.

5. Competent crop and soil scientists guiding

the work at research sites that are linkedtogether in a global network. Isolation isno excuse for incompetence in this planbecause isolation is only physical location.Equal partners in a sharing of knowledgeimplies that communications must beeasy and mutual respect is maintained.This is critical for planning, implementing,and evaluating the research activitiesagreed on.

6. Information systems capable of proces-sing, evaluating, and disseminatingagronomic research results. Horizontaltransfer links research sites around theworld, but vertical transfer directs atten-tion to the country or locale where adop-tion is intended to occur. The skills andtechniques of vertical transfer are as var-ied as the dialects and traditions of theagriculturists whose privations promptour desire to share. We must receive inorder to be able to give if we want to share.

Scientifically, the capabilities exist to refineand extend the above considerations into a viable agronomic research network. The rate ofexpansion of the network, the scope of thevarious research activities, and the interactionsboth horizontally and vertically depend more onpolitical decisions than on scientific know-how.The shortcut of effective and efficient transfer ofagrotechnology based on soil interpretationand land classification is scientifically feasible.

A Poten t ia l F r a m e w o r k

The United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment has supported the concept of a soil-based network of agronomic crop research.Research projects on agrotechnology transferin the tropics based on the soil family continueto develop and test the hypothesis of soilmanagement and crop yield transfers from siteto site. In addition to these projects in Hawaii,Puerto Rico, Brazil, the Philippines, Indonesia,and Cameroon, there are the international cen-ters and their outreach programs. Nationalresearch centers also conduct agronomic cropresearch at numerous in-country locations.

The basic infrastructure is in place. For ex-ample, the far-reaching implications of the re-search here at ICRISAT can be offered to areasof the semi-arid tropics having the same soilfamilies. The black soils (Vertisols) are domin-

106

antly fine, montmoril l initic, isohyperthermicUdorthentic Chromusterts and the red soils(Alfisols) are dominantly clayey, mixed,isohyperthermic Rhodic Paleustalfs. Threeother soil families also occur at ICRISAT, andcrop response information can be provided fortesting transferability. Standardized agronomicresearch on these same soil families bycooperating scientists will form the links ofother benchmark soil studies.

Joining the present family links among theHydric Dystrandepts, Tropeptic Eutrustox, andTypic Paleudults wil l be family tie-ins with theTypic Rhodustalfs on the Malia llluppallanaAgricultural Research Institute in Sri Lanka, andothers with the Oxic Paleustalfs at IITA inNigeria.

Soil data banks are receiving soil informationfrom experiment stations in many countries.Cooperation in analyzing and identifying soilsof unsure placement strengthens the com-munications among scientists in far-off places.New experiment stations are being set up, moreoutreach programs are under way, and theexchange of information that leads to effectivetransfer increases daily.

Eventually the experiences of hundreds ofresearchers will be able to be utilized by hun-dreds more. The scientific ingredients exist;they need additional refinement; they requirethe cooperative endeavors of many to bringabout a global network of agronomic cropproduction based on well-defined soils into a truly international sharing of agrotechnologytransfer.

A N e t w o r k V i s ion

The initial hypothesis testing of transferability isbeing done with the following soil families:(1) thixotropic, isothermic Hydric Dystrandepts,(2) clayey, kaolinitic, isohyperthermic Tropep-tic Eutrustox, (3) clayey, kaolinitic, isohyper-thermic Typic Paleudults.

The soil families that occur at the inter-national centers — IRRI, IITA, ICRISAT, CIAT,CIMMYT, WARDA, CIP, and ICARDA — need tobe matched with areas having the same soilfamilies. Cooperative standardized crop experi-ments can be established and results shared.

The soil families at existing regional andnational agricultural research locations can alsobe identified, and corresponding areas of the

same soil families can be located.Using this information as a nucleus, it will be

possible to consider where and how to joinadditional benchmark soil studies into an inter-national network. Preliminary strategies likelywill be based on agroclimatic regions or zonesand on known or expected areas of similar soilpotentials.

Agroclimatic regions outline areas withinwhich climatic variations are less than thewhole. The range of uncertainty is limited. Soiltaxonomy acknowledges soil climate as aninteraction between external climate and land-scape features that may be measured in thesoils. Thus, classifying soils in the family cate-gory identifies groups that also have a limitedrange of climatic variability. Major permanentmodifications of climate or of soil on a largescale is not feasible and probably is not en-vironmentally wise; therefore, climate and soilare the main resources that must be understoodto provide the basis for efficiently and effec-tively increasing food production of adaptedcrops and systems of management.

Agroclimates and soil families are seldomideal. However, to the extent that their proper-ties are adequately described, so are the majorlimitations that must be managed to strivetoward the ideal. Benchmark soil studies at-tempt to resolve the soil management practicesneeded to permit the climate and crop to re-spond favorably in the specified soil. Eco-nomic evaluation of the results suggestswhether successful farmers are likely to choosethe practices recommended as being transfer-able.

Benchmark soil studies do not work with idealsoils or climates, but they are designed toprovide guidance on how to maximize effort inapproaching the ideal.

If we assume for a moment that 80 to 100agroclimatic zones significant for most foodproduction can be adequately described andlocated, and the three soil families in each zonebracket most of the important soil conditions,there are potentially 250 to 300 unique combi-nations that would some day belong to an inter-national network. If each combination hasexperiments at three locations and each hasseveral satellite sites, the number of experi-ments becomes very large.

Obviously, priorities will have to be set byresponsible organizations utilizing the best in-

107

formation available. For example, are there 15agroclimates that are most critical for maintain-ing and increasing food production, and cantwo soil families in each be selected that domi-nate use and economic development? The chal-lenges are there and so is the opportunity tobecome a partner in the sharing of agrotech-nology.

Information systems that not only handle soiland crop performance data, but, more impor-tantly, facilitate the evaluation and dissemin-ation of relevant transfer information are a must. Horizontal transfer of research findingscan save millions of dollars and speed upsolutions to production problems, but the truemeaning of sharing can only be realized whenvertical transfer to agriculturists results in theirimproved well-being.

Benchmark Soil Studiesin the SAT

How well can a yield of the same crop under thesame management be predicted for the samefield for the next growing season? Forecastingthe future of a crop yield is like the game oflife — it is full of uncertainty. Based on priorknowledge, we predict a continuing trend ofevents to occur, and if we could but controlenough of the variables we would feel fairlyconfident of the outcome. In researchlaboratories controlled experiments can beconducted to examine the relationships andeffects of carefully designed variables. Extrapo-lation to field conditions is often fraught withconflicting responses.

Longtime averages, fluctuations, and recur-rence intervals of droughts or of floods provideinsight but no guarantees of successful pre-diction. Perhaps we set our goals too high, orperhaps we have not been able to obtain satis-factory relationships between probabilities ofreasonable success and the complexities of riskthat underlie acceptance and application ofchange.

The mysteries of climatic vagaries make uspainfully aware that water is the dominantnatural constraint to increased and stabilizedagricultural production in the semi-aid tropics.Combined with the wide range of soil condi-tions that alter the behavior of moisture and thefinal influecne on crops, the problems appearto

be understood far sooner than are the economi-cal solutions.

Shortcuts to potential solutions are indeeddesirable. Better models of agroclimates, bettermodels of soil moisture behavior, better un-derstanding of crops and cropping systemsthatutilize the available moisture, and improvedunderstanding of socioeconomic constraints tomeasured agricultural production are all partsof the effort to provide shortcuts.

Combining precious resources that speed upreliable answers and increase the implement-ation of effective practices makes a lot of sense.Cooperative work that brings together the scat-tered resources of a troubled world is feasibleand practical. A shortcut of considerable impor-tance is a network of agronomic crop researchconducted by competent scientists on well-defined soils. Properly classified soils, compati-ble experimental designs, consistent conduct ofresearch, information systems that work, and a concern for the needs of development at alllevels of interest will make the network a work-ing reality. Everyone can contribute, everyoneis important, and the benefits accrue to all. Theexpansion of benchmark soil studies into a worldwide network can work; it has alreadystarted. Please give serious thought to yourrole, your obligation, your responsibility, and,most important, your opportunity to encourageand to assist in bringing about a system ofglobal interchange of information on foodproduction.

R e f e r e n c e s

ARNOLD, R. W. 1978. Selling a package of agro-nomic research for agrotechnology transfer: Someconcepts, issues, and recommendations. Presentedat the Workshop on Operational Implications ofAgrotechno logy Transference Research.ICRISAT, 23-26 Oct 1978, Hyderabad, India.

BAIRD, G. B. 1976. Need for an international researchand technology transfer network in tropical soils.Pages 185-192 in Proceedings, Soil Resource Datafor Agricultural Development, ed. L. D. Swindale,1978. Honolulu: University of Hawaii AgriculturalExperiment Station.

108

IKAWA, H. 1976. Occurence and significance of climaticparameters in the soil taxonomy. Pages 20-27 inProceedings, Soil Resource Data for AgriculturalDevelopment, ed. L D. Swindale, 1978. Honolulu:University of Hawaii Agricultural ExperimentStation.

PANABOKKE, C. R. 1976. A case study of tropical Alf isolsin Sri Lanka. Pages 155-162 in Proceedings, SoilResource Data for Agricultural Development, ed. L.D. Swindale, 1978. Honolulu: University of HawaiiAgricultural Experiment Station.

Research on agrotechnology transfer in the tropicsbased on the soil family. 1978. Benchmark SoilsProject progress report 1. Joint project of the de-partments of agronomy and soil science in therespective colleges of agriculture, Universities ofHawaii and Puerto Rico.

SWINDALE, L. D. (ed.). 1978. Soil resource data foragricultural development. Honolulu: University ofHawaii Agricultural Experiment Station.

SWINDALE, L. D. 1976. A soil research network throughtropical soil families. Pages 210-218 in Proceed-ings, Soil Resource Data for Agricultural Develop-ment, ed. L D. Swindale, 1978. Honolulu: Universityof Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station.

UEHARA.G. 1976. Agrotechnology transfer and the soilfamily. Pages 204-209 in Proceedings, Soil Re-source Data for Agricultural Development, ed. L. D.Swindale, 1978. Honolulu: University of HawaiiAgricultural Experiment Station.

VIRMANI, S. M., SINGH, S., and KRANTZ, B. A, 1976. Use

of soils information in planning agricultural de-velopment in the semi-arid tropics. Pages 221-227in Proceedings, Soil Resource Data for AgriculturalDevelopment, ed. L. D. Swindale, 1978. Honolulu:University of Hawaii Agricultural ExperimentStation.

USDA. 1975. Soil Taxonomy. Agriculture handbook436. Washington, DC: U.S. Government PrintingOffice.

109

Watershed Management and Techno logy Transferin the Semi-Ar id Trop ics

Jacob Kampen*

A b s t r a c t

Frequent shortfalls in food production and a deterioration of the productive capacity ofthe resource base have become common in many areas of the SAT. Watershed-basednatural resource development, which involves the optimum use of the watershedprecipitation through improved water, soil, and crop management, has the potential tocontribute significantly to greater productivity and resource conservation. The de-velopment of improved watershed management technology adapted to what farmersrequire, is a complex and long-term task; all land uses, including grasslands and forests,must be considered. To attain successful agricultural development, ICRISA T's responsi-bility consists of the generation of improved research methods, cooperative investiga-tions focused on operations research end the integration of new technology, andtraining programs.

Many areas in the semi-arid tropics (SAT) arecurrently characterized by rapidly increasingpopulations. Shortfalls in agricultural produc-tion have become common in several regions ofthe SAT. The greater demands for food haveresulted in a need for fundamental changes inthe production systems that were characteristicof rainfed areas. Shifting cultivation is beingreplaced by permanent agriculture, and far-mers' attempts to further increase productionhave caused an extention of cultivation tomarginal lands that are frequently subject tocrop failure due to lack of moisture. Increasednumbers of animals are changing the hyd-rologic characteristics of vast areas of grazinglands (Kampen 1974). The demand for wood asconstruction material and fuel has resulted inthe denudation of forest lands.

T h e N e e d s

This intensification of land use in the traditionalagricultural setting is self-defeating, because itis exploitive and results in greatly increasedrunoff and soil erosion, reduced groundwaterrecharge, downstream flooding of agriculturallands and cities, as well as an acceleratedsedimentation of reservoirs that negates irri-

* Principal Scientist, Land and Water Management,ICRISAT.

gation and power investments. As a result, theland resource base is shrinking and its pro-ductive capacity diminishing. Thus, resourcemanagement that more effectively conservesand utilizes the rainfall and the fertility of the soiland new crop production systems that maintainproductivity and assure dependable harvestsare urgently required (Krishnamoorthy et al.1977). Mechanisms must be found to attainsound husbandry of those lands most suitablefor pastures and trees.

In rainfed agriculture, the only source ofavailable water is the rain that falls on a givenarea. Runoff, erosion, and drainage representserious problems for many areas in the SAT,and the solution to these problems lies inevolving development programs that recognizethe natural topography and the drainage pat-terns of the land. In many areas, it is not unusualto experience significant quantities of runoff atone time of the season and serious drought atanother time. The collection of excess waterand its utilization to provide greater stability torainfed agriculture appears to be a viable de-velopment alternative in such areas, particu-larly if soils are shallow (Krantz et al. 1978).Thus, the watershed1, or catchment, is the

1. "Watershed," strictly defined, refers to the divideseparating one drainage basin from another; inthis paper the term "watershed" is consideredsynonymous with catchment and drainage basin.

111

natural framework for resource development inrelation to crop production systems and re-source conservation and utilization.

T h e A p p r o a c h e s

Watershed-based resource utilization involvesthe optimum use of the area's precipitation forthe improvement and stabilization of agricul-ture on the watershed through better water,soil, and crop management. More effectiveutilization of water for the production of cropscan be facilitated by one or more of the follow-ing means: (1) directly by improving infil-tration of rainfall into the soil and thus mak-ing more soil water available for plant use;(2) through drainage, collection, storage, andre-utilization of runoff; and/or (3) by water re-covery from wells after deep percolation beyondthe root profile.

The need for development, conservation, andmanagement of land and water resources isacknowledged. However, many small farmsand fragmented land parcels — and oftenseveral different land uses — together com-pose a watershed: their presence must beaccommodated within efficient watershed de-velopment and management techniques. Inmany situations group action may be requiredto attain the desired objectives.

The diversity of environments encounteredin the SAT is recognized. The problems oftechnology development and transfer of newinformation to farmers in this ecological zoneare difficult to solve because the moisture envi-ronment is unreliable and because the appropri-ate practices will be complex (Virmani et al.1979). Improved technology will relate to crop,variety, fertility, management, land develop-ment, water conservation, etc. In the end, mill-ions of often illiterate farmers with little capitalor land must learn to apply the tools of science toextract more food and ultimately a betterquality of life from their hostile environment.Compromises must be found between privateshort-term goals and common long-term objec-tives. The challenge is great.

T h e I m p l i c a t i o n s

The envisaged implementation of integratedagricultural development programs, adapted tothe specific requirements of different agro-

climatologic and socioeconomic regions, hasseveral important implications for research andtraining. Much greater attention must be paid toholistic investigations of the characteristics ofexisting land use and farming systems, therelationships between different system com-ponents, and the potentials and weaknesses ofimproved production methods involving foodand cash crops, livestock, forages, and trees.Also, to facilitate such integrated developmentapproaches, a greatly increased effort in termsof on-farm research must be evolved; appliedresearch programs involving interdisciplinaryteams of scientists working together with de-velopment agents are required. Such projectscan be effectively used for training and forstudies of group action potentials. It is in thissetting that the essential involvement of far-mers in technology development becomesfeasible and that the desired feedback into basicand applied studies executed at research in-stitutions can be generated.

Watershed-based ResourceD e v e l o p m e n t , M a n a g e m e n t ,and U t i l i z a t i o n

P a s t R e s o u r c e D e v e l o p m e n t A t t e m p t s

Until a few years ago, little attention was paid tothe SAT in terms of agricultural research andwith regard to resource development projects.Except for cash-crop agriculture on steep slopesof considerable elevation, the crops and farm-ing systems common in most of the SAT haveonly recently caught the attention of scientists.In the past, some of the approaches to amelior-ate the problems faced by farmers in the rainfedSAT have been: (1) to meet droughts and foodcrises by emergency relief programs, (2) tofallow heavy soils such as Vertisols during therainy season in an attempt to accumulate a moisture reserve in the profile for growing a crop in the subsequent dry season, (3) to con-struct bunds as a soil and water conservationpractice, and (4) to develop irrigation facilities.

The "crash" resource conservation and de-velopment schemes implemented as part ofrelief programs have not resulted in improvingthe stability and long-term productive potentialof the environment. Cultivated fallow on deepVertisols is questionable because of the erosionhazard; this practice also frequently results in

112

only a small portion of thetotal seasonal rainfallactually being used for crop production (Kam-pen 1977). It has not been possible to identifyany results of controlled experiments that showsignificant and stable crop yield increases dueto moisture conservation by contour bunds inthe SAT of India (ICRISAT 1976, 1978). Experi-ence with irrigation in the SAT shows thatconventional projects usually provide continu-ous water on a seasonal basis to crops with highwater requirements, such as rice and sugar-cane; they do not presently have the flexibilityrequired to act in a supplemental fashion. Fewserious efforts have been made to explore howthe limited available water resources can beused to stabilize and support larger proportionsof rainfed agriculture for the benefit of a greaternumber of farmers.

Thus, past approaches to resource develop-ment to increase agricultural production in theSAT have achieved only limited success (Kam-pen 1974). These development efforts have notbeen planned and executed on the basis of thenatural drainage basins, nor have they recog-nized the basic climatologic and soil charac-teristics of the SAT (Kampen and Burford 1979).Some of the techniques discussed have un-doubtedly had benefical effects in limited areas;however, they have not provided the break-through in soil and water conservation andutilization that is imperative for rapid develop-ment of agriculture in the SAT.

The Watershed as a Focusfo r I n teg ra ted A g r i c u l t u r a lDeve lopmen t

On watersheds exceeding a few hundred hec-tares in size, two major hydrologic zones can bedistinguished (Fig. 1). In the upper reaches of a catchment is the "zone of recharge," where thenet movement of water is downwards; aftermoistening the root profile, excess water dis-charges into groundwater. In the valley bottomsis the "zone of discharge;" here the net move-ment of water is generally upwards. A transitionzone represents the variation that will occur inwet vs dry years. In earlier times the upperreaches of watersheds were covered withforest, shrubs, or grass, which helped promoteinfiltration into the soil and discharge to thegroundwater. However, with the removal oftrees and with more intensive agricultural use,

Figure 1. A schematic drawing of a watershed showing the zone of groundwater recharge, the zone of groundwater discharge, and the transition zone. Potential locations for wells and tanks (small runoff water reservoirs) are also shown.

runoff and erosion have increased. This situ-ation has resulted in less water being actuallyavailable for plant growth in the uplands; oftenonly a relatively small portion (about 20 to 50%)of the annual rainfall is used for evapotranspira-tion during the crop growing season (Kampen1979). The rest of the precipitation evaporatesfrom bare soil, particularly under cultivatedfallow; drains beyond the root profile; and/orruns off the surface of the land. Thus, newresource development and conservationtechniques are required to improve the cropgrowth environment on these lands.

Improved, in situ soil and water conservationmeasures and more suitable and productivecropping systems can considerably increaseeffectively used rainfall and decrease runoff anderosion (Thierstein 1979, Willey et al. 1979). At

113

ICRISAT, cultivation in graded broadbeds hasbeen explored as one alternative tested onoperational-scale watersheds. In cases wheresignificant quantities of runoff occur in mostyears, small storage reservoirs for supplemen-tal irrigation may be feasible in the uplands. Toprevent rapid silting of tanks, the contributingcatchments (even if they are not cultivated butused for grazing or forestry) need to be wellmanaged so that little erosion occurs. The hardrock strata that underlie most of the Vertisolsand Alfisols of the SAT generally providemeager water aquifers. Agriculturally sig-nificant groundwater is often related to thesmall drainageways in the lower reaches ofwatersheds; opportunities for wells in this areamay be explored (Fig. 1).

Bunding and watershed-based land- andwater-management systems, consisting ofgraded broadbed cultivation with protectedgrassed waterways and runoff storage whereneeded, employ different concepts of resourceconservation, management, and use (Fig. 2).With bunds, excess water flows in concentratedfashion through minor depressions on the land,collects at the bund, and is then impounded on a relatively small area or forced to flow across theslope and out of the watershed where it is finallydisposed of in heavily grazed, uncontrolled, andoften erosive drainage systems (Fig. 2a). Ero-sion between bunds can be substantial; in-adequate bund maintenance often results inbreaches. With cultivation to broadbeds, watermanagement and control begins on the culti-vated land itself (Figs. 2b, 2c). Excess water isallowed to flow through small furrows to a grassed drainageway and is then safely con-ducted to a tank. The flow velocity of the water iscontrolled by the slope of the broadbed systemon the land and, where required, by dropstructures in the drains.

On- fa rm Deve lopmen tand Imp lemen ta t i on o f WatershedManagemen t Techno logy

Given the specific characteristics and needs ofeach area, few "handbook" development pre-scriptions can be expected to evolve. Althoughthe principles for development may be clear,the ultimate task of finding appropriate solutionsforthe specific problems encountered in a givenarea will have to be assigned to technicians,

extension agents, and, ultimately, directly tofarmers. To fulfill their responsibility effectively,the technical staff will have to acquire the abilityto " invent" the most appropriate solutions toeach particular situation rather than to apply a given set of rules. Thus, a vast training programwill be required, aimed at increasing under-standing of the limitations, constraints, andpotentials of present farming systems and therequi rements of improved product iontechnologies, as well as their adaptation andapplication. Such training programs, to be con-vincing and effective, may be best executed inthe setting of on-farm operations research pro-jects.

A small, on-farm watershed developmentproject on Alfisols near Aurepalle — executedas part of cooperative research involving theAndhra Pradesh Agricultural University, theIndian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)and ICRISAT — illustrates the requirementsand costs involved. The watershed area is about12 ha and belongs to five farmers; it wasdeveloped during the dry season of 1978-79when normally draft animals were idle andlabor was underemployed.2 The farmers wereinvolved in all the planning stages and partici-pated in the development activities. Land de-velopment consisted of the removal of stonesand brush, a thorough cultivation, land smoo-thing, drainageway construction, and the initiallayout and implementation of the semiperma-nent, graded broadbeds (Fig. 3). An existingshallow well was also rehabilitated; water willbe used for supplemental irrigation. The totaldevelopment costs amounted to about Rs.450/ha (U.S. $56). The total cost of constructing2500 m of waterways was Rs. 894; the cost offive small drop structures was Rs. 574. Thus, thecost of drainageways amounted to Rs. 125/ha($16). Land smoothing was relatively expensive atRs. 67/ha; the initial cultivation cost was Rs. 62/ha, and the ridge marking operation was Rs. 58/ha.Less than 10% of the total costs consisted ofcapital expenditures; the rest of the chargeswere paid for locally hired labor and bullocks.Reconstruction of the well cost about Rs. 135/ha($17), 60% of which consisted of capital expen-

2. Costs were accounted for on the basis of thefollowing rates: Rs. 5 and Rs. 3/day for male andfemale labor, respectively, and Rs. 10/day for a bullock pair exclusive of the operator.

114

b. Broadbed-and-furrow c system at 0.6% wi th-in f i e l d boundaries.

:. Broadbed-and-furrowsystem at 0.6% withgrassed waterwaysand a tank.

Bed and furrow direct ionField bundsGrassed waterways

Elevated in le tContour bunds

A Vertisol watershed with three alternative soil and water conservation and manage-ment practices illustrated for the same watershed. The broadbed (150 cm)-and-furrow system at 0.6% slope within the field boundaries (Layout b) was established 5 years ago and still exists. Layout c shows the same permanent broadbed-and-furrow system with field boundaries removed, a grassed waterway, and a tank. Contour bunds (Layout a) are seldom allowed by farmers as they do not want their small fields bisected. Therefore, the bunds are placed on the field boundaries, and problems of water stagnation and bund breaching occur.

115

a. Contour bunds

Figure 2.

Figure 3. Initial marking of the semi-permanent broadbeds after land smoothing in the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University-ICAR-ICRISAT cooperative research pro-ject on watershed development on Alfisols at Aurepalle.

ditures for granite stones and cement. Almosthalf of the development costs were bornedirectly by the farmers. The watershed wasplanted to sorghum, a millet/pigeonpea inter-crop, and castor early in the rainy season of1979. Similar projects have been initiated nearKanzara and Shirapur (Fig. 4).

The Opera t i ons ResearchConcep t t o Fac i l i t a teTechno logy D e v e l o p m e n tand Trans fe r

Several components of the systems of farmingnow common in the SAT must be improvedsimultaneously to attain substantially increasedand more stable production (Kampen 1979).Thus, there is an urgent need for the integrationof new techniques into technically and econo-mically viable farming systems that fit majorconstraints nowfaced by farmers. Such integra-tion is most effectively studied in operational-scale systems research at research centers andon farms.

A t R e s e a r c h C e n t e r s

In studies on resource utilization for the SAT,the central objective is to make the best use of

Figure 4. Planting of a millet-pigeonpea in-tercrop on broadbeds in the Ma hat ma Phu/e Kris hi Vidyapeeth-ICAR-ICRISA T cooperative research project on Vertisol watershed de-velopment at Shirapur.

the rain that falls on a given area. In order tostudy water as an input, small, natural water-sheds were chosen as a unit for research atICRISAT and in cooperative projects with theICAR. Alternative land- and water-managementtechniques are simulated and evaluated onAlfisols and Vertisols. Improved croppingsystems are superimposed on these treat-ments; these consist, for example, of intercropsof maize or sorghum with pigeonpea, sequen-tial crops of maize and chickpea, etc. All culturaloperations are executed using two of the impor-tant resources of farmers in the SAT: labor andanimals for draft power. Thus, these water-sheds are operational-scale pilot plants wherethe integrated effect of alternative systems offarming on productivity, resource use, and con-servation can be monitored and evaluated, andwhere feedback to specific projects is gener-ated. One successful means of transferringresource management technology from theseoperations research projects to similar envi-ronments is the use of agroclimatic classifica-tion and simulation approaches (Virmani et al.1979).

O n F a r m s

Region-specific knowledge on improved soiland water management must be developed

116

through the initiation of small-scale (10 to 50 ha),on-farm watershed management projects. Toensure success of these projects and to buildthe foundation for regionwide implementationand long-term continuity, these programsought to be part and parcel of the activities ofexisting research institutions and coordinatedresearch projects with involvement of actiondepartments at national and state levels. Lead-ership must be provided by state and universitystaff. Participation of scientists in soil and waterengineering, crop improvement, agronomy,economics, and sociology during the phases ofproject development, execution, and evaluationwill be necessary; farmers must also be in-volved in decisions on appropriate resourcedevelopment and watershed management.ICRISAT can facilitate the initiation of suchprojects through participation in cooperativeresearch at a few carefully selected, representa-tive locations.

Integrated on-farm projects for operationsresearch on natural resource developmentwould ideally consist of four distinct phases:the collection of basic data, the design of animprovement program in which farmers par-ticipate, the implementation, and the evalua-tion. Successful execution of such applied re-search programs in representative agroclimaticregions will probably require not less than 5 years. Such projects will serve an importanttraining function. On-farm projects are consi-dered essential to facilitate farmers' acceptanceand to prepare the ground for later regionwide,con t inu ing programs a imed at improvedwatershed management.

Regional research programs for improvedwatershed management would have a numberof primarily technical objectives related to thespecific agroclimatic environments. However,each project should also be aimed at threegoals, which are of critical importance:

1. To develop holistic soil-, water-, and crop-management technology that supportsthe maximization of economic and socialreturns, especially to the less advantagedcultivators; to test if efficient labor-inten-sive rather than capital-intensive technolrogy can realize this objective; to involvefarmers in the technology developmentprocess.

2.' To shorten the time lag between the de-velopment of new soil, water, and crop

management technology at research insti-tutes and its application on farms; to testthe profitability and applicability of re-search results under on-farm conditions;to provide feedback on priority researchneeds to scientists.

3. To evolve, through field research, guide-lines on the desirability and the requiredincentives for group action in the de-velopment of natural resources and theoperation of new watershed managementsystems.

Benef i ts f r o m On- fa rm Opera t ionsResearch

Incidental to achieving these major goals,applied on-farm research programs in water-shed management are envisaged to have animpact on several other development issues. A significant contribution would be made to:

• Assist in building institutional resourcesfor research, training, and implementationof soil- and water-management technology;find ways to directly involve research andtraining institutions and graduate andpostgraduate students in field researchprograms aimed at the solution of urgentresource management problems; increasethe awareness and understanding of re-searchers with regard to field problems.

• Facilitate the acceptance of improved soil-and water-management technology byfarmers through investigation and, wherepossible, removal of existing constraints ofsocial and/or economic nature; enhancethe establishment of "field laboratories"where further data aimed at project evalu-ation, improved research, and designcould be collected; where technical solu-tions and organizational frameworks couldbe tested; where new crops, varieties, andcropping systems could be tried underimproved on-farm conditions; wheretechnical staff of action departments couldbe trained; and where the potential impactof an integrated improvement programcould be demonstrated.

• Help bridge the apparent gap betweenthose professionals and organizations in-volved in planning and construction ofengineering works for soil and water con-trol and management and the farmers who

117

make use of these works in an agriculturalproduction process.

• Collect evidence on the need for a legisla-tive framework providing the social controlimperative for effective resource develop-ment and watershed management.

• Improve the planning and execution of inter-disciplinary programs aimed at improvedwatershed management by upgrading thetraining and procedures at district andstate levels; train extension workers tohelp farmers make efficient use of soil andwater resources and new technology, andto adjust to new forms of organization andchanges in their social and economic envi-ronment.

• Extend successful concepts evolving fromon-farm research. Although area differ-ences will result in alternative forms ofimplementation, improvements in (andrealization of) the agricultural potential atlocations selected for operations researchwill have a significant impact on importantsegments of rainfed agriculture.

Coopera t i ve Stud ies on A l t e r n a t i v eIn tegra ted Deve lopmen t App roaches

Before natural resource development projectsintegrated into agricultural production pro-grams are applied to large rainfed areas, it isadvisable to identify and test the most promis-ing technical, organizational, and financial de-velopment approaches on larger watersheds(exceeding 1000 ha). A few representativeregions — in terms of land uses, crops, soils,and rainfall — could be selected to test theviability of alternative agricultural developmentapproaches and to monitor results and costs aswell as other requirements. The goals of suchcooperative research projects would be:

• To determine sufficiently accurate andfeasible procedures for surveys and quan-tification of the natural resource base.3

• To select, in consultation with farmers anddevelopment agencies, two or three viablesolutions and implementation methods.

• To integrate overall land use planning andimplementation (forage, horticulture, silvi-culture) with development of the resourcebase for food and cash crop production.

• To moni tor progress and ident i fybottlenecks, to feed information back to

research centers; to determine cost andresults with action agencies.

• To train technical development staff ininnovative implementation of new re-source management and uti l izationtechnology across large areas.

Involvement of farmers in selecting andadapting technical solutions to a particular re-source environment should be sought ratherthan implementing just one selected "pac-kage." Assuming that enough is known to arriveat integrated, effective solutions, these studieson development alternatives would contributegreatly to maintaining a problem-orientedfocus for research institutions. It is evident thatultimately agricultural development programssucceed or fail with the quality of the staffinvolved in implementing such projects. Thesuggested cooperative studies would provide a real-world setting for in-service training of largenumbers of technicians. Successful projectswould also serve a demonstration function fortechnicians and farmers from other areas.

Conclusions

Present farming systems in the SAT are charac-terized by low and undependable yields and byan inefficient use of the rains and the soil. Thus,substantial improvement in the productivity ofthe resource base is required. Recent resultsfrom operations research at centers and onfarms indicate that this goal can be attainedthrough watershed-based natural resource de-

3. For example, in a typical region on Alfisols on theDeccan Plateau, the resource survey might includequantitative measurement of the soil water-holding capacities and the present water balancesof tank systems; representative wells would bestudied in terms of the efficiency of water utiliz-ation. Existing records would be used to determinethe approximate magnitude of different compo-nents of the water balance of cultivated, grazed,and fallow areas. On the basis of such investi-gations, priority problem identification and theselection of potential solutions would be feasible.One should determine what might be done tobetter utilize the already available infrastructurebefore new land and water development programsare designed and implemented; short-term andlong-term resource development goals would beset.

118

velopment and management and the introduc-tion of improved cropping systems.

Watershed-based natural resource develop-ment and use ultimately involves the optimumutilization of the water and the soil to the benefitof the people inhabiting the land. Cooperativeoperations research programs must be strength-ened so that integration of new technologyis emphasized, interdisciplinary research isfacilitated, farmers are involved in technologydevelopment, and group action questions aresolved. Training of scientists and developmentworkers in holistic approaches is essential.Only sustained, integrated developmentprograms — executed by well-trained pro-fessionals and supported by problem-orientedapplied research projects — will have the de-sired impact. No short-term, miracle solutionsshould be expected.

ICRISAT's task in facilitating the transfer andearly implementation of watershed-manage-ment technology is threefold: (1) to devejopeffective and efficient research methodologiesaimed at the generation of new farmingsystems; (2) to involve national research andextension agencies in the generation of viabletechnology and transfer methods throughcooperative research programs at researchcenters and on farms; and (3) to assist thedevelopment of manpower to initiate and guidea gigantic training program aimed not only attechnicians but also at farmers.

R e f e r e n c e s

ICRISAT. 1976. ICRISAT annual report, 1975-76.India: ICRISAT, Patancheru, A.P. 502 324. 233 pp.

ICRISAT. 1978. ICRISAT annual report, 1976-77.India: ICRISAT, Patancheru, A.P. 502 324. 239 pp.

KAMPEN, J. 1974. Water conservation practices andtheir potential for stabilizing crop production in thesemi-arid tropics. Pages 182-197, Annex II, in Pro-ceedings, FAO/UNDP International Expert Consulta-tion on the Use of Improved Technology for FoodProduction in Rainfed Areas of Tropical Asia, 1-7Dec 1974, Hyderabad, India.

KAMPEN, J. 1977. The development and use of landand water resources in rainfed agriculture. Pre-sented at the Workshop on Approaches andMethodologies for Development of GroundwaterResources. National Geophysics Research Institute,26-30 May 1975, Hyderabad, India.

KAMPEN, J. 1979. Farming systems research andtechnology for the semi-arid tropics. This sym-posium.

KAMPEN, J., and BURFORD, J.R. 1979. Production sys-tems, soil-related constraints and potentials in thesemi-arid tropics with special reference to India.Presented at the Conference on Priorities for Al-leviating Soil-related Constraints to Food Produc-tion in the Tropics. International Rice ResearchInstitute (IRRI), 4 - 8 June 1979, Los Barios, Laguna,Philippines.

KRANTZ, B. A., KAMPEN, J., and VIRMANI, S.M. 1978. Soil

and water conservation and utilization for increasedfood production in the semi-arid tropics. Presentedatthe Eleventh Congress of the International Societyof Soil Science, 19-27 June 1978, Edmonton,Canada.

KRISHNAMOORTHY, Ch., CHOWDHURY, S.L., ANDERSON,

D. T., and DRYDEN, R. D. 1977. Cropping systems formaximizing production under semi-arid conditions.Indian Council of Agricultural Research, All IndiaCoordinated Research Project for Dryland Agricul-ture, Hyderabad, India.

THIERSTEIN, G. E. 1979. Possibilities for mechanizingrainfed agriculture in the semi-arid tropics. Pre-sented at the Ninth International Agricultural En-gineers Congress, 2-13 July 1978, East Lansing,Mich, USA.

VIRMANI, S. M., SIVAKUMAR, M. V. K., and REDDY, S. J.

1979. Climatological features of the semi-aridtropics in relation to the Farming Systems ResearchProgram. Presented at the International Workshopon the Agroclimatological Research Needs of theSemi-Arid Tropics. ICRISAT, 22-24 Nov 1978,Hyderabad, India. Proceedings in preparation.

WILLEY, R.W., RAO, M. R., REDDY, M. S., and NATARA-

JAN, M. 1979. Some physiological and agronomicalaspects of intercropping research at ICRISAT. Pre-sented at the Eleventh Annual Workshop of the AllIndia Coordinated Agronomic Research Project,Jabalpur, India.

119

Vil lage-Level Studies as a Locusfo r Research and Techno logy Adap ta t i on

Hans P. B inswange r and James G. Ryan*

Abstract

This paper first discusses several traditions of socioeconomic enquiries in India. It then shows howthe Village-Level Studies (VLS) of ICRISAT combine several of the features of the previous traditions in a novel way. The objectives, scope, and results of the socioeconomic observation phase of the VLS are discussed next, followed by a description of the ongoing research and adaptation phase of the studies. The VLS are viewed as a locus for many types of socioeconomic enquiries and adaptive technology development and research efforts. They attempt to impart a grassroots approach to technology development at ICRISAT.

Social scientists involved in empirical researchon the rural economy have used a variety ofmethods to gather their data. Irrwhat follows wewill briefly review some previous approaches,with special emphasis on the Indian context,and try to highlight their advantages and limit-ations. The village-level studies (VLS) ofICRISAT combine features of most of theseapproaches in a somewhat novel way.1

T h e E t h n o g r a p h i c A p p r o a c ho f A n t h r o p o l o g y

In this approach the researcher himself residesin a village or hamlet, often for more than 1 year, and collects personal observations anddata on production technology, economic rela-tionships, customs, religion, demography, andlanguage of a particular community. Due to itsenormous scope and the fact that the re-searcher collects virtually all his data without

Principal Economist; and Principal Economist andLeader, ICRISAT Economics Program.

1. Collection of All India data by the National SampleSurvey and the Census Organizations is not co-vered in this discussion; although such data arefrequently used by social science researchers,most data users are usually not involved in thecollection phase.

the help of interviewers, the scope of thetechnological and economic data is oftenlimited to a few case histories of particularindividuals or fam ilies. It is therefore usually notamenable to statistical analysis. This weaknessis compensated for by the thoroughness of thedata collection, stemming from the researcher'sown involvement and from his capacity to viewdata in the full context of the material andnonmaterial relationships existing in thecommunity. The somewhat standardized ap-proach of anthropologists, supported by an-thropological theories, allows a comparison ofethnographies across time and space, and thefield derives most of its generalizations fromsuch comparisons.

S p e c i a l - p u r p o s e S u r v e y so f E c o n o m i s t s a n d S o c i o l o g i s t s

These professional groups have been moreconcerned with statistical validation of muchmore limited hypotheses than anthropologists.The standard advice to a young researcher hasusually been to select a fairly specific topic orhypothesis for inquiry and design a samplingframe and questionnaires as economically aspossible to answer that specific question.Economy in the scope of the data collection isstressed in order to cover sufficiently largesamples for meaningful statistical analyses tobe performed. Most often, these studies areconfined to one or a few interviews with the

121

respondents and are carried out by trainedinterviewers, with more or less supervision bythe researcher himself. The main advantage ofthis approach is the speed and economy withwhich data to answer a specific question can begathered and processed. Its major disad-vantage is that the data are generally used onlyonce. Anybody interested in answering some-what different questions than the ones posedwill usually find that the data have deficienciesin terms of his own purpose. Since the surveyteams are most often recruited on a short-termbasis, it is seldom possible to complement theexisting data via resurveys.

Farm Managemen t S tud ies (FMS)

In the 1950s, economists in India perceived anurgent need to collect data on the structure andperformance of farm enterprises. In developedcountries such data were most often collectedthrough voluntary farm-record schemes thatlacked a rigorous sampling frame. The extraor-dinarily successful FMS of the Ministry ofAgriculture via its Agro-Economic ResearchCentres aimed at collecting such data forselected districts all over India on a systematicbasis using trained investigators who visitedthe homes almost daily during a 2- to 3-yearperiod. Under the scheme, a number of districtswere covered twice at roughly 10-year intervals.The inquiries were clearly multipurpose innature; they provided a common tabulation andreporting framework on farm structure, yields,cost of cultivation, relative profitability of vari-ous farm-size groups, input, credit use, etc. Thefarm management reports and the original datawere used by many researchers to answer a wide variety of economic and farm manage-ment questions. Despite the often considerabletime lags between data collection and report-ing, the knowledge gained from these studieshas provided major insights that have beenwidely applied in agricultural policy matters.

The studies, however, were still l imited inscope; they did not include agricultural laborersas respondents, nor did they pay much atten-tion to technical and biological aspects of culti-vation. They were designed by economists fortheir own purposes. Also, because the originaldata were not computerized, access to themwas not open to many researchers outside thecenters where they were collected.

The FMS were replaced in the early 1970s bythe Cost of Cultivation Scheme (CCS). This wasdone at the request of the Agricultural PricesCommission, which wanted more reliable,rapidly accessible information on the cost andbenefits of cultivation of specific crops for pricepolicy purposes. The sampling framework wasshifted from an agricultural-area basis to a specific-crops basis, and the task of collectionwas assigned to the agricultural universities.While the scope of data collection is virtually thesame as in the FMS, the reporting is usuallyrestricted to the cost of cultivation of a specificcrop. It is unfortunate that the data are notutilized to produce the equivalent of the oldFarm Management Reports. Furthermore, theMinistry of Agriculture restricts the use of thedata for several years so that the cost of cultiva-tion information can be fully varified before it isreleased. This reduces the usefulness of thestudies to other researchers. A reappraisal ofthe decision to drop the FMS may be in ordernow.

The Vi l lage-Level S tud ies Schemeof t h e Ag ro -Economic ResearchCentres (AERC)

The AERCs are usually associated witheconomics departments of universities and aresponsored by the Directorate of Economics andStatistics of the Ministry of Agriculture. One oftheir earlier tasks (since the 1950s) was toconduct village surveys that focused primarily ondemographic, economic, and sociologicalstructures of these villages. The main purposeof these studies was to find out the structuralfactors that contributed to or impeded de-velopment. Villages were often chosen inten-tionally on the basis of presence or absence ofsuch items as cooperatives, irrigation schemes,specialty crops, nonagricultural activities, andother locational factors. Data were collected bytrained interviewers. Many villages were resur-veyed after about a decade. As in the ethno-graphic approach, insights were to be derivedfrom a comparison of data across space andover time. A comprehensive scheme to gather,process, and analyze ail these studies wasimplemented recently by the Institute of De-velopment Studies in Sussex (Moore et al.1976).

122

These AERC village studies were oftencriticized for an absence of a statistical frame-work of choice for the villages, which limited thegenerality and statistical analysis of its results;but given their purpose, this criticism is proba-bly somewhat unjustified. Another criticismwas that the process of gathering and analyzingthe data was somewhat routine, which oftenwas done by junior researchers without highlevel analytical skills. Only a few AERCs con-tinue these village studies, and those who domost often carry out resurveys rather thaninitiate new ones.

On- fa rm Tes t ing and D e m o n s t r a t i o nof A g r i c u l t u r a l Research Resul ts

Most coordinated crop improvement projectsof the Indian Council of Agricultural Research(ICAR), the All India Coordinated Research Pro-ject for Dryland Agriculture (AICRPDA), and theAll India Agronomic Experiment Scheme havefound it necessary to test and demonstrate theirfindings at the farmer's field level. This is doneby systematic minikit variety trials all over Indiain the case of crop improvement projects, bydemonstration programs, and, more recently,by pilot and operational research projects, suchas the one sponsored jointly by AICRPDA andthe Drought Prone Area Program (DPAP) of theMinistry 6f Agriculture. The pilot projects aim attesting and demonstrating packages of newcrop, land, and irrigation technologies ingroups of villages, biological-technical scien-tists interacting closely with the farmers. In theAICRPDA/DPAP projects, a team of economistsworks with the technical and biological scien-tists to evaluate the economics of the prospec-tive technologies. In addition to the input-output data from on-farm demonstrations andevaluations, the economists also undertakestudies of traditional villages outside theschemes; these are used as comparisons withthe demonstration villages. Adoption studiesare also undertaken. Social scientists are notinvolved in the minikit and other demonstrationprograms. Most of these efforts focus on testingand demonstration of technologies developedat research stations rather than on developingon the farm something " f rom the bottom up,"although there is of course a considerablefeedback of ideas from farmers to researchers.

In i t ia l Approach of ICRISATVillage-Level Studies

ICRISAT's VLS were designed initially by theEconomics Program primarily for its own ob-jectives, but in close consultation with technicalscientists. An attempt was madetocombinethemost desirable features of several of the ap-proaches discussed in the preceding section.The following approach was therefore used:

1. Two "typical" villages having no priorhistory of special programs were selectedin each of three agroclimatic regions ofsemi-arid tropical India. Three areas wereincluded to allow comparison across ag-roclimatic zones. Two villages were cho-sen in each region so that, at a later stage,one could be used for the developmentand testing phase of technology (to bediscussed later) while the other served as a control village. The villages were chosenso as to represent the typical features oftheir zones (Jodha, Asokan, and Ryan1977).

2. Within each village a sample of 30 cul-tivators in three size classes and ten land-less laborers were randomly selected as a panel to be monitored over a number ofyears. Such a large within-village samplewas judged necessary to statistically testhypotheses within and between regions,villages, and socioeconomic groupswithin villages.

3. An investigator with a university educa-tion in agricultural economics, comingfrom a rural background and speaking thelocal language, was stationed in May 1975in each village to interview the panelhouseholds every 3 to 4 weeks and toundertake a number of agrobiological in-vestigations. He was also to act informallyas a participant observer. The inves-tigators were directly supervised by seniorstaff of the Economics Program who ini-tially spent considerable t ime in the vil-lages.

4. Data on agricultural operations were col-lected on a plot basis and included laborinputs and t ime allocation of each house-hold member and bullock pair, economictransactions and incomes (agriculturaland nonagricultural) of each household,

123

farm structure, and capital endowment ofeach household.

5. During the 1976-77 crop year, specialteams of medical doctors and homescience graduates visited each village fourtimes to collect nutrition and health dataon each household member.

6. From 1978 onwards, anthropological datacollection was intensified. (For a detaileddescription of the data gathered seeBinswanger and Jodha 1978). From thesocioeconomic point of view, the VLSare broader in scope than each ofthe types of inquiries mentioned above,except for studies adopting the ethno-graphic approach. The data are collectedso as to allow statistical analysis, and thepanel approach allows easy resurvey capability, as well as the administration ofspecial-purpose surveys, which becomenecessary from time to time.

All staff members doing research that in-volves household-to-household variation areencouraged to do their work in the context ofthe VLS so as to economize on background datacollection and to subject the data to analysisfrom many points of view. This has led to closeinteraction within the socioeconomics pro-gram, and to a greater accumulation of com-plementary results on the same areas andhouseholds. This has provided more than eachindividual project could have provided if carriedout by itself.

During the first 2 years, the VLS was used byother ICRISAT programs for farm-level obser-vations of existing techniques and problemssuch as the prevalence of pests, diseases, andweeds, and the study of germination problemsin chickpea (Jodha, Asokan, and Ryan 1977).Before turning to the later development of thestudies — with much closer involvement oftechnical scientists in actual research in thevillages — we briefly summarize the objectivesand scope of the socioeconomic observationphase just described.

O b j e c t i v e s , S c o p e , a n d R e s u l t so f S o c i o e c o n o m i c O b s e r v a t i o n s

Thesocioeconomic observation phase, which iscontinuing, has two main objectives: (1) obser-vation and documentation of existing practices

to help in the assessment of research prioritiesand potential technology and (2) generation ofa data bank for a broad range of socioeconomicinquiries.

The first objective — observation anddocumentation of existing practices — is themost important to ICRISAT's Economics Pro-gram in terms of the overall ICRISAT objectives.Suf f ic ient ly detai led data at the farml e v e l — w i t h a t tent ion to techno log ica lfactors —simply did not exist for the semi-aridtropics of India in 1975. The following studieswere geared towards this objective and drewextensively on village-level study data.

1. "Resource base as a determinant of crop-ping patterns," by N. S. Jodha (1977),documents the important effects of re-source endowments on cropping patternsand practices. In particular, it analyzes theimportance and complexity of intercrop-ping in poor soil-climate environmentsand on small farms. This study has helpedjustify more intensive intercropping re-search at ICRISAT.

2. "Economic aspects of weed control insemi-arid tropical areas of India," by H. P.Binswanger and S. V. R. Shetty (1977),documents the relatively high levels ofhuman and animal techniques of weedcontrol in these environments. Togetherwith budget studies, which demonstratedthat chemical weed control would bemuch more expensive than existing weedcontrol practices and also highly labordisplacing, these findings have ledICRISAT to deemphasize chemical weedcontrol in the Indian part of its researchprogram.

3. "Factor proportions, factor market access,and the development and transfer oftechnology," by J. G. Ryan and M. S.Rathore (1978), demonstrates that factorendowments differ widely on large farmsand small farms but factor use ratios be-tween small and large farms differ muchless among the groups, although there is a large variation within the group. Thecloseness of the factor use ratios suggeststhat there would be little justification inIndia for deve lop ing separatetechnologies with basically differentcapital-labor ratios for small and largefarms. Support for small farms must be

124

sought primarily via improvements intheir access to modern inputs, credit, andextension.

4. "Risk attitudes of rural households in semi-arid tropical India," by H. P. Binswanger(1977), is based on a large special-purposepsychological experiment carried out withthe panel households, supplemented bythe general VLS background data. It de-monstrates that risk attitudes differ littlebetween small and large farmers in thesesix villages; nearly all of them are moder-ately risk averse. This suggests that notmuch can be gained by developingtechnologies with differential risk/returncharacteristics for small and large farmers.Emphasis has to be on relatively profitableand stabletechnologies for all farmers andsupport of small farmers via improvedaccess to credit and inputs.

5. "Labor use and labor markets in semi-aridtropical villages of peninsular India," byJ. G. Ryan, R. D. Ghodake, and R. Sarin(1979) looks at existing and potential laborand bullock-power bottlenecks in thestudy areas by comparing the existinglabor use and availability patterns withthose experienced in the research water-sheds at ICRISAT Center. The studysuggests that important new labor peakscould arise at harvest time if improvedtechnology were to be introduced. It alsodocuments the overriding importance offemale labor in SAT agriculture and theextraordinary handicaps faced by femaleworkers in rural labor markets comparedwith male workers.

The nutrition data are still being analyzed tofurther improve our understanding of humannutritional dificiencies and thus to help us de-termine what type of nutritional objectives — ifany — it makes sense to include in our plantbreeding programs.

The cultivation data are now being inten-sively analyzed to provide a comprehensive setof input-output coefficients for traditionaltechnology. These will be used along withcomparable input-output coefficients from re-search station experiments at ICRISAT andelsewhere, in benefit-cost analysis of potentialtechnology. This is a particularly good exampleof how VLS data are used in conjunction withdata from other sources. Activity analysis mod-

els are presently being constructed to provide a comprehensive framework for technology as-sessment.

The second objective of the socioeconomicphase — generation of a data bank for a broadrange of socioeconomic inquiries — goesbeyond technology assessment. It includes thecollection of information that will help in for-mulating general socioeconomic policy in theSAT. Household data are an important source ofsuch knowledge and the VLS are our primarysource. Studies toward this objective based onthe VLS data include:

1. "Role of credit in farmers' adjustmentagainst risk in arid and semi-arid tropicalareas of India" (1978) and "Effectivenessof farmers' adjustment to risk" (1977),both by N. S. Jodha. They demonstrate thehigh cost and relative ineffectiveness ofthe farmers' own measures to reduce therisk of farming in these areas of India andto adjust to drought and scarcity condi-tions. Together with the work on riskattitudes, they suggest that the high risklevels of SAT farming may lead to a gen-eral underinvestment of resources byfarmers of the SAT relative to the sociallyoptimum level. Furthermore, it appearsthat the official credit institutions are thusfar ill-equipped to reduce the exposure ofIndian farmers to these risks because theycannot or do not provide consumptionloans to drought-affected farmers. On theother hand, public relief employment ap-pears to be remarkably effective in meet-ing its objective; strengthening of thateffort appears well worthwhile.

2. "Some aspects of agricultural tenancyin semi-arid tropical parts of India," byN. S. Jodha (1979). The author uses theclose involvement of investigators in thevillages to gather detailed tenancy data ofan unusual quality and depth. He finds thatrenting of land by large farmers from otherlarge farmers and from small farmers hasbecome an important feature of the SAT.While resource adjustments are the mostimportant reason for tenancy, there aremany other complex reasons as well. Theidea of the small and highly exploitedtenant clearly needs to be revised, alongwith the notion that tenancy laws can be

125

enacted that wil l primarily benefit thesmall-farmer group. The situation is muchmore complex than believed, and well-intended legislative efforts can lead tounintended results. The same data arenow being used by a Ph.D. student fromthe Indian Statistical Institute for a furtherdetailed inquiry into all aspects of tenancy.

3. A Ph.D. dissertation by M. S. Rathore, a scholar from Himachal Pradesh Univer-sity. He has used the VLS data to reinvesti-gate all aspects of the farm size-productivity controversy. He finds no un-iform productivity advantage in smallfarms; in some areas small farms havehigher total output per hectare and inothers they appear to be less productivethan the large ones. But he confirms thatlarge and small farms pursue very diffe-rent strategies to achieve their productionlevels. Large farms rely more on purch-ased inputs and have modest labor inputs,while small farms compensate for theirlow borrowing capacity primarily by moreintensive and apparently more organizedlabor inputs.

In the coming year, the VLS data will be usedby ICRISAT staff for an econometric analysis ofseasonal-labor supply-and-demand behaviorand for analysis of the relative access of smalland large farmers to credit, to modern inputmarkets, and to output markets; of the distribu-tion of income and its sources in the studyareas; and of the determinants of fertilizer useon semi-arid tropical crops. Other special-purpose inquiries may be initiated from time totime.

The richness of the data is not exhausted bythese inquiries. We encourage ICRISAT staffand outsiders to make use of it. Our capability toprovide the data to outside researchers hasbeen hampered by the enormous problems ofcomputerizing a data base of this size. We arecurrently reducing the amount of data proces-sed by computer in order to speed up thisoperation, and the software to handle it hasalso matured. We were probably overambitiousin the scope of computerization we planned. Asa result, there has been a predictable slowdownin the operation. However, we feel that in thelong run computerization of a large portion ofthe data is essential for easy access by re-searchers inside and outside of ICRISAT.

The Research and Adapta t ionPhase

Interaction with technical and biological scien-tists was sought from the beginning of the VLS.During the first 3 years, the socioeconomic staffreported their observations by means of infor-mal tour reports. More importantly, the economicinvestigators were trained by the ICRISATprograms concerned to make systematic ob-servations of disease and pest incidence, nodu-lation of legume crops, small germination ex-periments in chickpea, etc., and they werevisited in the villages by the biological scien-tists. From 1977-78 onwards, one importantcomponent of the intercropping entomologyresearch was transferred to farmers' fields,where it is carried out according to normalexperimental procedures with replications, etc;because such research needs to be done onlarge plots in an environment in which pests arenot disturbed to the extent they are at anexperiment station. Furthermore, uniformity ofsoil is not as important in entomology experi-ments as in some other research projects. Weanticipate that other research programs willfind it useful from time to time to escape theland pressure and special conditions of theexperiment station and do research in villageconditions.

In 1977-78, the Farming Systems ResearchProgram of ICRISAT started an experiment toassess the potential yield effects of herbicidesover and above the yields achieved by thefarmer's traditional weed control methods. Thetreatments contained weed-free plots, plotswhere farmers used their usual methods, andplots that were partially or totally treated withherbicides. The particular advantage of suchresearch in farmers' fields is that one is sure ofgetting the "tradit ional" treatment right anddoes not set up control treatments that under-est imate or overest imate the farmer 'scapacities. During the 2 years of the experiment,noyield effects of herbicides over and abovethefarmer's treatments could be statistically de-monstrated (Davis 1979).

Starting in 1977-78, the Farming SystemsResearch Program also initiated studies of tradi-tional tank irrigation systems in two villages.These involved the measurement of the actualflows'of water, including ground water levels in

126

the irrigated command areas of these tanks,to determine the water use efficiency of thesystems. It became necessary at that stage tohire technical staff in these villages to make thedaily measurements.

At about the same time, sufficient results onthe watershed-based soil and water manage-ment systems of the ICRISAT Farming SystemsResearch Program became available to narrowdown the technical possibilities enough tomake it worthwhile to pursue further researchunder local conditions at the level of thefarmer's field. This had to be a collaborativeeffort between farmers, technical scientists,economists, and the anthropologist, because itinvolved technical, economic, and socialproblems of group action or collaborationamong the farmers of a watershed. Research ongroup action problems of watershed-based soiland water management systems cannot bedone at a research station, and their solution isa precondition for successful implementation ofthe concept.

Furthermore, technical adaptation of the con-cept to local soil and climate conditions made itimperative to associate the project withAICRPDA, with its research stations in Hayat-nagar, Sholapur, and Akola as well as thecoordinating cell in Hyderabad.2 Other institu-tions collaborating with us are Andhra PradeshAgricultural University, Punjabrao KrishiVidyapeeth, Akola, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vid-yalaya, Rahuri in Maharashtra, and the CentralSoil and Water Conservation Research andTraining Institute in Dehra Dun. The broadgeographical experience of these institutions isnecessary in defining the technical treatmentsat each of the three locations. Particularly in thedefinition of agronomic treatments, we relyheavily on the experience of the local centers ofthe AICRPDA, which specify the recommendedvarieties, fertilizer levels, etc.

During the 1978-79 crop season, an areabetween 2.5 and 4.0 ha in one village in each ofthe three agroclimatic regions was planted to a series of replicated trials in which the majorpurpose was to test the effects of improved landmanagement systems on dryland croppingsystems, which are typical or potentially impor-

2. These centers had assisted us from the start of theVLS, especially in the choice of villages.

tant for the farmers of the areas. In the currentyear, in two of the three villages, full watershedland treatments have been implemented onareas of close to 20 ha overall. In a third village,it was difficult to gain the cooperation of allfarmers on the experimental watersheds duringthe current year, but isolated treatments havebeen implemented on the fields of two farmersas an initial step. Agronomic experiments con-tinue. To carry out this additional experimentalload, one agronomic/technical staff member atthe Technical Assistant level has been stationedin the three villages on a permanent basis; he isbacked by visits of the concerned scientists.

Unlike the demonstration programs and pilotprojects discussed in the first section, the goalof these studies is not demonstration of a fullyor partially developed technological and institu-tional package of watershed-based soil andwater management treatments; instead, thefocus is on adaptation of such a concept to the local agroclimatological and sociocultural con-ditions and feedback to researchers from the grassroots level. It is well understood by allinvolved, including the farmers, that this pro-cess will be difficult. However, the village locusis the proper experimental setting for suchadaptive research. Only there will the realproblems have an opportunity to express them-selves and thus lead quickly to the necessarychanges in the technological and institutionaloptions. The choice of the villages of theVLS makes prof i tabi l i ty assessment ofwatershed treatments relatively easy, since thedata on the panel households provides a "com-parison treatment" both before and in everygiven year of the study. Furthermore, onevillage in each region is left unaffected, to serveas a control for assessing hidden impacts of a substantial research effort in the other villages.Thus we have comparisons both "before andafter" and "wi th and without."

Should this research effort lead to successfuldevelopment of adapted technology options,the villages would serve for demonstrationpurposes, but national programs would thenhave to move towards a more comprehensivedemonstration and implementation phase.ICRISAT'smandatedoesnotincludeextension.

Conclusions

The ICRISAT Village-Level Studies have pro-

127

vided a rich variety of opportunities for re-search.

For socioeconomic research, the semiper-manent nature of the studies provides a uniquesetting for all inquiry that involves household-to-household and agroclimatic variation. Bycombining features of ethnographic research,special-purpose surveys, farm managementstudies, village studies, and on-farm biological/technical experimentation, the VLS provideflexibility in data collection and a rich databank. They perform the same function for thesocioeconomic researcher that the experimentstation or laboratory performs for the technical/biological scientist. They provide a locus for research, or a tool to be used in a variety ofstudies. By channeling the analytical capabilityof a number of socioeconomic researchersinside and outside of ICRISAT on the same database, they produce complementaries whichadd up to more than the simple sum of theindividual results and insights.3

For the technical/biological researcher, thestudies serve as an extension of the experimentstation outside its physical confines, to be usedin a variety of ways as dictated by the changingneeds of individual researchers or programs.Research can be carried out in the villagesunder actual farm conditions and/or when landrequirements exceed the land resourcesavailable at the research station.

From the point of view of technology de-velopment and adaptation, the studies havetwo main functions: first, they serve as the mostimportant data source (but not the only one) forspecific studies assessing research prioritiesand prospective technology; second, they pro-vide a locus for a multidisciplinary efforton what may be the most difficult researchproblem of the semi-arid tropics: generatingimproved soil-, crop-, and water-managementtechniques that are adaptable to different agro-climatic, economic, and sociocultural environ-ments. We believe that the village is the bestenvironment for this effort. It involves farmersand scientists from the national program, as

3. One of the major problems of much survey re-search is that it appears to be easier to collect datathan analyze them. Large bodies of data are there-fore often unexploited. The VLS have been rela-tively successful in achieving a better relationbetween analytical and data-gathering effort.

well as from ICRISAT, and we hope that it willcontinue to be successful. The VLS are ourapproach to the philosophy of agricultural re-search from the "bottom up" and developmentemphasized by Newman, Ouedraogo, andNorman (1979), Chambers (1979), and others.


The Village-Level Studies of ICRISAT would not havebeen possible except for the collaboration of the AllIndia Coordinated Research Project for Dryland Ag-riculture and the respective Agricultural Universitiesin Hyderabad, Akola and Sholapur, the collaboratingresearch programs of ICRISAT and the assistance ofthe ICRISAT computer section. Their help has beenhighly appreciated. Among the ICRISAT socio-economic staff, who were almost all involved, theeffort of the resident economic investigators S. S.Badhe, T. Balaramaiah, V. Bhaskar Rao, M. J. Bhende,N. B. Dudhane, and K. G. Kshirsagar deserves a special mention.

References

ASOKAN, M. 1975. ICRISAT Village Level Studies:Introduct ion to selected vi l lages. ICRISATEconomics Program report. (Mimeographed.)

BINSWANGER, H. P., and SHETTY, S. V. R. 1977.

Economic aspects of weed control in semi-aridtropical areas of India. ICRISAT Economics Programoccasional paper 13.

BINSWANGER, H. P., JODHA, N. S., RYAN, J. G., and VON

OPPEN, M. 1977. Approach and hypotheses for thevillage level studies of ICRISAT. ICRISAT EconomicsProgram occasional paper 15.

BINSWANGER, H. P. 1978. Risk attitudes of rural house-holds in semi-arid tropical India. Economic andPolitical Weekly (Review of Agriculture) 13 (25).

BINSWANGER, H. P., and JODHA, N. S. 1978. Manual of

instructions for economic investigators in ICRISAT'sVillage Level Studies. ICRISAT Economics ProgramVillage Level Studies Series II.

CHAMBERS, R. J. H. 1979. The socioeconomics ofprospective technologies. Presented at the Interna-tional Workshop on Socioeconomic Constraints toDevelopment of Semi-Arid Tropical Agriculture.ICRISAT, 19-23 Feb 1979, Hyderabad, India. Pro-ceedings in preparation.

128

DAVIS, E. P. 1979. The potential of introducing im-proved weed control methods to small farmers ofthe Indian semi-arid tropics. M.Sc. dissertation.University of Reading, Reading, UK.

ICAR-ICRISAT. 1979. Methodologies to attain im-proved resource use and productivity. Report on a cooperative ICAR-ICRISAT on-farm research pro-ject. ICRISAT Economics Program. (Mimeog-raphed.)

JODHA, N.S. 1976. Preliminary report of activities andresults from village level studies in semi-arid tropi-cal India in 1975-76. ICRISAT Economics Program.(Mimeographed.)

JODHA, N. S. 1977a. Effectiveness of farmers' adjust-ment to risk. ICRISAT Economics Program discus-sion paper 1.

JODHA, N. S. 1977b. Resource base as a determinant ofcropping patterns. ICRISAT Economics Programoccasional paper 14.

JODHA, N. S., ASOKAN, M., and RYAN, J. G. 1977. Village

study methodology and resource endowments ofthe selected villages. ICRISAT Economics Programoccasional paper 16.

JODHA, N. S. 1978a. Production patterns anddynamics of resource use in arid and semi-aridtropical India. ICRISAT Economics Program discus-sion paper 4.

JODHA, N. S. 1978b. Role of credit in farmers' adjust-ment against risk in arid and semi-arid tropical areasof India. ICRISAT Economics Program occasionalpaper 20.

JODHA, N. S. 1979. Some aspects of agriculturaltenancy in semi-arid tropical parts of India. Pre-sented at the ADC-ICRISAT Conference on Adjust-ment Mechanism of Rural Labor Markets in De-veloping Areas, ADC/ICRISAT, 22-24 Aug 1979,Patancheru, A.P., India. Proceedings in preparation.

MOORE, M., CONNELL, J., and LAMBERT, C. M. 1976.

Village studies, data analysis and bibliography.Bowker Publishing Co., for the Institute of Develop-ment Studies. Sussex, UK.

NEWMAN, M., OUEDRAOGO, I., and NORMAN, D. W. 1979.

Farm level studies in the semi-arid tropics of WestAfrica. Presented at the International Workshop onSocioeconomic Constraints to Development ofSemi-Arid Tropical Agriculture. ICRISAT, 19-23 Feb1979, Hyderabad, India. Proceedings in preparation.

RYAN, J. G., and RATHORE, M. S. 1978. Factor propor-tions, factor market access, and the developmentand transfer of technology. Presented at the Semi-nar on Economic Problems in Transfer of Technol-ogy. Indian Agricultural Research Institute, 9-10Nov 1978, New Delhi, India.

RYAN, J. G., GHODAKE, R. D., and SARIN, R. 1979. Labor

use and labor markets in semi-arid tropical ruralvillages of peninsular India. Presented at the inter-national Workshop on Socioeconomic Constraintsto Development of Semi-Arid Tropical Agriculture.ICRISAT, 19-23 Feb 1979, Hyderabad, India. Pro-ceedings in preparation.

SUBRAHMANYAM, K. V., and RYAN, J. G. 1976. An

analysis of the rural labor market in India: Kanzaravillage, Maharashtra. Presented at the ADC Work-shop on Household Studies, 3-7 Aug 1976, Singa-pore. (Mimeographed.) Available from EconomicsProgram, ICRISAT, Patancheru, A.P., India.

129


Dr. Tiwari expressed the opinion that the ag-ricultural tools for use by SAT farmers shouldbe as simple and inexpensive as possible,improvising on tools already evolved over theages and fitted to the farmer's particular soiltype. He felt that ICRISAT's wheeled tool carrieris too sophisticated for SAT farm use.

Dr. Swindale remarked that the question ofappropriate technology is exceedingly difficult.He warned against the danger of makingtechnology so appropriate that it represents noadvance at all.

Dr. Swindale also pointed out that no singleinstitution can deal with all problems in all thesocioeconomic and ecological niches in theworld. To make changes requires both skill intransferring technology and an understandingof how innovations are diffused. For thisreason, it is essential to develop a wide networkof research.

Dr. Mengesha commented that technologyhanded out free often fails, whereas that requir-ing recipients to share in planning and expenseis likely to be effectively transferred.

Dr. Hutchinson was asked what mechanismcould be devised for linking funding agencies,which often do not coordinate their efforts insupporting agricultural research. He repliedthat there was no easy solution to this problem;funding agencies must look at what returns a program offers a donor and must also maintainthe identity of funds from various sources. Hecommended the CGIAR for doing an excellentjob.

Considerable discussion centered on thefindings of ICRISAT's Village-Level Studies:

Mr. Russell commented that the VLS findingthat small and large farmers differ little in theirattitude to risk is surprising but encouraging, asgraded risk is difficult to build into technology.However, getting credit poses a bigger risk forthe small farmer than the large farmer, andfailure to repay may bar the smallest farmersfrom access to credit. Therefore too easy credit,without proper supervision, is undesirable. Hesuggested providing the smallest farmers wi thalternative means, other than credit — such asprovision for saving income from paid labor — for obtaining needed inputs.

Dr. Lipton remarked that relationships in a village — between landed and landless, surplusand deficit farmers, etc. — determine to a largeextent who gets the most benefit from newmethods and increased productivity. Sometypology ofvil lage behavior and relations mightbe needed to ensure that benefits reach thepoorest.

Dr. Binswanger replied that ICRISAT did notpropose such a study; this is properly thetask ofnational programs.

Mr. Melville pointed out that there is animportant distinction between contacts madefor gathering information in a village and thosemade for extension purposes. An extensionagent must first work with the farmer mostwill ing to risk trying new methods rather thanwith the village as a whole.

Regarding soil and water management on a watershed basis, Dr. Randhawa observed thateven where cooperative action is possible, a problem arises in sharing the water harvestedand the benefits of increased productivity. Dis-tribution cannot be based solely on area ofindividual holdings, as the productivity of differ-ent segments varies. It was observed that con-structing ponds on communal property posesno difficulties, but problems arise where indi-vidual holdings are involved.

Dr. Kampen said consolidation of land is not a prerequisite to improved resource manage-ment, but if such consolidation is taking place,land and water management systems can bedeveloped to accompany it. He emphasized thatICRISAT offers no miracle solutions to thefarmer. The approach in the on-farm experi-ments is to discuss with the farmers a range ofpossible means for improving productivity andhelp them choose the one best for local condi-tions. Thus, in Aurepalle, development is takingplace without altering individual holdings; inShirapur, the farmers have agreed to ignorefarm boundaries for the duration of the experi-ment, though this does not mean that parcels ofland are exchanged.

Mr. Melville commented that it is not alwayspossible to introduce innovations in the idealorder; they must be introduced in the ordermost readily acceptable locally. For instance, in

131

an experiment near Indore, a realignment ofdrains to prevent water from draining acrossfields raised croppable land in the rainy seasonfrom 30% to above 70%. This, in turn, led tointerest in other possible innovat ions.Dr. Doherty observed that in SAT Indian vil-lages, the unit of management decision is theindividual family; success in watershed-basedtechnology depends on respecting this basicunit.

Responding to a question from Dr. Joshi onrisk management, Dr. Virmani stated that atICRISAT drought risk is being quantified. Inregions with assured initial rainfall, dry seedingis possible; in other regions, either new types ofseed must be developed, or seeding must bedone after moisture is conserved to a depth ofabout 20 cm.

Dr. Sekhon suggested that agroclimatologyresearch should define areas, based on soil andclimate types, where a successful kharif (rainyseason) or rabi (postrainy season) crop, or both,can be grown, and indicate managementpractices to go with each.

Dr. Virmani said that despite similarities in soils,climate, and other conditions — as, for example,between Hyderabad and Sholapur — specifictechnologies cannot always be transferred fromone location to another. An appropriatetechnology for a given area can emerge onlywhen a full picture is available of soil charac-teristics, climate, and socioeconomic condi-tions, and when all available resources areconsidered.

Dr. Gill observed that a distinction needs to bemade between horizontal (experiment stationto experiment station) and vertical (experimentstation to farmer) transfer of technology. Thelatter can only be accomplished by local peoplewho are familiar with the particular social andeconomic structure of the area and can gain theconfidence of the farmers.

132

Session 4

ICRISAT Cooperat ive Programsfor Transfer of Technology

Chairman: W. K. AgbleCo-Chairman: A. Biumenschein

Rapporteurs: R. W. WilleyM. R. RaoW. ReedS. S. Lateef

ICRISAT Cooperat ive Programs: an Overv iew

R. C. McGinnis and C. Charreau*

Abstract

A major objective of ICRISAT cooperative programs is to strengthen the national research effort without duplicating or competing with it. The Institute exchanges genetic resource material with more than 40 cooperating countries; assists in training research workers; organizes international seminars and workshops to promote scientific interac-tion; and provides technical assistance to fit the particular heeds of each country. In Africa, which contains 66% of the world's semi-arid tropical area, cooperative programs have received top priority and made good progress in both research and training. In India, an excellent two-way transfer system has been established. Cooperative prog-rams have also been set up in other Asian countries and in Central and South America; further expansion is envisaged in keeping with ICRISAT's increasing international responsibility.

A basic premise in the establishment of ICRISATwas that the Institute would serve to strengthenand support national research programs onproduction of the five ICRISAT crops, both in thehost country and in other nations of the semi-arid tropics (SAT). The major objective is togenerate improved genotypes and technologyto increase and stabilize food production. Theform of assistance and cooperation may differconsiderably, depending on each country'sspecific,.requirements, but at all times the as-sistance must be supportive and not duplicateor compete with the national program. It is es-sential to work in close harmony with nationalprograms and with other agencies havingmutual concerns and interests.

According to the climatic definition of thesemi-arid tropics, most of the area (66%) is inAfrica. The SAT regions form a wide belt belowthe Sahara desert, extending the width of thecontinent and south through East Africa toinclude large areas of southern Africa. In Asia,the SAT cover much of India, northeasternThailand, and other smaller areas. Other SATregions of the world include large sections ofMexico, Central America, northeastern Brazil,Paraguay, and northern Australia.

* R. C. McGinnis was Associate Director for Interna-tional Cooperation; C. Charreau is Project Leader,West Africa, ICRISAT.

Strategy for StrengtheningNational Research Systems

An objective of all international centers andagencies working within a country or region isto strengthen national research systems. Obvi-ously, there is no simple single answer to thequestion of how this can be most effectivelyachieved. The countries with which an inter-national center cooperates vary considerably inscientific expertise and infrastructure develop-ment; each country has its own particular com-bination of strengths and weaknesses that setsit apart from its neighbors.

Perhaps the ideal in working relationshipsbetween international and national researchprograms with an effective two-way transfersystem is being approached by ICRISAT and itshost government, India. From the earlieststages, ICRISAT has enjoyed the counsel andadvice of senior members of the Indian Councilof Agricultural Research (ICAR) and — underformal working agreements with ICAR — continuing collaboration with the All IndiaCoordinated Programs and the Indian agricul-tural universities. Admittedly, India has a scien-tific resource base and sophisticated researchand extension service not equalled in manycountries, but we feel that much of the Indianexperience can be applied elsewhere.

ICRISAT, like many international centers, has

135

the capability of assisting national programs infour main areas:

1. Provision and exchange of germplasm.There is universal interest in strengthen-ing national breeding programs; conse-quently, ICRISAT routinely suppliessource material and various nurseries forscreening, testing, and hybridizing tomore than 40 cooperating countries. Inreturn, ICRISAT has access to the indigen-ous genotypes within national programs,and has built up a broad-based geneticresource for further refinement and dis-tribution. Proper storage facilities areunder construction for maintenance of thisvaluable international genetic collection.

2. Assistance in training. ICRISAT considerstraining to be among its most importantactivities; the eventual goal is to makethe research capability of cooperatingcountries self-sufficient. Various forms oftraining, designed to fit the particularneeds of each country, are offered.

3. Promotion of scientific interaction. A thirdactivity useful to all cooperating nationalsystems is the convening of workshops,seminars, and conferences to promotescientific interaction and communication.Participants can also visit research prog-rams and facilities at other institutionssimultaneously. So far, ICRISAT hasorganized nine international workshops invarious areas of research.

4. Provision of technical assistance. Thefourth area where international centerscan strengthen linkages with nationalprograms is in providing technical as-sistance. The most appropriate form,whether short-term consultancy or long-term assignment, depends on the indi-genous scientific strength and the actualorganization of human resources withinthe host country. Although ICRISAT hasonly 4 years of experience in this type ofcooperative activity, response f romcountries where scientists have beenposted is encouraging.

Role of ICRISAT Scient istsin Cooperat ing Countr ies

Agreement between ICRISAT and the host

countries vary by country. Generally, the prog-ram of each ICRISAT scientist posted in a cooperating country has three components:

1. A direct contribution to the nationalprogram.

2. A contribution to the regional program,consisting mainly of the organization andsupervision of regional trials and con-sultancy visits to neighboring countries.

3. A contribution to the international pro-gram in supervision of trials or nurseries toprovide ICRISAT Center with informationon the behavior and performance of differ-ent genotypes in various ecological situa-tions. An important function is to providegermplasm from cooperating countriesfor inclusion in the germplasm collectionand the breeding programs at ICRISATCenter.

The demarcation between these three com-ponents is not always clear and may sometimesappear to be somewhat arbitrary. However, ineach situation, an attempt has been made toestablish this tripartite role so that the relation-ship between ICRISAT scientists and their col-leagues in the national programs can be definedand close working links can be forged. Therelative importance of the three componentsmay vary considerably both between countriesand between scientific disciplines. As far aspossible, ICRISAT scientists are integrated intothe local research centers and are expected tofollow the general working regulations of thosecenters; however, ICRISAT scientists have fullcontrol of theallocatedfunds, thereby maintain-ing the degree of autonomy necessary to ef-fectively carry out their assignments.

On the whole, these arrangements with thenational research services have proved satis-factory both scientifically and administratively.By such close association with national re-search, the ICRISAT scientists become fullyaware of the research problems in host coun-tries, of the progress of national research ser-vices, and of the various constraints on hostcountry research and extension. The scientistsare thus in the best position to reappraise theirprograms regularly to make them more mean-ingful. They have an important role in providingpractical training to local technicians, and, insome cases, scientists on the staff; they alsooften identify candidates fortraining at ICRISATCenter. The exchange of both scientific informa-

136

t ion and seed material between ICRISAT andthe national research services is very free underthese conditions. It is, in fact, a true cooperation,in the full sense of the word, in that there isreciprocal benefit for both parties.

Two main principles are followed regardingthe transfer of new technology and improvedgermplasm to cooperating countries:

• This transfer is made only through thenational research institutions, never di-rectly to extension or developmentagencies.

• The transfer is not encumbered by anyrequirement of special references toICRISAT. With improved germplasm, par-ticularly, the local research institutions arefree to choose any ICRISAT material forrelease to farmers and to label it as theywish.

ICRISAT Cooperat ive Programsin Af r ica

Growing population pressures in Africa haveresulted in large food deficits in some of themore populous countries. Production of food inthe continent over the last few years has failedto keep pace with population growth and withproduction in other regions. While some of thedecline in output is due to the unfavorableweather of recent years, it is clear that thetraditional farming systems have been unableto respond adequately to the demands of rapidpopulation growth. The food prospects forsub-Saharan Africa are gloomy if these semi-stagnant trends in food production continue.

Accelerating growth and alleviating povertyin sub-Saharan Africa will depend primarily onthe provision of additional impetus to agricul-ture, particularly in the small-holder sector, andsecondarily on the pace of creation of em-ployment in industry and direct action to im-prove essential public services.

For this reason the Doggett-Sauger-Cummings Report of October 1971 gave highestpriority to the African SAT in the developmentof ICRISAT's programs of international cooper-ation. The ICRISAT Governing Board fully en-dorsed the recommendation and encourageddonors to provide special project funding forthis purpose. Substantial progress in programimplementation has been made since 1975, as

described below. In this presentation westernand eastern Africa are considered separately.

The West A f r i c a n P rog ram

Within the West African program, several sub-programs can be distinguished, all of which areclosely linked technologically, whatever theirsource of funding. The oldest and most im-portant is the UNDP/ICRISAT West AfricanCooperative Program.

The UNDP/ICRISAT West Af r ican Project

In January 1975, ICRISAT and UNDP enteredinto contract with the prime objective ofcooperating with and strengthening existingWest African agricultural research programs todevelop higher-yielding varieties of sorghumand millet with consistent and reliable yieldcharacteristics and to develop technology toaccompany these varieties. The drought-stricken Sahel area below the Sahara was thefocus of concern. Sorghum and millet are thestaple foods for the majority of the people in thisarea and the food:population ratio is seriouslydisturbed.

Initially, the project covered 12 countries fromSenegal to Chad, including nine French-speaking and three English-speaking countries.In 1977, following a request from Sudan fortechnical assistance to their national sorghumand millet improvement programs, Sudan wasincluded in the UNDP/ICRISAT contract. Twelvescientists currently work under this contract.

Implementation of the program has pro-ceeded steadily and carefully. Initial problemsof logistic support and formulation of accept-able agreements were overcome with the as-sistance of the UNDP officials in each of thecooperating countries. Because ICRISAT scien-tists are posted in national research stationsand can benefit from the existing laboratory andoffice fa cil ities of these stations, construction ofbuildings was usually unnecessary, except inthe Kamboinse station near Ouagadougou andin the Wad Medani station in Sudan. The pro-gram became fully operational for the crop year1977 and has now entered its second phase.

The ICRISAT/Mal i Program

In March 1976, in response to a request for

137

assistance from the Government of Mali, theFord Foundation provided funds for anagronomist-breeder for sorghum and milletimprovement to be stationed at the SotubaResearch Station near Bamako. A USAID grant,renewable annually, has subsequently main-tained the program. Under this grant, a smalllaboratory and office facilities have been con-structed at Sotuba. The USAID grant was ex-tended in 1979 and, jointly with the Ciba GeigyFoundation, wil l help develop a full-scale ag-ronomic research station in a drier area, nearSegou, where both ICRISAT and national scien-tists will be accommodated and work togetherfor the improvement of cereal production in thecentral zone of Mali (annual rainfall 400 to 900mm).

Recent Deve lopments in the West Af r icanProgram

A project entitled Semi-Arid Food Grain Re-search and Development (SAFGRAD), designedto strengthen the research capability in WestAfrica through contractual arrangements withICRISAT, IITA, and U.S. universities, wasinitiated by USAID and placed under the re-sponsibility of the OAU/STRC (Organization forAfrican Unity/Scientific, Technical, and Re-search Committee). Other donors, including theFrench and British governments, are also ex-pected to contribute to the project.

Under the provisions of the USAID/ICRISATcontract, signed in 1978, ICRISAT posted a sorghum breeder at the Institute for AgriculturalResearch, Samaru, Nigeria, in 1979. Two otherscientists, a cereal entomologist and a pro-duction argonomist, are being recruited andwill shortly join the ICRISAT team at IAR.ICRISAT will also post a soil-management ag-ronomist at the Kamboinse research station inUpper Volta.

SAFGRAD has also assigned a number ofofficers under the Accelerated Crop ProductionProgram directly to national programs. Theseworkers are conducting multilocation trials ofthe improved cultivars generated by thecooperating research centers.

In 1979, a cereal breeder for Striga, a cerealentomologist, and a production economistwere added to the ICRISAT team in Upper Volta.Also in Upper Volta, a project proposal is beingfinalized to develop watershed management

studies on the heavy clayey soils of the areadeveloped by the AW (Amdnagement des Val-ines Voltas; Volta Valleys Authority), aftereradication of river blindness. A pilot study willbe undertaken to identify methods for improvedresource management that will facilitate ag-ricultural development in semi-arid regions ofWest Africa. The main donors will be USAID andthe Government of the Netherlands, withICRISAT and the Government of Upper Voltaalso contributing.

Work Accomp l i shed in West Afr ica

After a relatively slow start, because of the timerequired to fill the research positions, a gooddeal of progress has been accomplished both inresearch and training, considering that cropimprovement, which constitutes the core of theresearch program, is a long-term process.During this first phase of the project:

• the major research problems specific to thetarget crops in this environment have beenidentified;

• the methodology for dealing with theseproblems has been defined;

• local germplasm of sorghum and millethas been collected and evaluated and a significant amount of exotic germplasmhas already been introduced and dis-tributed to the cooperating countries;

• some promising results have beenachieved in the introduction and/or intro-gression of exotic materials, especiallywith sorghum. Likewise, important dis-ease resistance sources in millet have beenlocated for the Center program;

• promising results have also been obtainedin crop management, land management,and intercropping studies;

• good cooperation has been developed be-tween ICRISATand national scientists in allcountries where ICRISAT scientists areposted;

• national research capabilities have beenstrengthened and a significant contri-bution has been made to the transfer oftechnology through the participation ofWest African scientists in various confer-ences and through training of scientistsand technicians at Hyderabad.

We can expect to see substantial progress inmillet and sorghum improvement during the

138

next few years—perhaps more in sorghumthan millet — as the adaptation of exotic mate-rials to the West African environment seems tobe more difficult in millet due to disease factors.There are good prospects for progress in ag-ronomy, with emphasis on more efficient utili-zation of environmental and biological factorsin combination with locally available inputsas a realistic alternative to basing yield im-provement primarily on imported inputs.

The East A f r i c a n P rog ram

The focus of ICRISAT's early efforts in Africa hasbeen on the critical food production problems inWest Africa. Since December 1977, the Institutehas started programs in East Africa as well andhas a sorghum breeder and a millet breederworking in Sudan under UNDP special projectfunds.

In Tanzania, through a subcontract with IITA,provision has been made for a sorghumbreeder and a millet breeder to be posted at thellonga research station, as part of an overallTanzania/USAID/IITA agricultural research pro-ject in which CIMMYT and ICRISAT also partici-pate.

Future Development of ICRISATCooperat ive Programs in Af r ica

It is clearly recognized that in relation to themagnitude of the task in SAT Africa, presentstaff numbers are inadequate and should beaugmented in several disciplines. A number ofresearch requirements that are peculiar toAfrica cannot be adequately tackled at ICRISATCenter.

In its final draft report dated December 1978,the ICRISAT Quinquennial Review (QQR) panelstrongly endorsed the concept of strengtheningthe African Program, proposing that core fund-ing should be provided for regional programsas distinguished from support to national pro-grams, which would continue under specialproject funding. This is consistent with the viewthat the criteria for core funding should be that:

• the research is clearly within the mandateof the Institute;

• the research requires long-term supportand it will be at least regional in relevance.

These two conditions are clearly met in the

ICRISAT cooperative programs in Africa.The QQR panel recommended that regional

programs be developed at a few carefullyselected representative sites, with a degree offlexibility within the network to allow for phas-ing out of programs or shifting of location asrequired. ICRISAT agrees with the QQR recom-mendations, and they have been taken intoaccount in the proposed development ofcooperative programs in Africa. Already exist-ing programs in Africa can serve as a basis onwhich to build and relatively few new key sitesmay be necessary to fill in the important gaps.

Future Deve lopmen t in West A f r i c a

In West Africa, the ICRISAT regional networkwill be organized around two main multidisci-plinary teams, the first sited in a predominantlymillet area (400-500 mm annual rainfall), thesecond in a predominantly sorghum area(700-800 mm annual rainfall).

High priority is assigned to the developmentof a regional ICRISAT program on pearl milletimprovement and associated farming systemstechnology applicable to the drier, sandier soilswhere water is l imiting. Preliminary investi-gations have been made in West Africa to de-termine a suitable location for this unit, whichshould be in the heart of the millet-growingregion in a country that depends almost exclu-sively on millet as its staple cereal. A finaldecision on the specific site is pending, but it isenvisaged that this unit, when fully staffed, willadequately serve the long-term research needsof the region.

For long-term research in sorghum, theKamboinse research station, Upper Volta, ap-pears the most appropriate location. It is in themain sorghum growing area (precipitation 800mm) and is the base of the most comprehensiveICRISAT program launched so far in WestAfrica. This team, to be expanded as needed, isconsidered adequate to serve regional andnational requirements in sorghum improve-ment research.

At the Kamboinse station, shortage of landmay hamper the development of new researchactivities, especially on land and watermanagement. A number of alternatives arebeing considered to alleviate this problem,including government purchase of adjoiningland and provision of a nearby site for some of

139

the programs. Some use may also be made ofthe Saria research station facility, 70 km fromOuagadougou, which is underutilized at pre-sent.

The land and water management programresearch must be conducted at the station andon the farm, with initially several years ofon-station research. The station must be a benchmark site carefully chosen on technicalcriteria and it must be under ICRISAT's control.ICRISAT will be able to undertake long-termresearch in farming systems only if thegovernment is able to provide land that meetsthese criteria.

In addition to these two main multidisciplin-ary teams, to be mainly funded in the ICRISATcore budget, existing smaller teams, fundedunder special projects, will continue to beposted in research stations of various countriesand will work in close cooperation with thenational research services. These include a team of five scientists in Samaru, Nigeria; a team of two scientists in Bamako-Segou, Mali; a team of two scientists in Bambey, Senegal; andone scientist in Maradi, Niger. The presentresearch teams may be increased and otherscreated, as needs are identified.

About 30 ICRISAT scientists are expected tobe stationed in semi-arid West Africa in the nearfuture to work on sorghum, millet, andgroundnut improvement as well as on relatedfarming systems.

Fu tu re Deve lopmen t in Eastand Cent ra l A f r i c a

Future programs in this area will concernsorghum, millet, groundnut, and pigeonpeaimprovement. ICRISAT already has one sor-ghum breeder and one millet breeder in Sudan,and one sorghum breeder in Tanzania; a milletbreeder will be recruited soon for Tanzania.There is a need for entomological research onsorghum and millet in Tanzania and neighbor-ing countries, and it is proposed that ICRISAT fillthis serious gap as soon as possible.

In further development of a north-southAfrican network, there is an obvious need tofocus on the improvement of high-elevation,cold-tolerant sorghums. Except for an excellentongoing program in Ethiopia and the work inMexico, this class of sorghums has been mostlyneglected; yet these sorghums are a major

source of food not only in the highlands ofEthiopia, but also in Somalia and Yemen, and inthe region of Western Uganda, Rwanda,Burundi, and eastern Zaire.

It is tentatively proposed that ICRISAT post inEthiopia a senior breeder of sorghum, whowould also be team leader, to be closely as-sociated with the present national programheadquartered at Nazareth, and a secondbreeder in the highlands of Kenya, at Kitale.These breeders would collaborate closely withthe newly established FAO sorghum im-provement program based at the Katumaniresearch station, near Machakos, and wouldalso be responsible for developing a network ofmultilocational trials in other countries in theregion.

Concerning groundnut improvement, theQQR panel suggested that ICRISAT considerinitiating a program in East or Central Africa to assist the national programs in the region. Inview of the potential value of the crop bothdomestically and as an export commodity, re-search on groundnut should be given highpriority.

Although a number of possibilities exist forlocating an ICRISAT groundnut program,Malawi is probably the most appropriatecountry in view of the importance of the cropthere and the backup support that could beprovided by the national program. Other coun-tries that might also be considered are Tan-zania, Sudan, and Zambia.

Because pigeonpea is an important pulsecrop in East Africa, it would be desirable to posta breeder/agronomist at the Katumani researchstation to work closely with the ICRISAT Centerprogram in breeding pigeonpea and to investi-gate improved agronomic practices under EastAfrican conditions. There would also be closeinteraction with the national program.

ICRISAT Cooperat ivePrograms in Asia

It was stated earlier that very close collabora-tion in both sorghum and millet research hasbeen established between the Indian nationalprogram and ICRISAT and that this is serving asa pattern for cooperative links elsewhere. A study of the links with the Indian program isbeyond the scope of this paper and, because of

140

the extensive and detailed nature of thecooperative agreement between ICRISAT andICAR, will not be discussed here. It should bementioned, however, that there is an exchangeof germplasm and nursery material betweenthe two research organizations, and thatICRISAT carries out experimental work at fiveresearch centers in India that provide a range ofecological conditions for special studies onsorghum, millets, chickpea, and pigeonpea.These centers are at agricultural universitieslocated at Bhavanisagar (TNAU), Dharwar(UAS, Bangalore), Gwalior (JNKVV), Hissar(HAU), and Srinagar (J & K Govt.). In addition,our farming systems program has establishedcooperative research projects at a number ofcenters with agricultural universities and the AllIndia Coordinated Research Project for DrylandAgriculture.

ICRISAT is also establishing closer coopera-tion with a number of other Asian countries,including Pakistan, Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka,Bangladesh, and — most recent ly — thePeople's Republic of China. Thedevelopment ofcloser ties is under way with some of thesecountries, and various forms of assistance,although relatively modest, have been providedby ICRISAT.

Since most Asian countries have rather well-developed agricultural and extension systems,with many highly trained scientists, the re-quirement for permanent ICRISAT staff to beposted in the region is likely to be modest. Atpresent only one case is under discussion — forstrengthening research in land and water man-agement in Thailand, with the possibility thatone ICRISAT specialist may be required. Otheropportunities for closer cooperation will con-tinue to be explored.

In the Middle East, a chickpea breeder hasbeen posted at ICARDA in Syria in order tocoordinate chickpea research in the region andto integrate the ICARDA and ICRISAT programs.This arrangement also provides for the acceler-ation of the breeding program at both centers,since the growing seasons are different andenable two generations per year to be grownunder rather different environments.

Cooperative Programsin Central and South America

A first ICRISAT contribution concerns the high-

elevation cold-tolerant sorghum improvementprogram. Under IDRC funding, a sorghumbreeder was headquartered with CIMMYT,Mexico, in December 1975. This program wasoriginally undertaken by CINMYT, but respow-sibUity for its cont inuaion was transferred toICRISAT in January 1977. The major objectwesare to extend sorghum adaptation to the high-lands in the developing wor ld in order to inten-sify land use and to stabilize grain sorghum production in fringe areas, where severe losses occur due to occasional low temperatures. Theaddition of a pathologist and agronomist to thesorghum improvement effort based in Mexicois desirable in order to expand the presentprogram to cover both highland and lowlandsorghum improvement in Mexico and the reg-ion in general. Close linkages could be estab-lished with the program centered in Brazil, withall countries in the area benefiting accordingly.

Lowland sorghum is produced in Central andSouth America mainly for the livestock indus-try, although recent surveys have revealed thatsorghum is increasing in importance as a foodin the region, particularly as an insuranceagainst famine during the dry years. For thesame reason, pearl millet is also now givenmore attention.

Brazil is interested in strengthening its na-tional research programs in sorghum and milletimprovement and farming systems, and hasrequested ICRISAT to provide a small team ofscientists for the SAT northeast to assist indevelopment of these disciplines. In farmingsystems, specific interest has been expressed inland and water management and intercropping.Research station development has also beenidentified as a high priority requirement. It isconsidered likely that EMBRAPA, the nationalagronomic research institution, will providefunds for this cooperative program.

Pigeonpea isan important crop in much oftheCaribbean region, and requests for assistancein improvement of the crop have come fromseveral countries. There is great scope forvarietal improvement, since present genotypesare low yielding and are susceptible to a number of insect pests as well as several dis-eases. Special project funds are being sought toprovide a pathologist, an entomologist, and a breederto be posted in the Dominican Republic.A chickpea breeder might also be posted inMexico, where this crop is important. He would

141

receive backup support from, and would in-teract with, the pulse team in the DominicanRepublic.

ICRISAT's international programs have ex-panded rapidly in the past 3 years, with 23scientists having been outposted thus far. Sev-eral more are to be recruited before the end of1979. Interest is developing rapidly in manymore SAT countries around the world, andICRISAT will make every effort to work withthem in advancing their agricultural researchand their prospects for increased food produc-tion and better lives for their citizens.

142

The ICRISAT Cooperative Program in Upper Volta

W. A. Stoop and C. M. Pattanayak*

A b s t r a c t

In recent years drought has been common in Upper Volta, causing poor yields andserious food grain deficits. Research data indicate that in spite of these droughts muchhigher yields should be possible. This paper attempts to analyze why these higher yieldshave not been realized and to indicate ways in which the ICRISA T Upper Volta programcan contribute to improving this situation.

Upper Volta in West Africa is located between 8°and 15oN. It has about 8.9 million hectares ofpotential crop land. Around 2.4 to 2.7 millionhectares are cropped annually. The importantcereal crops are sorghum, pearl millet, maize,and rice with estimated annual cropping areasof one mil l ion, 700 000, 80 000, and 35 000 ha,respectively. The principal cereals — sorghumand millet — have estimated average yields of500 kg and 400 kg/ha, respectively.

Annual grain requirements for the populationof approximately 6 million is estimated at about1.2 million metric tons (tonnes). However, inrecent drought years, grain production hasbeen in the order of 500 000 to 700 000 tonnes,resulting in a serious food deficit.

As is obvious from past research results,there is enormous scope for improvement.However, to achieve these improvements "thetransfer of technology" bottleneck must beremoved. For that purpose a detailed under-standing of various environments and theirlimitations, both physical and socioeconomic,is required. Next, adaptable technology withinreach of average farmers can be proposed.

In this paper an attempt is made to analyzethe major constraints on sorghum and milletproduction in Upper Volta and indicate a strategy that ICRISAT intends to fol low to im-prove the situation. Some promising resultsobtained over the first 4 years of ICRISATinvolvement will be used to illustrate variouspoints.

* Agronomist and Sorghum Breeder/Team Leader,ICRISAT.

Present Status: Environmentand L imi t ing Factors

In this section some main characteristics of thepresent agricultural systems, their merits andtheir limitations, are described to provide a background against which any changes andimprovements will have to take place.

C r o p p i n g P a t t e r n s i n R e l a t i o nt o C l i m a t e a n d S o i l

In Upper Volta distinct cropping patterns haveevolved over the ages under the influence ofboth climate (particularly rainfall) and soils.These aspects will be discussed first, becausethey will logically indicate the major physicalconstraints to improved production.

Based on the rainfall patterns, the country canbe subdivided into three broad ecological zones(Fig. 1). The total annual rainfall ranges from400 mm in the north to over 1000 mm in thesouth; the duration of the rainy season in-creases from approximately 21/2 months inthe north to 6 months in the south, with theoverall distribution becoming less erraticto the south. The start of the rains is rathererratic everywhere. For example, aroundOuagadougou the rains are established by earlyJune once out of 4 years, but the same proba-bility occurs for the end of June or later. For thethree major ecological zones — Sahelian, northSudanian, and south Sudanian — more de-tailed data are provided in Table 1. Closelylinked with this shift in rainfall are the pre-dominant crops grown in each zone — mainlypearl millet in the northern, sorghum and millet

143

Figure 1. Climatic regions of Upper Volta.

Figure 2. Schematic presentation of crops grown on different soil types com-monly present in toposequences in Upper Volta.

in the central, and sorghum and maize in thesouthern zone.

However, within particularly the central andnorthern zones, similar changes in crops resultfrom different soil types that commonly occur intoposequences (Fig. 2). Thus millet is grownmainly on relatively dry soils of the plateau andupper slopes (these are often shallow andgravelly loam soils, less than 50 cm deep,overlying laterite); sorghum and maize aregrown on the deep sandy loam soils of thelower slopes and towards the swamps; and riceis grown in the swamps after these have beeninundated, generally by the middle of July.

By using local varieties grown in long stripsalong a toposequence at the Kamboinse Exper-iment Station near Ouagadougou, we were ableto confirm the wisdom of this traditional patternin a striking way. Figures 3 and 4 demonstratethe crop adaptation to soil type for maize/sorghum and millet/sorghum studies, re-spectively.

Figure 3.' Adaptation of maize and sorghum to different soil types in a toposequ-ence.

Table 1. Characterization of the rainfall pattern in three major ecological zones in Upper Volta.

Ecologicalzone

SouthSudanian zone

NorthSudanian zone

Saheiian zone

Meanannualrainfall(mm)

>1000

650-1000<650

Approxstart ofrainy

season

May

JuneJuly

Durationof rainyseason

(months)

5-6

4-52.5-4

Approxno. ofrainydays

80-95

60-7040-50

Peakrainfallmonths

July, Aug, Sept

July, AugAug

144

Figure 4. Adaptation of sorghum and pearl millet to different soils in a to-posequence.

Date of p l a n t i n g

Figure 5. Effect of planting dates on grain yields of two cowpea varieties.

Obviously this interaction between climate (mainly total rainfall and its distribution), soils (their available water-holding capacities), andcrops (their drought-tolerance and/or escape) isof prime importance in reducing risks and instabilizing agricultural production. As such it isof fundamental significance to the introductionof improved crop varieties and agronomictechniques.

Majo r Factors L i m i t i n g P r o d u c t i o n

As mentioned earlier, one generally does notdeal with single factors but rather with a com-plex of interlinked limiting factors. For ease ofpresentation, we will nevertheless distinguishbetween physical factors and socioeconomicones while giving some examples.

Physical Factors

1. Rainfall: The total amount of rainfall and itsdistribution are unpredictable. Though thelikelihood of drought is greatest at the startand end of the season, mid-seasondroughts are also common. Early planting,though risky, is essential to fully utilize a short growing season. Moreover, the yieldsof most photosensitive varieties suffergreatly from delayed planting (Fig. 5), es-

pecially if the rains stop early. As a result,the farmer in the central and northern zonesfaces a dilemma with respect to soil prep-aration, because the gains frequently donot outweigh the yield losses incurred by a delay in planting.

2. Soils: With the exception of the commonshallow gravelly soils, most soils havereasonably available moisture-holdingcapacities (100 to 150 mm). However, theyhave a serious problem of crusting and lowrate of infiltration of water, which seriouslyaffects the crop stand and production.

These soils also have low fertility be-cause of a low amount of organic matterand general deficiency of nitrogen andphosphorus.

Soc ioeconomic Factors

1. Technology: Most farmers rely completelyon traditional technology and use a smallhand hoe as the only tool. As a result, soilpreparation, incorporation of crop resi-dues, and use of organic manures areuncommon. Fertilizers are also rarely used.The local sorghum and pearl millet var-ieties, which are mostly full-season andphotosensitive, need early planting and arewell-adapted to hand labor. However, with

145

improved cultural practices and fertilizer,they grow excessively tall and their harvestindex is poor.

2. Subsistence farming: Many farm com-munities rely solely on subsistence farm-ing. Thus the availability of ready cash tobuy inputs — chemical ferti l izers orinsecticides — or to invest in oxen andmachinery is very limited or absent.

3. Communication: This is probably one ofthe most serious bottlenecks in the transferof technology and involves physicalaspects (lack of roads and transportation)as well as traditional and cultural barriers(e.g., language).

The transfer of technology to these traditionalcommunities can be jeopardized by failure torecognize various l imiting factors and theirinteractions, and by efforts to introduce toomany novelties at the same time.

Improved local sorghum and pearl milletvarieties have shown yield potentials of 2 to 3 tonnes/ha when grown on experiment stationsunder improved management conditions, butaverage yields of these varieties in farmers'fields have remained static at the level of 400 to500 kg/ha.

To pinpointthe reasons for these lowyields isdifficult. Nevertheless, it appears that manyimproved techniques were unrealistic forsubsistence-type agriculture, that the longmaturity duration of improved local varietiesdid not match with the available soil moisture inmedium deep and shallow soils, and that theabsence of an infrastructure to assure inputavailability and a guaranteed grain price maynot have given adequate incentives to thefarmer.

However, with consistent technical andfinancial support, progress can be made, as isshown by cotton. Yields of this crop havesteadily increased as a result of a consistenteffort by the CFDT (Compagnie Frangiase pourle Developpement des Fibres Textiles) assuringsubsidized fertilizers, insecticides, and otherinputs as well as a guaranteed price for farmers.

ICRISAT's Approachand Progress

ICRISAT initiated its research effort in UpperVolta with the stationing of a sorghum breeder

in 1975, a plant pathologist in 1976, and a milletbreeder and two agronomists in 1977. A Striga scientist, an entomologist, and a productioneconomist will be joining the team during 1979.In view of the farmers' economic limitations,major emphasis is placed on efficient use ofbiological and environmental resources incombination with locally produced inputs (e.g.,natural phosphate; animal-drawn equipment).The activities are concentrated mainly in theregion between the isohyets 400 and 800 mm(northern and central Upper Volta).

Among the biological resources, crop im-provement is of prime concern. On the ag-ronomic side, the role of legumes either inrotation or intercropped with cereals is studiedas a means to provide biologically fixed nitro-gen rather than expensive fertilizer-nitrogen.

The exploitation of environmental factorssuch as rainfall and soils involves utilization ofthe entire crop season, while minimizing risksthrough intercropping (e.g., early and late-maturing crops), as well as studies on theadaptation of crops and crop varieties to diffe-rent soils.

Multilocation varietal testing was startedearly in the crop improvement programs, andlarge demonstration plots for the most promis-ing sorghum varieties were started in 1978.Agronomic off-station testing started in 1979with a series of experiments along a north-south axis through the country. Meanwhile, anagronomic demonstration program has beendeveloped for a traditional village in cooper-ation with the peasants. This is considered a crucial study in the development and transfer ofimproved and adapted technology.

Crop I m p r o v e m e n t Needsand I n t r o d u c t i o n o f ImprovedVar ie t ies

Upper Volta has a wide range of differentenvironments (climates and soils), in additionto a rather unpredictable rainfall. No singlemillet or sorghum variety can effectively copewith all these different conditions. In addition tothe well-adapted photosensitive (full season)local varieties, other improved sorghum andmillet varieties of various maturity classescould greatly assist in further increasing andstabilizing grain production.

The major breeding objectives for sorghum

146

are: shorter plant height (about 2 m) and highharvest index; resistance to diseases (sootystripe, Helminthosporium, anthracnose, zonateleaf spot, charcoal rot, and grain mold), pests(shoot fly and midge), and drought; white,shining, bold grains with hard vitreous endo-sperm and high cooking quality; high seedlingestablishment; and a stable and superior yieldover locations and years.

Similar breeding objectives are formulatedfor pearl millet, including synchronous tilleringand resistance to diseases such as downymildew, ergot, and smut, though for this cropone faces two entirely different ecological zones(Sahelian and central), which has required twodifferent breeding programs.

Taking sorghum as an example, three majorcultivar types are considered essential:

1. Full-season (130-140days), photosensitivesorghum suitable for early planting ondeep good soils near swamps, mainly fnthe 650-to 800-mm rainfall zone. To realizetheir yields these materials rely for grainfilling mainly on residual moisture utilizedin the dry month of October. This responseis demonstrated in Figure 6 for a localvariety grown on a toposequence. As a result of the greater available soil moistureat the lower end of the slope, the yieldincreased by approximately 50%. Becauseof their photosensitivity, these materialscan be planted early (depending on thestart of the rains) but not after the end ofJune, when yields wil l start to dropdramatically (compare Figs. 6 and 7).Currently, an improved high-yielding vari-ety of this type is not available.

2. Partially photosensitive sorghum (ap-proximately 120 days), suitable for plant-ing in the second half of June and harvest-ing by the second half of October, arerequired also for the 650- to 800-mm rain-fall zones. Such cultivars are suitable forplanting on soils of medium depth (50 to70 cm) or on deep soils when rains arrive,by the middle of June. The improvedvariety E35-1 was identified to meet theserequirements in addition to acceptableplant height (2 m) and grain quality. In thesame toposequence mentioned earlier, itoutyielded the local variety for early Juneplanting as well as late June planting,particularly on the upper part of the sequ-

Figure 6. Yields for two sorghum varieties planted 28 June 1978 along a to-posequence.

ence, which was more drought prone.Similar superior yields were obtained inmultilocational trials. Presently, E35-1 isbeing studied in large on-farm demonstra-tion plots mainly in the central zone.

3. Photoinsensitive sorghum (approximately100 to 105 days), suitable for plantingduring the first half of July and harvestingby mid-October. These cultivars wouldserve many purposes. Because of theirshort maturity, they are able to avoid bothearly and end-of-season droughts. As a result, not only can they be grown onshallow soils — traditionally in millet — inthe 650-and 800-mm rainfall zone but theycan also serve as an alternative when earlyplantings of photosensitives on good soilshave failed (Figs. 6 and 7, giving a com-parison of local varieties with improvedphotoinsensitive VS702 in toposequenceof soils, are a good illustration of thisprinciple). Varieties such as SPV35 and65/30 serve well on good soils in thenorthern zone, where the rains are still lessthan 600 mm and the overall season isshorter. It is interesting that in all cases theyield potentials of these photoinsensitivematerials have been 50-100% higher thanfor the local, even when the latter wereplanted at their optimum (early) plantingdates.

147

Figure 7. Yields for two sorghum varieties planted 15 July 1978 along a to-posequence.

Presently, VS702 for mainly the centralzone and SPV35 and 65/30 for the northernzone are being studied in large on-farmdemonstration plots. All materials havebeen received well with respect to theircooking qualities.

A g r o n o m y a n d F a r m i n g S y s t e m s

It is well known that experiment station con-ditions in general are rather different from thosein farmers' fields. Moreover, agronomic studiestend to look at two or three factors at a time,which may or may not be important for a farmer.

In order to make practical recommendationssuitable for farmers' conditions, our agronomicresearch has taken up these studies:

• On-station agronomic research (Kam-boinse)

• On-farm testing and demonstrations(along north/south axis from Ouhigouyato Tiebele)

• Farming systems studies in a traditionalvillage (Nakomtenga) and in a new andcontrolled development project such asthe land resettlement scheme, AVV(Amenagement des Valiees des Voltas)

On-stat ion A g r o n o m y

Three main aspects are studied at the Kam-boinse Experiment Station:

1. Varietal testing of the most promisingsorghum, millet, and cowpea lines with

respect to plant population, planting date,and adaptation to different soils (topo-sequence studies).

2. Intercropping studies with sorghum ormillet as base crops and maize, cowpea, orgroundnut as intercrops; soil type andrainfall characteristics are used as criteriafor possible crop combinations.

3. Management studies, emphasizing theimprovement of moisture infiltration anderosion control while maintaining soil fer-tility through cereal/legume intercroppingor rotations.

The work on varietal testing is done in closecooperation with the breeding programs andresults have been discussed under Crop Im-provement. Those results are also of greatimportance for the intercropping studies. Indi-cations during the first two seasons have beenthat intercropping serves to minimize risks inbad years and maximize yields in good years.

Intercropping work is presently done forareas with more than a 700-mm rainfall and a cropping season of more than 120 days, whichallows the combination of early and late-maturing crops; land can thus be occupiedefficiently for the entire season. Combinationsmainly for the better soils are based on full-season sorghum as base crop, with earlycowpea, maize, or millet as intercrops. Cowpeaand maize intercrops have shown the mostpromise.

For drier areas of less than 700-mm rainfalland a cropping season of fewer than 120 dayson poor shallow soils under high rainfall, cropcombinations that complement each other insome other way than their maturity (e.g., cerealand legume; tall and short plant types) arestudied. Interesting yield gains were obtainedfrom millet/groundnut intercropping. Duringthe 1979 season, major emphasis is placed onthe cereal/cowpea intercropping systems,which are of concern to all rainfall zones in thecountry. Cowpea is an important component ofthe local cropping systems, but seems greatlyunderexploited. Among its useful secondarycharacteristics are competition with weeds,quick soil coverage that reduces erosion, andnitrogen fixation.

The beneficial effect was clearly demon-strated in a management study at Kamboinse.Cowpea as a preceding crop doubled sorg-hum yields in the following year, irre-

148

spective of the soil preparation treatment,plowed or nonplowed (Fig. 8), and in the ab-sence of a N fertilizer application. Obviously,this type of result is applicable to bothmechanized and nonmechanized farming con-ditions and therefore merits study on a largerscale in the on-farm testing program.

On- farm Test ing and Demonst ra t ion

This part of the program serves a dual purpose:first, for the research worker to verify the effectsof different environments (rainfall and soil) onthe performance of new varieties and ag-ronomic techniques, and second, as a demon-stration to aid the extension worker and the

Figure 8. Effects of plowing and time of plow-ing on sorghum grain yields for a sorghumlsorghum and for a cowpealsorghum rotation on shal-low gravelly soil.

farmer in the transfer of technology. For thelatter, and because one depends on outsidecooperators, the trials have a fairly smallnumber of treatments, which are repeated aspart of a much larger trial at the experimentstation.

For the 1979 season, nine sites have beenselected, covering the region between isohyets500 mm (Ouhigouya) and 1000 mm (Tiebele).The study will include the following aspects: (a)comparisons between local sorghum and im-proved sorghum E35-1 and VS702, eachplanted at two dates to cover the entire plantingseason from end of May till mid-July; (b) com-parisons between three improved cereal/cowpea intercropping systems; (c) responsesto rock phosphate by cereals and cowpea andevaluation of residual effects in the followingseason; and (d) responses to residual nitrogenfixed by cowpeas in pure and intercroppedconditions in the following season.

Farming Systems Studies

To really appreciate and evaluate the impact ofimproved varieties and techniques, these haveto be seen in the overall context of a farmoperation.

In this respect one can distinguish betweentwo situations, both of which are present inUpper Vo l ta—the traditional village hardlytouched by extension workers, and the newlydeveloped and greatly controlled farms in theA W . In the first setup, operations are based onhand labor using mostly traditional croppingsystems and patterns; in the second, animaltraction is employed, and a strict rotationschedule of pure crops (cotton, sorghum,cowpea and maize) is followed.

During the 1979 season, a study has beenstarted in a traditional village on the Mossiplateau. The aim is to involve the farmers in a small demonstration program, study their re-actions to various improved technologies, andlater evaluate the impact of these demon-strations on their way of farming. In this prog-ram, the production agronomist, land and watermanagement agronomist, and economist willcooperate in an effort to set up guidelines forthe transfer of technology.

It is hoped that by 1980 a watershed man-agement study can be started on the secondand more advanced type of farm.

149

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to express their thanks totheir colleagues P. K. Lawrence, J. A. Frowd, and J. P.van Staveren for their contributions to the programdescribed in this paper. The host government's con-sistent help and encouragement is highly ap-preciated.

150

Generation and Transfer of Technologyin the Americas

Leland R. House*

AbstractICRISAT's involvement in the Americas has been primarily with sorghum and, to a somewhat lesser extent, with pearl millet, groundnut, chickpea, and pigeonpea.Scientists from these crop improvement programs have kept in close touch withdevelopments in Central and South America through personal visits and exchange ofinformation and germplasm with scientists. ICRISA T has a sorghum breeder posted atCIMMYT in Mexico, working primarily on high-altitude crop improvement. In recentyears, sorghum production has increased tremendously in Latin America, principally inMexico, Argentina, and Brazil. Sorghum serves mainly as a feed for animals in thesecountries, and it has made an indirect contribution to food production by freeing more ofthe primary crop, maize, for human consumption. But sorghum also serves as animportant food for humans in Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, andother countries are showing an increasing interest in it as a food crop. Priorities forimprovement of sorghum in Central and South America include the need to breedvarieties for use by the poorer farmers as an intercrop with corn and beans, to screen forresistance to important pests and diseases found in these countries, and to increase thetraining of, and exchange of information with, Latin American scientists.

In recent years there has been a tremendousincrease in the production of sorghum in theAmericas, particularly in Mexico, Argentina,and Brazil. Increases in grain sorghum produc-tion have also been great in Colombia, Peru,Uruguay, and Venezuela; these increases havecome both from area sown and increased perhectare yields (Table 1).

Because of this expansion, it is often assumedthat little outside assistance is needed, evenfrom such institutes as ICRISAT. AlexanderGrobman (1978) with many years of experiencewith sorghum in the Americas, has summarizedthe situation thus:

"The tremendous increase in feed grain produc-tion that in most cases served as a base for theincrease in production of poultry products wasspearheaded by sorghum Crop productiontechnologies, based on hybrid sorghum, hybridmaize, use and availability of fertilizers, tractorpower, herbicides, combines, and the introduc-tion of high-yielding soybean cultivars,

* Principal Sorghum Breeder, and Leader, SorghumImprovement Program, ICRISAT.

lodging-resistant, shatterless, and combinable,werethe basis on which a profitable agriculturalpattern emerged. Very little of this technologywent to small farmers. It was not intended toeither by the technology generators and prom-oters or by the governments. In Mexico, thesorghum areas were mostly located in previ-ously large cotton estates; rice was also expel-led from the new sorghum areas. These weremostly medium to larger farmer crops. In thesorghum areas of Venezuela, Argentina andColombia there were also larger farmers. InPeru, large farmers started planting sorghum,and as the agrarian reform proceeded, largeagricultural units were retained in the process,so that no real change in economics of scaleoccurred, as large units continued plantinghybrid corn and hybrid yellow feed sorghum.

"In all of the countries the emphasis was setup in quick-high technology increase in grainproduction over the shortest time span. This wasachieved very quickly and efficiently, very littleextension outlay having been needed in theprocess. The technologies were to a great ex-tent transferred in complete packages and veryeasily adapted and adopted by farmers, who

151

Table 1. Grain sorghum production in the Americas; 1977 compared to 1969-71 and 1961-65

Country

Costa RicaCubaDominican Rep.El SalvadorGuatemalaHaiti

HondurasMexicoNeth. AntillesNicaraguaUSAArgentina

BrazilColombiaEcuadorParaguayPeruUruguayVenezuela

N & C. AmericaS. America

Area (1000 ha)

1961-65

22

10425

260

69205

350

4909855

13

31

321

5999905

1969-71

634

12150

214

31934

356

58201979

164

44

424

72432097

1977

2017

14454

224

711190

252

56922630

182117

16

1880

163

74563257

Source: FAO Production Yearbooks 1971 and 1977.

Yield (kg/ha

1961-65

1210

1020640700

80022101670940

28301590

2390

T0701950520

2170

30001560

1969-71

1639110034961186915981

13782766602

101533181932

22222407

1272307212591342

30961933

)

1977

18411100300012261722982

8672815706

101835282559

2485229020001000277815001994

32322484

Production (1000

1961-65 1969-71

27

10716

181

55452

547

139121358

30

42

173

198161 412

113

1414446

210

432 584

257

193143 822

2

153

511535

22 4274 052

tonnes)

1977

371

2117693

220

623 350

153

20 0836 730

453

40616

50120325

24 0978 091

counted with a basically unlimited market, andprices mostly above international standards."

Several important things occurred in thisprocess. The rapid increase in the use ofsorghum was spearheaded by multinationalcorporations and later adopted by local corpo-rations. Both private and public research wasstrengthened, and today in Argentina, forexample, only about 20% of the sorghums usedcome directly from the United States. An infra-structure for sorghum research and productionhas been established in many Latin countries.

Maize is "k ing" in the Americas, but the valueof sorghum in areas marginal for maize has alsobeen realized. "As sorghum moved into thedrier areas of the Argentinian Corn Belt, aninteresting phenomenon took place with maize.Because maize was left in the more humid areasof the province of Buenos Aires, maize yieldswent up (1700 kg/ha in 1969 to 2840 kg/ha in1974). Again in spite of sorghum being animported technology, sorghum yields, as an

average, are similar to the yields of maize inArgentina, in spite of the distribution — of bothcrops in different precipitation areas (meansorghum yields during 1973-76 are 2529 kg/ha,while mean maize yields 1973-76 are 2546kg/ha)" (Grobman 1978).

Sorghum has become a crop of importance(Table 2) in the Americas. The use of sorghumas an animal feed has released considerablequantities of maize for use as human food. Thishas been and will continue to be an indirect butimportant contribution to the food situation inthe Americas.

Data in the 1976 FAO Yearbook highlights a serious cereal deficit in the Central Americancountries, which imported 165 000 metric tons(tonnes) of wheat — 87% of their totalrequirement — a n d 223 OOOand 160 OOOtonnesof maize in 1973 and 1976, respectively.Honduras and El Salvador are food prioritycountries, based on a classification of the WorldFood Council. From 1972 to 1974 the Central

152

Table 2. Major cereal crops in CentralAmerica.

Country

MexicoBelizeHondurasGuatemala

El SalvadorCosta RicaNicaraguaPanama

Rank of importance

Sorghum Maize Wheat

2

22

232

1 3

2

Rice

2

231

Source: IADS, 197B.

American countries imported from 11 to 58% oftheir cereal requirements (IADS 1978).

The nutritional information available forCentral and South America shows that, exceptfor Argentina, calorie and protein intake is low.In El Salvador and Bolivia, it falls below that ofIndia. The poorest half of the population ofHonduras consumes only 68% and 61 % of theminimum daily requirements of calories andprotein, respectively. Generally rural popu-lations in the Central American countrysideconsume twice as much cereal (primarily corn),more beans, and about half as much milk, eggs,meat, green vegetables, fruit, wheat, and fats asurban populations (INCAP 1968).

Information such as this brings the situationinto better perspective. Although sorghum pro-duction has increased substantially in severalcountries of the region, one cannot extrapolatethis too far. Sorghum is the second most im-portant cereal of the region, with average yieldfigures ranging from 1200 to 2500 kg/ha onlarger farms. But on smaller farms in the sameregion, the average yields may range from 400to 1000 kg/ha, indicating an obvious need tofocus research on the poorer farmer.

It seems evident that lCRISAT need not beconcerned about sorghum improvement inmore temperate areas, where emphasis is onlarge-scale feedgrain production and whereresearch input already rests on the vast in-vestment in the United States and that rapidlydeveloping in some of the temperate Latincountries. However, lCRISAT might well con-tribute its experience and knowledge of sor-

ghums in the more tropical areas to which theInstitute has access.

Much of the following information has comefrom study trips made in the Americas.

The subsistence farmer is found in essentiallyfour situations:

(1) drier areas, such as northeastern Brazil,where rainfall is highly variable anddrought is common;

(2) areas of acid soils, frequently withaluminum toxicity and poor availabilityof nutrients, particularly phosphorus;these soils are found extensively in Brazil,parts of Venezuela, and Colombia;

(3) high rainfall areas, where periods ofdrought are common, fields frequentlyare rolling to steep, with high runoff andpoor water penetration, and soils have a low water-holding capacity; such situ-ations are typical of much of CentralAmerica; and

(4) higher elevation areas, of both high andlow rainfall, such as in parts of Mexico.

Generally, the larger commercial farmerssow hybrids, frequently in coastal or lowerelevation areas; the poorer farmers sow va-rieties, frequently on rolling to hilly land. Thecultivar range is substantial, from virtually100% hybrid in Mexico to 90% variety in an areaof Guatemala. More than 50% of the sorghumarea in Central America — except Panama — issown to varieties.

In Mexico, research has been under way forover 15 years to develop sorghums adapted tocold dry situations, and progress has beenmade in developing food and feed types. Theinitial problem was failure of seed set becauseof the cold temperatures; this was solved usingthree cold-tolerant types originating in Uganda.The problem now is to find varieties and hybridsearly enough to be sown with the rains and tomature before killing frost.

Research to identify short-season cold-tolerant types was initiated by CIMMYT; theInternational Development Research Centre(IDRC) began support of the program in 1974,and lCRISAT assumed responsibility in 1977.During this period the Instituto Nacional deInvestigacion Agropecuaria (INIA) and the Uni-versity of Chapingo also initiated their ownresearch programs, and all three agencies arecontinuing research for the advancement of thismaterial.

153

An effort is being made to develop white-seeded food quality types that fit the shortgrowing season (65-75 days to flowering).Currently, it is necessary to start the crop about1 month before the rains, with irrigation, so thatit wil l mature before a killing frost. This year a regional trial of cold-tolerant types has beensent to 14 countries:

CanadaChinaEcuadorEl SalvadorEthiopia

FranceGuatemalaHondurasKenyaLesotho

NepalPhilippinesRwandaUSA

In addition, 80 shipments of seed were sent allover the world during 1978.

Last year, at the CIMMYT headquarters at ElBatan (elevation 2240 m, latitude 80°N),atrial of food-type sorghums was conductedwith irrigation. Results were as follows:

It is apparent that, while yields are good, thetime to flowering is too long. Significantly,during the 1978 season, several plants flower-ing in less than 75 days were identified and arebeing advanced in the breeding program. It isworth noting that hybrid yields have exceeded7000 kg/ha.

If special project funds can be found, there isinterest in expanding research activities of theICRISAT-CIMMYT station to devote about 20%of its total effort to sorghums for the highlandsand about 80% for intermediate and low-elevation areas where sorghum is currentlybeing used. Existing cold-tolerant types mightbe useful at lower elevations; this is beingdetermined in Mexico, in cooperation with INIA.There is interest in Guatemala in an area ofabout 1800-m elevation.

The sources of cold tolerance generally camefrom long-season, photosensitive types fromEast Africa; as a spinoff from these came typeswith a range of maturities, and those of inter-mediate maturity have already been used incountry programs.

Priorities for sorghum improvement havebeen identified:

1. There is a need, in Central America, tobreed for varieties to be used by the poorerfarmers as an intercrop with corn andbeans. The current Criollo type is about1 month too long in maturity. This type ofresearch has been initiated at the CentroNacional de Tecnologica Agropecuaria(CENTA), the research agency of El Sal-vador. Several earlier selections — ES-199, ES-200, and ES-406 —have beenmade from Criollo. Agronomic experi-ments involving variety, levels of fertili-zation, and intersowing techniques havebeen initiated. The ICRISAT program hasnot yet had the opportunity to becomeinvolved in this type of research, but is in a good position to contribute with its vastarray of food-quality, tropically adaptedsorghums. An El Salvador substation ofthe ICRISAT-CIMMYT station would bevaluable.

2. Several insect pests are important in theAmericas (Table 3), especially sugarcanestalk borer (Diatraea spp), fall army worm(Spodoptera frugiperda), and midge (Con-tarina sorghicola).

During the 1979 season, the second

Table 3 . An approx imate d i s t r i bu t i on o f in-sect pests of so rghum in La t inAmer i ca .

154

Yield (kg/ha)Days to 50% flowerPlant height (cm)

Range

2950 - 58508 4 - 1208 5 - 145

Mean

4200103109

screening of selected sorghum entries forresistance to the stalk borer and fall armyworm has taken place. Evaluation was byartificial infestation in cooperation withthe CIMMYT entomologist. An inputshould be made to help expand thisactivity.

Resistance to midge has been a matterof concern at Texas A&M University forseveral years, and the breeding programfor midge resistance at ICRISAT Center isbeing strengthened. Currently, resistantlines are available in Mexico but have notyet been effectively incorporated intosuperior agronomic types for the region.Over the next few years, this activityshould be phased in.Several diseases are of concern(Table 4): anthracnose (Colletotrichum graminicola), downy mildew (Sclerospora sorghi), grey leaf spot (Cercospora sor ghi), other leaf diseases, and grain molds.

Research for resistance to anthracnoseis under way in the United States andBrazil; cooperation with those programs isimportant but yet to be established. An-thracnose is not a severe problem in Indiaand research could best be done in theU.S. and Brazil.

Table 4. An approximate distribution of sor-ghum diseases in several LatinAmerican countries.

Although downy mildew is being re-ported more frequently, efforts to findresistance to it in the Americas have beensuccessful. The incorporation of resis-tance in breeding stocks does not appearto be difficult and should be undertaken aspart of the summer nursery program atPoza Rica, a low elevation (50 m) CIMMYTstation in Mexico.

The summer season at Poza Rica is wetand humid and provides an excellent op-portunity for testing for resistance to leafdiseases, including grey leaf spot.

There is a substantial program atICRISAT Center for the development ofagronomically elite types with resistanceto grain mold. Already, entries from thisprogram have been sent to Mexico and toscientists in other Latin countries.

4. Sorghum is used in the Americas primarilyfor animal feed but it is also used as a human food (Table 5), and research to helpexpand this use should be intensified. InGuatemala, about 80% of the sorghumproduction is in association with corn andbeans; about 64% of this is for home use,mainly for tortillas (40-50%). In El Sal-vador about 50% of the production goesinto tortillas; in Nicaragua about 8% of theproduction goes into food, as tortillas, andinto a drink called tiste. There is apparentlya rising interest in the possible use ofsorghum as a food in Colombia, wherethere is already a limited use in makingsoup, bread, and a fermented drink calledchicha.

Sorghum flour is used in these countriesto extend maize; sometimes tortillas aremade of flour that is one-half corn andone-half sorghum. Several countries ofSouth A m e r i c a — A r g e n t i n a , Brazi l ,Colombia, and Venezuela — extend wheatflour with sorghum flour. Food technologylaboratories are experimenting with theuse of sorghum flour to extend wheat atthe Manfredi station in Argentina and atthe Campinas station of Sao Paulo State inBrazil. Elite sorghum types have been sentfrom ICRISAT to the Manfredi station.

Initially, sorghums in the cold-toleranceprogram were of a feed type, but 5 yearsago emphasis began to shift to foodgraintypes; now breeding for food-quality grain

155

Table 5.

Country

HondurasCosta RicaPanamaEcuadorPeru

BoliviaGuatemalaEl SalvadorColombiaNicaraguaMexico

Countr ies us ing or in terested inusing so rghum fo r f ood .

Sorghum nowused

as food

Yes (23 400 ha)NoNoNoNo

NoYes (24 400 ha)Yes (62 500 ha)Very littleYes (5000 ha)No

Interested insorghumfor food

YesYesYesYesYes

YesYesYesYesYesYes (highelevation)

is an important aspect of the ICRISAT-CIMMYT program. A number of sampleshave been evaluated by the food technol-ogy laboratory at CIMMYT, and a varietythat makes excellent tortillas has beenidentified. This variety will be furtherevaluated at intermediate elevations.There is a program at ICRISAT Center toidentify good food-quality types, and thebest of these have already been sent toMexico.ICRISAT scientists have become increas-ingly involved in the Americas. Sorghumbreeders from ICRISAT Center have madeseveral study trips in Central and SouthAmerica. The sorghum breeder stationedin Mexico has travelled extensively in theAmericas. Twice, teams of ICRISAT scien-tists have visited northeast Brazil toevaluate research opportunities there, andindividual scientists have returned toBrazil both to learn and to contribute.Major interest has been in sorghum, mil-lets, and farming systems.

As for other crops, one scientist from theICRISAT groundnut program has visitedthe Dominican Republic, and the programleader has participated in a trip of theInternational Board for Plant Genetic Re-sources (IBPGR) to collect in Bolivia,Argentina, and Brazil.

Six of the scientists in the ICRISAT Pulse

Improvement Program have made trips tothe Americas, cooperating with scientistsin Trinidad, the Dominican Republic, theWest Indies, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Panama,Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Brazil, andChile.Seed samples have been supplied to vari-ous Latin American countries by all of theICRISAT crop improvement programs.Since 1975, some 4167 samples of sor-g hum have been sent to eight Latin Ameri-can countries, among them, Mexico(2359), Brazil (555), Colombia (408), andArgentina (185). In addition, since 1977,674 sorghum samples have been sent toLatin Amer ican countr ies by thegermplasm unit. Pearl millet samples (156)have been sent by the germplasm unit toBrazil, Venezuela, Surinam, and Haiti.Some 215 groundnut samples have beensent to Argentina, the Dominican Repub-lic, and the West Indies. Some 574 samplesof chickpea and 234 samples of pigeonpeahave been distributed as follows:

PigeonpeaArgentinaBrazilColombia

DominicanRepublic

El SalvadorHonduras

MexicoPanamaParaguay

PuertoRico

Venezuela

ChickpeaArgentinaChileDominican

RepublicHonduras

Mexico

PeruTrinidadVenezuela

Training of local personnel is desired byalmost all countries of the region. Twopersons were trained in the ICRISAT-CIMMYT program last year, and one iscurrently in training; six persons, five fromBrazil and one from Honduras, have beentrained at ICRISAT Center and one fromUruguay is in training now. We expect thatsuch enrollment in ICRISAT training pro-grams will increase.Interest was expressed at the ReunionInternacional de Sorgo (Buenos Aires,March 1978) in the Sorghum and MilletsInformation Centerdeveloping at ICRISAT.Frequently scientists in the region requestICRISAT to help provide information. Anextensive use of the Information Center byscientists in Latin countries can be antici-pated.

156

5.

8.

7.

6.

Clearly, ICRISAT is in a position to con-tribute to sorghum improvement in thevarious agroclimatic situations where sor-ghum has, or can be expected to have, a useful place in the agriculture of LatinAmerican countries. Additionally theICRISAT station at CIMMYT provides a liaison between the ICRISAT system andsorghum workers in Latin Americancountries and the USA.

It can be expected that the interactionbetween ICRISAT scientists and those inthe research institutes of Latin countrieswill expand in years to come.

References

GROBMAN, ALEXANDER. 1978. Comparative case ofvertically integrated agroindustry: Mexico, Ven-ezuela, Colombia, Peru, Argentina. Presented at theSymposium on Nutr i t ion and Agr icul ture:Strategies for Latin America. Interciencia/AAAS,13-14 Feb 1978, Washington, DC.

IADS. 1978. Agricultural development indicators: A statistical handbook. New York: International Ag-ricultural Development Service.

INCAP (Instituto de Nutricion de Centro America y Panama). 1968. Evaluation nutricional de la pobla-cion de centro America y Panama; Guatemala, ElSalvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, y Panama.

157

Train ing at ICRISAT

D. L. Oswalt and A. S. Murthy*

A b s t r a c t

International internships, research fellowships, research scholarships, in-service train-ing programs, and apprenticeships provide opportunities for skill and concept develop-ment and practical experience at ICRISAT Center, linking national, regional andinternational research and development programs with ICRISA T's scientific expertiseand research facilities. Designed to accommodate participants with diversebackgrounds, the programs enable each person to follow an individualized studyprogram most relevant to his ability and his sponsor's need. Training ranges in durationfrom a few weeks to 2 years; a follow-up program communicates research findings toformer trainees and maintains contact with their progress.

The objective of our training program is to trainagriculturalists to work more efficiently in ag-ricultural research, training, and extentionprograms and thereby increase and stabilizefood production in the rainfed semi-arid tropics.By developing practical skills and concepts, theprogram provides for an increasing number ofscientific, technical, and service personnel whocan assist in improving the production andutilization of sorghum, pearl millet, pigeonpea,chickpea, and groundnut cultivars and in betterexploitation of natural resources in improvedfarming systems. The training programs linkthe national, regional, and international re-search and development programs of the SATwith ICRISAT's scientific expertise, germplasmresources, and research facilities, which are notreadily available elsewhere.

These programs enable scientists whoare currently working on problems withinICRISAT's mandate to become familiar with theadapted germplasm and research technologyfor increased and stabilized food production inthe semi-arid regions of the tropics.

Participants in the training programs atICRISAT are primarily from, or are interested inworking in, the semi-arid regions of the world.These regions urgently need persons skilled inresearch and technology transfer to manage theutilization and conservation of natural re-

* Principal Training Officer and Senior TrainingOfficer, ICRISAT.

sources. Efforts toward increased food produc-tion and an improved standard of living in theseagricultural regions are often limited by aninsufficient number of experienced and quali-fied persons who can effectively adopt andcommunicate improved agricultural skills andtechnology. In addition, improvement in ag-riculture is often slow, as the producer must beassured that accepting new varieties andtechniques will not adversely affect his sourceof food and farm income. Farmers are also slowto accept recommended changes when thescientist is unskilled and insecure.

ICRISAT's training programs are designed toaccommodate persons with diverse educationand experience. Individual programs are de-veloped in association with scientific and train-ing staff, permitting each student to conduct hisown experiments, trials, or demonstrations,using the ICRISAT collection of natural andscientific resources unique to the physical,economic, and social environment of the SAT.

The transfer of technology in the trainingprograms starts when the individual developshis research plans or undertakes practicalexperience with the research scientists andtraining supervisors. The staff, equipment,germplasm, natural resources, and physicalfacilities and the trainee's abilities, attitudes,motivation, and experience combineto form anideal training-learning situation in which skilland concept development can be practicallyoriented to laboratory research and food pro-duction in the SAT.

159

Types of Training

Five types of training programs, ranging induration from 1 or 2 weeks to 2 years, currentlyserve a wide range of trainee needs.

International Interns, with recent PhD de-grees from agricultural universities of donorcountries, learn to use a team approach toproblem solving, to applied research, and totechnology transfer procedures. Interns workwith research scientists on selected on-goingproblems for 1 to 2 years.

Research Fellows, SAT scientists with MSc orPhD degrees, work with teams of researchscientists on specific problems, utilizing recentdevelopments, techniques, and concepts. Thelength of training, a few weeks or up to 2 years,depends on the areas of research selected.

Research Scholars, university students con-ducting their thesis research, do so in a scien-tific environment in which they acquire practicalexperiences, concepts, and skills, and learnmanagerial techniques related to SAT foodproduction and natural resource development.Research scholars are scheduled for 18 to 24months' training at the research center in orderto collect three to five cycles of data on theirselected thesis problem for partial fulfillment oftheir degree program.

In-service Trainees, participate in three typesof training programs of 6 to 9 months, based onfield problems involving a full season for thearea in which they specialize. In crop improve-ment, they develop the practical application ofplant breeding techniques and the utilization ofsources of resistance and tolerance for im-proved and stabilized yields of the crops inICRISAT's mandate. In crop production, theylearn to utilize production and managementprocedures for application to local conditionsand to reduce adverse influences that limit cropproduction. In farming systems, they learn toassess the potentialities of natural resourcesand develop farming systems that will utilizegenetic resources, cropping systems, land andwater management techniques, machinery,power, markets, and economic and humanresources.

Apprentices, who are agricultural engineer-ing and other students, have a work-studyopportunity to obtain practical experience inland development, water management, andeconomics, in the operation, maintenance, and

repair of farm machinery, and in other field andlaboratory techniques. The students are pro-vided 1 to 2 months of work experience withengineers, research scientists, and mainte-nance personnel.

Organization of Training

An advisory committee representing theICRISAT research program and the AssociateDirector for International Cooperation assiststhe training staff in developing training policies.All applications for training are evaluated by theadvisory committee and the appropriate Insti-tute scientist or research guide. To qualify fortraining at ICRISAT, each candidate must:

• Be sponsored by an agency or institutionworking or intending to work in the semi-arid tropics, or indicate an aptitude anddesire to work in SAT agricultural pro-grams.

• Present records of his academic trainingand experience — including capabilities inthe English language — which indicatethat he will profit from the training.

• Indicate a willingness to do practical fieldwork and to study and conduct laboratoryand field research in areas compatible withICRISAT's mandate and the objectives ofthe sponsoring agency's programs.

Training programs for each category of can-didates are organized within the specializedsciences of ICRISAT's five crops, farmingsystems, and other ICRISAT Center programs.Comprehensive individualized programs, basedon precourse evaluations and interviews, aredeveloped to provide practical and theore-tical experiences in agricultural research, cropimprovement, crop production, agriculturalmanagement procedures, extension programs,and training methods.

The duration and content of each trainingprogram are adjusted to the number of seasonsnecessary to obtain adequate data and thedesired specialization of the trainee. As anintegral part of his training, each trainee de-velops and conducts laboratory and field experi-ments or demonstrations within the approvedresearch program of the Institute.

All field and laboratory studies are supervisedby research scientists and training staff, withpractical training activities forming the core of

160

the research and managerial experiences. Thefield and laboratory learning activities occupymore than 60% of each individual's trainingprogram. Accomplishments are periodicallyevaluated on the basis of skill performance andtheoretical concept development. Final evalua-tions determine an individual's progress, helpestablish his personal confidence, and assesshis reaction to the training program. Evalua-tions are also used in following up a trainee'slater performance in fields related to the train-ing received at ICRISAT.

Coopera t ion w i t h i n ICRISAT

The field, laboratory, and classroom learningexperiences are conducted by research scien-tists, assisted by the training staff. Researchscientists participate directly in the trainingactivity as field, laboratory, and classroom in-structors, thesis research guides, and super-visors of interns and research fellows. Thetraining staff coordinate the individualization ofresearch projects, the instruction, the evalua-tion of practical concept comprehension, andthe follow-up programs. They insure a balancedand comprehensive learning opportunity foreach person.

Coopera t ion w i t h o ther Ins t i t u t i ons

Special assistance is obtained by utilizing thestaff and facilities of neighboring institutions.French-speaking West Africans have been givenintensive instruction in English language by theCentral Institute for English and Foreign Lan-guages and Osmania University. In addition,special extension methods, lectures, andlaboratory exercises have been provided bystaff of the Extension Education Institute. Scho-lars conducting their thesis and practical re-search at ICRISAT Center have been enrolled fortheir degree programs, or cooperative agree-ments for training have been established, at:

Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University,Rajendranagar, India

Himachal Pradesh Agricultural University,Simla, India

Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana,India

Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar, IndiaJawaharlal Nehru Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya,

Jabalpur, India

Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimba-tore, India

University of Agricultural Sciences, Banga-lore, India

Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USACornell University, Ithaca, NY, USATexas A & M University, Texas, USAAgricultural University, Wageningen, The

NetherlandsUniversity of Reading, Reading, UKAsian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thai-

landUniversity of Manitoba, CanadaThe interaction among scientists of the Insti-

tute and university advisory committee mem-bers has been extensive and advantageous toboth scholars and scientists. Indian universities,institutes, commercial companies, and localfarmers have been contacted on educationalvisits. These visits demonstrate the adaptabilityof research findings and germplasm to otherresearch programs and farms.

In-service Training Programs

The following objectives are used to developspecific training activities within each programfor individuals or groups:1

Crop Improvemen t

The objectives of the crop improvementprogram are to provide opportunities to:

• learn breeding techniques for improvingand stabilizing yields,

• assess and learn to utilize the potential ofthe germplasm available for use in theSAT,

• practice and learn breeding techniquesand requirements for efficient and effectiveidentification and utilization of resistancesto factors that reduce production in thesemi-arid tropics,

• work with crop improvement scientists,and

• develop skills in organizing and managinga successful breeding program.

1. Detailed outlines of these in-service training prog-rams are available from the Training Program atICRISAT.

161

C r o p P r o d u c t i o n F o l l o w - u p

The objectives of the crop production programare to provide opportunities to:

• gain practical skills for increasing cropproduction in the SAT through an integ-rated approach to natural and human re-sources in ever-changing environments,

• assess improved cropping and manage-ment procedures and learn how to adaptthem to local conditions,

• learn to identify and reduce adverseinfluences that limit crop production inrainfed semi-arid tropics,

• develop an appreciation of the role of andthe importance of utilizing social, cultural,and economic factors in improving agricul-tural production, and

• develop the ability to use extensiontechniques for communicating new andimproved technology for increased andstabilized food production.

F a r m i n g S y s t e m s

Objectives of the farming systems program areto provide opportunities to:

• develop skills in natural resource utiliza-tion research related to catchment-areadevelopment for improved land and watermanagement.

• become proficient in utilization of produc-t ion factors, research methods andtechniques related to agronomic practices,cropping systems, soil fertility, soilphysics, plant protection, farm power,machinery, economics, and managementskills to ensure increased and stabilizedfood production for the rainfed semi-aridtropics.

S p e c i a l i z e d A r e a s

The specialized programs are to provide oppor-tunities for:

• a skill development or improvement bypractical experience, working with specificequipment and techniques,

• training and experience in working with a team approach to problem solving,

• developing specific new skills andtechniques relative to identified specialSAT problems for increased and stabilizedfood production.

National program scientists, in-country de-velopment program staff, and former traineesassist in identifying areas where trainee selec-tion procedures can be improved, where addi-tional training is required, and where additionaltraining programs are needed. Contact is main-tained through correspondence and personalvisits by ICRISAT staff who are working andtravelling in areas where former trainees areemployed. Germplasm, reports, and newslet-ters and informational materials are provided toformer trainees to keep them abreast of newdevelopments. Such follow-up contact ismaintained with 174 trainees from 35 countrieswho participated in over 30 000 man-days oftraining at ICRISAT from 1974 through1978.

L o o k i n g A h e a d

The number of trainees at ICRISAT Center isexpected to increase by 1980 to an optimum atany one time of 60 to 75 in-service trainees, 10 to15 research scholars, 10 to 12 research fellows,and 10 to 15 international interns, plus specialarea trainees (a few days to a few weeks forgroups of up to 25 to 30 persons at a time) forintensive training in such areas as pathology,microbiology, entomology, land and watermanagement and cropping systems.

A major restriction to the number of appli-cants will continue to be the inability of nationalresearch programs, development programsponsors, and Institute staff to identify personsqualified in English and agricultural sciencefrom areas where the predominant languagesare French, Portuguese, Arabic, and Spanish.The number of potential trainees with satis-factory education, research, and agriculturaltraining and experience in most SAT regions isrelatively low, a condition expected to continueuntil the number of science graduates in-creases. The third limiting factor will be thenumber of persons the research and trainingstaff can accept for instruction in the laboratory,classroom, library, and seminar facilities ofICRISAT Center.

To meet the needs of the regions within ourmandate, the in-service training program an-ticipates accepting approximately 66% of its

162

The Role of ISNAR in Transfer of Technology

Klaus J . L a m p e *

Abstract

ISNAR is the newest member of the family of organizations supported by the CGIAR in its effort to improve agricultural production in developing countries. Unlike the interna-tional research centers, ISNAR is a service organization; it will complement the activities of the other institutes and programs. Its primary mission is to strengthen the national agricultural research capabilities in developing countries. It will serve as a linkage mechanism between the international agricultural research centers and national institutions, as an intermediary between interested partners to promote bilateral cooperation in agricultural research, and as a linkage to ensure that target-group-related research will reach - via an effective extension service - the rural population of countries which invite ISNAR's assistance.

Most of you might have already heard aboutISNAR, the International Service for NationalAgricultural Research, which will start work inthe near future. For those of you who have nothad a chance to familiarize yourselves with thisnew service, let me make a few introductoryremarks about ISNAR's background.

ISNAR's Fami ly B a c k g r o u n d :The CGIAR Sys tem

ISNAR's parent organization is the CGIAR — theConsultative Group on International Agricul-tural Research. The Consultative Group is wellknown to all of us — primarily through thesuccess stories of its offspring, the internationalagricultural research institutes.

This morning, in fact, Professor Cummingsspoke to us about "The Role of the InternationalInstitutes," paying duetr ibutetotheiroutstand-ing record of achievements.

ISNAR will be the youngest addition to thefamily of CGIAR. And it will be quite differentfrom its sister institutions within the system:

• It will be a service rather than an institute.• It will complement the activities of other

institutes and programs.• It will provide assistance to developing

* Head, Agricultural Department, German Agency forTechnical Cooperation (GTZ).

countries — at their request — to enabletheir national agencies to do their ownagricultural research more effectively.

• ISNAR will be concerned primarily withresearch policy, research planning, researchorganization, and research management.

We all know that in many developingcountries, assistance of this kind is essential iffull advantage is to be taken of the work of theinternational centers. Hence, we can confirmthat ISNAR will complement the activities of itssister institutions.

ISNAR's H is to r i ca lB a c k g r o u n d

To deal with history first, I feel I ought tomention a few of the more noteworthy mile-stones on the way to the establishment of thisnew service. After 2 years of informal andsemiformal negotiations, during CG meetingsin April 1977, European members of the Con-sultative Group gathered at Munich for anotherinformal meeting to consider means of assist-ing developing countries to strengthen theirnational agricultural research systems.

There had been, for some time, a growingawareness of the more and more pressing needfor additional assistance in the strengthening ofnational agricultural research capabilities. Themain concern was to enable national researchsystems to generate and adapt technology suit-able to local farming conditions. The consensus

183

of the Munich meeting was that the CGIARshould be asked to establish a service for thispurpose as a part of the CGIAR system.

The Technical Advisory Committee of theConsultative Group (TAC) endorsed this ideaand recommended the establishment of a taskforce on the subject.

This task force was set up to "identify theconstraints on the availability and application ofexternal assistance to strengthen national ag-ricultural research capabilities in developingcountries." The group was requested to con-sider the feasibility and desirability of alterna-tive means of overcoming these constraints,including the creation of an internationalservice or any other appropriate entity.

The composition of the task force was rep-resentative of major interests of both recipientsand donors, industrialized and agriculture-oriented countries. Its findings and recommen-dations can be summed up in the proposal toestablish an "International Service for NationalAgricultural Research" under the auspices ofthe Consultative Group.

The CGIAR accepted this proposal. In accor-dance with the experience and tradition of theCG, a committee was formed — the ISNARCommittee — to take decisions on the Group'sbehalf and to initiate action to get ISNARstarted.

The German Agency for Technical Cooper-ation (GTZ), which I have the pleasure to repre-sent, has been appointed to serve as ExecutingAgency for the establishment of ISNAR.

At this juncture, I mig ht add that we at GTZ arepleased to be involved in the construction ofthis new service. We are deeply convinced ofthe importance of its mission and we have greattrust in the impact it will have on nationalresearch capabilities in developing countries.We are working hard to get it off the ground assoon as possible; we try to invest our ownexperience, gained during the last 15 to 20 yearsand, where necessary, we try to learn as quicklyas possible.

ISNAR's Objectivesand Functions

Objectives

As spelled out in its draft constitution, "thepurpose of ISNAR is to help strengthen national

agricultural research capabilities in developingcountries. This includes cooperation in identify-ing research problems and in formulating re-search strategies and policies, assistance inbuilding up an adequate institutional infra-structure and other research facilities, as well asin promoting specific national or regional re-search programs. The ultimate goal is to enabledeveloping countries to plan, organize, man-age, and execute research more effectivelyfrom their own human, natural, and financialresources."

These rather broadly defined terms of refer-ence for ISNAR have to be seen against theoverall setting of national agricultural researchin Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

A brief view of the science statistics of 1974collected by Agrawal for UNEP and the IIEDmight be interesting as another contribution tothe North-South dialog. According to thesefigures, 28 industrialized countries invest 97%of the world's research budget and employ 87%of the world's research worker community.Despite these figures, 23% of the 4.6 millionuniversity graduates of 1972 are from develop-ing countries. In most cases they are graduateswithout adequate future; without adequate re-search career opportunities; without adequateresearch facilities, policies, and programs;without adequate international linkages; with-out adequate political support for de-velopment-oriented research. But quite oftenthey have alternative professional chances inindustry, trade, and research institutionsabroad.

At this point, the imbalance of research sup-port in Africa, Asia, and Latin America cannot beneglected. In Asia, only 50% of the Third Worldresearch capital is invested, despite the fact that70% of the Third World population is living inthis area.

The CGIAR task force on ISNAR — in evaluat-ing this overall setting and its implications forassistance activities — found a clear and urgentneed for additional possibilities to strengthennational agricultural research. The concern is tostrengthen the national research system as a whole in order to generate and adapt tech-nology suitable to local farming conditions forcommodities important to national develop-ment objectives, including but not limited to,the food commodities covered by the inter-national agricultural research centers. It is a

184

Summary of Discussion - Session 4

Dr. Govindaswamy asked what impact ICRISATprograms have made in Africa, who providesthe needed inputs, and what part of thetechnology remains in use locally after ICRISAThas withdrawn.

Dr. Charreau said that it is too early to assessthe impact of ICRISAT. The results will varyaccording to the country. The main input fromICRISAT so far has been the identification ofsources of resistance to diseases, pests, anddrought in both millet and sorghum. Thisshould make a considerable impact on produc2

tivity in the near future. The impact also de-pends on the nature of the material. Somesorghum selections made in India during therabi (postrainy) season have outyielded allother hybrids and varieties during the off-season in the Senegal River Valley. But theywould have to be crossed with local materialto give significant results. Regarding theadoption of technology by the African farmer,Dr. Charreau stressed that ICRISAT worksstrictly through national institutions and notdirectly with extension agencies or the farmers.

Dr. Blumenschein said that it is important forthe developing countries to take the decisionsneeded to support agriculture and be preparedto receive technology generated by institutionssuch as ICRISAT.

Dr. Ajakaiye cautioned that evaluation of thework of an international institute should bedone very carefully. ICRISAT will have finishedits job when it develops a technology that canbe transmitted to national programs; from thereon it is the responsibility of these programs topass it on to the farmer.

Mr. Russell asked about ICRISAT's plans forwork in Sudan, observing that in southernSudan particularly, no new sorghum introduc-tions have been promising.

Dr. House agreed that ICRISAT must expandits testing beyond the Wad Medani area.Hyderabad-generated material has done poorlyin Sudan so far, and ICRISAT is trying to developmaterial better adapted to local conditionsthere. Though much of the breeding work willbe done at Wad Medani, testing will be ex-tended to other sites, including southern

Sudan.Mr. Russell also asked whether ICRISAT has

developed climatology and soil maps forAfrican countries so as to determine what partsof the technology developed at Hyderabadwould be applicable in Africa.

Dr. Kampen said that as far as possibleICRISAT tries to draw on the work done by otherinstitutions. In this instance, a large amount ofbasic climatologic data collected in Africa andnortheastern Brazil is available to ICRISAT.The CIEH (Comite Interafricain d'EtudesHydrauliques) has completed a detailed studyof the soil and water resources of the westernsavanna region of Africa and drawn up a soilcapability map for the area; this will also beavailable to ICRISAT.

165

Session 5

Interphase on Researchand Development

Chairman: D. L. UmaliCo-Chairman: A. B. Joshi

Rapporteurs: Y. L. NeneM.V. ReddyJ. P. MossD. Sharma

The Relevance of a Research Program fo r Meet ingthe Needs of the Smal l Farmers of the SAT

Sir John Crawford*

A b s t r a c t

A research program becomes usefully relevant to the needs of the small farmers only if itis possible for them to adopt its findings. This requires not only a new technology which,if adopted, promises significant improvement, but also the supply of support services onterms that make the estimated returns feasible. Neutrality to scale, in a technical sense,may be a necessary condition to relevance, but it may not be sufficient if the supportservices are not neutral between large and small farmers.

I am not very clear whether "Research Pro-gram" means a research program (i.e., withoutregard to ICRISAT) or is limited to ICRISAT'sprogram. I have chosen to emphasize the gen-eral problem of relevance in a research pro-gram, but inevitably (and properly) ICRISAT'sactivities are highly pertinent. Also I assume weare talking of small farmers who are poor, forwhom an increase in living standards is desired.

Broadly, I will argue that a research programbecomes usefully relevant to the needs of thesmall farmers only if it is possible for them toadopt its findings. This requires not only a newtechnology which, if adopted, promises sig-nificant improvement in return, but also thesupply of support services on terms that makethe estimated returns feasible. Neutrality toscale, in a technical sense, may be a necessarycondition to relevance, but it may not besufficient if the support services are not neutralbetween large and small farmers. Let meexplore this matter further — even if it does nomore than emphasize the importance and rele-vance of economic research activities not onlyat ICRISAT but, of course, in all agriculturalresearch directed to improving the lot of smallfarmers.

It is a useful — and probably essential — startto devise a technology that is neutral to scale inthe sense that any farmer, large or small, canadopt it if he can command the resourcesrequired to provide the necessary inputs. But if

* Chancellor, Australian National University, Can-berra, Australia.

the resources are not at the ready command ofthe small farmer then "relevance" becomeslimited by the constraints. Degrees of relevanceare possible. Thus a small farmer may be able toimprove his income merely by adopting animproved seed and a better cultural practice.This may be practicable despite constraints on a more complete and advanced system. The in-come results will generally be far less satis-factory, however, than if he is able to adopt a whole new system in which soil preparation,water conservation, improved seed varieties,fertilizer, and necessary cultural practices acttogether synergistically to give a result greaterthan the sum of the results of each improve-ment adopted in limited singularfashion. This isthe benefit of a systems approach — whichICRISAT and Indian research activities haveshown to be essential to any major lift inincomes of small farmers in the SAT regionswith which they are concerned. But, "being ableto adopt" a system requires more than thedevising of the system in research trials. A firststep in this is to learn what the constraints are.

Before I further develop this line of argumentabout the real meaning of relevance, let memake three small points and one major point,

a. Theoretically, if water conservation is anessential element in a system but requirescooperation of small farmers in a catch-ment area, then the technology is notneutral to scale. This is clearly likely to beof potential importance in some areas inthe application of ICRISAT's work and thework of Indian Dry Land Farming ResearchProject. I mention this only to express the

169

hope we will not push the definition ofrelevance to an extreme that will rule outattempts to secure cooperation amongsmall farmers. I could illustrate a parallelproblem in making viable village growingof coffee in Papua, New Guinea, by thepooling of land for various cultural andmarketing practices and as a basis forraising the credit each grower requires.

b. A technology relevant to small holdings inICRISAT territory in India may not berelevant in another SAT area — e.g., inAfrica. This is obvious; nevertheless,some elements and principles from thework in Hyderabad may prove to be usefulin building up an appropriate systemelsewhere.

c. Again there may be a situation in which a technology is technically neutral, but isadverse to employment. Thus mechaniza-tion that is labor displacing may be dis-couraged for clear reasons of policy. Onthe other hand, a new technology may beso employment-creating (e.g., at harvest)that essential operations like threshingmay call for mechanization to meet laborshortage (See discussion in Ghodake,Ryan, and Sarin 1978). I believe scientistsmust and do keep such matters in mind.This is not ruling out improvements inessential hand implements used by smallfarmers — or possibly the use of contrac-tors in preparing a water catchment tank.

d. Finally, and not really a small point, butone that we may all take too much forgranted: a technology may be neutral andfeasible for small holders, but it is notlikely to be adopted unless the returns aresubstantial and reasonably assured (someof the best of ICRISAT's economic workbears on this).

now return to the main argument — abundantly borne out by the work ofeconomists at ICRISAT and IRRI and indeedincreasingly at all the international institutes aswell as in some national systems — that techni-cal neutrality to scale is not sufficient. If theinstitutions that provide credit, inputs, andother support services (including extension) arebiased against the small farmer, then relevancedoes not produce the response that it may welldo on medium and large holdings. Inertia maywell also play a part and will be encouraged if

170

the risk factor is high. But I assume that this canbe broken down if a clearly profitableand stabletechnology is promoted and well supportedwith appropriate services.

The probability of an improvement in thesituation of the small farmer is increased if theresearch that is relevant to his need is bothsystems-oriented and attends to the supportservices required by the systems recom-mended. The major constraints may well behere. Significant change calls for more than a single element (such as a new variety of seed).This is recognized; but it is also easier to catchthe imagination of governments or village lead-ers if a feasible system can be linked to theargument for an improved support service — such as a cooperative providing inputs, credit,and a marketing service. Clearly, improvementin services is itself the proper subject of re-search. It is not enough to identify them asproblems. I warmly commend ICRISAT's effortsin this respect — but I am not sure that thedetailed work should not be left to the agricul-tural universities' economics and sociology de-partments.

The relevance of research in these terms isnaturally increased significantly if a systemindicated at the research station is tested underon-farm situations. This, of course, merely un-derlines the importance of village level appli-cations. As a general proposition, I supporttheirdevelopment under conditions in which risk isborne or subsidized in the first 2 or 3 years oftrial. Risk of the untried is almost certaintygreater in a semi-arid rainfed area than it is inadopting an irrigation-based system, such as inPunjab.

The work of Dr. Ryan and his colleagues hasshown up the biases against small farmers inthe supply and terms of credit and provision ofinputs as well as in marketing. Even under allthese constraints some new technologies maypay, but it is fair to argue that these constraintsdo not have to be accepted as unchangeable.Full relevance of the work of ICRISAT and therelated Indian institutions cannot be achieveduntil the constraints are greatly lessened orremoved.

A major point follows from this last obser-vation: the required services wil l , in practice, beachieved only by a combination of changes inpolicies and programs at macro as well as microlevels. Inertia regarding the performance of

credit cooperatives, banks, and fertilizer firms,may, for example, begin at the top level ingovernments, banks, or firms — especially inresponding to the needs of small farmers.Center-State relations in respect to ensuringsmall farmer services may be as much involvedas is the local initiative of district officials.

Although implicit in my very summary re-marks about improving support services, I thinkit worth giving a special mention to post-harvest technology. This applies both to cashcrops to home storage of food grains. Thereference to home storage applies with particu-lar force, I would think, in SAT areas in whichsorghums and millets are the common staples.The national stocks are not very relevant in thiscase. There are special gains possible here overand above the benefits of a farming systemrelevant to the total income situation of thesmall farmer.

What are the prospects that research thatappears to be relevant will prove to be so? I think they are brighter; but let me be quitedogmatic on the limited responsibility of theresearch workers concerned. They may be frus-trated by the slowness with which their resultsare adopted but their responsibilities are notunlimited and their power is limited. Our dis-cussion is about ICRISAT, but my remarks applymore generally. Natural scientists and the socialscientists in an international institute and innational systems have a joint responsibility toendeavor to produce farming systems that areboth applicable and profitable for small farmersto adopt. They have a responsibility to de-monstrate the result and to make the resultsknown to those ableto advance the use of theseresults. They will be aided in this not only bytheir own publications, workshops etc., but bythe groundswell of interest and demandthey create among their consumers ofknowledge — the farmers themselves — andamong those responsible particularly at thegovernment level for the infrastructure of ser-vices. The supply of inputs, credit, and ap-propriate institutions is largely the responsibil-ity of governments (political and administra-tive) at all levels. It is essential that their interestand understanding be enlisted and sustained.The relevance of the research is not lessened byfailure of political interest and wil l , but thereturns to research will be lessened. The scien-tist by himself cannot transfer the technology.

He can promise it and demonstrate its viabilityunder appropriate conditions.

There is today a growing recognition thatimproved technologies for small farmers areavailable or well on the way. The more favora-ble the conditions, the more they are beingadopted. ICRISAT is, in fact, dealing with theriskier climatic situations under rainfed condi-tions. But the results are encouraging and needand justify more intensivetrials. Will these trialsbe undertaken and will the institutional biasagainst small farmers be tackled? Dr. Ryan andcolleagues have shown that the returns arethere, but I believe more has to be done to bringthese results home at a national level. Let meexplain why I think this even though this reallyinvolves me in going beyond my brief.

We are today faced with a situation of some-what tragic irony. Indian agricultural productionis rising significantly and will continue to do so,especially as irrigation systems become moreand more effective. The government under-standably gives priority to this course of action.And yet, unless it attends to the employmentsituation, it will face a position in which produc-tion increases may exceed increases in marketdemand. Per capita consumption has not risencommensurately with production nor, it seems,with the rise in average incomes. It seemsprobable to me that at the higher level ofincomes, consumption is becoming morediversif ied—that is, the direct demand forgrains is not rising and is even falling. At thelower end of incomes, it seems not to be risingsignificantly, and I suspect that increased un-employment and underemployment may be a factor here. (The subject calls for research!)

It would follow from this that more attentionhas to be given to the smallest farmers andlandless laborers whose consumption needsare not yet met. They need both off-farmemployment and increased income on theirown farms. This is abundantly evident in theSAT areas in which rising employment isneeded concurrently with more productiverainfed farming. The small farmers will con-sume more of their own increased product, butnonfarm rural populations need employment(on and off the farms) and the consequentincomes to enable them to share in rising farmproductivity. Another strong inference is that a technology that creates employment has a strong social relevance that is of high impor-

171

tance.This situation is clearly recognized in India's

draft 5-year plan, 1978-83, and it is hoped thatpolicies and programs outlined there will bemade effective. Fundamentally, this documentis a statement of political economy. To me weare in a situation where agricultural researchhas made an adequate supply side of thefood-population equation decidedly morefeasible. The technologies emerging arerelevant—the more so because the requiredconditions of feasibility are better recognized.

Making production feasible is but one majorpart of the political economy problem. Feasi-bility includes provision of an adequate andwell-trained extension service. It includes thesupport services — input and credit supplies.But there is also yet another political economicrequirement: this is the creation of demandamong the poor. These are the people — especially in rural areas — with the highestincome elasticity of demand for food. Theyrequire employment. This country's plannersrecognize this and have the right approach. Butpatience may well continue to be a necessity forreasons that seem to point to New Delhi fromwhich the central leadership in a complextask must come. Nevertheless, momentum inthe major administrative departments hasgathered; I am certainly confident that thiswill continue, resulting in a "gearing into"(Dr. Ryan's phrase, I think) the problems of thesmall farmer.

It so happens that ICRISAT has perhaps thehardest end of the research spectrum: rainfedfarming in the semi-arid tropics. The researchworkers, as I judge it, have made an excellentstart. They have recognized many of the con-straints on relevance. It is well that both centerand state governments, ICAR itself, and theuniversities have all increased their linkages.This increases the hope for large-scale testingand final adoption of new and income-rewarding technologies. Realization of thathope requires the lessening of the constraintsrepresented by inadequate support services forsmall farmers: credit, inputs, price support, andmarketing facilities. By and large, the biggerfarmers can look after themselves.

Reference

GHODAKE, R. D., RYAN, J. G., and SARIN, R. 1978.Human labor use in existing and prospectivetechnologies of the semi-arid tropics of peninsularIndia. ICRISAT Economics Program progress report1 (Village Level Studies Series 1.3).

172

The Role of Internat ional Inst i tutes

Ralph W. C u m m i n g s *

A b s t r a c t

The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) providessupport for 13 international institutes whose primary function is agricultural research.The translation of that research into practice is properly the task of the national and localagencies; the institutes, however, have the responsibility of finding and developinginterfaces with national agencies to assure widespread reliable testing of potentialtechnological innovations and dependable feedback, positive and negative. This hasalready been addressed in many cases. The establishment of ISNAR in 1978 is animportant step towards strengthening national research programs; this, in turn, wil lenhance the effectiveness and usefulness of the international institutes and help ensurethat there is no break in the chain from the discovery of knowledge to its final applicationon the land.

The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of theCGIAR has recently prepared and presented tothe CGIAR an updated working paper on"Priorities for International Support to Agricul-tural Research." This follows a report of theReview Committee of the CGIAR, which madean extensive analysis of the CGIAR system in1976. The TAC is now engaged in a "StripeAnalysis" across the several international insti-tutes of the "off-campus activities" of thesecenters. The latter study will not be completedfor some months ahead. The subject I amdiscussing, namely, "The Role of InternationalInstitutes" in interphasing on research anddevelopment, was considered by the first twostudies mentioned above and will be a majorconcern of the stripe analysis now under way.

The Consultative Group on International Ag-ricultural Research (CGIAR) provides the sup-port for 13 international institutes. The basicobjective of this system, as set forth in the TACpriorities paper, is to support agricultural re-search in and for developing countries that willcontribute to:

a. Increasing the amount, quality, and sta-bility of food supplies in the LDCs, andmeeting the total world food needs.

b. Meeting the nutritional requirements ofthe less advantaged groups in the LDCs.

* Chairman, Technical Advisory Committee, CGIAR.

At the same time, the system is to take dueaccount of the need to improve the level ofincome and standard of living of the less advan-taged sections of society in the developingcountries (especially rural), which determinetheir access to food, equity in distribution ofbenefits of research, and efficiency in the use ofagricultural resources.

The primary function of the internationalcenters is research. At the same time, they havea deep concern for the application of research toimprove the agricultural production and thelevel of living of the constituent people. Thecenters do not have the physical and humanresources to mount action programs to carrytheir findings to the vast numbers of farmersconcerned, nor should they do so. National andlocal agencies are the proper ones to undertakethis task. But the international centers do havethe responsibility to find and develop the kind ofinterfaces that will assure that there is no breakin the chain from discovery of knowledge,through its translation into appropriatetechnology, and its application on the land.

The direct links to the farmers and themethods of instructing them on advances intechnological practices that could improve theirproductivity must be worked out within and byeach nation concerned; recognizing that, wemust consider the character, the strengths andweaknesses, and the effectiveness of thenational agricultural science establishments

173

for research, training, and extension. Severalnations, such as India, the Philippines, Brazil,and others, have made great strides in recentyears in building strong and effective nationalagricultural research and extension programs. I doubt if any of them are fully satisfied but manynow have quite good and effective internalagricultural scientific establishments. Othersare well on the way toward building theirnational agricultural research capability, butrecognize their limitations in the present scopeof their organizations and in their suppliesof trained manpower with the experienceand confidence required to meet the needs oftheir developing agricultural economies. Anda large number of countries — notably thesmall, resource-poor, recently independentnations — have not yet been able to identifyand train even the nucleus of manpower andscientific leadership necessary to rapidly accel-erate advances in their agricultural sector.

The international centers and the CGIARrecognize the universal need — yes, theessentiality — of strong research and extensionorganizations within the nations with whichthey are cooperating. Without such internalstrength within the nations concerned, the in-ternational centers are handicapped and greatlylimited in developing the links through whichtechnological advances can be translated intopractice.

In recognition of this acute need, many of theindustrialized nations have joined with nationalagencies on a bilateral basis to help strengthennational research programs or portions thereof.Some of the philanthropic foundations such asRockefeller and Ford have also made significantcontributions to this effect.

In 1975, the International Agricultural De-velopment Service (IADS) was organized, underinitial sponsorship of the Rockefeller Founda-tion, with the express purpose of helping tostrengthen national agricultural research anddevelopment programs. This organization isgaining valuable experience in this field and isactively engaged in work with a number ofnations in the developing world, assisting withbuilding and strengthening their nationalcapabilities for dealing with agricultural de-velopment and with technology introduction,development, and application. IADS has alsosponsored several related studies and is prepar-ing and publishing books and bulletins dealing

with various aspects of the problem.The TAC has, from its first meeting, recog-

nized the importance of this subject and hasencouraged greater attention hereto. In late1978, the CGIAR formally entered this fieldin authorizing under its auspices, and withits support, an International Service forStrengthening National Agricultural Research(ISNAR). ISNAR's first Governing Board hasbeen selected and it hopes to become oper-ational in 1980.

The need for stronger internal national ag-ricultural science establishments is nowbroadly recognized. It is to be hoped that thenext decade may witness a rapid growth innational agricultural research capability aroundthe world. This will in no sense diminish theimportance and need for the international ag-ricultural research centers or institutes. It willgive them more effective instruments withwhich to interact and cooperate and shouldgreatly enhance their effectiveness and useful-ness. It wil l , undoubtedly, bring about an evolu-tion in their specific roles.

Their role in a nation with a strong agricul-tural science establishment will be differentfrom that which they might fill in a nation whichstill has limited capabilities. A great deal offlexibility will be essential in addressing thevariety of needs. The International Rice Re-search Institute (IRRI), as a part of its long-rangeplanning exercise, has attempted to describethe nature of its changing role. It is no longerreleasing finished rice varieties as named IRRIvarieties but, through its widespread coopera-tive genetic evaluation and utilization (GEU)program, has decided that this particular re-sponsibility can best be entrusted to IRRI'snational cooperators. An increased assumptionby national programs for final variety andtechnology evaluation and release is visualized.The Institute sees a growing proportion of itsresources going toward knowledge generation,genetic studies, supply of relevant germplasm,methodology development, and the earlierstages of technology development and training,as the national programs move further andmore effectively into technology developmentand its evaluation, adaptation, and application.No sharp line of demarcation between inter-national and national efforts is visualized, butan increasingly close cooperation and coordi-nation to assure no gaps in the continuum from

174

knowledge generation to technology applica-tion in farmers' fields and a steadily rising andmore efficient production and utilization.

The recent conference of agricultural re-search directors from developing countriesheld at Bellagio, Italy, foresaw an evolving rolefor the international centers. They reaffirmedthe continuing essentiality of the internationallysupported centers, with adequate support, con-tinuity, and flexibility, and cited the followingamong their anticipated longerterm continuingfunctions:

1. collection, conservation, cataloging, anddistribution of germplasm;

2. organization of pathfinding research de-signed to raise the ceiling of yield and toimpart greater stability to yield (i.e., researchwhich can lead to the development of high-yield and high-stability varieties with desiredquality);

3. development of improved research tech-niques;

4. organization of relevant training programs;5. organization of information and bibliog-

raphic services; and6. organization of symposia, seminars, and

monitoring tours.

As the above and other functions are dis-charged, the international centers will serve thenational programs — particularly the smallerand less developed ones — in increasing theirawareness of the advances made elsewhere,including in other LDCs, and will greatly ac-celerate the interchange of information andtechnological advance among nations.

But having said the above, let us now turnback to the international centers themselves.They cannot, they should not, and they will notwithdraw within their own walls and revert toabstract, nonrelevant scientific research. Thepattern has been set in such a way as to keepthem moving in an outward-looking fashion.The problem of agricultural production,whether on a commodity basis, a factor basis,or otherwise, cannot be viewed or encompas-sed from a single location or at a single point intime. International institutes have a responsi-bility for determining the range of applicabilityof the technology with whose developmentthey are concerned. Leads coming from theirresearch laboratories and test plots must beexposed to other environments.

For example, IRRI has to go outside of thePhilippines to study gall midge. Its deep-waterrice research is concentrated in Thailand. Thedevastating effect of zinc deficiency was firstrecognized in a cooperative program in India.Some of ICRISAT's millet lines, which seemedto be resistant to downy mildew in India, did nothold up when planted in some locations inAfrica. Water conservation measures based onmanagement of entire catchment areas may bedifficult to adapt to varying land ownershippatterns. These same measures if based onanimal-drawn implements may encounterdifferent problems where the only power avail-able is human muscle and the farmers havebeen accustomed to using different kinds ofhand tools for cultivation. The strains or speciesof Striga in Africa differ from those prevalent inIndia. Highly productive sorghum lines mayhave more limited usefulness if they mature in a season of heavy rainfall and are highly suscep-tible to grain mold.

An endless array of situations could beenumerated to illustrate the fact that a practicethat is highly effective in one location may notwork in another. Some are biological or ecolo-gical in character, while others may have social,economic, or anthropological bases.

Thus an international institute must work outarrangements for exposing its biological mate-rials and its indicated technological innovationsto a wide variety of environments — physical,biological, and social —and get reliable feed-back as to the results. The various institutes willnaturally approach this in different ways. It isunlikely that any one pattern will prove superiorin all cases.

ICRISAT is fortunate to be located in a largecountry with a wide diversity of ecologicalsituations, and which has developed an ad-vanced model of agricultural science institu-tions. The opportunity for developing closecooperation with the relevant All India cooper-ative research projects provides an interfaceof first-order importance. The germplasm re-sources of the Institute; its breeding, crossing,and progeny fields; and its test plots on waterconservation, intercropping, tillage practices,and farming systems are fully open and availa-ble to Indian scientists in these related pro-grams. Seeds are made available freely asrequested. This two-way exchange makesICRISAT's program richer and more relevant,

175

and the contribution it makes in ideas andmaterials is of real benefit to the Indian prog-ram. This should be cultivated and fostered. Theopportunity of working out contractual ar-rangements with Indian institutions to providesome of the early testing and evaluations indifferent environments (providing screeningahead of entry into All India evaluations) pro-vides another invaluable interface. The veryconstructive approach taken with plant quaran-tine, which has permitted large-scale inter-change of genetic materials with other parts ofthe world while protecting the nation and othernations from exchange of exotic pests anddiseases, appears very commendable. Thework with a sample of India's farm villages andvillage people is of immeasurable value inhelping to identify some of the limitations andreal problems of farm people in introducingtechnological innovations.

These are only a few examples of effectiveand valuable interfacing in the host country. Butthis is not enough. ICRISAT's responsibilityextends to the seasonally dry semi-arid tropicalregions around the globe. Africa has the largestsuch area in the world. ICRISAT has beenmoving vigorously to develop its interfaces inthe sorghum-, millet-, and groundnut-growingareas of that continent. The social and culturalpatterns in Africa differ from those in India. Thewet and dry seasons in the Sahelian andSudano-Sahelian areas seem to be more shar-ply defined. Disease and pest complexes havemuch in common with the ones in India but alsohave important differences. Animal power isless common and human power for cultivationis more dominant. There are soil and climaticsimilarities and differences. In addition to thelocal indigenous languages, French is spoken insome countries, English in some, and Por-tuguese in others. The interface with all isnecessary if the Institute is to fulfil its mandate.A different pattern is being tried there, involvinga combination of interdisciplinary teams at a couple of selected locations, smaller groups atothers, and a degree of mobility of its staff thatattempts to maintain contact and provide assis-tance and materials to all the nations con-cerned.

In Latin America, the attempts at developingan appropriate interface have not yet advancedas far as in Asia a nd Africa but the Institute doeshave a significant role for the region.

Early successes in the development andspread of improved food crop productiontechnology came through the vehicle of seed.Varieties that had a markedly different plantarchitecture and capacity to produce could bereadily recognized and rapidly multiplied. Theresponses to fertilizer and pest control could bereadily demonstrated and were highly visible.Direct comparisons with established varietiesand conventional production practices couldreadily demonstrate when and where new var-ieties could be used; if they did not immediatelyencounter new pest and disease problems, theirprofitability was evident. Seed became the veh-icle for introduction of improved productiontechnology, new rates of fertilizer application,precision field operations, pest, disease, andweed control, etc. Farmers will adopt newtechnology when they have confidence that it isdependably superior, profitable, and can befitted into their systems of production, theappropriate timing of their labor demands, andtheir resources. Where these are doubtful, orrisks are higher, we can expect farmers to bemore cautious.

IRRI and CIMMYT took the early lead indeveloping and introducing improved lodging-resistant, fertilizer-responsive rice and wheatvarieties, primarily in areas of assured anddependable water supplies. Their results werespectacular. The "green revolution" initiatedthereby has raised great hopes and expecta-tions. These institutes are now trying to tacklesome of the less favorable environments inwhich their mandated crops are grown. Theworld is placing great hopes on the institutesystem as a force to accelerate progress in allsections of food production to meet the de-mands of the growing world population.

ICRISAT is dealing with five crops whichprevail in areas where moisture supply is lessdependable. With these crops, seed can still bean important vehicle for introducing technolog-ical change but the problems of managing themoisture regime so as to reduce risk to a minimum and give maximum probability of a successful crop yield, add other dimensions tothe problem of technology transfer. This placesacute demands on establishing the kinds ofrelationships with national authorities that willassure widespread reliable testing of potentialtechnological innovations and dependablefeedback, both positive and negative. The more

176

complex the technology and the greater thenumber of factors to be considered, the greaterwill be the pressure to define with precision theconditions under which given innovations canbe expected to be successful.

The international institutes all recognize thenecessity of developing effective links, coopera-tions, or interfaces with national programsand for assuring the two-way continuum fromproblem identification, scientific research,technology generation, technology testing andverification, to its application. Techniques in-clude visits of institute scientists to nationalprograms, visits of national scientists to theinstitutes, publications, newsletters, exchangeof germplasm and genetic material, posting ofscientists with national or regional stations-away from headquarters, regional liaison rep-resentatives, conferences and symposia, work-shops involving scientists from the inter-national institutes and the cooperating institu-tions, and training programs. Each institute willdevelop its own mix of these and perhaps othertechniques in its search for the best way toassure that it is performing the functions mostneeded and that it is using its resources mosteffectively in strengthening its part of the chainfor advancing agriculture in its part of thedeveloping world.

I will not comment further on most of thetechniques listed above. Perhaps their valueand necessity may be self-evident. I would,however, like to say a few words on training.This will take many forms and the trainingprograms will vary considerably in length andcharacter. An increasing number of scientists indeveloping countries have spent enough timein organized programs at one or another of theinternational centers to become personally ac-quainted with the center's staff, programs,aims, and objectives to know what resourcesthey can call on for consultation, advice, andassistance as they encounter new problems intheir own work; they can inform institute scien-tists of their own observations and call theirattention to problems and situations peculiartotheir area. These scientists should, if activelycultivated, develop over time the kind of effec-tive working interfaces so essential to realiza-tion of the aims and goals of the system.

As the current "Stripe Analysis" on off-campus activities of the international centersproceeds, I feel sure we can count on the full

cooperation of all concerned, and it is my hopethat we can glean from our individual andcollective experience some general principlesand guidelines that will be useful to all.

177

Role of Nat ional Programs in L ink ingResearch and Development

M. S. Swaminathan*

A b s t r a c t

A dynamic national research base is a must for launching and maintaining anagricultural development program that can work toward the triple goal of more food,more income, and more jobs from a vai/ab/e resources. While international institutes canact as catalysts of change, only a strong national program can ensure sustained advance.Location-specific research must develop an economically viable technology for eachproduction system and its probable impact must be assessed to prevent new andunexpected pest, disease, or soil problems. In India today, actual farm yields are lessthan 25% of the potential available even at current levels of technology. The immediatetask, therefore, is for research, extension, and development agencies to cooperate inbridging the gap between actual and potential yields.

The major goals of agricultural development inmost developing countries are:

a. to build a national food security systemthat can ensure that no child, woman, orman goes to bed hungry,

b. to generate more income in rural areasthrough the conversion of farming into a market-oriented occupation and throughimproved post-harvest technology lead-ing to the preparation of value-added pro-ducts,

c. to generate more opportunities for gainfulemployment, particularly under con-ditions where agriculture is the major av-enue of employment, and

d. to ensure thatthe ecological infrastructureessential for sustained agricultural ad-vance is preserved and that the short-termand long-term goals of agricultural de-velopment are in harmony with eachother.

National agricultural research systems, there-fore, have to base their priorities on the tripledevelopmental goal of more food, income, andjobs from the available land, water, sunlight,and other production endowments. An addi-tional dimension that has recently become im-

* Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry ofAgriculture and Irrigation, New Delhi, India.

portant is the need for delinking productionadvance from increased consumption of non-renewable forms of energy. The continuousescalation in the cost of petroleum productsunderlines the urgency of research on inte-grated energy supply systems involving anappropriate blend of renewable and nonrenew-able forms of energy.

N e e d f o r L o c a t i o n - S p e c i f i c R e s e a r c h

Apart from the challenge posed by increasingenergy costs, agricultural scientists of mostdeveloping countries also face the challenge ofhaving to develop high-yield, high-stabilitytechnologies for very small farms. For example,in India, the average size of a farm holding istending to go down rapidly holdings becomefragmented by the increasing pressure of popu-lation on land (Table 1).

This challenge can be met only by optimizingthe benefits from the agricultural assets of eachregion and minimizing the prevailing risks andhazards. This, in turn, will call for relevantlocation-specific research tailored to the needsof each agroecological, socioeconomic, cul-tural, and political milieu. While internationalinstitutes can generate material, conservegermplasm, and organize testing and trainingprograms of great value for national researchsystems, only the national programs can helpsustain a dynamic agricultural development

179

Table 1. Size of land holdings as revealed by agricultural census.

Name ofthe state

Uttar PradeshKarnatakaMadhya PradeshRajasthan

Averagesize of

holdings

1970-1971

1.163.204.005.46

1976-1977

1.052.983.604.65

• Totalholdings

8.57.3

14.47.1

Percentage increase or decrease inthe number of holdings in

Marginal(below1 ha)

12.617.917.540.4

over

Small(1-2 ha)

3.45.8

23.015.7

1970-71

Semi-medium(2-4 ha)

-1 .53.7

18.612.3

1976-77

Medium(4-10 ha)

-4 .01.48.68.9

Large(10 ha & above)

-23.2-9 .1-7 .4-2 .9

effort. Several large development projects indeveloping countries have come to grief withina few years because of new pest and soil healthproblems. Often, irrigation leads to problemssuch as alkalinity, salinity, and waterlogging ifscientific management practices based on an-ticipatory research are not introduced. Whenthe High Yielding Variety Program was initiatedin India in 1966, the brown plant hopper waspractically unknown in rice fields. Today, it hasbecome a major menace. Similarly in wheat,Karnal Bunt has become a serious problem,although it was of practically no importance a decade ago. In pearl millet, downy mildew andergot became serious within a few years afterthe release of HB-1. Therefore, a dynamic na-tional research base is a must for launching andsustaining a dynamic national developmentprogram.

Mixed farming involving crop-livestock inte-grated production systems is a way of life forfarmers in India and in several other developingcountries. A major strategy for providing addi-tional income and employment in India to smalland marginal farmers has been the introductionof dairying, poultry, sheep husbandry, or otheranimal-based enterprises. Therefore, agricul-tural research agencies in developing countrieswill have to take a total view of the entirefarming system. Similarly, aquaculture both incoastal and inland waters is an importantsource of income, employment, and nutrition. Ifthriving aquaculture production systems are tobe promoted, the agricultural technology intro-duced for combating the unholy triple allianceof pests, pathogens, and weeds will have to be

compatible with the need to avoid water pollu-tion. Thus, the development of economicallyviable technologies appropriate to each pro-duction system should be the major goal ofnational programs.

Research Goals and Pr ior i t ies

In addition to the major requirements of agen-cies involved in development, the potential aswell as the limitations of the clients ofresearch —farmers and fishermen — must beclearly understood. The first obvious step is tohave a clear idea of the absolute maximumproduction potential under a given set of grow-ing conditions. These can be calculated througha theoretical analysis of the climate, soil, andwater resources of each region. Buringh andcoworkers (1975) have estimated that the abso-lute maximum global production potential maybe on the order of 49 830 million tonnes of grainequivalent per year. Sinha and Swaminathan(1979) have estimated that the absolutemaximum production potential in terms ofgrain equivalent in India may be of the order of4572 million tonnes per year (Table 2).

While these are absolute maximum limits onthe basis of our current understanding of pro-duction parameters, the immediate task is tobridge the gap between actual and potentialfarm yields. An estimate of the untapped pro-duction reservoir available at current levels oftechnology can be obtained by conducting suit-ably designed on-farm testing and demonstr-ations in farmers' fields. Such studies carriedout in India indicate that in most farming sys-

180

the research and managerial experiences. Thefield and laboratory learning activities occupymore than 60% of each individual's trainingprogram. Accomplishments are periodicallyevaluated on the basis of skill performance andtheoretical concept development. Final evalua-tions determine an individual's progress, helpestablish his personal confidence, and assesshis reaction to the training program. Evalua-tions are also used in following up a trainee'slater performance in fields related to the train-ing received at ICRISAT.

Coopera t ion w i t h i n ICRISAT

The field, laboratory, and classroom learningexperiences are conducted by research scien-tists, assisted by the training staff. Researchscientists participate directly in the trainingactivity as field, laboratory, and classroom in-structors, thesis research guides, and super-visors of interns and research fellows. Thetraining staff coordinate the individualization ofresearch projects, the instruction, the evalua-tion of practical concept comprehension, andthe follow-up programs. They insure a balancedand comprehensive learning opportunity foreach person.

Coopera t ion w i t h o ther Ins t i tu t ions

Special assistance is obtained by utilizing thestaff and facilities of neighboring institutions.French-speaking West Africans have been givenintensive instruction in English language by theCentral Institute for English and Foreign Lan-guages and Osmania University. In addition,special extension methods, lectures, andlaboratory exercises have been provided bystaff of the Extension Education Institute. Scho-lars conducting their thesis and practical re-search at ICRISAT Center have been enrolled fortheir degree programs, or cooperative agree-ments for training have been established, at:

Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University,Rajendranagar, India

Himachal Pradesh Agricultural University,Simla, India

Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana,India

Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar, IndiaJawaharlal Nehru Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya,

Jabalpur, India

Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimba-tore, India

University of Agricultural Sciences, Banga-lore, India

Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USACornell University, Ithaca, NY, USATexas A & M University, Texas, USAAgricultural University, Wageningen, The

NetherlandsUniversity of Reading, Reading, UKAsian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thai-

landUniversity of Manitoba, CanadaThe interaction among scientists of the Insti-

tute and university advisory committee mem-bers has been extensive and advantageous toboth scholars and scientists. Indian universities,institutes, commercial companies, and localfarmers have been contacted on educationalvisits. These visits demonstrate the adaptabilityof research findings and germplasm to otherresearch programs and farms.

In-service Training Programs

The following objectives are used to developspecific training activities within each programfor individuals or groups:1

Crop Improvement

The objectives of the crop improvementprogram are to provide opportunities to:

1. Detailed outlines of these in-service training prog-rams are available from the Training Program atICRISAT.

• learn breeding techniques for improvingand stabilizing yields,

• assess and learn to utilize the potential ofthe germplasm available for use in theSAT,

• practice and learn breeding techniquesand requirements for efficient and effectiveidentification and utilization of resistancesto factors that reduce production in thesemi-arid tropics,

• work with crop improvement scientists,and

• develop skills in organizing and managinga successful breeding program.

161

Crop Production F o l l o w - u p

The objectives of the crop production programare to provide opportunities to:

• gain practical skills for increasing cropproduction in the SAT through an integ-rated approach to natural and human re-sources in ever-changing environments,

• assess improved cropping and manage-ment procedures and learn how to adaptthem to local conditions,

• learn to identify and reduce adverseinfluences that limit crop production inrainfed semi-arid tropics,

• develop an appreciation of the role of andthe importance of utilizing social, cultural,and economic factors in improving agricul-tural production, and

• develop the ability to use extensiontechniques for communicating new andimproved technology for increased andstabilized food production.

F a r m i n g S y s t e m s

Objectives of the farming systems program areto provide opportunities to:

• develop skills in natural resource utiliza-tion research related to catchment-areadevelopment for improved land and watermanagement.

• become proficient in utilization of produc-tion factors, research methods andtechniques related to agronomic practices,cropping systems, soil fertility, soilphysics, plant protection, farm power,machinery, economics, and managementskills to ensure increased and stabilizedfood production for the rainfed semi-aridtropics.

S p e c i a l i z e d A r e a s

The specialized programs are to provide oppor-tunities for:

• a skill development or improvement bypractical experience, working with specificequipment and techniques,

• training and experience in working with a team approach to problem solving,

• developing specific new skills andtechniques relative to identified specialSAT problems for increased and stabilizedfood production.

National program scientists, in-country de-velopment program staff, and former traineesassist in identifying areas where trainee selec-tion procedures can be improved, where addi-tional training is required, and where additionaltraining programs are needed. Contact is main-tained through correspondence and personalvisits by ICRISAT staff who are working andtravelling in areas where former trainees areemployed. Germplasm, reports, and newslet-ters and informational materials are provided toformer trainees to keep them abreast of newdevelopments. Such follow-up contact ismaintained with 174 trainees from 35 countrieswho participated in over 30 000 man-days oftraining at ICRISAT from 1974 through1978.

L o o k i n g A h e a d

The number of trainees at ICRISAT Center isexpected to increase by 1980 to an optimum atany one time of 60 to 75 in-service trainees, 10 to15 research scholars, 10 to 12 research fellows,and 10 to 15 international interns, plus specialarea trainees (a few days to a few weeks forgroups of up to 25 to 30 persons at a time) forintensive training in such areas as pathology,microbiology, entomology, land and watermanagement and cropping systems.

A major restriction to the number of appli-cants will continue to be the inability of nationalresearch programs, development programsponsors, and Institute staff to identify personsqualified in English and agricultural sciencefrom areas where the predominant languagesare French, Portuguese, Arabic, and Spanish.The number of potential trainees with satis-factory education, research, and agriculturaltraining and experience in most SAT regions isrelatively low, a condition expected to continueuntil the number of science graduates in-creases. The third limiting factor will be thenumber of persons the research and trainingstaff can accept for instruction in the laboratory,classroom, library, and seminar facilities ofICRISAT Center.

To meet the needs of the regions within ourmandate, the in-service training program an-ticipates accepting approximately 66% of its

162

The Role of ISNAR in Transfer of Technology

Klaus J . Lampe*

Abs t rac t

ISNAR is the newest member of the family of organizations supported by the CGIAR in itseffort to improve agricultural production in developing countries. Unlike the interna-tional research centers, ISNAR is a service organization; it wil l complement the activitiesof the other institutes and programs. Its primary mission is to strengthen the nationalagricultural research capabilities in developing countries. It wil l serve as a linkagemechanism between the international agricultural research centers and nationalinstitutions, as an intermediary between interested partners to promote bilateralcooperation in agricultural research, and as a linkage to ensure that target-group-relatedresearch wil l reach - via an effective extension service - the rural population ofcountries which invite ISNAR's assistance.

Most of you might have already heard aboutISNAR, the International Service for NationalAgricultural Research, which will start work inthe near future. For those of you who have nothad a chance to familiarize yourselves with thisnew service, let me make a few introductoryremarks about ISNAR's background.

ISNAR's Fami ly B a c k g r o u n d :The CGIAR Sys tem

ISNAR's parent organization is the CGIAR —theConsultative Group on International Agricul-tural Research. The Consultative Group is wellknown to all of us — primarily through thesuccess stories of its offspring, the internationalagricultural research institutes.

This morning, in fact, Professor Cummingsspoke to us about "The Role of the InternationalInstitutes," paying duetribute to their outstand-ing record of achievements.

ISNAR will be the youngest addition to thefamily of CGIAR. And it will be quite differentfrom its sister institutions within the system:

• It will be a service rather than an institute.• It will complement the activities of other

institutes and programs.• It will provide assistance to developing

Head, Agricultural Department, German Agency forTechnical Cooperation (GTZ).

countries — at their request — to enabletheir national agencies to do their ownagricultural research more effectively.

• ISNAR will be concerned primarily withresearch policy, research planning, researchorganization, and research management.

We all know that in many developingcountries, assistance of this kind is essential iffull advantage is to be taken of the work of theinternational centers. Hence, we can confirmthat ISNAR will complement the activities of itssister institutions.

ISNAR's H is tor ica lBackg round

To deal with history first, I feel I ought tomention a few of the more noteworthy mile-stones on the way to the establishment of thisnew service. After 2 years of informal andsemiformal negotiations, during CG meetingsin April 1977, European members of the Con-sultative Group gathered at Munich for anotherinformal meeting to consider means of assist-ing developing countries to strengthen theirnational agricultural research systems.

There had been, for some time, a growingawareness of the more and more pressing needfor additional assistance in the strengthening ofnational agricultural research capabilities. Themain concern was to enable national researchsystems to generate and adapt technology suit-able to local farming conditions. The consensus

183

of the Munich meeting was that the CGIARshould be asked to establish a service for thispurpose as a part of the CGIAR system.

The Technical Advisory Committee of theConsultative Group (TAC) endorsed this ideaand recommended the establishment of a taskforce on the subject.

This task force was set up to "identify theconstraints on the availability and application ofexternal assistance to strengthen national ag-ricultural research capabilities in developingcountries." The group was requested to con-sider the feasibility and desirability of alterna-tive means of overcoming these constraints,including the creation of an internationalservice or any other appropriate entity.

The composition of the task force was rep-resentative of major interests of both recipientsand donors, industrialized and agriculture-oriented countries. Its findings and recommen-dations can be summed up in the proposal toestablish an "International Service for NationalAgricultural Research" under the auspices ofthe Consultative Group.

The CGIAR accepted this proposal. In accor-dance with the experience and tradition of theCG, a committee was formed — the ISNARCommittee — to take decisions on the Group'sbehalf and to initiate action to get ISNARstarted.

The German Agency for Technical Cooper-ation (GTZ), which I have the pleasure to repre-sent, has been appointed to serve as ExecutingAgency for the establishment of ISNAR.

At this juncture, I might add that we at GTZ arepleased to be involved in the construction ofthis new service. We are deeply convinced ofthe importance of its mission and we have greattrust in the impact it will have on nationalresearch capabilities in developing countries.We are working hard to get it off the ground assoon as possible; we try to invest our ownexperience, gained during the last 15 to 20 yearsand, where necessary, we try to learn as quicklyas possible.

ISNAR's Objectivesand Functions

Object ives

As spelled out in its draft constitution, "thepurpose of ISNAR is to help strengthen national

agricultural research capabilities in developingcountries. This includes cooperation in identify-ing research problems and in formulating re-search strategies and policies, assistance inbuilding up an adequate institutional infra-structure and other research facilities, as well asin promoting specific national or regional re-search programs. The ultimate goal is to enabledeveloping countries to plan, organize, man-age, and execute research more effectivelyfrom their own human, natural, and financialresources."

These rather broadly defined terms of refer-ence for ISNAR have to be seen against theoverall setting of national agricultural researchin Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

A brief view of the science statistics of 1974collected by Agrawal for UNEP and the IIEDmight be interesting as another contribution tothe North-South dialog. According to thesefigures, 28 industrialized countries invest 97%of the world's research budget and employ 87%of the world's research worker community.Despite these figures, 23% of the 4.6 millionuniversity graduates of 1972 are from develop-ing countries. In most cases they are graduateswithout adequate future; without adequate re-search career opportunities; without adequateresearch facilities, policies, and programs;without adequate international linkages; with-out adequate political support for de-velopment-oriented research. But quite oftenthey have alternative professional chances inindustry, trade, and research institutionsabroad.

At this point, the imbalance of research sup-port in Africa, Asia, and Latin America cannot beneglected. In Asia, only 50% of the Third Worldresearch capital is invested, despite the fact that70% of the Third World population is living inthis area.

The CGIAR task force on ISNAR — in evaluat-ing this overall setting and its implications forassistance activities — found a clear and urgentneed for additional possibilities to strengthennational agricultural research. The concern is tostrengthen the national research system as a whole in order to generate and adapt tech-nology suitable to local farming conditions forcommodities important to national develop-ment objectives, including but not limited to,the food commodities covered by the inter-national agricultural research centers. It is a

184

well-known fact that research needs vary widelyamong developing countries, depending ontheir agricultural potential, the stage of de-velopment of their research capabilities, andlast but not least, the market for agriculturalproducts. A few countries with an adequatesupply of skilled scientists and well-managedsystems may need only financial help to buildfacilities. Others with totally inadequate re-search resources need expatriate scientists andtechnicians from neighboring countries orabroad, in addition to facilities, to initiate evenlimited research programs. Many countries fallin between.

The root of the problem in most countries isthe need to plan, organize, and manage re-search more effectively. This involves a broadrange of activities, such as:

• Establishing research priorities in accor-dance with national development ob-jectives, resource potential, and farmer'sneeds

• Developing research programs and pro-jects

• Organizing and managing the researchsystem to use research resources (includ-ing external assistance) more effectively

• Creating effective means for transferringnew technology to the extension serviceand thus ultimately to the farmers

• Developing training plans to provide theskilled scientists and technicians neededfor a balanced system

• Arranging for the facilities and other sup-port that will enable scientists to workeffectively

• Establishing links with other research in-stitutions, particularly the internationalcenters

• Creating political awareness, understand-ing, and support for a target-group-oriented research policy

It takes years to build an effective researchsystem. Unless the national systems arestrengthened in their planning, organization,and management so as to enable them toundertake more productive research, the re-search establishments will continue to havedifficulties in enlisting the commitment of theirgovernments to provide adequate long-termsupport. In the absence of such improvements,they are also likely to continue to have difficul-ties in attracting necessary financing from ex-

ternal assistance agencies. Most external agen-cies would be willing to increase support ifsuitable programs or projects were presentedto them. Such a policy, in my opinion, is also a very important requisite to stop the flow ofknow-how from developing countries to theindustrialized world defined by that ugly term:brain drain.

Development assistance agencies — international and national — have contributedmuch to improv ing national researchcapabilities, largely through training substan-tial numbers of scientists and providing fi-nancial assistance and expatriate technical ex-pertise for specific research operations. Butmuch more remains to be done in these as-pects. Moreover, relatively few countries arereceiving long-term contributions atthe level ofoverall research planning, research organiza-tion, and management. Traditional assistanceagencies are limited in their ability to fill thisneed for a variety of reasons, such as thedifficulty of providing highly qualified person-nel for the long periods required to build re-search systems; budgetary and operating con-straints that attend most of the larger organiza-tions; and political sensitivities and fluctuationsin political relationships which can hamperlong-term bilateral assistance at a policy level.

In view of this situation regarding researchneeds on the one side and potential sup-port facilities on the other, the task forceconcluded — and we concur wi th itsfindings —that:

• Existing agencies, both multilateral andbilateral, cannot meetthe needs of nationalagricultural research systems in ful l ;

• Additional support is needed; and• The CGIAR system can and should con-

tribute by the establishment of a specialservice like ISNAR.

ISNAR can thus be seen as the logical expan-sion of the Consultative Group's concern toassure that the benefits of improved technologyare made widely available to increase globalagricultural production.

F u n c t i o n s

From this rather broadly defined set of ob-jectives of ISNAR, the functions of the servicecan — in my view — be narrowed down tothree principal tasks:

185

1. ISNAR will serve as a linkage mechanismbetween the international agricultural re-search centers of the CGIAR system andnational agricultural research insti-tutions.

It has for long been a well-known fact thatthe international centers are performingan outstanding job in developing crop va-rieties and farming systems that arebroadly applicable over relatively wideenvironmental regions.

It is equally well known that a particularcountry will obtain the full benefits ofresearch done by the internationalcenters only if its own research system caneffectively cope with the needs of refine-ment and adaptation.

I see no need to prove again the immenseneed for adaptive research in developingcountries on the one side and the need forstrengthening of research capacities tocope with these requirements on theother. Looked at from this angle, it be-comes obvious that ISNAR can be helpfulto the international centers. It is clear thatthe centers must continue to work directlywith national organizations to validatetheir research findings and in other mat-ters related to center programs. ISNAR willnot by any means interfere with suchcooperative activities.

The centers have come under consider-able pressure to provide to national ag-ricultural research programs assistancethat exceeds their own mandates andproper interests but that they find difficultto refuse because of the urgency of theneeds. In future, developing countries canturn to ISNAR rather than to the centers forsuch cooperation.

To the extent that the service is successfulin contributing to stronger national re-search systems, it will facilitate and makemore effective the cooperative programsof the centers. Conversely, the service willfind it important to be able to call oncenters on behalf of its client countries fortraining and for specialized expertise,which the centers are able and willing toprovide within their mandates.

2. The second main function of ISNAR will beto serve as intermediary between in-terested partners in order to promote

bilateral cooperation in the field of agricul-tural research. This function could be de-scribed as that of an honest broker. ISNARwill provide assistance in orderto promotecooperation in the technical as well as inthe financial field; in other words, ISNARwill assist developing countries in theelaboration of programs of action, includ-ing specific projects for external financing,at the same time it will assist countries incontacting potential donors for the financ-ing of such research programs and pro-jects. In doing so, ISNAR can indirectly ordirectly become a partner for the im-plementation of the TCDC philosophy inthe area of agricultural research.

In doing this, ISNAR will not supplantother sources of technical assistance; onthe contrary, it will help governments ofclient countries to find and use suchsource more effectively, and enable assis-tance agencies to provide support withinthe framework of a comprehensive prog-ram for the development of the nationalresearch systems. Thus the service will notonly be complementary to the activities ofotherassistance agencies but also be help-ful to them. Undoubtedly, the service hasto meet the felt needs of developing coun-tries. An additional advantage in this con-text will be ISNAR's close relationships tothe financial resources of the CGIARdonors.

3. The third of ISNAR's main functions is oneof linkage in promoting target-group-related research to ensure that its resultswill reach — via an effective extensionservice — the rural population in the re-spective countries. In my opinion the over-riding importance of well-functioning lin-kages between research organization, ex-tension services, and farming communitycannot be overstressed. ISNAR's role inthis context could be described as a liaisonfunction. ISNAR will promote wherevernecessary the improvement of links bet-ween research, extension, and the farmingcommunity.

ISNAR's founding fathers have devoted great

The Pr inc ip les Under l y ingISNAR's A c t i v i t i e s

186

attention to the definition of eight principlesthat shall guide all of ISNAR's activities. Theseprinciples are an essential part of ISNAR's draftconstitution. They are clearly formulated andself-explanatory:

1. ISNAR's services will be available to anydeveloping country. ISNAR will provideassistance to a country only at thecountry's request.

2. ISNAR will work in close cooperation withall international organizations — in par-ticular, the Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion (FAO), bilateral agencies, founda-tions, and national and regional organiza-tions concerned with agricultural re-search. ISNAR will complement, not com-pete with, such other programs andsources of technical assistance.

3. ISNAR will concentrate its assistancemainly on program, policy, and organiza-tional and management issues of agricul-tural research.

4. ISNAR will give emphasis to the genera-tion, introduction, and use of adaptedtechnology suitable to resource-poor far-mers and local farming conditions.

5. ISNAR will be concerned with com-modities important to national develop-ment objectives including, but notlimited to, the food commodities coveredby the CGIAR system.

6. ISNAR will be essentially limited togiving assistance in the organization ofresearch. It will also maintain an aware-ness of the linkage among research, train-ing, and extension. ISNAR may, to theextent necessary, promote effective re-search, concern itself with improving linksbetween the research systems and thefarmer.

7. ISNAR will not undertake research ac-tivities in its own right. ISNAR wil l , how-ever, initiate on request national orregional surveys in order to assess theappropriateness of research policies, re-search systems, and organizations. Suchsurveys will be undertaken in cooper-ation with the recipient country and otherorganizations.

8. ISNAR will, for the execution of projects,normally seek the service of existing inter-national or national agencies. Only in ex-ceptional cases may ISNAR assume opera-

tional responsibilities. Each such involve-ment will require prior approval of theISNAR board of trustees, provided thatcosts are fully covered from noncore fund-ing.

These principles clearly define the scope ofISNAR's mandate. They will ensure thatthe newservice can perform its tasks in accordance withthe ideas that led to its establishment.

Proposed A c t i v i t i e s o f ISNAR

The CGIAR Task Force on ISNAR has narroweddown with some precision the list of activitiesand has seen to it that this list became part of thedraft constitution. In accordance with this list,ISNAR will provide assistance to developingcountries in:

• Identifying needs for planning and carry-ing out agricultural research;

• Determining research priorities;• Formulating overall research policies and

strategies;• Elaborating programs of action, including

specific projects for external financing;• Designing necessary organizational and

institutional arrangements for carrying outresearch programs and projects;

• Finding the necessary resources for theexecution of such activities;

• Contacting potential external sources forfinancing research programsand projects;

• Promoting effective links between re-search organizations, extension services,and the farming community;

• Determining the basic facilities required toconduct research (laboratories, equip-ment, experiment stations, adequatestaffing, finance, etc.);

• Establishing and strengthening links toexisting information systems in order tospeed up exchange of information on re-search results, ongoing research, andtraining opportunities at international andnational institutions;

• Organizing appropriate flows of infor-mation within a geographic region so thatinterested countries may arrange to coop-erate on specific research efforts;

• Arranging national training programs forresearch and research support staff;

• Organizing and supporting symposia and

187

seminars for the interchange and dissemi-nation of ideas and information useful inthe development and operation of nationalresearch systems;

• Evaluating the effectiveness and suita-bility of various forms of research organi-zations and activity.

ISNAR will establish an information systeminsofar as it enables the services to fulfill itsfunctions and does not duplicate existing in-formation services. This information systemwill collect and disseminate informationabout:

• Completed and ongoing research of theinternational agricultural research centersof the CGIAR system and research ac-complished at national and regional levels;

• Training opportunities at the internationalor relevant national centers on specificresearch topics, on research administra-tion and management, or for training oftechnical staff.

ISNAR will keep abreast of policies, pra-ctices, and capabilities of other agencies activein agricultural research. ISNAR will also keepabreast of important technical developments inagricultural research.

Status and OrganizationalStructure of ISNAR

To round out the picture that I have been tryingto draw of ISNAR, we now ought to deal brieflywith its status and its organizational structure.These two points are of a more indirect impor-tance to ISNAR's scope of action and to itspotential of success.

First, the service will have characteristics thatwill enable it to operate with maximum effec-tiveness:

• It will be autonomous and nonpolitical inmanagement, staffing, and operations;

• It will be a center whose sole business is tohelp s t rengthen nat ional researchsystems, normally by providing assistanceover long periods, and with a career staff ofthe same caliber as the staff of the interna-tional agricultural research centers;

• It wil l be a relatively small organizationcapable of — hopefully — quick responseto requests from developing countries;

• It wil l have sufficient stature to be able to

assist the countries it serves to obtainexternal finance for support of their re-search systems.

Second, the service is being established as anintegral part of the CGIAR system, with fullparticipation in the benefits and the respon-sibilities accompanying that position. Theservice's policies, programs, budget, and per-formance will be examined by the CGIAR andTAC in much the same manner as for interna-tional centers. This procedure is designed toensure the maintenance of the close familyrelationships within the CG system with all itsdirect and indirect advantages for users of thesystem.

Conclusions

On this 31st of August in Vienna, 4000 delegatesfrom more than 120 countries conclude the UNWorld Conference on Science and Technology.The outcome of this fifth technical conference isunknown yet. But you don't have to be a prophet. The 4000 suitcases of the mentioneddelegates are filled with papers and documentsbut most probably more questions thananswers. If this century, which has influencedmankind by science and technology so deeply,will not find solutions to the problems whichworld population will face in the twenty-firstcentury and beyond, you may be allowed toquestion the overall value of the progress ofmankind during the last 100 years.

Since it is well known that we need at least 20years to get research results out of thelaboratories to the often-mentioned farmer'sfield we are already far behind schedule.

A futurological approach is very muchneeded to invent production systems on re-newable resources and to save the nonrenewa-ble ones for the centuries ahead of us. You aredefinitely not a pessimist if you believe in thelimit of growth but a realist. Hopefully, scien-tists as well as politicians will join in a realismwhich is geared to research and developmentpolicies that wil l allow 8 billion or more at theend of this century to live on our globe with a fair chance of an adequate human life.

Today we are very far from that point. Ourspaceship earth is in bad need of a program ofglobal character for its own future. We shouldaccustom ourselves and the pol i t ical

188

decision-makers to the fact that agriculturalresearch in the broad sense — research for thedevelopment of rural areas — is not a multimill-ion but a multibillion dollar undertaking for theyears to come, in order to give a positive answerto the Malthusian question: to be or not to be.

ISNAR wants to be and will become a smallstone in that mosaic, perhaps also a part of a spearpoint in a global campaign for agriculturalresearch promotion of a new dimension.

189

The Role of IADS Programsin Transfer of Techno logy

D. S. A t h w a l *

A b s t r a c t

IADS was established in 1975 to provide services required by developing countries todesign, organize, and strengthen agricultural research and development institutions.IADS fosters cooperation among assistance agencies and helps to integrate resources tosupport national efforts. Three-fourths of IADS' present activities are direct services tohelp more than 12 countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America in planning andimplementing research programs. Other activities involve development of leaders andmanagers, preparation of development-oriented literature, and liaison with assistanceagencies and developing country institutions. While primary emphasis to date has beenwork with national research systems, IADS is now prepared to participate in projectsmore oriented to development, in accord with its original mandate.

When conventional approaches do not providesatisfactory solutions to critical problems ofdevelopment, administrators and scientists,working together, seek answers through newinstitutions and innovate organizational ar-rangements. In recent years, many knowledge-able individuals have been increasinglyconcerned about deficiencies in existing ap-proaches to technical assistance in rapidly build-ing national capabilities in agricultural researchand development. The International AgriculturalDevelopment Service (IADS) is one of the or-ganizational responses to this situation.

But the story really begins at least twodecades ago. In 1960, in response to the actualand predicted food problems of rice-consumingnations of the world, the Ford and RockefellerFoundations, working together with the Gov-ernment of the Philippines, created the firstinternational agricultural research center — theInternational Rice Research Institute.

Here this week, some 19 years later, we arededicating this new center, one in a uniquenetwork of international research institutionsdedicated to helping the developing nations toincrease agricultural production.

These international centers, operating inde-

* Program Officer, International Agricultural De-velopment Service.

pendently but supported through the forumof the Consultative Group on InternationalAgricultural Research—an innovation ini tsel f—are making breakthroughs in methodsand technology that can lead to increased pro-ductivity of major food crops and other com-modities.

Whether this technology reaches and be-nefits a nation's farmers depends upon theability of the national agricultural researchsystem to incorporate research findings intovarieties and practices appropriate to themicro-environments of producers in eachcountry. This process requires strong researchand development organizations within eachcountry.

In recognition of this need, the RockefellerFoundation established the International Ag-ricultural Development Service on an experi-mental basis in 1975. IADS, a non-profit, inde-pendent organization, offers the scientific,technical, and managerial services a develop-ing country might need to strengthen or expandits agricultural research and developmentcapabilities.

My colleagues and I appreciate the oppor-tunity this occasion provides to describe therationale and scope of the IADS operation, tooutline the kinds of services currently beingprovided, to share our experience in technicalcooperation, and, finally, to indicate the futureprogram directions of IADS.

191

Rationale and Scopeof the IADS Operation

While new technology has significantly in-creased cereal production in many countries,the specter of serious food shortages is still withus. Most developing countries must doubletheir food production during the next 10 to 20years to meet projected consumption require-ments. Each nation will need to produce foodlocally to the extent possible to achieve somelevel of food security, to provide gainfulemployment to rural people, and to ensurepolitical stability.

Although production of adequate quantitiesof food has special urgency, it is really thedevelopment of the agricultural sector as a whole and improvement of incomes of smallfarmers that deserves attention. Agriculturalprogress and improvement in purchasingpower of the rural people is fundamental tonational development in the poor countries,most of which are predominantly agrarian.

To provide adequate nutrition and purchas-ing power to rural people in developingcountries, agricultural growth must substan-tially exceed the historic rate of less than 2% peryear. Exceptional research and developmentefforts wil l be required to achieve these growthrates. Much effort must be made by the de-veloping countries themselves, beginning withtheir own agricultural research and develop-ment systems and the national framework ofpolicies and priorities within which they oper-ate.

As the network of international centers wasrapidly taking shape, founders of IADS feltthat a major bottleneck in world agricultural de-velopment efforts was the lack of adequatemeans for directly helping countries to organizeinstitutions and programs tailored to nationalneeds.

The Rockefeller Foundation has had experi-ence in providing support for agricultural re-search and, to some extent, for development inseveral countries. Some of these efforts havecontributed significantly to strengtheningnational capabilities and to raising agriculturaloutput. The Foundation's resources were toolimited to help any large number of countries;consequently, it established IADS, which pro-vides a mechanism for using funds from othersources and facilitating cooperation among

donor agencies in providing technical as-sistance.

In organizing IADS, the founders drew uponthe ideas and experiences of many individualsand agencies. They acted in the belief thatprofessional agriculturists in many of the de-veloping countries were seeking more effectiveways to work with the world's technical cooper-ation community. Opportunities existed tospeed the adoption of science-based agricul-ture in ways that would increase food output aswell as incomes of rural people.

The International Agricultural DevelopmentService was established with the primary ob-jective of assisting individual countries to de-sign, organize, and strengthen their own institu-tions and programs concerned with agriculturalresearch and development.

IADS is a private, nonprofit, professionalorganization. It has no research program of itsown; it helps developing countries to secure theservices of particular individuals and insti-tutions with which they wish to work in theirresearch and development efforts.

IADS' operations have a high degree of flexi-bility. It uses this flexibility to foster cooperationamong assistance agencies and to help inte-grate their support in the best interests of thehost country. With IADS as an executingagency, donors may fund cooperatively or indi-vidually any technical assistance activities ofinterest to them.

IADS is authorized by its charter to provide a broad range of services. It could undertakealmost any service requested by a developingcountry that would contribute to agriculturalproduction and raise farm incomes. At present,however, IADS concentrates on strengtheningresearch institutions and applying research toproduction problems. In addition to directservices to individual countries in the designand implementation of projects, IADS engagesin a range of indirect services important toagricultural development. These include thepreparation of development-oriented literatureand activities related to leadership develop-ment.

Current Act iv i t ies

IADS headquarters staff, numbering about onedozen, possess a range of capabilities. Three

192

individuals are responsible for general ad-ministration, and five for developing and sup-porting country activities in Asia, Africa, andLatin America. Others are specialists in com-munication and training, research planning andorganization, agricultural economics, and pub-lications. More staff will be added as operationsexpand and need arises. But the objective is tokeep the core staff small and to draw on experi-enced and highly qualified individuals on a part-time or consultancy basis when the needarises. Any major expansion will be in field staffassociated with specific country activities.

Present IADS activities have evolved over thepast 3 years in response to requests of thedeveloping countries. The largest and mostrapidly growing part of the total program hasbeen direct support to national agriculturalresearch programs. Individual countries tend toseek two broad categories of direct services:(a) program planning, and (b) program im-plementation. IADS has restricted its effort tomulti-commodity programs and to ones that donot fit the mandate of any one internationalcenter.

Prog ram P lann ing

Typically the planning work of IADS has calledfor small teams of experienced scientists towork with agricultural leaders of a country onshort but intensive studies of national agricul-tural research and development programs,their goals, and the means of achieving thosegoals. Some studies have represented the firststep of the country in seeking funds for re-search. Others have related to reorientingagencies, to enable them to be more responsiveto urgent national needs. National agriculturalleaders are asking questions about organi-zational structures and operating proceduresthat will enhance the contribution of researchprograms to national development. IADS givestop priority to responding to requests for con-sultants on these topics.

IADS has participated in planning activities inten countries and regions — Sudan, Senegal,Thailand, Bangladesh, Nepal, Western Samoa,Panama, the Dominican Republic, Honduras,and the Central American region as a whole. Insuch planning missions, IADS staff and con-sultants work as members of joint teams thatinclude leaders of national programs and in-

stitutions.In countries where IADS is already partici-

pating in project implementat ion—for ex-ample, Bangladesh and Nepal—assistance inplanning has focused on organizational andmanagement improvement of the national re-search system. This activity complements theongoing project and promises to increase thebenefits of the project to the host country.

In other countries where there has been noprevious involvement, such as Sudan andSenegal, IADS has responded to national in-stitution and donor agency requests for as-sistance. IADS generally helps to prepare themaster plan for strengthening national researchcapabilities. Often this includes the design of a project for funding consideration by donoragencies.

In some countries, IADS has assumed fullresponsibility or provided leadership forplanning, while in others IADS has contributedone of its staff as a member of the project designteam. The participation of IADS in these plan-ning exercises has been supported on a specialproject basis by such donors as the World Bank,Asian Development Bank, United StatesAgency for International Development, FordFoundation, and Rockefeller Foundation.

Also, IADS is now participating in specialprogramming missions of the InternationalFund for Agricultural Development, which areconcerned with broad aspects of agriculturaldevelopment specifically aimed at helping therural poor.

Prog ram I m p l e m e n t a t i o n

Implementation of programs has called forlong-term involvement by IADS covering a range of services. These have included residentspecialists in research and developmentmanagement, and in specific subject matterareas. Also included are short-term consultan-cies in specialized fields, arrangements foroverseas and on-the-job training of nationalscientists, improvement of research facilities,and procurement of equipment and supplies.

IADS staff in country projects work with theirnational colleagues as members of teams. Theyare not advisors but are active participants innational programs. They work through theircounterparts and help them plan, organize, andconduct research. They operate within the local

193

administrative and support system, and whiledoing so, attempt to improve it.

Projects are usually set up for 3 to 5 years,often with provision for extension. They areundertaken by the host country and IADS withthe conviction that attempts to achieve rapidincreases in agricultural production must becombined with efforts to strengthen national institutions. In this way countries can sustaintheir own progress with a minimum of externalassistance.

IADS is currently helping to implementcooperative country projects in Nepal,Indonesia, Bangladesh, Botswana, andEcuador. IADS provides the requested serviceson a cost-reimbursable basis, with financialsupport coming from host countries and vari-ous donor agencies such as the World Bank,USAID, and the Inter-American DevelopmentBank. IADS has also been asked to provide theservices of a senior research administrator toact as advisor to the head of the agriculturalresearch system in Sudan.

In cooperative country projects, IADS scien-tists are helping to organize and implementnational research programs designed to im-prove the production of major commoditiesand cropping systems. They involve multi-disciplinary research and are coordinated on a countrywide basis. These projects emphasizestrong links between research and extensionthrough initial orientation to farm problems andearly testing of research results in farmers'fields. Efforts are made to strengthen ties ofnational programs with international centersand other outside institutions involved in relev-ant research or training.

Most of the projects are concerned with foodcrops, but other commodities of national im-portance may also be involved. In Indonesia,for example, the project includes establishmentof a strong rubber research program. Besidesresearch, IADS helps to improve supportservices such as library and information ser-vices, which have a direct bearing on output andapplication of scientific research.

Leadersh ip Deve lopmen t

Availability of appropriately prepared andoriented individuals for leadership roles in ag-ricultural research and development projects isthe most important ingredient of success. Since

1977, IADS has considered ways to prepareprofessionals for international agriculturalprograms. In so doing, it has met with repre-sentatives of the international agricultural re-search centers and donor agencies.

Several critical problems concerning thepersonnel needs of agricultural research anddevelopment projects have been identified.There is a worldwide shortage of experiencedagricultural professionals to staff technicalcooperation programs. Also, host country pro-fessionals with experience in establishing andmanaging agricultural development strategies,organizations, and programs are scarce. Youngscientists do not get opportunities to learn howto implement production-oriented, multidiscip-linary research programs.

In February 1979, IADS sponsored a work-shop on preparing professional staff for na-tional agricultural research and related prog-rams. Participants considered several propos-als concerned with the training of young pro-fessionals, managementtraining for mid-careerscientists, and in-service training for nationalprogram personnel. IADS revised these prop-osals in the light of workshop recommenda-tions and is coordinating further action.

IADS is building a personnel roster that in-cludes names of individuals interested orexperienced in international work. The rostercontains 3000 names and is used for identifyingconsultants and specialists for assignment byIADS as well as other agencies. Computerstorage and retrieval of this information ena-bles IADS to serve itself, other organizations,and those registered, more efficiently andrapidly.

Lia ison

Through meetings, conferences, and staff vis-its, IADS has developed and maintains liaisonwith technical assistance agencies, interna-tional centers, and national institutions in de-veloped and developing countries. The liaisonactivities are meant to inform appropriateagencies of the IADS program and objectives;to gain greater understanding of the working ofother agencies; to identify project oppor-tunities; and to focus attention of some groupson the problem of food production and ruralpoverty.

One outcome of these activities has been a

194

publication on agricultural assistance sourceswhich brings together pertinent information onagencies involved in technical and financialassistance to developing countries. Others havebeen less apparent, but highly important inlong-range implications. Among these hasbeen active participation by IADS in the series ofevents which led the Consultative Group onInternational Agricultural Research to establishISNAR with the mandate to assist nationalagricultural research systems.

Prepara t ion o fDeve lopmen t -o r i en ted L i te ra tu re

Most of the professional staff of IADS and otherassistance agencies are biological scientistswith limited background in areas outside oftheir specialized fields. Many agricultural policymakers and administrators do not have thetechnical background or experience in eitheragricultural or social sciences, and make de-cisions over a range of agricultural policy areas.Recognition of these situations has led IADS toseek ways of developing and implementing a program to plan, produce, and distribute a range of development-oriented reference ma-terials on technical subjects.

Two development-oriented books have beenpublished. To Feed This World, by SterlingWortman and Ralph W. Cummings, Jr., de-scribes the ways nations may accelerate ag-ricultural growth and proposes a strategy fordoing so. Rice in the Tropics, by Robert F.Chandler, Jr., reviews the scientific advances intropical rice and outlines the implications fornations that wish to help farmers grow ricemore productively.

Two other books in press are concerned withfarming systems in the humid tropics andnational seed programs. The manuscript of a book on tropical tomatoes is being reviewed.Similar books on wheat and potatoes are underpreparation.

In carrying out this activity, IADS has receivedexcellent cooperation from some of the inter-national centers and financial support from a number of donor agencies.

Lessons of Experience

In IADS' operations it has become evident that

most developing countries feel much less needfor expatriate experts than some of the techni-cal assistance agencies expect. Many develop-ing countries now have well-trained and ex-perienced personnel equivalent in qualifi-cations to most available foreign specialists.The current demand is generally for experi-enced mid-career scientists or administratorswho are not easily available. Suitable individu-als should not only have the broad knowledgeof agricultural research and development, butalso possess personal qualifications so essen-tial in building meaningful collaborative rela-tionships.

We have learned that the most effective useof funds for technical assistance can be madeby employing a small number of high-qualityresident specialists and supplementing theirservices with competent short-term consultantsin specialized fields. A short-term consultantcan greatly enhance the range of expertiseavailable to a project. Sometimes a continuingrelationship with a consultant and his institu-tion can be highly productive.

Many countries lack well-conceived masterplans for strengthening agricultural researchand for accelerating agricultural development.There appears to be no dearth of loans andgrants from funding agencies for good projects.However, there are few well-defined andadequately documented projects. Many nationsneed assistance in developing master plans foragricultural systems as a basis for coordinationof work and for allocation of local and externalresources. In the absence of a national planthat identifies priorities, programs, and re-quirements for 5 to 10 years, the externalagencies themselves attempt to identifypriorities. They sometimes compete with oneanother to support the areas of need that theyperceive.

Another observation is concerned with thelevel of technical assistance required by indi-vidual nations. This varies greatly in relation tothe size of the country and the stage of agricul-tural development. National authorities ap-preciate the flexibility of technical cooperationagencies in adjusting to local needs andpromptness in responding to requests forservices. Whereas each country requires a re-search system, the scope of its activities mustrelate to the technical and financial resources ofthe country and availability of appropriate ag-

195

ricultural technology from abroad. Some de-veloping countries may attempt to become soself-sufficient in agricultural research that theycould miss opportunities to capitalize on exter-nal technology available from other countriesand regional and international institutions.

Developing countries now give high priorityto training, and some have built a sizable pool ofwell-qualified scientists. But full utilization ofthe scientific capacity is often hampered byarchaic administrative and management pro-cedures. Because of poor support services,scientists often spend a large proportion of theirtime doing things for which they are not quali-fied or especially trained. Several nations havebegun to improve the organization andmanagement of their national research systems,and this subject deserves greater and continuedattention if productivity of scarce manpower is tobe increased.

A major problem of most national agriculturalprograms is to relate appropriately to thenational planning organization, the financeministry, and other agencies responsible fornational development. Unless the agriculturalresearch program is closely associated withnational goals and carries out studies thatpromote development, it cannot expect to re-ceive adequate support. The national researchagencies with which IADS works are grapplingwith this problem. In some countries whereinstitutions have been established to foster thisinteraction, the job is relatively easy. In others,the fragmented structure of research within thegovernment makes it difficult to progress to-wards realistic goals.

IADS stresses the importance of agriculturalresearch being firmly linked in a continuumfrom the planning phase through its appli-cation on farmers' fields. In most developingcountries, a high proportion of the farmers livein remote areas and have small holdings. Theyare generally not aware of the technologicalcomponents available and are unable to puttogether for their situation profitable combina-tions of new practices. For this reason, scien-tists are needed to help develop and evaluatefarming systems for specific localities, and towork closely with extension staff in helpingfarmers to learn how to use new technology.

Cooperation between the research systemand extension services as well as other agen-cies concerned with farmers' adoption of

technology ensures that production campaignsare based on sound technology. But equallyimportant is the opportunity this cooperationprovides for researchers to learn about de-ficiencies in the technology, and consequently,to identify problems requiring more research.Interaction with agencies involved with applica-tion of technology is so vital that boundariesbetween them and the research system cannotbe sharply drawn.

Future Program Direct ions

IADS has operated for less than 4 years. Itstarted its program with emphasis on technicalcooperation for strengthening national re-search systems. During this period, we haveseen the need for such a service translated intoeffective demand. Opportunities to participatein national agricultural programs have beengrowing faster than the immediate ability of thenew organization to respond.

IADS programs will continue to evolvefurther. IADS has now reached the stage whereit can venture to undertake projects moreoriented to development, in accordance with itsoriginal goal.

We welcome the establishment of ISNAR as a unit of the Consultative Group on InternationalAgricultural Research mandated to providetechnical assistance to national researchprograms. The IADS Board of Trustees hasoffered ISNAR full cooperation in getting estab-lished and beginning its operations.

With the establishment of ISNAR to helpdeveloping countries strengthen researchservices, IADS now plans to expand its activitiesin support of development efforts of individualcountries. Although strengthening agriculturalresearch will continue to be a major interest ofIADS, as appropriate technology is funda-mental to development, we do not foresee anyundesirable overlap between the activities ofISNAR and IADS. The demand for such servicesis so great that there is ample opportunity forthe two organizations to develop a complemen-tary relationship and mutually supportive roles.

IADS has demonstrated that it can work withmultilateral and bilateral funding agencies inproviding services to national programs.Whereas we expect that this relationship willgrow, IADS will actively seek a broad base of

196

private support and cooperation for its activities indevelopment, drawing upon the privatesector, foundations, and voluntary organiza-tions.

Many industries and business firms in theUnited States, for example, recognize they canplay important roles in helping to mobilize andstrengthen private sector activities in develop-ing countries as part of national developmentefforts. But they have not developed effectivemeans of linking with the public or privatesector in those countries. Discussions are underway with key individuals to identify ways inwhich an organization such as IADS might helpdeveloping countries share in the technologicaland managerial expertise of industry andbusiness. This is particularly important as de-veloping countries direct attention to improv-ing, reorienting, and synchronizing the publicand private activities in support of nationalcommodity production or defined-area prog-rams.

IADS will emphasize two basic approachesfor agricultural development. When infrastructureis sufficient, an effective development strategy isthe mounting of commodity programs aimed atincreasing production of major crops on a national scale. If the objective is to improveincomes and standards of living of greatnumbers of rural people, defined-area de-velopment programs may be most effective.Both commodity programs and defined-areacampaigns depend upon synchronized gov-ernment services oriented to support acceler-ated rates of development. Such services are a basic component of any national strategy forforced-pace development.

Many nations have successfully used com-modity production campaigns to increase theproduction of a particular farm product, notablywheat and rice. In recent years, concern hasbeen expressed about the adverse effect ofthese commodity campaigns on income dis-tribution of farming families. Also, concentra-tion of efforts on major cereals has resulted insome neglect of grain legumes and other cropswhich are important sources of nutrition forsmall farmers and poor people.

IADS recognizes the need for a balance inresearch on agricultural commodities and forthe improvement of farming systems as a whole. Improved farming systems are a requi-site to progress in defined-area development

programs. In its future work, IADS is consider-ing the possibility of active participation indevelopment projects oriented to defined areasas well as to specific commodities. Whereverpossible, IADS encourages a combination ofthese two approaches, supplementing them asappropriate with efforts to strengthen relevantinstitutions.

Finally, it has become increasingly evidentthat developing nations can and wish to learnfrom one another's development experiences.IADS continues to seek ways to stimulate andfacilitate interaction among institutions andindividuals in developing countries. Thereis much concern these days about how to en-courage technical cooperation among develop-ing countries; in a small way, IADS has de-monstrated that this is not only possible buthighly desirable. We appreciate support of vari-ous institutions and individuals in helping us todo this and look forward to even greater oppor-tunities for mutual cooperation in the future.

197

Crop and L ivestock In tegra t ion in t he Semi-Ar idTropics

D. J. Pratt and C. de Haan*

A b s t r a c t

This paper attempts to isolate some of the interactions between livestock and croppingin semi-arid areas, and to discuss some of the trends affecting these interactions. It canbe expected that more integrated production systems wil l emerge through a combina-tion of political and administrative measures and biological innovations aimed espe-cially at increasing the quality and quantity of dry-season feed. ILCA's own systemsresearch suggests that the development approach wil l need to combine a number ofcomponents to be successful. It is in the nature of farming systems that the key toimproved livestock production may be interventions that increase the yield of subsis-tence crops (even crops of no direct value to livestock). Equally, manipulation within thelivestock component may offer means to improve crop production.

Although the majority of people in the semi-aridtropics sustain themselves primarily by cropcultivation, livestock also play an important rolein the local economy. The degree of de-pendence on livestock varies widely, rangingfrom the pastoralist who is subsistent entirelyon his livestock to the sedentary millet growerwho invests some of his excess capital inlivestock. In this paper an attempt will be madeto isolate the different types of relationships orlinkages that characterize the interaction bet-ween cultivation and livestock production so asto indicate the conditions under which theselinkages occur and how they affect oppor-tunities for successful crop-livestock integra-tion. The basis of this paper is a more exhaus-tive review on this subject prepared for publica-tion by ILCA staff members (McCown et al.1977).

Linkages Between Cropand Livestock Production

S y m b i o t i c L i n k a g e

Crops and livestock are frequently bound indirect symbiotic relationship within the farmingsystem, with the one feeding the other. A typical

* Director, and Director of Research, InternationalLivestock Centre for Africa (ILCA).

example is found in the Sahel where, during thedry season, the natural forage is in shortsupply — or inaccessible through lack of drink-ing water— and is of low quality. Crop residuesthen provide a superior livestock diet. At thesame time, manure deposited on the fields asthe cattle graze benefits the subsequent crop,while the trampling in of residues and breakingup of ridges are also considered beneficial (VanRaay 1974).

However, the manure contributed by animalskept only on crop residues is small. Moreover,manure deposited on the land during the dryseason declines greatly in value before it isincorporated in the soil. Various attempts havebeen made (e.g., in Senegal, Mali, Upper Volta)to increase the quantity and quality of manurethrough the introduction of manure pits(Hamon 1970), but the high investment andlabor inputs required, and the difficulty offinding enough water during the dry season,have acted as constraints. The amount of man-ure available is increased when animals arekept overnight on the harvested fields, andwhen the period of a stay is prolonged, whetherthrough bringing in feed from outside or as a result of abundant natural forage nearby. Typi-cal examples are found in Western Dafur andSenegal, for example, where Acacia a/bida treesgrow in the cultivated fields. Their pods, whichare palatable and high in protein, fall or arestripped off in the dry season, thus making anadditional source of feed available that enables

199

cattle to stay longer in the cultivated areas.

Dra f t -an ima l L inkage

This linkage was rarely found in traditionalagriculture in the semi-arid regions of Africa,though it is common in other regions. However,with increasing involvement in the marketeconomy and decreasing returns to labor incropping, the draft linkage has grown in impor-tance, especially in West Africa, where it can becited as one of the successes in livestock andcrop development.

The type of traction used depends on en-vironmental conditions. For example, in thesandy soil of Senegal, where plowing is not a major necessity, horses are used to pull lightplanting machines for groundnuts. In theheavier soils of neighboring Mali, and generallythroughout the semi-arid tropics, whereverplowing is required, oxen are used. In certainarid regions, camels and donkeys may be used,singly or in combination.

But the choice of methods of cultivation isalso determined by farm size and many otherfactors (Cassd et al. 1965). Often it is only thelarger and more successful farmers can owndraft animals. This may be either because theyhave easier access to credit or because only onthe larger farms is increased labor productivityrealized with draft animals. Also, there is often a relationship between animal traction and therelative extent of cash and subsistence crops,especially where there is a cash requirement topay off the investment in traction. Thus, inSenegal, farmers using animal traction planted10 to 16% more groundnuts and 3 to 7% lessmillet than farmers using hand cultivation.

The tendency for rich farmers to obtain ani-mal traction and thus increase their labor pro-ductivity, coupled with the shift to cash crops,works to accentuate the gap between more andless fortunate cultivators. This might be a con-straint on the further development of the draftlinkage. Another constraint is the supply of draftoxen. If an imaginary semi-arid country with a cultivable area of 10 million hectares is consi-dered, and it is assumed that an average pair ofoxen can cultivate 5 to 10 ha per growingseason, the total need will be about 2 to 4 million oxen, or a national herd of approxi-mately 10 mill ion. This is likely to be more thanthe grazing resources of the country can sup-

port. Thus, unless farming systems are de-veloped that can profitably produce substantialforage supplies, most of the future increase incrop production will have to come from thedirect transformation of hoe cultivation tomechanized farming in spite of all the draw-backs of mechanization.

I nves tmen t L inkage

Given the situation where pastoral land is eitherfree or communally owned, and where thepossibilities for capital investment in agricul-ture are limited, surplus cash from crop pro-duction is often invested in livestock. This givesadded security in time of drought and enhancessocial status. Where skilled labor for livestockhusbandry is not present in the crop farmingpopulation, herding is often carried out on a contractual basis by pastoralists.

The investment linkage can have negativeconsequences under adverse conditions ifthe crop farmer has greater security than thelivestock producer. Typical examples can befound around irrigation schemes in the Sahelwhere, even in drought years, crop producershave the security of water and stubble grazing.If cash surpluses are then invested in cattle,overgrazing of natural rangelands around suchschemes readily develops, with consequentdetrimental effects on the livestock producers.This was clearly shown in Mali, where irrigatedrice growing added substantially to the degra-dation of surrounding rangelands (ILCA 1978).When, as a result, pastoral units fall below thesubsistence level, they tend to invest their ownlabor in cropping. The aggregate effect of thisincreased cropping is, of course, even greaterpressure on the reduced area of grazing land.

Exchange Linkage

Exchange of goods typically occurs when onepopulation or group is partially dependent onthe product of another. Traditionally, milk, ghee(melted butter fat), meat, and hides are ex-changed for millet and sorghum. With increas-ing commercialization, markets play a more andmore important role in this exchange. Outsidethe market economy, the symbiotic linkagenoted earlier can also occur as an exchangelinkage, when crop residue grazing is ex-changed for manure. When pressure on land is

200

not great and fertility is maintained by shiftingcultivation, manure is not so highly valued bythe farmer, and the livestock producer normallyhas to pay in fresh milk for the right to graze thecrop residues. As the pressure on land in-creases, however, the demand for manure canbe so great as to reverse the direction ofpayment. In densely populated areas of thesemi-arid tropics, there is a market for manuregathered from pastoralists' camps.

Compe t i t i ve L inkages

Competition between crop and livestock pro-duction develops as land becomes scarce. Anexample has been given in the context ofinvestment linkage. The population increase,expansion of industrial crops, and reservationof public land all hasten this trend. The increasein court cases against pastoralists for cropdamage illustrates the same trend (Van Raay1974).

Other examples arise when crop farmersencroach on valley bottoms for purposes ofirrigated cropping, thereby restricting theaccess of livestock to permanent water and towhole regions of valuable dry-season grazing.This situation arises in the Ogaden region inEthiopia (ILCA 1977). Where crop farmers in-vest surplus capital in livestock, the increasingnumbers of animals that are grazed aroundvillages in the wet season can create a distancebetween the water and forage necessary fortranshumant herds sufficient to destroy theviability of the traditional pastoral system; thecrop farmers themselves can support theirlivestock on crop residues at this time of year.

On a regional basis, the loss of range grazingcan be more than compensated for by thefodder contributed by crop residues. However,the degree of compensation depends on thecrop — with sorghum and cowpea ranking highand millet ranking low — and usually declineswith time. The productivity of abandoned cropland is often so low that the longer term effecton the regional fodder resources is negative(ILCA 1977).

Prospects for FutureDevelopment

It can be expected that increased population

pressure and decreasing availability of grazingland will cause more and more pastoralists totake up cropping. Rapidly growing demands onland by old and new crop farmers will lead inturn to over-exploitation, reduced fallowing,and declining soil fertility, and subsequently toa decline in the population that the land cansustain. This will then lead to migration towardsurban centers and increased reliance on foodimports. The only sure way to combat this cycleis to increase the productivity of land and labor.

If livestock are to contribute effectively, thereis a great need for forage that is superior indry-season quality to range forage and existingcrop residues. A sown leguminous crop couldbe expected to be more effective in this regardand in maintaining soil fertility than a bush orgrassland fallow. However, until now, returns tolabor and land do not justify investment in sownfodder crops under rainfed conditions. Moreparticularly, the high labor requirements forsowing and weeding subsistence crops and thelow yields of those crops impose serious laborconstraints on the introduction of forage crops.

Besides increased yield per unit area of sub-sistence crops, other measures needed will bepolitico-administrative measures ensuring landtenure systems with exclusive user rights forinvestors and subsidies on inputs such asfertilizers. In view of the low returns to labor ofexisting subsistence crops, the inclusion offodder crops will have to be accomplished with a minimum amount of additional labor. Inter-cropping, therefore, rather than sown leys,seems to be the first step on a developmentpath.

It is also to be expected that there will alwaysremain areas where livestock production is theonly form of agricultural production possible. A stratification using these areas for the lessproductive stock and better areas for dairyproduction or fattening seems indicated. Re-search will have to indicate production systemsand institutional arrangements that will facili-tate the development of such systems.

An I l lustrat ion of an IntegratedApproach: ILCA's HighlandProgram

ILCA's study in the highlands of Ethiopia (eleva-tion 1800 m) can be used to illustrate the

201

linkages described above and to demonstrate a research approach to better integration of cropsand livestock.

In the area under study, rainfall is relativelyhigh (800 m) and so is population pressure, withan average farm size of approximately 2.2 haper household. Fallow has almost disappeared.The average required area for subsistencecropping is 1.7 ha, the rest being used for cashcrops. On average, 3.2 animal units1 are kept,mainly for animal traction, although the lowliveweight results in the use of inefficient im-plements. The genetic potential for meat andmilk production is low. Manure is an importantbyproduct, but is carried out of the system andis used for fuel and building material.

The main source of feed is crop residues,complemented with some roadside and com-munal grazing. The initial survey carried out byILCA showed that only 60% of the dry matterrequirements of local livestock is met frpmwithin the farming system; obviously, if im-proved dairy production and more efficientanimal traction is to be achieved, increasedfodder production is necessary. However, evenif the area now used for cash crops were to beconverted to forage crops, only 85% of the drymatter requirement would be met. In view of theimportance of subsistence crops to the farmer,it could not be expected that he would replacethese for forage crops.

Clearly, therefore, an improvement in theyield per unit area of subsistence crops is thekey factor, since this would reduce the arearequired for subsistence and enable improvedanimals and high-yielding forages to be intro-duced. Consequently, a package was devisedfor testing including improved grain varietiesand fertilization, coupled with an improveddairy animal, better forage production, andimproved livestock management. This packagereduces the area required for subsistence crop-ping to 1.2 ha and leaves some space for cashcropping, while meeting the forage require-ments completely. It is now being tested inon-farm research in comparison with farmswithout this package.

The results of the first year (ILCA 1978) showan increase in dairy production of 40% and anincrease in family farm income also to the same

1. Defined as an animal with a liveweight of 250 kg.

extent. Additionally — and this is very impor-tant for the success of an innovation — averagereturn per unit of land used for forage produc-tion is somewhat higher than for other cropproduction. Tentative results from the secondyear tend to confirm these initial indications.

This package approach is also useful in indi-cating needs for further research and datacollection. For example, in terms of animaltraction, the increased liveweight of the offspr-ing will make improved implement use possi-ble, although increased liveweight will alsomean higher feed requirements. Besides quan-tifying this balance, socioeconomic researchwill be necessary to see whether, for example,ox-sharing is socially as well as technicallyfeasible.

In this example, it appears that a biologicalinnovations can be adapted to the situation ofthe small farmer by a manipulation of the totalsystem. At lower elevations and in drier areas,price relationships are less favorable for suchinterventions, although changing economictrends and research in low-input alternativesmight make similar interventions possible.

References

CASSE, DUMAS, and GARIN, M. 1965. Bilan des ex-periences de culture attel6e en Afrique occidentaled'expression franchise, Guinee exceptee. Paris:Bureau pour le Developpement de la ProductionAgricole.

ILCA (International Livestock Center for Africa). 1977.Jijiga rangelands: Development survey of presentland use and preliminary assessment. Addis Ababa,Ethiopia: ILCA.

ILCA. (International Livestock Center for Africa). 1978.The first five years: 1974-1978. Addis Ababa,Ethiopia: ILCA.

MCCOWN, R. L., HAALAND, G., and de HAAN, C.1977. The interaction between cultivation and lives-tock production in semi-arid Africa. Addis Ababa,Ethiopia: ILCA.

VAN RAAY, J. G. T. 1974. Rural planning in a savanna region. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Uni-versitaire Pers.

202


Dr. Govindaswamy, commenting on Dr.Swaminathan's remarks, suggested that forbreeding varieties suitable for a particular loca-t ion, there should be a triangular linkage bet-ween plant breeders, agroclimatologists, andgrowth analysts. He also requested that nutri-tionally rich Eleusine coracana be added to theICRISAT program as it is a staple food in parts ofthe SAT.

Dr. Badruddoza observed that the linkage bet-ween international centers and national prog-rams has been well established. However, na-tional research capabilities can be furtherstrengthened if various national programscould be better linked with one another andshare their experience. At present, the develop-ing countries know little about one another'sresearch capabilities. ISNAR will partly fill thisgap but perhaps there is a need for anotherinstitution like ISNAR.

Dr. Ganga Prasad Rao summarized points dis-cussed at a workshop on sorghum, stating thatmarginal yield increases are not enough, asprogress is offset by environmental fluctua-tions. What is needed is technology that caneffect a quantum jump in production.

Chairman Umali summed up the morning'ssession, making five points: (1) Technologicalinnovation cannot be separated from social andinstitutional factors, for under unjust agrarianstructures, the benefits of technology getsiphoned off by a small group: the landlord, theloan shark, the middleman, the local official, thetransportation people. (2) Special programsshould be developed to overcome the institu-tional bias that works against the small farmer;the kind of comprehensive credit program de-veloped in Nepal is an example. (3) Mechaniza-tion should not displace labor but should createemployment. (4) Public opinion should beinfluenced in favor of agricultural development;everyone, including school children, should bewelcomed to see the work of the researchstations. (5) Governments should be con-vinced that self-sufficiency in food production isa basic element of economic freedom, withoutwhich there can be no political freedom. SouthKorea and the Philippines, where the leaders

recognized and supported this view, were ableto achieve self-sufficiency in a remarkably shorttime.

C. Subramaniam, former Minister of Agricul-ture of India, said that India is fortunate to havea large reservoir of scientific and technicalpersonnel in agriculture, industry, and relatedactivities. He recalled that after the drought of1964, India had to import 10 to 11 million tonnesof grain per year. Despite widespread skepti-cism, the steps taken in the "green revolution"succeeded, and today India has a buffer stock of20 to 21 million tonnes of foodgrains that willenable it to meet the current drought, though itmay be in difficulty if a second or third adverseseason follows.

India's scientists are able to maintain a certainstability of production, he said. Much of this hasbeen made possible by the work of internationalinstitutes, backed by the national researchprogram; it is hoped that the country will reacha stage where no more famines or scarcityoccur. Mr. Subramaniam said he hoped thissymposium would stimulate research and de-velopment that would give a new impetus toagricultural production in the semi-arid tropics.

203

Session 6

Experience in theSemi-Arid Tropics

Chai rman: Louis SaugerCo-Chairman: H. Dogget t

Rapporteurs: M. H. MengeshaS. N. NigamM. von OppenB. C. Barah

Indian Experiences in the Semi-Ar id T rop ics :Prospect and Retrospect

N. S. Randhawa and J. Venkateswar lu*

A b s t r a c t

In India about 75% cultivated land - contributing 42% of the total food production - israinfed. Even after full development of water resources, about 50% of the land wi l lcontinue to be dependent on rains. Yield levels in drylands continued to be around 0.5tlha in spite of earlier research efforts on rainfed agricultural management during thethirties and again in the fifties. The availability of new plant material during themid-sixties showed promise for improving agricultural production in drylands. Thenational project on dryland agriculture with 23 regional centers was launched in 1970.The cooperating centers have generated a new package of technology with an increasedyield potential of 250 to 400% at the agricultural experiment stations. The on-farmtesting of the new technology has given consistent yield increases of 100 to 200% onlarge pilotloperational project areas. New cropping systems especially suited to regionalsituations have been developed, incorporating oilseeds and pulses. Area developmenton a watershed basis along with in situ water harvesting andior runoff collection andrecycling are other important features of this technology.

The central problem of sustained land use in thedry regions has always been to find and main-tain a balance between man's requirements andthe productive capacity of the land. Throughouthistory, man has, by overuse, consistently re-duced the productive capacity of the drylands.In spite of the great concern about this problem,the situation has not changed in India, whereboth human and animal population far exceedsthe supporting capacity of the region. Over-grazing has caused an overall reduction in theplant cover, thereby accelerating erosion; thisin turn has contributed to instability of produc-t ion, with permanent damage to the environ-ment.

The semi-arid tropics represent seasonallydry areas, receiving most of their precipitationduring one season of the year, whilst the rest ofthe year is more or less dry. The rainfall issufficient for raising certain types of cropswhen adequate management techniques areadopted. Since soil profile moisture and itsenvironment are modified by the extent of

* Deputy Director General, Indian Council of Agricul-tural Research, and Project Coordinator, All IndiaCoordinated Research Project for Dryland Agricul-ture.

irrigation, for the delineation of SAT areas theirrigation command area covered in the regionneeds to be taken into account. Assuming thatthe areas receiving an annual rainfall of 375 to1125 mm and with less than 30% irrigated areafall in this category, the SAT region covers 115districts in the country. Nearly 280 millionpeople live in this belt.

In the lower rainfall area of 375 to 750 mm,covering 41 districts, the subsoil is not properlycharged and the shortage of groundwater isacute. The available water is generally brackishand often unfit for use on agricultural lands. Theareas having an annual rainfall of 750 to 1125mm, covering 74 districts in the country, areconsidered areas with the highest potential foragricultural production with moderate effort.The drought-prone areas, covering about 60million hectares, are spread in the 72 districtsrepresenting both arid and semi-arid regions,with a population of 60 mill ion.

In many of the SAT districts of India, thecultivated area is a high percentage (70 to 90%)of the total geographical area. However, about54% of the holdings are smaller than 1 ha, andthese tiny holdings are comprised of three orfour fragmented parcels. Only 3% farmers ownmore than 10 ha.

207

The production in the semi-arid tropics inproportion to the total crop production is: 30 to40% for wheat and rice; 60 to 70% for maize,ragi, and cotton; 80% for sorghum and pearlmillet; 90% for oilseeds/pulses; and 100% forsmall millets. Therefore, the only way to meetthe shortages of protein, edible oil, and cotton isto improve the productivity of these crops in therainfed areas of the country.

But the yields of crops in the region are lowand fluctuate from year to year. Besides havingerratic rainfall and poor quality groundwater,these areas quite often are heavily eroded andhave very shallow soils. The problems of sa-linity and alkalinity are quite widespread in theregion.

To summarize, the SAT region of India ischaracterized by intense rainfall interspersedwith drought; short rainy seasons; low soilorganic matter content; poor natural soil pro-ductivity, and, at t imes, low infiltrationcapacities of soils; severe runoff and watererosion hazard; small fields and segmentedfarms; limited capital resources; and animaland human labor as primary draft powersources. Therefore, the largefarm technologyprevalent in the developed countries is notdirectly applicable to the Indian situation.

Research and Development

E a r l y R e s e a r c h A p p r o a c h e s

Organized research efforts to improve cropproduction on the drylands were initiated asearly as 1933 by the then Imperial Council ofAgricultural Research when it sponsored fivedry-farming research centers located at Rohtak,Sholapur, Bijapur, Raichur, and Hagari, whichoperated for 10 years, up to 1943-44. Therecommendations emerging from these cen-ters emphasized bunding to conserve soil andwater; deep plowing for improved water intakeand storage; use of farmyard manure to supplyplant nutrients; and use of low seed rate, widerow spacing, and interculture of crops for ef-ficient use of the limited moisture in the soil.However, the marginal return of 15 to 20% overthe base yield of 200 to 400 kg/ha did notencourage the farmers. Therefore, the drylandagriculture research receded to the backgroundand the research effort on irrigated agriculture

was given greater attention.The establishment of soil conservation re-

search centers in the mid-fifties providedfurther needed information on factors of pro-duction, such as land-use classes, rainfallpatterns, runoff collection, fertilizer use, etc.During this period, the soil and water conserva-tion development programs became morepopular with the government and later on thesebecame synonymous with contour bunding.The solution to the problem of low productivitycontinued to be elusive, and the available re-search information lacked in proper under-standing of the constraints and limitationswithin which crop production is carried on in thelow rainfall areas. It was recognized that inthese soils water was available to the cropplants for only a short period of 100 to 120 daysand that only crops and varieties maturingwithin that period could yield high in suchareas. The impact of this program also did notbecome as spectacular as expected, becausethe desired plant material was not availableuntil the early sixties.

In 1965, short-duration hybrids/varieties ofsome important dryland crops (sorghum:CSH-1; pearl millet: HB-1, and FRS cottons)became available for extensive field testing.With needed refinement in agronomy, thesehybrids/varieties gave large yield increasesunder rainfed conditions, both on researchfarms and on farmers' fields. In fact, thesuperiority of CSH-1 sorghum and HB-1 pearlmillet over local varieties was more pro-nounced in years of subnormal rainfall. Avail-ability of this much-needed biological com-ponent of short-duration, input-responsive cropplants provided the real breakthrough in pro-duction on drylands.

N a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h P r o j e c to n D r y l a n d A g r i c u l t u r e

The All India Coordinated Research Project forDryland Agriculture was formally launched inJune 1970 in active collaboration with theGovernment of Canada. It is a multidisciplinaryresearch unit with 23 cooperating centers lo-cated in typical agroclimatic zones listed below.

Production environments vary from region toregion and each center identified and analyzedthe constraints l imiting crop yields in the areaand developed a relevant location-specific re-

208

crop yields in different dryland areas of thecountry within the constraints and limitationsspecific to each region. The important resultsobtained so far are discussed in the followingparagraphs.

Achievements

The new phase of dry-farming research duringthe last 8 years has generated considerable dataon better moisture conservation and use, timelypreparatory and seeding operations, es-tablishment of adequate crop stands, satisfac-tory weed control, efficient fertilizer use, newcropping patterns, crop life-saving techniques,and mid-season correction in crop planning inthe drought-prone areas. Adoption of theseimproved soil, water, and crop managementpractices has reduced fluctuations in produc-tion from year to year.

Only illustrative results relevant to broadobjectives of this project are presented.

Potential o f N e w Techno logy

Comparing results from the technology of thethirties with those from the technology of theseventies, it is significant that adoption of thetechnology has greatly increased productionpotential (Table 1). Under normal rainfall (501 to518 mm) at Hagari, Bellary, and Bijapur, theyield of sorghum was much lower during theperiod 1934-1941 (4.91-5.50 q/ha) comparedwith 1971-1977 (21.7 q/ha).

Table 1 . Relat ive y ie ld o f crops w i t h earl ier and new techno logy o f c rop p roduc t i on in dry lands.

Station

HagariBellary*BijapurBijapur

SholapurSholapurRohtakHissar*

Normal rainfall(mm)

515518601606

616680446413

Crop

SorghumSorghumSorghumSorghum

SorghumSorghumGramGram

Period

1935-401971-771934-411971-77

1934-411971-771935-381971-77

Mean yield(q/ha)

5.521.7

5.111.1

2.316.66.3

13.8

* Since Hagari and Rohtak stations ceased to function by 1970, data from the nearest research centers have been used forcomparison.

search program to solve production problems.These programs were reviewed by a coordinat-ing cell consisting of senior scientists from Indiaand Canada. These scientists provide the leadresearch and identify areas of research, keepingthe national goals in view.

The primary objective of the project is todevelop practices and/or systems leading tosubstantial improvement and stabilization of

209

Region

1. Submontane regiona) Humidb) Semi-arid

2. Desert soil regiona) Arid

3. Alluvial soil regiona) Subhumidb) Semi-arid

4. Black soil regiona) Semi-arid

b) Arid

5. Red soil regiona) Subhumidb) Semi-arid

c) Arid

Centers

Dehra DunHoshiarpur (Ludhiana),Rakh Dhiansar (Samba)

Hissar, Jodhpur

VaranasiAgra, Dantiwada

Udaipur, Indore, Akola,Sholapur, Bijapur,

KovilpattiRajkot, Bellary

Ranchi, BhubaneswarHyderabad, Bangalore,JhansiAnantapur

Cropp ing Season

Based on climatic water-balance studies, thegrowing seasons have been identified for all the23 regions where dryland research centers aresituated (Table 2).

It is obvious that with a 10- to 20-weekcropping season, only a sole crop can be at-tempted. For regions with a 20- to 30-weekgrowing season, cropping intensity can be in-creased through intercropping, whereas with a 30- to 50-week period, double cropping is pos-sible.

Eff icient Crops for Di f ferent Regions

Different crops and cropping systems havebeen identified for fuller and more efficientutilization of rainfall and stored moisture. Ifcrops are grown only on stored moisture, thedepth of the soil and the available storedmoisture in the profile are important for deter-mining crop and variety choice. An example isgiven for Bellary region (Table 3).

Even in high rainfall areas, soil depth per sebecomes important in selection of croppingsystems. In the Indore region, with a high

rainfall of 990 mm, shallow soils can supportonly a monocropping system; medium soilscan support intercropping; and deep soils cansupport sequence cropping (Table 4).

Efficient crops and varieties have beenidentified for different regions (Tables 5,6,7). In

210

Table 2 . Leng th o f e f fec t i ve c ropp ing season at d ry land research

Category

A. Less than 20 weeks

B. 20-30 weeks

C. More than 30 weeks

Regional centers and effectivecropping seasons

Bellary, Jodhpur, Anantapur(8)* (11) (13)

Hissar, Rajkot, Bijapur(17) (17) (17)

Jhansi, Kovilpatti, Hyderabad(21) (21) (22)

Udaipur, Sholapur, Agra(22) (23) (24)

Anand, Akola(25) (27)

Bhubaneswar, Varanasi

(31) (32)

Hebbal, Hoshiarpur, Indore(32) (35) (36)

Rewa, Samba, Ranchi Dehra Dun

(36) (44) (45) (51)

* Figures in parentheses Indicate the duration of cropping season in weeks.

centers .

Cropping intensity

Sole Cropping

Intercropping

Sequence cropping

Table 3.

Availablemoisture (

20

15-20

10-15

<10

Crop cho ice in re la t ion to s to redmo is tu re in Bel lary reg ion .

cm) Crops

Sorghum (M 35-1 or SPV-86)Safflower (A-300, 7-13-3)Gram (A-1)

Sorghum (CSH-2, CSH-3)SafflowerGram

SafflowerGramSorghum as fodder

DolichosLima beansPhaseolus vulgaris

Table 4.

Depth

Shallow

Medium

Deep

. Ef f ic ient crops in re la t ion to so i ldep th in Indore reg ion .

Availablemoisture (cm) Crops

10

15

20

Sorghum (CSH-5, CSH-6)Maize (Ganga-5, Chandan-3)

Soybean (T-49)Sorghum + pigeonpea(150-day variety)

Maize-safflower (JSF-1)Soybean-gram (Ujjain-24)Sorghum-gram

some of the regions, however, inefficient cropscontinue to occupy large areas. Extensionefforts are being intensified to substitute thesewith efficient and productive crops. Data ac-cumulated in the various research centers showthat the untapped yield potential is as high as250 to 400%.

Sowing

Early sowing of crops has several advantages,both general and specific. The general ad-vantage of early sowing is the possibility ofobtaining good and vigorous seedlings. By

early seeding, it is also possible to obtain bettermoisture and a longer growing season. Some ofthe results of the effect of sowing dates on theyield of crops are listed in Tables 8 and 9.

Advanc ing S o w i n g T i m e

Another important consideration is advancingthe sowing time of rabi (postrainy season) cropsin southern India, where the temperaturechanges between kharif (rainy) and rabi sea-sons are gradual. In such situations, moisturerather than temperature determines the sowingdates of postrainy season crops. The Deccanrabi region, comprised of Sholapur, Bijapur,and Bellary, is sown with rabi sorghum afterthecessation of the rains, approximately the lastweek of September in Bijapur, the first week ofOctober in Sholapur, and second week ofOctober in Bellary. However, by advancing thesowing period by 3 to 4 weeks in these regions,enormous yield increases have been obtained(Table 9). The yield advantage due to advance insowing time seems to be primarily due tooptimized use of water.

Seeding Me thods

In the recent past, the project attempted severalinnovations in existing seeding devices. In the

Table 5.

Region

Bellary

Jodhpur

Anantapur

Hissar

Rajkot

Bijapur

Ef f ic ient crops and var iet ies fo r d i f fe ren t regions (<

Crop

Sorghum

Pearl millet

GroundnutCastorPigeonpea

Pearl milletMustard

Pearl millet

SorghumSafflowerCotton

Variety

CSH-8R

HB-3

Kadiri 71-1ArunaPM-1

BJ-104S-9T-59

HB-3

M 3 5 - 17-13-3Suyodhar

20 w e e k s '

Seasonsaveraged

4

3

537

244

3

265

cropp ing season).

Average yield (q/ha)

Researchfarms

35

18

1587

341114

18

211216

Farmers'fields

3

3

53

344

5

5

2

211

Table 6. Efficient crops and varieties for different regions (20—30 weeks' cropping season).

Region

Jhansi

Hyderabad

Udaipur

Sholapur

Agra

Anand

Akola

Crop

SorghumPigeonpeaWheatBarleyGram

SorghumCastor

SorghumMaizeWheat

SorghumSaff lower

MustardBarley

Pearl milletCastorTobaccoCotton

Pearl milletSorghum

Variety

CSH-5Hy-1Kalyan SonaRatnaT-2

CSH-6Aruna

CSH-5Ganga-5Narbada-4

SPV-867-13-3

RT-16Ratna

NHB-5/BJ-104GCH-3G-4Hy-4

HB-3CSV-4

Seasonsaveraged

22333

43

663

54

45

3745

33

Average

Researchfarms

2317202517

3615

291815

2117

2021

1413118

1618

yield (q/ha)

Farmers'fields

98

11124

46

695

35

714

10543

45

Hyderabad region where the kera method(seeding behind plow) is prevalent, the pora method (seeding through a tube) has beenintroduced by attaching a bamboo tube to theplow. The use of seed drills for sowing hasbecome popular in the Bangalore region. InHissar, the ridger-seeder developed throughSIDA-ICAR collaboration has been well ac-cepted by the farmers. Line-sowing has beenaccepted as an innovation in the tribal areaaround Ranchi.

Placement of fertilizers (up to 10 kg N/ha)along with the seed has been found to be safeand useful for promoting seedling vigor. Use ofcomplex fertilizer to apply all the phosphorusand a portion (not exceeding 10 kg) of nitrogenhas been suggested for wider adoption.

Crop Geomet ry

Crop geometry includes plant population androw widths.

Plant dens i ty . High-yielding cultivars of crops

perform better only at ideal plant populations.In other words, in a community the high-yielding varieties and hybrids perform farsuperior to the existing local varieties. Thatideal population is important to obtain higheryields has been well established for several ofthe experiments in the project.

Row w i d t h . Several studies of the projectindicated that there could be enough flexibilityin the interrow distance of crops. For example,sorghum can be planted as close as 30 cm andalso as wide as 75 cm without reduction in yield,provided the ideal plant population of 0.18million/ha is maintained. Increased row widthsallow ease of interculture, particularly for weedcontrol, facilitate sowing of large areas in a short t ime, and increase the scope for inter-cropping.

Cropp ing Intensi ty

The cropping intensity in semi-arid areas isgenerally 100, implying that only a single crop is

212

Table 7. Ef f ic ient crops and var iet ies fo r d i f f e ren t regions

Region

Bhubaneswar

Varanasi

Hoshiarpur

Indore

Rewa

Samba

Ranchi

Dehra Dun

Crop

Upland rice

RiceMaizeBiackgramWheatBarleyGram

MaizeWheat

MaizeSoybeanSafflower

RiceWheat

MaizeWheat

Upland rice

Upland riceWheat

Variety

DR-92

CauveryGanga-2T-9C-306R-129C-130

JML-603/607PV-18/K-227

Ganga-5BraggJSR-1

CauveryC-306

Ganga Safed-2Kalyan Sona

Bala

RP 79-5Kalyan Sona

(> 30 weeks '

Seasonsaveraged

5

767535

47

567

73

43

6

53

cropp ing season).

Average yield (q/ha)

Researchfarms

21

282113243635

4028

432724

2921

1933

30

4427

Farmers'fields

11

7106

10138

208

1210

67

1015

8

1210

taken during a year; however, research hasprovided ample evidence that the croppingintensity can be increased both by intercrop-ping and sequence cropping. In areas whererainfall is inadequate, ranging from 375 to 625mm, and soil moisture storage capacity is lessthan 100 mm, it is preferable to take a singlecrop during the rainy season; however, whenthe rainfall is between 650 to 750 mm, with a period of moisture surplus, intercropping hasproved useful in increasing and stabilizing cropproduction. In regions of 750to 900 mm rainfall,with soil moisture storage capacity of 150 mmand above, sequence cropping is possible.Beyond 900 mm and with soil moisture storagecapacity of 200 mm and above, sequence crop-ping is assured.

In te rc ropp ing . In the Indian context, mixedcropping, intercropping, and monocroppingare age-old practices. It is claimed that thesystem distributes risk due to vagaries ofweather and incidence of pests and diseases; it

also leads to better utilization of labor andmaterial resources. Some suitable intercropsfor different regions are listed in Table 10.

Intercropping of postrainy season crops,raised on limited conserved soil moisture, hasnot been found more remunerative than thesole crop. Even in the rainy season, only testedintercrops should be chosen.

213

Table

Date

1/714/729/7

8/922/97/10

8 . E f fec t o f s o w i n g da tepearl

1972

Yield(q/ha)

12.119.615.08.47.43.1

on t he y ie ld o fm i l l e t (Hyderabad).

1973

Date

9/623/67/7

21/74/8

19/8

Yield(q/ha)

32.041.934.123.917.418.0

1974

Date

18/63/7

18/72/8

17/81/9

Yield(q/ha)

20.333.819.95.05.13.2

Table 9. Effect of advancing sowing date on sorghum yields (Bellary).

System

Advanced sowingNormal sowing

1971

15.45.0

1972

33.712.4

1973

30.116.8

Grain yields (q/ha)

1974

10.72.4

1975

16.57.4

1976

12.52.6

1977

12.37.4

Sequence c ropp ing . Some examples ofsequence cropping are listed in Table 11. Thedata clearly indicate the immense potential forcrop production in these regions and the scopefor additional production of the most neededpulses and oilseeds.

Integrated Nut r ien t Supp ly

Experiments conducted by the project haveconclusively proved that it pays to fertilizedryland crops. In the drylands, response tonitrogen is universal (Table 12), but variesconsiderably f rom season to season and place

Table 10.

Region

Bijapur

Ranchi

Akola

Sholapur

Hyderabad

Rewa

Indore

Dehra Dun

Some su i tab le in tercrops fo r d i f fe -ren t regions.

System

Pearl milletPearl millet/pigeonpea

MaizeMaize/pigeonpea

SorghumSorghum/greengram

Pearl milletPearl millet/pigeonpea

SorghumSorghum/pigeonpea

SorghumSorghum/pigeonpea

SorghumSorghum/groundnut

MaizeMaize/soybean

Base Inter-crop crop

Yield (q/ha)

14.111.6

28.628.2

33.530.8

18.018.3

34.433.5

25.422.3

32.728.3

38.838.7

8.0

6.2

7.3

17.0

5.5

4.7

7.6

1.8

to place. The response to phosphorus is mostlylimited to the semi-arid and subhumid red soilregions and the granitic black soil regions.Response to potassium is limited to light soilsand high-level production.

Inorderto increase and stabilize the responseto fertilizers, crop management needs to be op-timized. Crops vary in their response to fertiliz-ers. Cereals respond to both N and P, whilequick-growing pulses respond to phosphorousand deep-rooted crops respond more to nitro-gen. Further, fertilizer-use efficiency per se canbe enhanced by the supply of other limitingnutrients as well. Sulfur enhanced yields ofgroundnut in the Bangalore region. Zinc de-ficiency was perceptible in Anantapur, Banga-lore, Bellary, Bhubaneswar, Hyderabad, Indore,Rajkot, and Ranchi regions. Placement in-creased fertilizer efficiency. In drought-proneareas (e.g., Rajkot) set-line cultivation with lowerlevels of fertilizer was found useful. Split appli-cation of N for rainy season crops is a must tosave fertilizer in case of aberrant rainfall.

Optimizing soil management increases waterintake and storage, which consequently in-creases fertilizer efficiency. Increased soildepth, vertical mulch, and advance sowing aresome methods of increasing the stored mois-ture in the profile.

Since much of the available fertilizer in thecountry goes to the irrigated areas, effortsshould be made to supply much-needed plantnutrients through other means such as plantinglegumes and using organic residues. Thus,there is need for an integrated nutrient-supplysystem to reduce the use of chemical fertilizerand improve its use efficiency. This is especiallyrelevant in the drylands, because the drylandfarmer's capacity to invest is low and the riskinvolved is high.

The recent FAO/UNDP Consultancy on Tropi-cal Agriculture points out that the contribution

214

Table 1 1 .

Region

Samba

Dehra Dun

Varanasi

Hoshiarpur

Bangalore

Akola

Anand

Bijapur

Indore

Su i tab le c rop sequences in d i f f e ren t reg ions.

Crop sequence

Bajra-wheatFallow-wheat

Maize-wheatRice-wheatFaIlow-wheatMaize-gram

Rice-gramFallow-gram

Maize-wheatFa Mow-wheatMaize-gramFallow-gram

Cowpea-ragiRagi (alone)

Sorghum-safflower

Cowpea-tobacco

Greengram-safflower

Maize-safflowerSorghum-gramMaize-gram

Seasonsaveraged

33

4444

22

7373

54

3

2

2

333

Firstcrop

Secondcrop

Yield (q/ha)

21.5

38.543.1

30.3

30.2

27.3

27.3

8.626.9

45.4

8.2

7.5

29.532.135.5

24.033.3

31.829.926.816.2

25.435.7

27.223.215.317.0

27.6

14.1

9.7

10.6

10.813.914.3

of a legume in the cropping system would beabout 9 to 15 kg/ha of nitrogen. Legumes are a component of several sequence and intercrop-ping systems developed by the project. In fact,in the intercropping system, the association of a legume leads to an economy in nitrogen. In a legume-safflower sequence, data show thatsafflower benefits.

Table 12. Response offe r t i l

Crop

RiceMaizeSorghum (kharif) Pearl milletWheatBarleySorghum (rabi)

izer.

No. oftrials

17593

12148

cereals

Level of N (kg/ha)

40404040504030

to n i t rogen

Response(per unit N)

20.315.526.719.220.517.514.4

In a study on incorporation of organic re-sidues in red soils of Hyderabad, it was foundthat after 4 years the physical properties im-proved, leading to better yields.

Weed Contro l

Weed control is important in optimizing the useof various inputs by the crops. It is now wellestablished by the project that weed control isparticularly important within the first 3 to 4 weeks of the seeding.

Soil Managemen t

The studies on soil management, though site-and location- specific, have a common goal: theimprovement of crop production through bettersoil and water management. The soil problemsare generally those that could potentially beameliorated by tillage; water managementproblems include rainfall runoff collection, itsstorage and reuse, and management of in situ

215

stored water. The experiments on soil man-agement include deep tillage, year-roundtillage, vertical mulching, surface mulching,and some aspects of zero-till farming practices.

Deep tillage increased yields of many crops indifferent regions (Table 13). At Bellary andSholapur,the benefits of vertical mulching wereevident in the improved water intake into heavyblack soil, this being most apparent in droughtyears (Table 14). Year-round tillage has beenattempted at the Hyderabad, Rewa, Varanasi,and Bangalore centers with varying success.

Preliminary studies proved zero-till farmingbeneficial at Indore for safflower in a sequence,but not with wheat; however, at Anantapur,Bangalore, and Hissar the results were notencouraging.

Mulching has very little place in crop produc-tion during the rainy season, but where soilmulch is created as part of weed control prac-tice, it may serve a purpose. However, postrainyseason experimental data from many centersrevealed that under moisture stress conditions,or where moisture can be carried over for a short t ime or can be conserved for a subsequentcrop, mulching has been beneficial (Table 15).

In alluvial soils, winter crops have benefited;the moisture seems to be a common causativeagent. Mulches not only conserve moistureunder proper circumstances but also influencesoil temperature.

Farming Sys tems

The ICAR/ICRISAT collaborative Farming Sys-tems study on soil and water management wasinitiated at seven centers in 1977 and has beentaken up at 15 centers during 1979. This study isdesigned to determine how soil and water canbest be managed on inter-terraced lands. Ag-ronomic and physical land-treatment practicesare being developed to improve soil and waterconservation in situ by controlling runoff anderosion and facilitating infiltration of water intothe soil uniformly over the watershed area. Inthe first experiment, the emphasis is on re-sources development, conservation, and utili-zation in rainfed areas. The second experimenton hydrological studies is aimed at improvingland and water utilization in small agriculturalwatersheds.

The preliminary studies reveal that the

Table 13.

Region

Jodhpur

Dehra Dun

Hoshiarpur

Agra

Bangalore

Sholapur

Anantapur**

Ef fec t o f t i l l age pract ices on

* Postrainy season** Tillage first year

Crop

Pearl millet

Maize*Wheat

WheatMaize

Barley

MaizePigeonpeaGroundnutRagi

Sorghum

CastorPigeonpeaPearl milletGroundnut

tillageand residual effect for 3 years

y ie ld o f crops (q /ha) .

Year

1

31

11

2

3111

1

4434

Shallow(Country plow)

8.5

39.114.1

6.315.6

14.9

33.93.8

11.333.7

28.9

8.78.48.27.9

Deep tillage(Moldboard plow)

10.8

47.316.1

12.921.8

17.3

45.39.6

13.838.1

29.7

11.411.57.79.9

216

Table 14.

Interval

8 m 4 m Control

E f fec t o f ver t ica l mu l ch on so rghumin Bel lary.

1973

2.84.00.2

Grain

1974

16.116.911.2

yield (q/ha)

1975

17.717.811.0

1976

11.212.510.8

1977

19.215.414.5

benefit of bedding over flat on grade is onlymarginal (7%). The reasons for this marginalincrease could be that the season was favorableduring 1978, except in Anantapur. Landconfiguration may be more useful in criticalyears.

In the future, the introduction of equipment tomonitor soil erosion and runoff will make itpossible to measure the effectiveness of farm-ing systems tested.

Runof f Managemen t and StorageStructures

In a monsoon climate, where rainfall is concen-trated in a 3- or 4-month period, the storage ofexcess water in the catchment is as important asthe vegetative cover alone. This storage notonly reduces soil erosion and controls flashfloods but also changes the microclimate of thewatershed area. In undulating terrain, the con-struction of small ponds and tanks in smallwatersheds of 5 to 10 ha augments the under-ground storage of monsoon f low by encourag-ing infiltration and recharging aquifers. Therecycling of stored water not only ensures thesuccess of the rainy season crop when themonsoon recedes earlier than expected, but

Table 15.

Region

HoshiarpurDehra DunAnandKovilpattiVara nasiSholapur

Ef fect o f mu lches on(q/ha) .

Crop

WheatWheatTobaccoSorghumBarleySorghum

Years

232111

y ie ld o f

Control

28.623.313.35.3

17.59.8

crops

Mulch

35.129.318.49.4

19.116.4

also helps to harvests good postrainy season.crop by providing presowing irrigation ar\d,

• later', life-saving irrigation during the crop-grcjWth period. The experiments on runoff re-cycling at various centers of the dryland p'roje.cthave given yield increases ranging up to 300%over the checks, which received no pres'owing.or subsequent irrigation (Table 16).

Deve lopmen ta l Work

Operat ional Research Project

Sir Joseph Hutchinson, reviewing the work ondry farming in India, stated that it lacked theintermediate stage of pilot operational re-search, which is an essential element in suc-cessful transfer of results to village farmingpractices. Consequently, the Indo-UK projectwas started by ICAR in 1973 to test the dry-farming technology evolved at agricultural ex-periment stations and to study the operationalproblems involved in the transfer of researchresults to the farmers' fields. Subsequently,during Phase II of the Indo-Canadian technicalcollaboration, four more operational researchprojects at Hoshiarpur (Punjab), Ranchi (Bihar),Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh), and Hebbal(Karnataka).

At Indore, in an operational project covering2000 ha in three villages, nutrient use andintensity of cropping have increased from 2 kgto 49 kg/ha and from 103 to 130%, respectively.The introduction of improved varieties of sor-ghum, maize, soybean, wheat, and gram hascontributed substantially to the yield improve-ment of these crops, the increases being severalfold in sorghum and maize.

With an improvement in the managerial skillsof the farmers and stability in agricultural pro-duction, farmers have gained the confidence toinvest more on critical inputs, which have, inturn, resulted in higher net returns (Table 17).There has been a manifold increase in theconstruction of open wells, installation ofpumpsets for irrigation, and purchase of powerthreshers.

Similarly, in the Hoshiarpur ORP started in1976-77, covering two villages, an investmentof about Rs. 400/ha for minor land leveling,bunding, and suitable structures for disposal ofexcess water on an area of 16 ha owned by 20

217

Table 16.

Region

Dehra DunVaranasiLudhianaAgra

BijapurBellarySholapurRewa

Anand

Ef fect o f c r i t i ca l i r r i ga t ion on

Crop

WheatBarleyWheatWheat

SorghumSorghumSorghumUpland riceWheatBidi tobacco

Seasonsaveraged

4242

545441

the y ie ld o f c rops.

Withoutirrigation

21.426.019.221.9

16.54.39.8

16.25.7

12.1

Yield (q/ha)

With oneirrigation

35.533.641.127.4

23.613.718.227.818.818.1

cultivators has resulted in 100 to 200% yieldincreases. The yields of maize, wheat, andfodder dry matter were increased from 13.6to 22.3, 16.1 to 27.3, and 44 to 129 q/ha,re-spectively.

The cultivators in the villages covered underthe operational research project at Bangaloreand Hyderabad have been persuaded to adoptimproved land and water-use practices on anagricultural watershed basis. The field plotsdemonstration on improved soil-, water-, andcrop- management practices has shown con-sistent increases in yields.

Encouraged by our success, we propose tostart four additional ORPs at Hissar (Haryana),Rewa (Madhya Pradesh), Anantapur (AndhraPradesh), and Sholapur (Maharashtra) duringthe Sixth Five-Year Plan. The emphasis in theseprojects will continue to be on farmers' ac-ceptance of new research-proven concepts andpractices.

Pi lo t Pro jec ts

Another unique feature of the project is theattachment to each research center — exceptDehra Dun, Hoshiarpur, and Dantiwada — ofabout 800 to 2000 hectares of land situated, ona catchment basis, over one to three villages.The scientists have to provide backup for de-veloping an action program for crop productionin drylands. To induce farmers to adopt the newsystems of farming, subsidy was provided forinputs during the Fourth Five-Year Plan; in the

Fifth Plan, this was reduced to a nominalamount (Rs. 20/ ha). Unfortunately, work oneach watershed was planned only for 1 year,which was considered by the scientists asinadequate to spread the message of newdryland crop production technology and todevelop the managerial skill of the farmer to a level that could be sustained after the termina-tion of the project. Thus the adoption anddiffusion of the technology has not been satis-factory in these projects.

However, an analysis of the impact of theprograms revealed that for cash crops such ascastor, groundnut, tobacco, etc., fertilizer usewas adopted. On an average, 0.5 t/ha additionalproduction could be achieved during the im-plementation of the program. This worked outto 100 to 200% additional production in thevarious project areas.

Future Research Needs

Runoff Management

Studies on runoff management should includerunoff collection, storage, and recycling. At-tempts should be made to develop models forfuture projections; such modeling would behelpful in determining the size and location ofthe storage tank. Further, while consideringrecycling, the use of various types of pumps tolift water from the ponds to fields and efficientmethods of minimal water use need to be

218

identified. Naturally, this coincides with thecritical stages of crop growth as well. Thus,while considering runoff management, thewater so stored should be considered only forcritical irrigation.

Table 17

Invest-ment

Grossincome

Netincome

Increase in i nves tmen t and incomt (Rs./ha) Operat ional Research Projec t , Indore.

1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78

493 388

656 560

163 172

576 608 690

1005 1127 1292

429 519 602

Seepage Contro l Me thods

The success of water harvesting, storage, andrecycling is determined by an effective seepagecontrol technology. Several seepage controlmethods — for instance, the use of lining ma-terials such as bentonite, polymer fi lms, con-crete, asphalt, and butyl rubber — have beenused with varying degrees of success. Othermaterials — such as latex emulsions and resin-ous polymers — though not efficient at thisstage, may, in the future, result in superiorproducts that may be more suitable as well aseconomical. Chemical and gleization methodscan be considered as low-cost methods thathave scope for further research and field-scale application. In India, research efforts willhave to be intensified to locate a cheap and de-pendable lining material for minimizing theseepage losses.

Opt imiz ing Use of Natural Resources

Efforts must be made to increase in situ waterharvesting by some kind of land configurationand/or shaping. Such efforts are in progress inthe dryland project but they need to be fortified.While bunding is to be taken as an erosioncontrol practice development of suitable land-shaping practices is equally important in theinterbunded area for uniform distribution ofmoisture.

Land-use Capabi l i t ies

While considering land-use capabilities, agro-forestry and silvi-pastural systems are im-portant. Available information on land use isinadequate and more needs to be collected. Asthe marginal and submarginal lands come intocultivation, the cost of cultivation also willincrease. In such instances, perhaps, pasturalsystems would be more meaningful.

Pulses and Oilseeds

Another area of research that needs attentionby the dryland scientists is the place of pulsesand oilseeds in cropping systems. The researchinformation from the project has establishedthe scope of pulses and oilseeds in intercrop-ping and sequence cropping systems. Morecomprehensive planning and experimentationis required to obtain higher yields of these twocommodities in drylands.

Organic Recycl ing

The principle of "chain recuperation" of ener-gies is called for at the present juncture of theenergy crisis. Conserving and improving thequality of the land through the use of organicwastes and better cropping systems and aimingat maximum economy in the use of fertilizersshould be the basic principles for improving therural environments. Use of symbiotic micro-organisms for fixing nitrogen from the airwould be an added advantage in croppingsystems.

Soc ioeconomic Analys is

Another important area of research is economicanalysis. The project is already working on theeconomics of various improved systems offarming as a whole and in components. Further,it is also attempting to study the adoption anddiffusion of the various improved practicesdeveloped. Data must be based increasingly onreal farm situations so that the new technologywill be widely and freely accepted.

Tra in ing

Training the farmer and the extension worker isan important component in the project. Ad-

219

justments and judgment increasingly play animportant role in crop production in drylands.Therefore, "guides for improved judgment,"indicating the critical value and the range of thecrucial factors concerned, need to be preparedurgently.

Further, the strength and weaknesses ofpractices developed by the project need to betested by directly involving scientists in realfarm situations, through operational research,and by other means.


Grateful acknowledgments are due to the scientistsin the All India Coordinated Research Project forDryland Agriculture for making available researchdata and experience for preparing the paper.

220

The Drought -prone Areas of Maharashtra

A. B. Joshi , N. D. Pat i l , and N. K. Umrani*

A b s t r a c t

Maharashtra is the third largest state in India; of its cultivated acreage, one-third isproverbially drought-prone. The topography is undulating; the soils prone to erosion;the rainfall, ranging from 500 to 750 mm, is highly variable. About 30% of the soils areshallow to medium-deep. The Agricultural Research Station at Shoiapur, established in1933, has done considerable research on "dry-farming," the results of which are readyfortransfer. However, thesalvation for rainfed agriculture cannot come from technologyalone; a concerted multidisciplinary, multiple-agency effort is necessary. This effortmust be on the basis of integrated development of entire watersheds rather than on anindividual farmer basis.

Geographically, Maharashtra isthethird largeststate in India; of the cultivated area in thestate, one-third, covering 87 talukas or tehsils,is proverbially drought-prone and famine-haunted. This region receives scanty rainfall(500 to 750 mm annually) that is highly unpre-dictable and extremely variable both in timingand quantum. Most of the region has un-dulating topography, rendering the soil — predominant ly Vertisols — moderately tohighly erodible. The hills are severely denudedof vegetational cover, which greatly acceleratessoil erosion. About 25 to 30% of the cultivatedacreage comprises skeletal to shallow andmedium-deep soils; these are generally leftfallow, without any crop cover, during the rainykharif season, thereby adding to the soilerosion. Rabi (postrainy season) farming is thepredominant cropping system.

The farming community is largely illiterate,ekes out a miserable living from severely risk-prone farming and is predominantly underthe so-called "poverty line." Consequently, thefarmers are highly tradition-bound, not easilyamenable to suggestions for changes in theirfarming methods, and are resigned to fate.

* Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Phule Agricultural Uni-versity; Chief Scientist, All India Coordinated Dry-land Research Project; and Agronomist, MahatmaPhule Agricultural University.

Early Research on Dry-farming

Maharashtra (which was then known as theBombay Presidency and comprised Sind,Gujarat, the present western Maharashtra,Khandesh, and northern Karnataka) was theearliest among the states in India to establish a research center for dryland farming. The firstone was set up in 1923 at Manjri, near Pune.Later, in 1933, it was transferred to Shoiapur,which lies in the heart of the drought-strickenregion. Shoiapur was among the earliest chainof dry-farming research stations1 established inthe country with financial assistance from theIndian (then Imperial) Council of AgriculturalResearch (ICAR). Shoiapur is thus a pioneer andleading dry-farming research center of India.

Through the research endeavor spread overtwo decades or more, the well-known BombayDry Farming Method was developed atShoiapur, naturally in the context of the scien-tific background obtaining atthatt ime. Broadly,the technology had two major facets: one, soiland water conservation by mechanicalmethods — such as contour-bunding, land-scooping, deep plowing once in 3 years, andmanuring with organic manures — the other,improved crop production practices, such as

1. The others were Rohtak, located in what is now thestate of Haryana, and Bellary and Hagari, both nowin Karnataka.

221

wider row spacing (45 cm) for rabi sorghum,limited plant density per unit area of land, andinterculturing two or three times during thecrop season. Based on these researches, thestate government undertook an extensive soiland water conservation program, which in-cluded contour-bunding, in about 12 districts;this program has served all over India as a useful model.

Al l India Coordinated ResearchProject for Dryland Agr icu l tu re

During the late 1960s and the 1970s the scopeof dry-farming research at Sholapur (and alsoat the ancillary stations at Mohol, Jeur, andChas) was considerably broadened to includesoil and climatological studies, selection of a wider range of crops and new crop varieties,development of suitable agronomic practices,and development of tools specially suited torainfed farming. Valuable and utilizable resultshave emerged from these researches. Since1970, the Sholapur station of the MahatmaPhule Agricultural University functions as animportant link in, and an integral part of, the AllIndia Coordinated Research Project for DrylandAgriculture sponsored by the ICAR; since theinception of ICRISAT at Hyderabad in 1972, italso enjoys close and fruitful cooperation withthat institution of international repute. A techni-cal bulletin, describing the results obtainedfrom recent research on dry farming atSholapur, has been prepared and will be pub-lished shortly.

Problems Facing RainfedFarming

During the mid-1960s, India witnessed thehistoric "green revolution." The "miracle"varieties of wheat, and later of rice, were har-bingers of that revolution. The areas in which ittook place enjoyed the advantages of irrigationand assured rainfall, and the process wasspearheaded mostly by resourceful, relativelywell-to-do, "progressive" farmers. Transfer ofthe new technology from the experimentstations to the farmers' fields was remarkablyrapid. The result was that India, which had ekedout a precarious existence on the food front forabout 18 years — since Independence in1947—and which had annually imported

foodgrains ranging from 2 to 14 mill ion tonnesduring that period, built up within a matter of 6 years (by 1971) a gratifying national food grainreserve of around 11 mill ion tonnes.

By contrast, dry-farming research technologyis, by its very nature, painfully slow in its travelfrom the lab to the land, especially when rainfedagriculture has to be carried out, as inMaharashtra, under undulating topographyand under drastically varying conditions ofrainfall. The many problems (and somesuggested solutions) include:

1. In contrast to irrigated agriculture, theresearch technology of rainfed agricul-ture does not produce immediate anddramatic results on the farmers' fields.

2. Rainfall and other weather conditions,and therefore crop harvests, vary con-siderably f rom year to year. Establish-ment of confidence in the new technol-ogy and its acceptance by dryland far-mers therefore takes time. Research sci-entists and extension agents must there-fore be constantly in touch with theirfarmer clients over a number of years.

3. The research station-extension agency-farmer link must be established on anenduring basis and a mechanism must bedeveloped for sustained and efficient in-formation exchange. Experiences mustbe exchanged frequently and on a personal basis. From this standpoint, thepresent extension system needs to bestrengthened in terms of numbers ofscientistsand extension workers and alsoof the diversity of technical specializationneeded. Linkages between the researchsystem and the technology delivery sys-tem must be made far closer and strongerthan they are at present; that is, agricul-tural universities and extension agenciesmust work together in close harmony.

4. The extension agent, as well as thefarmer, needs to be trained and retrainedsystematically and frequently. The re-search scientist also learns a great dealduring this training process.

5. The training of both the extension agentand the farmer must take place on thefarmers' fields. Experiment stations canonly be used as centers of exposure to thenew technology, research being orientedand reoriented to meet actual farming

222

situations, which are locale-specific, andin recognition of the success or failure ofthe new technology out on farmers'fields. It must be remembered that re-search centers generate technology in anethos quite different from that obtainingon farmers' fields, because human,socioeconomic, financial, administrative,and legal considerations weigh heavilyon the farmer in his day-to-day life andoccupation.

6. Soil and water conservation and man-agement are extremely critical factors indry farming. For reaping even reasonableharvests, these two resources must bemanaged very efficiently. Field demon-strations are necessary as a first step tocatch the farmers' imagination and gaintheir confidence. But it must be pointedout here that the process of researchtechnology transfer takes us into avenuesother than, and in fact far beyond, thefarmer's field.

7. Apart from timely, on-the-spot technicaladvice, the dryland farmer must be given,more or less at his doorstep, the cruciallyneeded physical and financial wherewit-hal. Some or all of these may not beavailable to him at all, or may be availableonly partially. Tools, implements, water-storage structures (percolation tanks,dug wells, farm ponds), and animal ormechanical power are his primary needsfor soil and water conservation and man-agement; these must be followed byother inputs such as improved seeds,fertilizers, and pesticides. If he does not,as many poor farmers do not, own theseessential physical prerequisites, heshould be able to rent them in his villageat the right t ime. Alternatively, someform of cooperative and collective sys-tem would have to be designed, or-ganized, and put into practice in thevillage. This means the rural society andthe government must both make a con-certed and cooperative effort to evolve a benevolent, yet economically viable, so-cial organizational system.

8. Financial assistance is, patently, evenmore crucial. Most of the farmers in theregion are illiterate and ill-fed and theylive below the "poverty line." Farming is

terribly risk-prone and harvests highlyvariable from year to year. Hence, majorpolicy decisions must be taken by gov-ernments and financial institutions withregard to the organization and operationof credit supply. The terms of credit mayeven need complete overhaul — i.e., lowinterest rates, longer duration of loanrepayment on the basis of actual annualharvests, and slackening of conditions forcredit-worthiness. This means the settingup of a rural financial security systemgeared to farmers' needs, yet operatingwithin the framework of economicviability.

9. Where dryland farming is practiced as inMaharashtra — not on flat or more orless even land, but on undulatingtopography — it is beyond the ken of theindividual farmer to do all that is neededfor soil and water conservation even onhis own plot of land. Public agenciesmust step in here. Soil and water conser-vation measures must be taken on thebasis of an entire watershed. The soilsurvey and land-use planning and advis-ory agency must take detailed topog-raphic and soil surveys and analyses andexecute the soil conservation works. Thegroundwater survey and developmentagency must make geological, geohyd-rological, and geophysical surveys of theentire watershed. Based on these, ap-propriate sites for percolation tanks anddug wells must be located in relation tothe natural aquifers, before such tanksand wells are actually dug. Such surveysshould also be used for predictably quan-tifying the availability of water at thevarious levels on the watershed and thescope for recharging existing and newdug wells.

Very importantly, then, the rural com-munity, the people's institutions, and thelocal administrative machinery must pulltogether and identify and execute mea-sures for people's participation in thisprogram, taking into consideration thehuman, social, technical, legal, and ad-ministrative aspects of the problem. Zilla parishads and taluka panchayats can,and should, give the lead. Water is a veryprecious resource, but it must also be

223

recognized that if its conservation andutilization are not done wisely — on a physico-geographical and economicrationale and on the basis of social dis-tributive justice — the same water canbecome a source of the worst of ruralfeuds. Finally, as major, medium, andminor irrigation projects are executed bygovernments from public funds, soshould soil and water conservation andmanagement projects be taken up,watershed by watershed, and executedfrom public funds.

The food the farmer produces on hisland in 1 year, he generally uses for 2 years. In this sense, increasing crop pro-ductivity on such lands not only raisesfarmers' incomes but, more importantly,acts as an insurance against recurringfamines. When famine strikes, the gov-ernment spends millions of rupees irv a single year. Such massive financial ex-penditure could be sig nificantly reduced,perhaps even eliminated, if a sustainedendeavor is made, over the years, in thedrought-prone areas on the lines indi-cated above.

10. The continual pressure of human popu-lation makes the land:man ratio precari-ous in India, as in many other countries ofsouthern and southeastern Asia. The re-sult is that rainfed farming is practicedeven on skeletal and shallow soils and onslopes of land on which farming shouldindeed be forbidden. Land use on water-sheds receiving scanty rainfall musttherefore be diversified to include:

• Pasture-sheep farming• Agro-forestry for fuel, fodder, and

other economic uses (for instance, thegrowing of neem; karanj; acacia orbabul; Casuarina; Ipil ipilor koo babul; mesquite or vilayati babul; ficusessuch as banyan, pipal, pimparni; thefodder-yielding anjan tree, Hardwickia binata, etc.)

• Dryland horticulture (jujubes or ber, custard apple, tamarind, jambool orjamun, jackfruit).

• Cultivation of sisal, agave, and othereconomica l ly useful xerophyt icspecies.Such diversified use would perhaps be

more worthwhile and economic on theselands than even foodgrain farming.

Among oil-yielding cash crops, castorand sunflower would be the most promis-ing. At Sholapur, intercropping of pas-ture grasses with pearl millet (bajra) hasalso been tried with a reasonable degreeof success. Thus, every bit of land andevery drop of rainwater received on thewatersheds must be utilized in the bestand most economical manner. Suchjudicious land utilization would alsostave off soil erosion, apart from yieldinga wide array of economic plant wealth.The vast expanses of barren lands anddenuded hills painfully visible all overdrought-prone Maharashtra today couldreally be transformed, in the not-too-distant future, into a pleasing green man-tle valuableto humans and animals alike.The crucial concept in rainfed farming,we must appreciate, is not just of increas-ing food production, but really one ofincreasing the incomes of the farmers inmore than one way.

11. While food is the most basic need of man,an equally important problem at the rurallevel is that of fuel with which to cook thefood. For his daily fuel, man has foolishlyand mercilessly cut down trees andbushes and every kind of vegetation overthe last several decades, without caringabout the soil erosion which such denu-dation engenders. Systematic afforesta-tion of watersheds is therefore essential,not only for soil and moisture conser-vation and control of erosion, but becausetrees are also important sources of fueland timber. However, trees take t ime togrow whereas rural energy needs fordomestic cooking and lighting are every-day needs. In this context, a concertedbiogas campaign for full utilization ofanimal dung and human night soil at therural level becomes most crucial. It isimportant to remember that this is ever-renewable and the cheapest source ofenergy; as long as man and beast exist,we should never be short of this source ofenergy. Besides supplying combustiblegas, biogas plants, equally importantly,yield organic manure, which has a valu-able role to play in farming in general and

224

in rainfed farming in particular. Thebiogas movement is therefore essential ifdeforestation leading to desertification isto be prevented.

12. If rainfed farming and the lifestyle of thedryland farmer are to be transformed,diversified and judicious use of land andrainwater on a watershed basis is ines-capably necessary and diverse agencies,in addition to those directly and im-mediately concerned with researchtechnology generation and its transfer,must be brought in to play their re-spective roles, fully and in unison. Theseinclude agricultural universities asgenerators of research information, thestate departments of agriculture, animalhusbandry, and forestry as vehicles oftechnical development; .government andbanks as policy-makers, planners, andsuppliers of finance; state administrativemachinery as the controlling and regulat-ing authority; benevolent public and pri-vate agencies and individuals; people'sinstitutions such as the zilla parishads andthe taluka and the gram panchayats, and,above all, the farmers themselves. All ofthese must come together to think, plan,and act to accomplish this complex task.

Compared with the magnitude and thewide range of the task, the presenttechnology-delivery system is quite slen-der, weak, and utterly uncoordinated. Thetrouble is that numerous departments areoperating, more or less in isolation fromone another, on such programs asDrought-Prone Areas Program (DPAP),Intensive Cattle Development Program(ICDP), Vanamahotsav (tree-plantiagprogram), small farmers' developmentprograms, landless laborers programsand what not — all in bits and pieces.

The Government of Maharashtra haspioneered unique ideas and boldprograms of rural and agricultural de-velopment, such as the EmploymentGuarantee Scheme (EGS) and CommandArea Development Authority (CADA) forevery irrigation command area in thestate, which governments elsewhere canwell emulate. It should not be difficult — indeed it should be a high-prioritymatter — for the Government of

Maharashtra, or for any governmentanywhere, to launch composite, multidis-cipl inary, mult iple-agency, well-co-ordinated integrated watershed develop-ment projects on the lines indicated above,without which dryland farming cannotbe lifted out of its present bleakness.

A time-bound, district-by-district prog-ram has to be taken up systematically.Such integrated endeavor will im-mediately generate large-scale ruralemployment sustained over a consid-erable period of t ime, as these programsare made operational, watershed bywatershed, all over the state. It will indeedradically transform rainfed agricultureand significantly increase crop and ani-mal (sheep, goat, cow, buffalo) pro-duction, thereby increasing meat andmilk production on lands that today arehopelessly unproductive. It will stave offfamines, and it will generate newer av-enues and opportunities for ruralemployment and thereby stem the colos-sal tide of rural-urban migration of humanpopulation.

Conc lus ion

It will perhaps be argued that we have taken upa much-too-large canvas and have attempted topaint a rather complex picture in trying to dealwith the problems of rainfed farming techno-logy and its transfer. We may even appearUtopian. We do concede that first things mustcome first and also that the "better" should notbe allowed to become the enemy of the "good."ICRISAT, Sholapur, and many research insti-tutions in India and abroad have already de-veloped useful dryland farming technology thatcan and must be taken up straightaway for itstransfer to rainfed lands. No one can deny thatthe development of appropriate researchtechnology and its urgent transfer to farmers,who are waiting for it around the corner, consti-tute the kingpin of this task. Nevertheless, wemust make bold to emphasize that transfor-mation of dryland agriculture is a complex andmulti-faceted affair; full and substantial successcannot come from technology alone, but onlythrough the adoption of a multidisciplinary,multiple-agency, and well-orchestrated strategysuch as we have ventured to outline here.

225

Experience f rom Nigeria

M. B. Ajakaiye*

A b s t r a c t

Agricultural technology, to be practicable and acceptable, must take into account thesocioeconomic factors influencing its users. The Nigerian program, based on thispremise, attempts to solve the SAT farmer's problems by developing short-seasonvarieties to fit the growing season; devising simple tools to reduce farm drudgery;controlling pests and diseases through preventive measures; and ascertaining that newfarm practices, developed wi l l be both acceptable and profitable to the farmer. TheAgricultural Extension and Research Liaison Service (AERLS) plays a key role in linkingresearch and its ultimate user, the farmer.

The development and transfer of technologyin agriculture must take into account thesocioeconomic factors influencing users of thetechnology.

This is particularly so with the farmer in thesemi-arid tropical zones operating underrainfed conditions, because of his environment,especially the short duration of the rainyseason.

The transfer of the technology developedmust also take cognizance of the social andeconomicstatus of the farmers if the package ofpractices developed is to be practicable andacceptable.

The semi-arid tropics are already welldefined. In Nigeria, the Sahel and Sudansavanna zones fall into the semi-arid tropicalregion.

Development of Agr icu l tura lTechnology

The general considerations for the develop-ment of technology here include:

1. The level of management skill of thefarmer. Practices are developed atd i f ferent levels — advanced, inter-mediate, and low — so that each farmer canbenefit at the level on which he operates.

2. Habit or tradition, which determines what

* Acting Director, AERLS, Ahmadu Bello University,Zaria, Nigeria.

farmers prefer. For example, maize is a higher yielder than sorghum in thesavanna zones of Nigeria, but becausefarmers traditionally have been used tosorghum, maize is not a priority in thecropping system.

3. Pest and disease resistance. Breeding forresistance to pests and diseases is a mainthrust of the crop-protection program.

4. Labor-saving devices. These must besimple enough to be within the reach ofthe farmer.

These semi-arid zones are connected with thenorthern part of Nigeria and are characterizedby:

• short-duration rainy season of 3 months orless,

• long dry season,• sparse vegetation,• mainly sandy soils, susceptible to wind

erosion, and• soils with low organic matter and low

phosphorus content.Farmers in the Nigerian semi-arid zones are

peasant farmers cultivating on the averageabout 1 ha each. They practice mixed cropping,which is the popular system, growing as theirmain crops millet, sorghum, groundnut, andvegetables of all sorts. Labor is expensive atpeak seasons of planting, weeding, and harvest-ing, and the farmers lack suitable ma-chinery— simple devices or hand tools — to reduce the drudgery of farm operations.

The above problems are taken into consider-ation in the development of agricultural techno-

227

logy for the Nigerian farmer of the semi-aridzones. For example:

1. Short-duration rainy season. Efforts aredirected to developing short-season var-ieties of sorghum and groundnut to pro-duce a good crop in the short season. Wehave learned our lessons from thedroughts of 1973-74 fol lowed by therosette epidemic of 1975, which wiped outour groundnut crop, and we are workinghard on meeting future drought hazards.

2. Profitability and social habits. The agricul-tural economics section looks at thesocioeconomic aspects of farm practicesdeveloped. This is to ascertain that theyare practical, acceptable, and profitable tothe farmer. For example, we have foundthat the maize/cowpea combination givesa greater gross return per unit area thaneach grown as a sole crop. As mostfarmers practice mixed cropping, there is a farming systems research program thatlooks at the different practices of the far-mers and tries to evolve definite croppingpatterns of crop combinations. The mostcommon crop combinations farmers useare millet/sorghum, groundnut/sorghum,groundnut/maize, and maize/cowpea, butthere are numerous others.

3. Mechanical devices. The agricultural en-gineering section tries to design simpletools — for example, hand maize-shellers,groundnut decort icators, and grainplanters. Prototypes are produced and it ishoped that some commercial concernswill be interested in producing them on a large scale. Also, the Institute for Agricul-tural Research, Samaru, has decided to setup a small-implements production unit.This will develop and produce our pro-totypes for distribution initially to stimu-late interest in them and subsequently topopularize the implements and devices.Animal-drawm implements have been de-veloped and been in use for a long t ime inridging, weeding, and even in groundnutharvesting. These are mainly ox-drawn,but investigations into the use of donkeypower have been recently started.

4. Microc l imate and phys io logy. Thephysiological aspects of mixed croppinghave been looked into; nutrient utilizationand solar energy distribution and ab-

sorption in the canopy are studied with a view to modifying populations and plant-ing configurations for best effects. Pestincidence in mixed cropping has beenfound to be less than in crops grown sole.

5. Pest and disease control. Close attention ispaid to preventive measures, such as seeddressing and cultural practices. These in-volve mainly crop hygiene and timelinessof operations. However, for farmers whocan handle and afford chemical control,spraying schedules have been developedfor some crops, such as cotton and to-matoes.


The transfer for agricultural technology in-volves extension, which may be defined as anagency of change that teaches new or ap-propriate technologies so that clients can adoptthem for their own benefit. This has been theresponsibility of the states, which have institu-tional arrangements in the form of Field Ser-vices Divisions of the Ministries of Agricultureand Natural Resources. These ministries havefield extension staff who work in the villages;through the normal extension methods of de-monstrations, meetings, visits, agriculturalshows, field days, movies and slides, and,recently, the minikit method of demonstration,they persuade farmers to use improved prac-tices. The minikit involves the farmer in thedecision of which variety to use. He growspromising varieties developed by research,evaluates them, and decides which suits himbest.

This method, based on the experience of the"green revolut ion" countries, reduces the t imelag between the development of a new varietyand its adoption by the farmer.

T h e C a s e o f t h e A E R L S

In Nigeria, as in most developing countries, theflow of information from research direct tofarmers is not quick and smooth. This is partlybecause of the background of the farmers, whoare largely illiterate. Also, institutional ar-rangements have not really made it possible forresearch results to get to the extension workersand farmers in a form that is readily usable. To

228

solve this problem, in the northern part ofNigeria, an organization has been formed to actas a link between extension and research:Agricultural Extension and Research LiaisonService (AERLS).

The Research Station in Zaria was establishedabout 1920. With the establishment of theAhmadu Bellow University in 1962, the researchstation was appropriately transferred to it andnamed the Institute for Agricultural Research.By 1960, it was realized that most of the infor-mation from the activities of the station did notreach the farmers —the ultimate users of thein format ion—to improve their practices. TheExtension and Research Liaison Section (ERLS)was therefore established in 1963, based inSamaru but part of the Field Services Division ofthe Ministry of Agriculture. Its primary functionwas to serve as a link between the researchinstitute and the Ministry's extension services.Upon the dissolution of the then NorthernRegion Ministry of Agriculture (as a result of thecreation of states) the ERLS was merged in 1968with the Institute for Agricultural Research(IAR).

In 1975, ERLS was separated from IAR andmade a separate organization, known as theAgricultural Extension and Research LiaisonService.

Its functions may be summarized as:• Interpreting, publishing, and disseminat-

ing to farmers and extension workers re-search results and other appropriateinformation in agriculture and relateddisciplines such as animal husbandry,animal health, agricultural economics,rural sociology, etc.

• Providing systematic training for states'extension staff, such as regular short in-service training sessions, specialized shortcourses, or workshops.

• Identifying problems in the field that needresearch and communicating these to theappropriate research institutions, so thatresearch projects initiated are relevant tofarmers' problems.

• Assisting in the organization of state ex-tension demonstration units and organi-zation of agricultural shows.

• Providing advisory and consultancyservices, e.g., disease control programs,poultry management, etc.

• Conducting urgently neQded applied re-

search or surveys, especially where theresearch institutes lack the staff to under-take them or where attention needs to befocused on developing problems likely tobecome economically significant in time.

• Organizing seminars and conferences.The AERLS has two main sections — the

subject matter specialists section and the au-diovisual unit.

Staff of the subject matter specialists sectionare trained in specific agricultural/livestockdisciplines — e.g., poultry science, agronomy,veterinary medicine, agricultural engineering,etc. — and are responsible for extension workin their respective areas. This section puts outpublications and assists in upgrading technicalcompetence of the states by conducting in-service training courses and workshops.

The audiovisual unit provides backup in thetransfer of agricultural technology throughteaching materials for all grades. The specialistsin this unit are trained in communicationtechniques and agricultural journalism. Theyproduce slides and films and organize radio andtelevision programs. AERLS has encouragedthe states to carry out vigorous extensionprograms in order to realize our national goals.

Posters and leaflets are produced in largenumbers of about 90 000 in each of nineselected local languages for use of farmers andextension workers.

Other publications — guides and bulle-t ins— are produced to inform and educateextension workers and serve as a basis for theirextension educational programs.

Some problems facing transfer of technologyor extension include gross inadequacy of ex-tension staff; inadequate training or skill ofmost of the extension staff in direct contactwith farmers; poor working conditions of exten-sion workers; bad attitude by some extensionworkers toward their work; and illiteracy andgeneral povery of farmers, which render themincapable of procuring the necessary inputs forincreased agricultural production.

229

References

ABALU, G, O. T., and D'SILVA, B. 1979.Socioeconomic analysis of existing farming sys-tems and practices in northern Nigeria. Presented atthe International Workshop on Socioeconomic Con-straints to Development of Semi-Arid Tropical Ag-riculture. ICRISAT, 19-23 Feb 1979, Hyderabad,India. Proceedings in preparation.

MIJINDADI, N. B. 1974. Cooperative growth and ag-ricultural development. Workshop papers, Agricul-tural Extension and Research Liaison Service(AERLS), Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria.

NORMAN, D. W. 1970. Labour inputs of farmers: A case study of the Zaria province. Samaru (Zaria)research bulletin 116.

NORMAN, D, W. 1972. An economic study of threevillages in Zaria province. Samaru (Zaria) miscel-laneous paper 37.

ROSSEL, H. W. 1977. Some observations and exper-iments on groundnut rosette virus. Samaru (Zaria)miscellaneous paper 71.

230

Reflections on the Transfer of TechnologyJoseph Kabore*

A b s t r a c t

A code or framework for the transfer of technology should be developed to strengthenthe capacity of developing countries for organizing and receiving new techniques andimproving access to technology at prices that can be borne by all. Establishment anddevelopment of facilities for technical and in-service training in the countries themselvesare prerequisites for an efficient and durable transfer of technology. New techniquesmust be assimilated, modified, and adapted to conditions peculiar to each country.Agricultural research carried out in developed countries such as the USA or in Europeinvolves means of production having nothing in common with those of the small farmerof Upper Vo/ta. Scientists are needed who can assimilate the people's everydayproblems and work out a realistic research program that wil l raise the technological levelof the farmer.

The enormous gap between the "developed"countries and the so-called "developing"countries — particularly those of Africa, includ-ing Upper Volta — compels the latter to relyheavily on the technology or know-how of theformer. This is not without critical problems, themost serious being the dependence and heavyexpenditure forced on the still fragileeconomies of the developing countries. There-fore, a suitable framework must be found forcontrolling the transfer of technology.

In this matter we largely subscribe to theproposals made by the UNCTAD Group of 77 atthe 1975 and 1976 meetings in Nairobi.

Technology is part of the universal heritage ofmankind and all countries have a right to it, atleast to alleviate if not to eliminate the intolera-ble economic inequalities within the new inter-national economy.

A "code for the transfer of technology"should be developed with these main objec-tives:

• To strengthen the capacity of developingcountries for organizing and receiving newtechniques;

* Director, Services Agricoles, Upper Volta.

NOTE: This paper is an edited translation of the originalFrench text, which appears in Appendix 1.

• To improve access to technology and tohave reasonable costs and prices that canbe borne by all;

• To promote unspecified transactions withregard to choice of different elements oftechnology, estimation of costs, organiz-ation, and institutional facilities and chan-nels.

This code will apply to all types of technologyand will guarantee profitable transactions to thedeveloping countries without perpetually "en-slaving" them.

Transfer o f T e c h n o l o g y

T r a i n i n g

Transfer of technology implies the presence ofadequate and suitably qualified personnel in allsectors of the economy. They should be capableof assimilating simple to complex technologiesand techniques so that the so-called developingcountries get the greatest benefit from im-ported technologies.

This also implies that all persons, to thelowest level, involved in building the economyshould be trained so that each person is able tocarry out the necessary technical work.

This training, which we believe should in-clude both adults and children —the architectsof today and those of tomorrow — shouldabove all be conducted in the developing

231

countries. However, some further training andreorientation in developed countries is essen-tial for completing the know-how.

Tra in ing Chi ldren

A child is the future architect of the economy.Opening his mind to scientific knowledge froman early age will more easily make of him a high-level confirmed technician. Suitablefacilities should be planned and established foropening the child's mind at this age.

Practical Tra in ing for the Work ing Masses

In order to be more efficient, the farmer, theagricultural worker, needs a minimum amountof training, further training, and reorientation;all the measures likely to improve practicaltraining of the worker should be encouraged. A bad farmer is of no benefit to the economy.Agricultural fairs, demonstrations, and shows,courses for further training of farmers, etc., aresome of the means for improving their technicalability and making them more efficient.

St ructures for Technicaland In-service T ra in ing

The establishment and development offacilities for technical and in-service training indeveloping countries are prerequisites for anefficient and durable transfer of technology.

Technology should be transferred throughcompetent persons who have not only assimi-lated but can modify and adapt the new tech-niques to conditions peculiar to their country.There should be a sufficient number of suchauthorized individuals in all sectors of theeconomy. If an expert needs to be brought in,this should be temporary and only for the timerequired to train the local people. The expertshould play the role of a technical consultant tillthe national technicians acquire minimum ex-perience.

If technical and in-service training facilitiesare required to provide the economy withsenior personnel, it is the same for the mediumand lower categories, as these are indis-pensable links in any economy.

Thus, we believe that in any sector — such asagriculture, industry, and commerce — suitabletraining facilities are of primary importance,

and these facilities cannot be established with-out technical and financial support from thedeveloped countries.

Further Tra in ing and Reor ientat ion A b r o a d

In most sectors of the economy, scientific de-velopment has raised the level of technology sothat the developing countries cannot afford theluxury of having very specialized training in-stitutions in all the sectors. Consequently, theyhave to arrange with the developed countriesfor further training and reorientation of theirtechnicians in some of the very specializedareas. This collaboration is essential for anefficient transfer of certain technologies andshould be taken into serious consideration.

Sc ien t i f i c and Techn ica l Research

Situations and conditions often exist that arepeculiar to developing countries regardless ofthe sector of the economy — agriculture, ag-roindustry, or industry. Scientific and technicalresearch will enable these countries to findsolutions to their specific problems. Therefore,training of scientists is another problem whichgreatly preoccupies the developing countries.

We believe that the developing countriesshould be able to increasingly provide trainingin their own country to scientists who haveassimilated the problems to be solved, and thenestablish the means for finding the solutions.For example:

Agricultural research as it is carried out in thedeveloped countries (Europe, USA) aims tosolve problems of farmers or agricultural un-dertakings. The solutions are intended for edu-cated and literate farmers, often at engineerlevel as in the USA, with the means of pro-duction having nothing in common with thoseof the small farmer in Upper Volta for manuallycultivating an average of 5 ha of land. Financialand material means are not l imiting factors tothe large farmers, whereas in the developingcountries they are the main limiting factors.Therefore, agricultural research will not havethe same concerns and objectives. In the de-veloped countries, only the identification oftechniques — even sophisticated ones — andvarieties is required; these countries do not lackthe financial means and all the farmers have therequired training.

232

In developing countries like Upper Volta, thefarmer's level must betaken into account; he isoften tied to ancestral customs, illiterate, notvery open to new ideas, with poor means andno access to the almost nonexistent loans foragriculture. It will be difficult to make him leapfrom the Middle Ages to the twentieth century.

Although he does not have the necessarymeans or facilities, there are more chances ofsuccess if we seek to improve his technologicallevel in stages. For this purpose, scientists areneeded whoareabletoassimi latethe problemsthat the people of Upper Volta face every day, inorder to produce a research program that''sticks" to reality. This research will be moreeffective than that giving good results but whichcannot be applied due to lack of technicalcapacity and means.

Transfer of Patentsand Techniques

Patents, know-how, and manufacturing proces-ses form the greatest wealth of the developedcountries, and these belong to them 90%. Theirtransfer is subject to complicated and onerouslaws. One of the first measures to be taken is topartially raise the exclusive rights to propertyand to decrease the cost of use. The second isthe possibility for adaptation, but strictly forinternal use. The third is the promotion indeveloped and developing countries of approp-riate technology that is to be made available todeveloping countries.

Each case raises the question of the type oftechnology to be transferred for particular casesand the context.

In the deve lop ing countr ies, wh i leeighteenth century technology is not adequatein some sectors, it is not possible to optimizetwentieth century technology in other sectors.We believe that for advanced technology requir-ing abilities that are not yet available in thedeveloping countries, caution is indispensableand regional integration is desirable.

For the other types of technology, preferencewill be given to that enabling maximum use oflocal human and physical resources; indus-trialization which will help to raise the standardof living of most of the people and is or will becompletely controlled by national staff beforelong.

Training should be provided for large num-bers of technicians and engineers who willgradually change the technology since experi-ence shows that, whenever possible, peopleprefer products of very advanced technologies.

233

The Senegalese ExperienceDjibr i l Sene*

A b s t r a c t

For many years now, Senegal has had a well-established agricultural research infrastruc-ture as well as a large number of trained scientists. However, the Senegalese farmer hasnot profi ted much from the research findings, and the difficulty of passing them on to thefarmer has been one of the major constraints to rural change. Agricultural research hastwo main defects: first, it is highly intellectual and not pragmatic enough; second, muchof it is developed without sufficient understanding of the rural world. The creation of themultidisciplinary Regional Experimental Units (REUs) has been a decisive element ofprogress in research, but the REUs have been less successful in helping extensionagencies. The objective of research in Senegal should be to develop innovations that wi l lbe acceptable to farmers and to facilitate the adoption of these innovations as part of thenational agricultural policy.

Let me begin by congratulating ICRISAT, whosework is directed toward the development ofprogressive technologies for agriculture, forhaving organized a symposium that is notconfined to the sole aspect of developing itsown technologies, but also deals with the prob-lem of transferring technology developedthrough research to the rural world.

Senegal has had an important agriculturalresearch infrastructure for many years now, aswell as a large number of scientists, especiallywhen compared with the situation existing inother countries of the Sahelian zone.

This is due to the fact that at independence,Senegal was fortunate in inheriting a largesystem of agricultural zootechnical, and veteri-nary research formerly established by France tomeet the needs not only of Senegal, but of theentire western part of the African semi-aridtropics north of the Equator: from the CapeVerde peninsula in the west to Niger in the east.This is how the Senegalese Agricultural Re-search Center at Bambey, established morethan 50 years ago, served for many years —

* Minister for Rural Development, Senegal.


until the Francophone West African Statesobtained their independence — as the FederalAgricultural Research Center for the entireSahelian and Sudanian part of West Africaformerly under French rule.

Even though valuable achievements havebeen made in science and technology by ag-ricultural research in Senegal, it is nonethelesstrue that as far as .the Senegalese farmer isconcerned, his world has evolved only veryslowly — too slowly in the opinion of the coun-try's leaders — if the farmer's income over thelast few decades is used as a criterion.

Experience shows us more and more eachday that one of the major constraints to changesin the rural areas arises from the inability topass on most of the research findings to thefarmer.

Does this mean that the message or mes-sages sent by research to the rural world aremainly defective and unacceptable to the far-mers, and if so, why?

Or does this mean that the normal extensionservices responsible for conveying the mes-sage and introducing it into the farmers1 worldhave not, until today, known how to play therole entrusted to them, and in this case, why?

These questions must be answered and it isfor this purpose that a few months ago inSenegal, we started reexamining the relation-ship between research and development andthe operation of the rural extension agencies.

235

I shall confine myself to sharing with you herea few of my own thoughts about the messagesthat agricultural research is currently deliveringto the farmers of Senegal, deliberately settingaside the second aspect of the situation —theoperation of the rural extension agencies.

My thoughts focus on two points:• First, how research has formulated its

messages to the farmers.• Second, how these messages have been

conveyed from the laboratory or field at theresearch center to farmers' fields.

The Formulat ion of the Messageby Research

Having been involved in research for a longtime and now having the responsibility foroverall rural development, it seems to me todaythat the agricultural research in Senegal hastwo defects which, moreover, we shall try tocorrect. This is true even though it is a seriousresearch effort, carried out by scientists — bothnational and international — who for the mostpart are very competent, each in his own field ofspecialization.

First, it seems to me that this research is oftentoo intellectualized, too sophisticated, might I say, and not pragmatic enough. This often givesthe impression that the scientists are inclined todo research purely for the pleasure of doingresearch rather than to help satisfy the mosturgent needs of the rural world. Perhaps this isactually because these scientists are more con-cerned about a distant future than the im-mediate future.

Second, it seems to me, moreover, that untiltoday many of these scientists have either notknown how to, or have not wanted to,adequately understand the rural world whiledeveloping their research programs.

It appears to me that for both these defects, itis a question of outlook related mainly to thetype of training that is given these scientists:

• A training that is too university-oriented,so that scientists prefer to acquire higherdegrees or to publish reports and scientificpapers on theory rather than meet themost urgent practical needs of our agricul-ture.

• A training in a school of thought that, I feel,is more suited to the industrialized nations

than to the developing countries; with theidea that it is up to research and researchalone to decide the path of rural progress;hence, to determine the content of themessage that the extension agencies willthen be responsible for disseminating inrural areas. And that it is ultimately up tothe government and rural extension agen-cies to bring about the social and economicconditions where the innovations recom-mended by research are accepted, regard-less of their nature or cost.

I admit that, strictly speaking, such an ap-proach could be followed for the remote future.I cannot, on the other hand, subscribe to it forthe short and middle term. That would onlywiden the gap that we are forced to witness atpresent in Senegal between the research de-partments and the rural extension agencies.These agencies are already overinclined toundertake studies or trials that do not concernthem, under the pretext that they will provideanswers to problems that research either didnot want to, or did not know howto, consider uptill now.

It seems to me that the technical innovationsproposed by research for the short and mediumterm should betrulysui tedto the changing ruralscene as predicted for this period in terms ofpsychological, sociological (type of farm, familystructure, etc.), and economic (credit, market-ing, cooperatives, etc.) aspects according to thegovernment policies in this respect.

It must not be forgotten that it will undoub-tedly be very difficult for the present to changethe outlook of scientists who are already work-ing, though some effortto change can be seen. I am, on the other hand, more confident for thefuture, since we decided to establish a nationalinstitute of rural development responsible fortraining here, in Senegal, all the high-levelpersonnel required for administration and inrural extension agencies, or for research. Thisdoes not exclude the possibility of further train-ing abroad for our scientists, but this would onlybe for specialized training. This new trainingsystem should commence next year.

Transferr ing the Messageto Farmers' Fields

The dialog between research and the rural

236

extension agencies in Senegal over the last fewmonths reveals that a major concern, especiallyof the agencies, is the need for:

• First, findings that can be applied in themedium or short term with specificationsabout space (an accurate indication of thedifferent areas where these results can beapplied) and time (variation of these re-sults according to the characteristic long-term conditions of a determined area ofapplication and the probability of thesevariations in order to calculate risk).

• Second, information for evaluating the so-cial and economic constraints to the adop-t ion of the proposed developmenttechniques.

How has research attempted to respond tothis dual concern until today, and to what extenthas it succeeded?

It must be understood that no matter how themessage of agricultural research has been con-ceived thus far, scientists in Senegal have al-ways been very careful to evaluate the worth intime and space of each of the technical findingsobtained on the research stations; this answersthe first of the two concerns voiced by the ruralextension agencies.

This was initially accomplished by setting upa network of multilocational trials covering theentire territory of Senegal, and later, by es-tablishing supplementary structures called thePAPEM (benchmark locations for preextensionwork and multilocational trials). Besides beingpart of the regular system of multilocationaltrials, the PAPEM are also able to play a de-monstrative role for the farmer by setting upother trials combining all of the different inno-vations that research considers promising forthe rural areas.

These experiments do not, however, meetthesecond concern of rural extension agencies — that they be supplied with information forevaluating the social and economic constraintsto the adoption of the recommended develop-ment techniques.

This led, in 1969, to the establishment byresearch of a third type of intermediarystructure between the central research stationand the rural w o r l d — t h e REU (Regional Ex-perimental Units). Much has been written aboutthe REUs since they were established, givingsomewhat ambitious definitions of their role:

"A unit for prospective research on pro-

duction systems and farm models/ ' accordingto Rene Tourte who was one of those directingthe planning that led to the creation of the units;or again, according to the same author, "anexample of the use by agricultural research ofthe systems approach."

"A limited socio-geographic entity where theresults of agricultural research are tested in realsituations in order to develop and constantlyperfect technical systems, while also consider-ing the link between the physical and humanenvironment and the objectives of the regionaldevelopment plan" (J. Killian).

"A unit where a controlled developmentalprocess is implemented by research and con-cerns a set of socioeconomic conditions viewedas a whole" (L. Malassis).

These definitions give a good idea of the spiritin which these units are conceived, so that wedo not have to dwell any further on this point. I shall merely point out that they were conceivedas a result of a reexamination of the situationmainly by general agricultural scientists whoare, therefore, closer to the realities of the ruralworld than most of the other scientists such asspecialists in crop improvement, conservationand improvement of soil fertility, crop pro-tection, etc., who are more inclined to confinethemselves to their own area of specialization.

This reexamination originated from the rela-tive failure of most of the rural developmentprojects operated in Senegal since Inde-pendence and the difficulties in disseminatingsome of the recommendations of agriculturalresearch, in particular, those that aim at thecreation of a more favorable physical environ-ment for traditional or new crops; among theseproposals, deep tillage and burying of organicmatter should be cited in particular.

I shall not describe here how these Experi-mental Units operate; I would only like to pointout that the observations cover the entire en-vironment; all the consequences — technical,economic, and sociological — of the intro-duction of an innovation inthis environment arestudied, and it is, consequently, a truly rnultidis-ciplinary approach.

What can be said about the work of theseExperimental Units, which have now been inexistence for 10 years? The answer is not easy,because the evaluation differs depending onwhether it is made from the point of view ofresearch or the rural extension agencies,

237

From the standpoint of research, I believe — keeping in mind the idea I have of the role ofagricultural research and its operat ion—thatthe creation of the Experimental Units has beena decisive element of progress in the operationof agricultural research in Senegal. This isbecause the problems encountered by scien-tists within these Experimental Units makethem increasingly aware that for agriculturalresearch to be meaningful in Senegal, it isnecessary to:

• Determine the areas and priorities of re-search from the environmental data;

• Aim to develop integrated techniques andsystems that are compatible with existingsystems before recommending them forextension and aim to identify the con-straints.

I regret that, in spite of the change in outlookthat has already begun to fol low this line ofthought among certain scientists, there are stilltoo many who continue to conduct their re-search away from these principles. This isparticularly true of breeders, especially thoseinvolved in improving cross-pollinated plants(millet breeders, for example) who, it seems tome, are often more concerned with the identifi-cation of a maximum heterosis in an absolutesituation rather than one that is used within a cropping pattern and in a rotation. This is alsotrue of the technological use of harvest pro-ducts, which imposes different constraints onthe plant, such as pest and disease resistance,crop duration, plant structure, crop manage-ment, and grain quality.

From the standpoint of development, theExperimental Units have provided the ruralextension agencies with little information up tillnow, apart from certain technical data (fertilizerapplications, sowing dates, spacing of plants,maize crop development, animal-poweredfarming, etc.), which really does not require a structure like that of the Experimental Units toshow their advantages and their possibilities.

It is rather astonishing to discover that, inspite of the considerable studies to provide anin-depth understanding of the environment inwhich the units operate (studies of land tenureand availability, family and seasonal farmingoperations, work relationships, t ime of oper-ations, and setting up farm budgets), the scien-tists have not been able to tell the rural exten-sion agencies how to better organize this

environment, even after these ExperimentalUnits have been operating for 10 years. Thesame problems are found within the Experi-mental Units as outside in terms of creditoperations and repayment of debts, organiza-tion and management of cooperatives, and useof agricultural implements within the traditionalsocial units defined by those living in the samecompound.

It is just as surprising to note that it was notpossible to obtain a better dissemination of therecommended techniques within these Units, inspite of these studies and a far better educationprogram for the farmers than that set up by therural extension agencies. Nonetheless, scien-tists consider these techniques essential toachieving the crop-intensification policy re-commended by them and considered by all asthe only possible way for the rural world andagriculture in Senegal to actually progress.

This well shows that the objective of researchin Senegal should be to develop innovationsthat wil l first of all be acceptable to farmers — changing the environment should only be a necessary corollary. Research should be aimedsolely at facilitating the adoption of these inno-vations as part of the national agriculturalpolicy.

I feel that there is perhaps a lesson to bedrawn from here for ICRISAT while determiningits policy for work in Africa.

I do not think that this Institute can trulyconduct an effective operation for Africa fromIndia, especially for developing cross-pollinated crops. But I could be mistaken.

Moreover, it seems indispensable to me thatthe work scheduled for Africa should be carriedout in close collaboration with the differentnational programs of the African countries.These programs are, in my opinion, the onlyones capable of indicating to ICRISAT the direc-tion of its work in Africa if it is to be of real use tothe African farmer.

238

The Sahel ian Region of A f r i ca

Nalla O. Kane*

A b s t r a c t

The Sahel Institute was created in 1977 at the instance of the Permanent InterstateCommittee for Drought Control (CILSS). Its functions include collection, analysis, anddissemination of scientific and technical research results; adaptation and transfer oftechnology; and training of researchers and technicians. The Institute determinestechnology packages appropriate to local socioeconomic conditions and helps plan ruralradio programs in the national (vernacular) languages of the Sahelian countries. Onfarms, " m o d e l " farmers demonstrate the effectiveness of new techniques to theirneighbors. However, this paper stresses, the Sahelian farmer should not be regardedmerely as a passive recipient of technology He has proved his astonishing adaptability,and the traditional techniques he himself has evolved—peculiarly suited to localconditions —also deserve careful study and dissemination.

Before dealing with the problem of linkages inthe Sahelian region I would like, first of all, toplace it in the framework of the Sahel Institute'sresponsibilities. This institution was actuallycreated in December 1977 during the Banjulmeeting of Heads of State. Its creation wasdesired by them since the constitutive summitmeeting of the Permanent Interstate Committeefor Drought Contro l (CILSS) held atOuagadougou in September 1973. This agencyfor subregional cooperation, entrusted withapplied research and coordination of researchand training activities in the Sahel, was, throughresolution No. 3253, to call the attention of theUnited Nations General Assembly to the needfor such an institute.

This is how, in May-June 1975, a jointUNDP-UNEP preparatory mission had to definethe main orientations of the future Sahel Insti-tute. These were discussed in Bamako in April1976 and resulted in the immediate creation ofthe Sahel Institute in December 1976 atN'Djamena. In October 1977, a larger meetingon the Sahel Institute was held to study the

* Director General, Institut du Sahel, Bamako, Mali.


Institute's statutes, as well as the initial andfirst-generation programs. The programs andstatutes were adopted at the conference of theHeads of State held in Banjul on 19 December1977.

The Institute's functions as adopted at thatconference include:

1. Collection, analysis, and dissemination ofscientific and technical research results.

2. Transfer and adaption of technology.3. Coordination of scientific and technical

research.4. Training of development researchers and

technicians.The theme of this present symposium is

included in the framework of item 2 of theInstitute's responsibilities — transfer and adap-tation of technology. Although the transfer oftechnology at farmer level falls within the com-petence of the countries, the Sahel Institute — through its functions of promotion and coordi-nation of research and training activities andcollection, analysis, and dissemination of scien-tific and technical research results — con-tributes significantly to the improvement oftechniques at farmer level.

As a matter of fact, the Sahel Institute has toindirectly participate in the transfer of technol-ogy at farmer level, through:

• the training of extension and developmentagents;

• the determination of suitable technological

239

packages to be transferred to farmers onthe basis of scientific and technical infor-mation obtained at the Sahel Institute;

• the exchange of experiences between ex-tension officers in the Sahelian countries;and

• the improvement of conditions for dis-semination and of rural radio programs, aswell as programs of other media in theCILSS member states.

The conditions for a successful transfer oftechnology in the Sahelian rural areas can besummarized by three main points:

• the training of extension and developmentagents and of farmers;

• the determination of technology packagessuited to the socioeconomic conditions ofthe farmers, and

• for the masses, a well-planned rural radioprogram, based essentially on item 2. Thisprogram is of course transmitted in thecountry's national (vernacular) languages.

In each country of the CILSS region, exten-sion services are established either within thetraditional agricultural structures or the moreoperational framework of development insti-tutions, such as:

• the Company for Agricultural Develop-ment and Extension (SODEVA) in Seneg-al's groundnut basin,,

• the Regional Development Institutions(ORD) in Upper Volta,

• the development operations (the Moptimillet operation in Mali),

• the zonal projects within a country (project3M in Niger).

In most cases the transfer takes place accord-ing to the spreading dissemination technique,mainly by means of demonstration. In theintervention area, a certain number of "mode l "farmers are selected to whom these techniquesare taught. These farmers serve either as in-structors to the others, or as an incentive fortheir neighbors to use the same techniques inorder to obtain the same yields.

Audiovisual techniques are often used formass communication. These are undoubtedlyimportant but they cannot replace the directexperience that farmers can gain from visits tothe fields of "mode l " farmers; after this on-fieldexperience, they benefit more from a fi lmpromoting these techniques.

Technological packages to be transferred

should be determined keeping in view theimportant factor of the farmer's socioeconomicconditions. Any technique that is not easilyintegrated within the target rural areas, orsurpassing their financial capacity, has littlechance of success. This is also true of a technological package comprising complexthemes and sophisticated techniques.

This observation, however, is not a panacea,since we often find farmers with an extraordi-nary capacity for adaptation. For instance, at thestart of theOMVS program, peoplesaid thatthefarmers of the River Senegal region wouldnever master the technique of rice cultivationwith complete water control. As everyoneknows, this is a very complex technique. Thisapprehension was contradicted by the facts.Although the farmers of the River Senegal basinare not traditional rice growers, they showedthemselves to be as competent as Asians,thanks to an astonishing ability to adapt.

There is still a lot to be done in the field oftransfer and adaptation of technology in theSahelian region.

It is well known that both national and inter-national research have obtained satisfactoryresults in the region, but these have not alwayshad the desired applications, not only for lack ofsufficient financial means, but also for lack ofreally adequate methods for applying the re-sults. For this reason, the recent project onmillet, sorghum, and cowpea improvementplanned by the Sahel Institute has emphasized,besides training and experience exchanges be-tween researchers, the transfer — through mul-t i n a t i o n a l trials — of varieties selected andtested in some CILSS states.

The Sahel Institute will endeavor in thesetrials to find the right methods for controllingvarious techniques related to the disseminationof these varieties in rural areas.

We have discussed the transfer of technologyas if the farmer was only to receive and notcreate techniques. Undoubtedly, this meansthat people do not fully appreciate thecapabilities of the Sahelian farmer. There areseveral traditional techniques relating to culti-vation methods suited to different soil types, tobreeding and seed conservation, as well ascontrol of parasites and other crop pests. Al-though these traditional techniques have a localcharacter, they are truly suited to the farmers'socioeconomic conditions.

240

Research and development authoritiesshould study further these techniques and im-prove them for dissemination, which will cer-tainly be more rapid and less expensive,because they are produced by the farmersthemselves.

241

The Brazi l ian Experience

A . B l u m e n s c h e i n *

A b s t r a c t

Brazil has invested substantially in agricultural research in the Northeast, where most ofthe semi-arid areas of the country lie. Besides the irregularity of rainfall and theimpoverished soils, a real obstacle to development in this area is the land distribution,with 8% of the farmers owning 67% of the cultivated land. The research program beganby analyzing the constraints to increased production and has undertaken four mainprojects: an inventory of natural resources, the development of production systems forrainfed areas, production systems for irrigated areas, and farming systems for thespecial conditions that exist in the Northeast. The program is so structured as to facilitatethe quick transfer of technology from the lARCs to Brazil.

Most of the semi-arid areas of Brazil are in thenortheast of the country. This region also in-cludes some areas where rainfall is regular andthat are therefore not semi-arid; however, forpurposes of development, the Northeast isconsidered one socioeconomic unit.

Agriculture is the most important support forthe regional economy. Nevertheless, the in-creased production of the last years has comefrom an expansion bf the cultivated area, notfrom higher productivity per unit area. If thepresent ratio of expansion to population growthrate is maintained, all cultivable areas will soonbe occupied. The only solution therefore is toadopt appropriate technology to enhance pro-ductivity.

Brazil therefore decided to invest substan-tially in agricultural research this year in theNortheast; $20 mill ion was made available forthat purpose, and 550 people are involved inagricultural research in the region. The researchcenter for the SAT (Centro de Pesquisa Ag-ropecuaria para o Tropico Semi-Arido), locatedin the Northeast, is responsible for generatingtechnology for this region and for coordinating

* Director, Centro Nacional de Pesquisas-Arroz e Feijao, Brasil.

NOTE: This was not presented as a formal paper at theSymposium but is an edited transcript of Dr.Blumenschein's extemporaneous remarks.

development by other institutions. Three othercenters, also located in the Northeast, specializein research on cotton, cassava and tropicalfruits, and animal production. Each state in theregion also has a local program, carried out bystate institutions, universities, and private in-stitutions. We have structured our nationalresearch program so as to facilitate a quicktransfer of technology from internationalcenters to our country. The relationship of ournational to state-local centers is similar to thatof lARCs to national programs.

The climate in the northeast of Brazil ischaracterized by a rainy season covering a single period of 3 to 5 months. The rainfalldistribution is very irregular, with average rang-ing from 25 to 252 to 1000 mm. In some areas,the distribution is so irregular that we canclassify these as the very arid regions. Theannual average temperature ranges from 23 to27°C. The insolation is very strong, averaging2800 hours a year and the relative humidity islow, averaging about 60% a year. Evapotranspi-ration is very high, averaging 2000 mm/year.

The soil has a low and medium depth andvery low fertility. It is rich in potassium but verypoor in calcium, phosphorus, and organic mat-ter. It is a sandy soil and the erosion can be veryintense in this area. The vegetation —wi th theexception of some small spots of dense ever-green forest — consists of xerophytic speciesthat characterize the region, which we callSertSo or Caatinga.

243

The total population is 18.5 mil l ion; or 3.7mill ion families. Of those, less than 2.2 mill ionfamilies have incomes equivalent to $100.About 58% of the farmers have less than 24 ha,corresponding to 6% of all the area used foragriculture in this region. Long periods ofdrought, frequent in this region, most affectthese small farmers. Only 8% of the farmersown more than 100 ha each, but they own 67%of the cultivated area. Thus land distribution isthe real problem in this area.

In order to establish its research program, theregional center analyzed the development ofagriculture in the region and identified thefol lowing main constraints to development:

1. Lack of sufficient knowledge of natural andsocioeconomic resources

2. Harvesting deficiences3. Inadequate soil4. Small land holdingsThe research program is now oriented toward

overcoming those constraints; it considers theproperty as a whole and looks for productionsystems appropriate to each ecological situa-t ion, trying to show the producer the advan-tages of improved technology over the tradi-tional one.

The program is based on four main projects:1. Inventory of natural and socioeconomic

resources. This project will allow us tocollect information about the climate, soil,and other physical factors, as well associoeconomic factors, that affect agricul-ture. The Northeast can then be dividedinto analogous subregions.

2. The development of production systemsfor rainfed areas. The main objective hereis to develop technology that will increaseand stabilize agricultural production inareas with low and very low rain. Thistechnology must be appropriate for adop-tion by the small and medium farmers,with a limited number of cattle.

3. The development of production systemsfor irrigated areas. The objective here is todevelop an improved technology that willallow the rational use of area with waterreserves, on surface and underground,and soil with potential to be exploitedcontinuously under irrigation.

4. Management of the Caatinga, the specialconditions in the Brazilian Northeast. Themain objective of this project is to develop

technology that wil l make viable theeconomic potential of agriculture, espe-cially in areas with very low precipitation,while preserving the ecological equilib-r ium.

The regional center has a specially structuredprogram. Because its purpose is to generatefarming systems technology, its work programmust be comprehensive and allow the flow ofinformation from one experiment to another.The research in the center involves basicstudies, both at experimental field levels and atthe farmers' level. Results obtained on conven-tional experiments and knowledge of regionalconditions are integrated in a synthesis experi-ment, where the benefits can be evaluated as a whole, based on important production factors.For example, for crop production, the factorsare grouped into varieties, fertilizers, soil andcrop management, and water management.The best results for synthesis experiments,such as crop rotation, are tested on an oper-ational scale, which allows economic analysisand enables the multidisciplinary team of re-searchers at the centers to compare the perfor-mance of alternative systems with traditionalsystems. The most promising of the newsystems are tested by them for acceptability. Ifthe systems prove efficient at the farmers' level,they will be thoroughly diffused with the help ofthe extension people.

Under the dryland farming systems research,3 systems of cultivation have been studied:runoff, watershed, and vasante. These researchprograms are associated with studies ofdrought-resistant plants and are conductedsimultaneously by multidisciplinary researchteams consisting of specialists in agro-climatology, cultural practices, animal produc-t ion, ecology, economics, agriculture, mechani-zation, hydrology, soil and water management,plant breeding, soil fertility, plant nutrit ion, soilphysics, and soil- and water-plant relationships.

One objective of the runoff studies is todevelop a system of cultivation by runoff thatcould be applied to the region of the Sertao, where average raintall ranges from 250 to 600mm per year. A second objective is to determinethe efficiency of water collected in the areaswithout vegetation to define the relationshipbetween the water collected and the irrigatedareas in a given region and to identify theimportance of soil better in the irrigated areas.

244

The watershed farming systems researchaims at developing a watershed plantingsystem that could be used in the region calledAgrestes. Another aim of this research is tocompare the traditional cultivation system withthe watershed system and to compare thetraditional cultivation system with the ridgeplanting systems.

The vasante farming systems researchstudies a type of agriculture peculiar to thenortheast of Brazil: the practice of using dryriver beds for agriculture during the dry part ofthe year. The vasante studies are meant fordeveloping technology suited to this kind ofagriculture.

The drought-resistance research seeks toidentify the adaptation of plants to their envi-ronment. Various biometers are taken into ac-count, climate parameters such as rainfall,evaporation, relative humidity, maximum andminimum temperature, light, intensity, solarradiation, and wind velocity; characteristics ofthe soil; and characteristics of the plant.

For the management of the Caatinga farmingsystems research, the objectives are: to de-velop an economically feasible technology forareas of the Caatinga, preserving their ecologi-cal equilibrium through the rational use ofnatural resources, and to increase the supply offood in the northeast division, where there is a large gap between food production and con-sumption.

Several projects compose this study. Amongthem is a study of goats, to obtain basic infor-mation on the productive and reproductiveperformance of the herb under existing condi-tions, and to identify the factors limiting a betterperformance. The effects of variables such asfood and medical supply on performance dur-ing critical times of the year are measured. Anidentical study with the same objective andmethodology is also being conducted withsheep.

In two other related projects, germplasmbanks have been established to maintain, mul-tiply, and assess native and exotic pastures, soas to encourage optimum use of natural re-sources for animal feeding.

245

Deve lopment and Transfer o f Technologyfo r Rainfed Crop Produc t ion in Thai land

A m p o l Senana rong*

A b s t r a c t

Of the four geographical regions of Thailand, the Northeast is where the problems ofrainfed agriculture are most evident. Low and unstable yields of all crops - especiallyrice - in this region, underutilization of land, and low soil fertility combine to make percapita income of farmers the lowest in the country. Until recently, research focused moreon varietal improvement than on cultural practices or soil and water conservation andmanagement Multidisciplinary research needs to be emphasized and long-rangeprograms developed to maintain continuity. Researchers, extension personnel, andpracticing farmers should be enabled to work together to develop technology that thefarmer can adopt profitably. A first step would be to accept existing farming systems andintroduce simple, low-cost innovations that wil l result in visible increases in yields.

Thailand occupies a geographical area of 51.4mill ion ha, of which 18.5 million ha are used foragricultural purposes. Rice is the major crop,accounting for 11.7 million ha. The area underupland crops is 3.3 million ha; under fruit andtree crops 1.8 mil l ion; under vegetable andornamental crops 95 thousand; and others 85thousand ha.

The kingdom is divided into four regions:North, Northeast, Central, and South. The percapita income is highest in the Central region,followed by the South, the North, and theNortheast.

Only about 20% of cropped land is irrigable.The largest irrigable area (2 million ha) is in theCentral region and only about 0.4 mill ion ha inthe Northeast. Much of the irrigation is duringthe rainy season and is chiefly used for rice.Water resources for irrigation in the dry seasonare l imited; only the Central and the Northregions are benefited. The major agriculturalexports are rice, cassava, corn, sugar, rubber,jute, kenaf, tobacco, and castor.

The present paper confines itself to theNortheast, which is the poorest region, wherefarming is the most precarious.

* Director, Field Crops Division, Department of Ag-riculture, Bangkok, Thailand.

The Reg ion

The region accounts for 34% of Thailand'spopulation and 40% of the agricultural house-holds. Per capita income of the farmers in theNortheast is the lowest in the kingdom; al-though the region occupies one-third of thecountry's area, it contributes only a sixth of thegross national product.

Cropped area in the Northeast is 5.2 mill ionha (from latitudes 14° to 18° N and longitudes101° to 105° E). Rice occupies the major area(4 million ha) and is grown mostly rainfed in theLowlands as well as in the Upper (Paddy)Terraces. The Lowlands are generally assuredfor rice except for f lood damage. The UpperTerraces can grow transplanted rice only if therainfall is heavy early in the season; otherwise,they are either transplanted late or remainfallow. It is estimated that even in normal yearsonly 75 to 80% of the rice area in the UpperTerraces is transplanted, and of the planted area80 to 90% is harvested; that is, only 60 to 72%of the Upper Terraces produce rice.

Upland crops occupy an area of 1.3 to 1.4million ha, the principal crops being com,cassava, and kenaf— which account for morethan 90% of the area — fol lowed by peanut and,to some extent, cotton, tobacco, and jute.Nearly 80% of the rice grown in the area isconsumed within the region; hence, farmers

247

attach greatest importance to rice. Cash incomeis largely' from the sale of upland crops, vegeta-bles, and livestock.

The region receives a mean annual rainfall ofabout 1200 mm (range 1000 to 1600 mm). Therainy season is from May to October. Except inareas bordering the Mekong river, rainfall isbimodal, with peaks in May and September.Rainfall in June and July is uncertain. Meantemperature is not less than 20°C in any month.

The soils are light textured, poor in fertility,and have a tendency to form crust. Topographyis undulating to rolling. Land forms areUplands, Upper Terraces, and Lowlands. Thereis subsurface movement of moisture from theUplands to the other two land forms.

Based on the rainfall and humidity, the regionfalls into the seasonally dry semihumid cate-gory; however, because of light soil and freedrainage, the Uplands and Upper Terraces ad-joining them are, in reality, semi-arid ratherthan semihumid.

The Problems

The major problems of the Northeast are lowand unstable yields of all crops, particularlyrice; the underutilization of land; and low soilfertility.

The low and unstable yields are traceableto the unpredictable rainfall of the region.Moreover, present crop varieties and culturalpractices are not ideal for rainfed conditions.This is most noticeable in the case of rainfedrice. The increased production — and there-fore increased exports — of agricultural com-modities has been due to expansion of croppedarea; yields have remained static and, in certaincrops, have decreased.

Underutilization of land is most obvious inthe Northeast. Out of 8.5 million ha of cropp-able land, only 5.2 million ha are cropped; thatis, 61% compared to 72% for the kingdom.Another aspect of underutilization of land is thelow cropping intensity, that is, the presentpractice of raising a single crop of rice of uplandcrops. Cropping systems appropriate to thethree land forms are yet to be identified.

Soil fertility problems are accentuated by lackof soil and water conservation practices, eitheron a catchment basis or at the farm level. This,together with the practice of growing crops

without the addition of either organic manuresor fertilizers, rapidly depletes soil reserves thatare already small because of light soil texture.Legumes are obviously absent in thepresently practiced cropping patterns.

Development of Research

Until recently, research on rainfed agriculturereceived little attention in Thailand, as in otherdeveloping countries. Funds were small andopportunities so scarce that only a few scien-tists were willing to work in this difficult area ofresearch. Those few who persisted were insuf-ficient to form teams strong enough to makesignificant contributions. The result was a discipline-oriented research which is too in-adequate to find solutions for the varied andcomplex problems of rainfed agriculture.

Even today, much-needed multidisciplinary,area-based, and resource-based researchaimed at solving field problems is either absentor is not given its due priority in researchprograms.

In Thailand, the first attempt to focus onrainfed agriculture was through the PioneerRainfed Rice Research Project, initiated in 1974,and the Upland Crops Improvement Project, in1976. Both these projects are financed by loansfrom the World Bank and are in operation in theNortheast. While they succeeded in generat-ing some useful information, continuing re-search on a long-term basis is needed.

Review of Research

As a rule, varietal improvement has receivedmore attention than cultural practices (ag-ronomy). Cropping systems research is still inits infancy; on-farm testing was initiated a couple of years ago. Research on soil and waterconservation, utilization, and management isyet to be initiated.

Varietal improvement was aimed largely atincreasing yields and resistance to pests; breed-ing varieties suitable for specific local condi-tions of soil and rainfall remained secondary.Practically no attempt has been made to de-velop varieties suitable for cropping systems.

Agronomy research was strongly crop-based. The objective was more to establish theyield potential of the elite varieties and theirsignificance than to optimize resource use. The

248

range of information was insufficient to developcropping systems. Attempts to superimposethe recommended practices of one crop overanother did not result in efficient croppingsystems.

On-farm testing was more for the benefit ofresearchers than farmers. It is still at the stage ofunderstanding the farmers and their practicesand appreciating the problems as farmers seethem.

Development of Technology

Agricultural technology is appropriate when thefarmers can adopt it and, if need be, adapt it.Rainfed agriculture in developing countries ispracticed by small farmers on small holdings,with limited resources and inputs. To be ap-propriate, the technology should require onlylow energy and low monetary inputs. It followsthat experiment station research is rarely di-rectly useful (Fig. 1).

Technology should not only state whatshould be done but also how it should be donewith the limited resources available to the smallfarmers who constitute the majority. Researchof a different kind — call it adaptive research,operational research, verification trials — isneeded. The first step is to accept the farmers'

systems and introduce simple innovationscapable of giving visible increases in yield. It isnot enough to list what the farmer has failed todo; one must understand the reasons behindthe failures in order to introduce innovations.The most fruitful and low-cost innovations con-cern variety, date of sowing, stand establish-ment, and weed control.

It is implicit that researchers, extension per-sonnel, and practicing farmers should worktogether in developing appropriate tech-nologies. The most difficult thing, it appears,is to find mechanisms to make this poss-ible within the present institutional structures.


There are two stages in the transfer of tech-nology: first, from research to extension and,second, from extension to farmer. This is be-cause in most countries research and extensionorganizations are separate and independent,and research will never be able to serve directlythe large number of farmers. It must be em-phasized that at every stage of transfer all threeparties are involved, namely, researchers, ex-tension personnel, and farmers. In the firststage, farmers serve as "observers" and in thesecond stage research provides backstop and

Figure 1. Development and Transfer of Technology Process.

249

monitors the programs.-At. both stages, feed-back is invaluable (Fig. 2),

Mainta in ing Cont inu i ty

Research generates new knowledge. Some ofthis knowledge which is useful and utilizablewould be incorporated into technology and intime would be transferred to extension andfarmers. Hence long-term institutional relationsare necessary to maintain continuity. The au-thor would like to see operational research,on-farm testing, and pilot projects as perma-nent features comparable in effort and invest-ment to those on crop improvement.

Figure 2. System of Transfer of Technology.

250

Phil ippine Experience in Crops in Dry Areas

J. D. Dr i lon, Jr. and Ed. B. Pantast ico*

Abstract

The Philippines, though a typical wet country with an average annual rainfall of 253 cm, has dry areas from November to April. The trend of crop production in the wet, wet-and-dry, and dry areas reflects the influence of environmental parameters, e.g., amount of rainfall, temperature, relative humidity, soil fertility and texture, and market situation. To introduce cropping patterns in these areas with old-established cropping practices, applied research trials were conducted to gain and establish confidence that the new package of technology will be adaptable to actual conditions. The trials stress the selection of the testing site, design and testing of the cropping system in the farmers' fields, and series of data evaluation. The KABSAKA technology - i.e., two rice croppings and one upland crop for the rainfed areas - developed from these activities, has given excellent results and, with appropriate modifications, can be adopted for other areas.

This paper presents some crop production ex-perience in dry areas in the Philippines. It alsocompares crop production in the wet, wet-and-dry, and dry areas.

The arbitrary grouping of the regions of thecountry is based on the duration and amount ofrainfall received throughout the year. Dry areashave at least 5-6 dry months; wet-and -dry, 2-4dry months; and wet, two dry months within a year. Dry months are those with 100 mm or lessof rainfall and wet months, those with 200 mmor more of rainfall.

In this respect, the environmental parame-ters, e.g. , amount of rainfall, temperature,relative humidity, soil fertility and texture, andmarket situation determine to a great extent thetrend of crop production in different locations.

Agroc l imate and Geography

Climate

The Philippines comprises about 7100 islandsand islets, which have an average annual rain-fall of 253 cm (Baradas 1978).

The annual precipitation in the three largestisland groups, Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao, is

* Director General and Director, Crops Research Divi-sion, Philippine Council for Agriculture and Re-sources Research.

272, 239, and 235 cm, respectively, distributedin a typical rainfall pattern as shown in Figure 1.The island of Mindanao, though having thelowest annual mean rainfall, has a uniformdistribution of rainfall throughout the growingseason of the crops. Being the least affected bytyphoons, it is an ideal place for crop production(Table 1).

Most of its islands are climatically influenced

Figure 1. Typical rainfall patterns for three areas of the Philippines — Central Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao.

251

Table 1. Grain yield (t/ha) of some ricevarieties/selections used in theIRRI-PCARR cropping systems trialsfor two crops in 1975 (Haws, 1978).

Region

LuzonVizayasMindanao

1975 (2 crops)

IR1561-228

7.4 c* (10)7.5 b (5)9.1 a (3)

* Means followed by a commordifferent at 5% level. Figuresnumber of locations.

IR30

5.9 c (10)7.4 b (5)8.8 a (3)

letter are not significantlyin parentheses ( ) indicate

by the southeast monsoon, which divides theyear into well defined wet and dry seasons, withthe cropping season for the annual cropsgenerally determined by the wet season. Manyareas in the country have rain from May toNovember, the peak being August toSeptember. During the wet periods, typhoonsand floods in the lowlands caused by intermit-tent heavy rainfall are the greatest hazards tocrop production. However, during the drymonths, particularly December to Apri l , there israinfall deficiency and some places approachthe semi-arid condition.

Most of the agricultural lands suited to riceand other upland crops is rainfed (Table 2 andFig. 2), cultural operations depending heavily

Table 2. Approximate distr ibution of rainfedareas in the Philippines (ha x 1000).

Region

llocosCagayan ValleyCentral LuzonSouthern LuzonBicol

Eastern VisayasWestern VisayasNorthern and Eastern

MindanaoSouthern and Western

Mindanao

Total

Lowlandrainfed

61.8137.9318.8122.2114.9

148.0281.5

96.2

155.1

1436.4

Uplandrainfed

4.329.17.0

131.240.0

13.922.2

110.3

76.5

434.4

Total

66.1167.0325.8253.4154.9

161.9303.7

206.5

231.6

1870.8

Figure 2. Percent distribution of rainfed areas in the Philippines.

on the stability of rainfall. As a consequence, theintensity of cropping, especially in dry areas likeLa Union, is mainly limited by the availability ofthe water throughout the duration of the crop.

The common cropping patterns in La Union,located in the north, are rice-tobacco and rice-vegetables. Tobacco or vegetables such assquash, tomato, eggplant, sweet pepper,beans, garlic, and onions are planted on a limited scale after the rice harvest. Rice isplanted in May to July and harvested in Octoberto November. Seedlings of transplantedvegetables/tobacco are raised in seedbeds,while melon, watermelon, ampalaya, squash,and beans are directly seeded in the field.

Situated in the tropics and surrounded bywarm seas, the Philippines is generally ex-pected to have high temperature as indicated byits mean annual air temperature of 27°C. Themaximum temperature observed at 1 and3 p.m. of the months of Apri l , May, and June is31.3°C, and the minimum temperature at 5 and7 a.m. in December, January, and February is22.8°C. The high air temperatures are usuallyobserved in the dry areas with mean annual airtemperature ranging from 26.8°C-27.6°C.

The high mean annual relative humidity(81%) observed in the country is brought aboutby the extensive evaporation from the seassurrounding the islands, the rich vegetation, the

252

moist air stream affecting the Philippines andthe large volume of rainfall.

The distribution of the relative humidityfollows the pattern of rainfall distribution. Dur-ing northeast monsoon, high relative humidityis expected over the eastern portion, and lowrelative humidity is prevalent in the interiorareas.

Soils

Soil texture is perhaps the most important soilproperty that determines the suitable croppingpattern in a vertain environment. The pre-dominant soil types in the dry areas are themoderately fine texture, e.g., silty clay loam,clay loam, and sandy clay loam; mediumtexture, e.g., loam silt, loam, silt; and coarsetexture, e.g., sandy loam and loamy sand.

The water-holding capacities of these diffe-rent soil textures are presented in Table 3. A medium-textured soil provides better rootpenetration at the lower layer of the soil than thefine-textured types. However, immediate dry-ing of the surface, more evident in light than inheavy soils, is relevant to the growing of cropsduring the dry months. Table 4 shows cropsfound suitable for growing during the dryseason, as reflected by their low water require-ment throughout the growing season.

Development of Technologyon Cropping Systems

In essence, the technology on cropping systemsin the country is developed through a series ofactivities: basic research in experiment station,preproduction phases in farmers' fields, and

Table 3 . Water re ten t i on capac i ty o f the d i f fe -rent tex tu res o f some so i l types in t hePhi l ipp ines.

Soil texture

SandySandy loamLoamClay loamSilty loamClay

Centimeter of waterper 30 cm of soil

2.53.65.15.86.46.9

Table 4. Water requirements of crops suitedfor planting during the dry months(International Rice Research Prog-ram Review, 1979).

Crop

RiceCornMungoCowpea

SoybeanSorghumPeanut

Crop requirement

During growing Period duration(cm) (days)

35-70* 70-19050-80 85-11530-50 60-7530-50 55-65

45-70 60-7545-65 95-12050-70 100-110

Values are higher for the Philippines.

- Yield responseto water

(kg)

HighHigh (1.25)Med. High (1.15)Med. High (1.15)

Med. Low (0.85)Med. Low (0.9)Low (0.7)

finally, adoption as regional/national programs.The universities/colleges, different bureaus of

the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Inter-national Rice Research Institute generate viabletechnology for cropping systems, e.g. varieties,cropping patterns, insect and weed controlmethods. This information is assembled as a package of technology for testing in the rainfedareas of the country. Testing is done on thefarmers' fields to identify the constraintsand reduce the risks involved before massiveadoption in the region or entire country. Thismeans that the technology should be screenedin specific environments whose magnitudes arespecified in the planning of research activities.

Collaborative Planning

Interested research entities form workinggroups that will develop plans of activities forthe preproduction phase, composed of appliedresearch and pilot extension. For instance, IRRIand PCARR collaborate with the Bureau ofAgricultural Extension (BAEx) for the transfer ofthe new technology to farmers in differentlocations.

A p p l i e d R e s e a r c h T r i a l s

Select ion of the Test ing Site

The testing sites are chosen principally on thebasis of agroclimate. For example, in 1976, theIRRI-PCARR cooperative applied research pro-

253

jects on rainfed rice conducted trials on 17locations of 12 provinces exhibiting differentrainfall patterns and soil texture and types.Most areas in the Philippines have rain fromMay to November, with August-September asthe peak months.

Among these 17 locations, 3 are classified aswet, 10 as wet-and-dry, and 4 as dry areas. Thewet areas were located in southern Luzon andpetrts of Visayas; wet-and-dry, distributed insome parts of Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao;and the dry areas, mostly in northern Luzonwhich, incidentally, is about the same latitudeas Hyderabad, India (21° 25' N).

The water-holding capacity of the soil is wellconsidered. This soil property would indicate itscapability to support rice and other short-duration crops during the dry and wet periods.

Design of the Trials

Two rice croppings of 3 months' duration couldeasily be grown within the rainy season. Anupland crop fol lowing the second crop of rice isalso a strong possibility, which can be tested inboth dry and wet areas.

The design of the experiments considered thefollowing factors: (1) land and soils, (2) rainfalldistribution, (3) crops usually grown byfarmers, (4) marketability of crops, (5) cropadaptability, (6) farm resources (i.e. labor andcredit) available in the locality.

Five basic questions served as guidelines indeciding the applicability of the technology tobe introduced:

1. Are the patterns highly productive?2. Are the patterns stable over t ime and

space?3. Of the sets of patterns for a given en-

vironmental complex, which are the mostpromising?

4. Are the pattern requirements within thelimitations of the farmer's resources?

5. Are the various management componentsat opt imum level?

St ra tegy of Test ing

The farmers' fields served as the testing sites.The experimental sites were approximately1000 sq m so that data could be computed on a per ha basis. The farmer-cooperator wasselected based on the fol lowing criteria: (1) he

must reside and farm on the site, (2) farmingmust be his principal source of family income,(3) he must have finished at least elementaryeducation or its equivalenttraining, (4) he mustown a work animal and basic farm implements,(5) he should have good standing in the com-munity, and (6) his farm should be accessible.

The cooperators were provided with allnecessary inputs and component technologyand management. The inputs were madeavailable through supervised credit.1 Thecomponent and management technology wereextended by the researchers and the technicianat the credit institution. However, the laborportion was left to the farmers' responsibility.Contracts were arranged so that the producewas channeled to the local markets or to theNational Grains Authority.

P i l o t E x t e n s i o n P h a s e

When most of the possible constraints in theapplied research trials were identified andsolved, the size of the testing site (50-100 ha ormore) and the number of cooperators in-creased. When pilot-testing the promisingtechnology, the cooperation of the local gov-ernment was also solicited to ensure theefficient transfer of technology. Basically, thesteps employed in the applied research trialswould be followed. However, in the selection ofthe pilot-testing sites, the following points arealso considered:

1) Is there leadership in the area?2) Is the rainfall stable, as revealed by data

collected by the project?3) Is thefe organization and cooperation

among agricultural agencies or can thesebe obtained?

4) Are there indications that farmers arecooperating voluntarily in activities?

5) Will the technology greatly change theworking habits of the farmers in the area?

In all areas considered, the yield also had tobe 8 t/ha or above, for the two crops of rice.

Station Barbara, lloilo, was selected as thefirst pilot-testing site of the IRRI-PCARR project

1. Under the Integrated Farming Scheme, thefarmer-cooperator could borrow approximately P 2000 -P 3000 (U.S. $270-405) based on two crop-pings of rice and an upland crop.

254

on cropping system. It was known as KABSAKA("Kabusugan sa Kaumahan" or bounty on thefarms).

Results and Discussions

The applied research trials of IRRI-PCARR oncropping systems covered the wet, wet-and-dry, and dry areas of the country. The croppingpatterns differed with locations. Generally, tworice croppings are quite possible in areas withsufficient supply of water during the growingstages of the rice crop. A third crop of corn,sorghum, soybean, peanut, mungo, cowpea, orsweet potato may follow the second crop of ricein some locations. These crops are generallyplanted in wet-and-dry, and dry areas wherewater is very limited during the dry months ofthe year. Table 5 presents the yields of crops inthe three environments. The profitability of thedifferent crop combinations in the various lo-cations is shown in Appendix Table 1.

W e t A r e a s

Samar (Region VIII), Albay (Region V) and Aklan(Region VI) represent the wet areas of thecountry. Samar and Albay have similar rainfallpatterns of less than 2 dry months and 7 to 9 wet months, and are often visited by typhoons.There are at least 16 to 19 typhoons visiting thecountry every year.

However, the yield response of the crops inthese locations differed. Samar is found mostsuited to rice, while Albay may grow uplandcrops from January to April. In fact, sorghumand mungo yielded the highest among thelocations tested.

Aklan, which lies outside the typhoon beltarea, outyielded Samar.

W e t - a n d - d r y A r e a s

lloilo (Region VI), North Cotabato (Region XI)and Quezon (Region IV) representing Visayas,Mindanao, and Luzon, respectively, have 2 to 4 dry months and 5 to 6 wet months. The viablecropping patterns in these places reflect theinfluence of the climatic and economic factors.

The effect of typhoons on the yield of the firstcrop of rice was very evident in some of theseareas. Mindanao is more favorable for rice

growing during the wet season than Visayas orLuzon. Towards the dry months, however,Luzon is most favored because of clear skies.Solar radiation, favorable to photosynthesis, ishigher in Luzon than Visayas or Mindanaoduring this time.

The third crop probably indicates the localmarket situation. In Visayas, corn is the staplecrop and sorghum is a potential substitute forcorn as feedgrain. Cotabato is considered therice bowl of Mindanao. Lucena, being an urbanplace near Manila, can readily dispose of theproduce in local markets or in Manila. Palawanis an isolated island of Luzon and producesprimarily for local consumption. Sweet potatocan substitute for rice during lean months andlegumes are possible cheap sources of protein.

Despite some constraints to production, itwas in this type of rainfall that the new tech-nology was found most suitable. For instance,results of the lloilo Pilot Extension Project onCropping Systems at Station Barbara, lloilo(KABSAKA), demonstrated the possibility ofgrowing two rice crops and an upland crop inrainfed areas. Transfer of technology was wellfacilitated, as indicated by the spontaneousadoption by farmers of the technology. Aneconomic analysis showed that the net incomefrom 148 ha of rice was 2679 (U.S. $ 344).

Prior to adopting the KABSAKA technology, a farmer grossed only 6000 ($800) per annumfor a 35-cavan harvest (1.75 t/ha) from a singlewet-season crop of rice. After joining the Pro-ject, he was able to harvest two rice cropsamounting to 500 cavans (25 t/ha) valued at21 000 ($2800). Immediately after his secondcrop of rice was harvested, he planted mungo (1ha), peanut (1 ha) and corn (2 ha). He harvestedthem in February , all for 4750 ($633), brokendown as follows:

255

Mungo (5 cavans)Peanut {5 cavans)Corn (30 cavans)

1500 ($200)750($100)

2500 ($333)In a span of 10 months, he grossed about

25 750 ($3433), which is 19 750 ($2633) higherthan his previous income of 6000 ($800).

KABSAKA as a rainfed cropping technologyhas caught the attention of farmers and policymakers alike. In fact, at least four externalagencies (World Bank, FAO, the AustralianGovernment, and the Japanese Government)have been cooperating with Project KABSAKAin different parts of the country.

Dry Areas

The dry areas are mostly found in northernLuzon. The first two crops in these locations are

planted to rice. Among the upland crops thatserve as cash crops are corn, sorghum, peanut,mungo, cowpea, soybean, and sweet potato.The selection of the third crop is primarily based

Table 5. Yield of f irst, second and third crops in wet, wet-and-dry, and dry areas in the Philippines(IRRI-PCARR Annual Report, 1976).

Location

Wet areasCatarman, SamarGuinobatan, Albay

Kalibo, Aklan

Wet-and-dry areasSta. Barbara,

iloiloKabacan,

North CotabatoLucena, Quezon

Puerto Princesa,Palawan

Dry areasSan Fernando

La UnionEchague, Isabela

Dry areasSta. Maria,

Bulacan

Sta. Maria,Pangasinan

*1.2-<2 DM(drym1.3 - < 2 DM and 3-2.3- 2-4 DM and 5-

onths) and 7-4WM6WM

2.5- 2-4 DM and <3 WM3.3 - 5-6 DM and 5-3.4- 5-6 DM and 3-

6 WM4 WM

Rainfalltype*

1.21.2

1.3

2.3

2.32.3

2.5

3.3

3.3

3.3

3.4

-9 WM (wet

First

Rice 2.3Rice 2.7

Rice 3.8

Rice 5.6

Rice 8.7Rice 3.6

Rice 2.8

Rice 3.3

Rice 2.4

Rice 2.9

Rice 1.5

months)

Crop yield (t/ha)

Second

Rice 4.2Rice 1.2

Rice 6.0

Rice 4.6

Rice 4.4Rice 5.1

Rice 3.6

Rice 4.9

Rice 1.7

Rice 2.4

Rice 3.7

Third

CornSorghumMungo

CornSorghum

RiceCornSorghumMungoSoybeanCowpeaSweet PotatoSoybeanPeanutCowpeaSweet Potato

SorghumCornSoybeanCowpeaSweet Potato

CornSorghumSoybeanPeanutSweet PotatoCornSorghumMungo

2.36.21.1

3.13.5

5.32.44.40.72.01.25.11.40.53.07.0

3.31.80.70.32.4

1.51.81.01.93.64.76.70.6

Total

6.56.2

10.15.09.8

13.313.7

18.411.113.19.4

10.79.9

13.87.86.99.4

13.4

11.510.04.84.4

10.6

6.87.16.37.28.99.9

11.95.8

256

on the versatility of the crop. A market is readilyavailable because these areas have greateraccess to Manila than Visayas or Mindanao.

Corn can be planted through November fordry grain. Cowpea is the most versatile and canbe planted any t ime during the growing season.Sorghum can thrive even in drought conditions.Mungo can be grown only at the end of the rain.It cannot be harvested wet because of its lowseed dormancy. Peanut can tolerate heavy rainearly in the season but must have less than 100mm/month at harvest t ime to prevent rotting.Sweet potato will tolerate heavy rain for the first60 days but will rot if harvested early during thewet periods. Soybean is planted late October toearly November because it is photoperiod-sensitive.

Comparative yields of the f i rst second, andthird crops in wet, wet-and-dry, and dry areas inthe country are presented in Figure 3. Rice asfirst and second crop and corn as third cropgrow favorably in wet-and-dry-1 areas. The dryareas could not support as well as the otherenvironments did rice or an upland crop ofeither corn, sorghum, or mungo.

However, crop production in the dry areasseems to have bright prospects, too. Theapplied research trials verify the possibility ofgrowing two crops of rice and an upland cropunder light soils (Fig. 4).

Potent ia l Crops

Based on a series of applied research trials, the

W WD D R ice

1st Crop

W WD D R ice

2nd Crop

W WD D Corn

3 r d Crop

W WD D Sorghum

W WD D Mungo

Figure 3. Comparative yield of first, second, and third crops in wet, wet-and-dry, and dry areas in the Philippines.

257

DSR = direct-seeded rice

Figure 4. Production potential for growing two crops of rice in heavy soils or one crop of rice and one of seven crops on light soils under rainfed conditions in areas with five dry months.

potential upland crops that can be grown afterthe first crop of rice are sweet potato, sorghum,corn, peanut, soybean, cowpea, and mungo inthe dry areas (Fig. 5).

The first crop of rice is planted at the onset ofrainfall in May or early June. The rice harvestcan either be domestically consumed or sold. Ifrice is intended as a cash crop, sweet potatowith its high caloric value and vitamin A contentcan supplement rice as the main source of dailyenergy food. The rest of the sweet potato ischanneled to makers of native delicacies, directconsumers and to swine raisers. Cowpea andmungo, considered as poor man's food, cansubstitute for expensive sources of protein.Cowpea can be used in the making of pork andbeans, soysauce, and, possibly, texturized veg-etable meat. Mungo commands high prices inthe local market. Consumers have a high pre-ference for mungo. It has potential industrialuses such as flour, textured vegetable protein,noodles, etc. Peanut, another popular seedlegume, is in demand for snacks; edible oil,butter, confectionery, as a base for cosmetics,etc. Peanut shells could serve as fuel, too. Corn

and sorghum are potential feedgrains, thoughcorn finds many uses in the household. Corn isused in flour making, edible oil, explosives,paints, etc. Sorghum is popularized in thedomestic household as a snack. It can be a source of flour, tannin, varnish, etc. Soybean,being rich in protein, is used mainly in thefeeding of swine, poultry, and livestock. It ismade into fermented food products such assoysauce, tofu, and textured vegetable pro-ducts.

For heavy soils, which have a high capacity tostore water, the rice-rice-upland crops combi-nation is applicable. However, soybean,mungo, sorghum, peanut, and corn grow withdifficulty in soils with high concentrations ofclay. The yields of rice crops generally improvein the second cropping season, due, perhaps, tohigh solar radiation towards the Philippinesummer months.

Light-textured soils having low water-holdingcapacity could not successfully support two ricecrops, which are shallow rooted and needample supply of soil moisture. Drought-tolerantupland crops with deep penetrating roots are

258

Figure 5, Alternative cropping patterns for dry areas.

best suited to fol low after the rice harvest.Growing of the third crop would be limited tothose capable of yielding satisfactorily underextreme water stress, like sorghum.

However, the local demands and possiblyforeign markets primarily determine the choiceof cropping patterns in the respective areas. Forinstance on the basis of the present price of thecrop commodities listed in Figure 5, the mostprofitable combination in heavy soils was rice(IR1561), rice (IR30) and peanut, giving a totalincome for the year of 19732 ($ 2631)/ha. Inlight soils, the best crop combination was rice(IR1561), sweet potato, and peanut, yielding anincome of 18601 ($ 2480) but for the same soiltexture, rice (IR1561), peanut, and peanut with a total of 17724 ($ 2363) was not far behind.

Looking Ahead

In the country today, there are several ongoingnational agricultural programs that aim tocreate sufficiency levels in food and feedcropsto improve the quality of life of small farmers

and safeguard them from inflation due to theever-increasing price of oil. Among them areMasagana 99 (M-99) for irrigated rice,Masagana Maisan (M-M) for corn, sorghum,and soybean, Gulayan sa Kalusugan (GK) formungo, peanut, and vegetables, and NationalMutiple Cropping Program for cropping inten-sification of the rainfed areas.

M-99, launched in 1973, extended financialand technical assistance to small rice farmers toboost rice production and attain a self-sufficiency level. Prior to this program, riceinsufficiency was keenly felt during the leanmonths (August-September) because rice wasplanted only during the wet seasons. Today, themembers of this program enjoy a prosperouslife and can send their children to college.

Two years after the bumper harvests of ricewere realized, the M-M program was pushedthrough to increase the production of feed-grains such as corn, sorghum, and soybean toreduce import costs and help local feedmillers,livestock, swine, and poultry growers, and,ultimately, the small farmers.

259

To i m p r o v e the nu t r i t ion o f these ord inaryfa rmers , ex tens ive vegetab le p roduc t i on in thebackyard and in commerc ia l areas was encour-aged t h r o u g h the GK and Green Revo lu t ionProgram in 1976.

In the same year, the g o v e r n m e n t launched a nat ional mu l t i p le -c ropp ing p r o g r a m speci f i -cal ly d i rec ted to the smal l fa rmers . S o m e re-searches have been conduc ted and are n o wbeing p i lo ted in s o m e pro ject areas. One suchexamp le is KABSAKA, a t echno logy deve lopedand f o u n d mos t su i tab le for the we t -and-d ryareas in the count ry . W i t h mod i f i ca t i on o f t hetechno logy and so lu t i on o f the poss ib le con-stra ints to its a d o p t i o n , there is a s t rong possi -b i l i ty o f deve lop ing su i tab le c ropp ing sys temsfor the ra in fed areas. In fact, s o m e recom-m e n d e d mu l t i p le -c ropp ing pat terns after r ice indry areas w i t h d i f ferent rainfal l pat terns and soiltex tu re are f o rmu la ted (Append ix Table 2) tohelp the fa rmers especial ly in the d ry areas toselect su i tab le and pro f i tab le c rop comb ina -t ions .

W i th b reak th roughs in research on c ropp ingsys tems and the genu ine interest o f the gov-e rnmen t to i m p r o v e the s tandards o f l i v ing andmora le o f the marg ina l fa rmers , c rop produc-t ion in the dry areas has br ight prospects.

Acknowledgment

This paper was prepared with the assistance of L. N.Ragus, Crops Research Division, PCARR, Los Barios,Helpful comments from L. O. Faigmane on earlierdrafts are acknowledged.

References

AYCARDO, H. B. 1977. Multiple cropping with vegeta-bles. In Multiple cropping sourcebook. Los Barios,Laguna: University of the Philippines at Los Banos,College of Agriculture.

BOLTON, F. R., and de DATTA, S. K. 1977. Dry soil

mulching to conserve soil moisture in tropical rain-fall rice culture. Presented at the Seventh AnnualMeeting, Crop Science Society of the Philippines,5-7 May 1977, La Trinidad, Benguet, Philippines.

BUNOAN, J. C. 1975. Recent development in croppingsystems applied research in the Philippines. Pre-sented at the Workshop for the South and SoutheastAsia Cropping Systems Network. IRRI, Los Banos,Laguna, Philippines.

CARANDANG, D. A. 1979. Multiple cropping researchin UPLB. Presented at the Multiple CroppingSymposium/Workshop. CEC, 21-23 May 1979, Uni-versity of the Philippines at Los Barios, College ofAgriculture, Laguna, Philippines.

HARWOOD, R. R., CARANDANG, D. A., and BARILE, D.

1977. Multiple cropping system based on rice. InMultiple cropping sourcebook. Los Banos, Laguna:University of the Philippines at Los Banos, Collegeof Agriculture.

HAWS, L. D. [n.d.]. Cropping Systems: Their de-velopment in rainfed areas. Los Banos, Laguna,Philippines: IRRI.

IRRI. 1979. International Rice Research Institute Sym-posium on Cropping Systems. Los Banos, Laguna,Philippines.

IRRI-PCARR. 1977. Cooperative Applied Research Pro-ject on Rainfed Rice. Annual report, 1977 (Series III).Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines: IRRI.

MANALO, E. B. 1976. Rainfall data. Los Banos,Laguna, Philippines: IRRI.

MARTIN, R. 1977. Physical environment in rice-basedcropping systems. Lecture, IRRI Training Course onCropping Systems. 22 Dec 1977, Los Banos, Laguna,Philippines.

MORRIS, R. A. 1978. Cropping systems researchmethods. Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines: IRRI.(Mimeographed.)

MORRIS, R. A., and ZANDSTRA, H. G. 1978. Soil and

climatic determinants in relation to cropping sys-tem. Presented at the International Rice ResearchInstitute Conference. 17-21 Apr 1978, Los Barios,Laguna, Philippines. (Mimeographed.)

OLDEMAN, L. R., and SUARDI, D. 1977. Climatic de-

terminants in relation to cropping pattern. Page 61in Proceedings, Symposium on Cropping SystemsResearch and Development for the Asian Farmer.IRRI, 21-24 Sept 1976, Los Barios, Laguna, Philip-pines.

PANTASTICO, Ed. B., and SAN VALENTIN, A. B. 1977.

Rainfed crop production research and developmentin the Philippines. Los Barios, Laguna, PhilippinesPCARR. 96 pp.

PANTASTICO, Ed. B., HAWS, L. D., DILAG, R. T. JR.,

and CARDENAS, A. C. 1979. IRRI-PCARR CroppingSystems. In Proceedings, Multiple CroppingSymposium/Workshop. CEC, 21-23 May 1979, Uni-versity of the Philippines at Los Barios, College ofAgriculture, Laguna, Philippines.

260

PCARR. 1977. Philippines recommends for integratedfarming system. Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines:PCARR.

Philippine Handbook and Almanac. 1973. Manila,Philippines.

PRICE, E. C. 1977. Economic criteria for croppingpattern design. Page 167 in Proceedings, Sym-posium on Cropping Systems Research and De-velopment for the Asian Rice Farmer. IRRI, 21-24Sept 1976, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines.

ZANDSTRA, H. G. 1977. Cropping systems researchfor the Asian rice farmer. Pages 11-30 in Proceed-ings, Symposium on Cropping Systems Researchand Development for the Asian Rice Farmer. IRRI,21-24 Sept 1976, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines.

ZANDSTRA, H. G. 1977. Soil management for rice-based cropping system. Presented at the Sym-posium on Soils and Rice. IRRI, 20-23 Sept 1977, LosBanos, Laguna, Philippines. (Mimeographed.)

261

Appendix Table 1. Economic analysis of the different cropping patterns in wet, wet-and -dry ,/anddry areas of the Philippines.

Location

Wet areasCatarman, SamarGuinobatan, Albay

Kalibo, Aklan

Wet-and-dry areasSta. Barbara, lloilo

Kabacan, N. Cotabato

Lucena, Quezon

Puerto Princesa,Palawan

Dry areasSan Fernando,

La Union

Echaque, Isabela

Sta.Maria, Bulacan

Sta .Maria, Pangasinan

* Yield data are presented

Cropping pattern

1st

RiceRice

Rice

Rice

Rice

Rice

Rice

Rice

Rice

Rice

Rice

2nd

RiceRice

Rice

Rice

Rice

Rice

Rice

Rice

Rice

Rice

Rice

3rd

CornSorghumMungo

CornSorghumRice

CornSorghumMungoSoybeanCowpeaSweet Potato

SoybeanPeanutCowpeaSweet Potato

SorghumCornSoybeanCowpeaSweet Potato

CornSorghumSoybeanPeanutSweet Potato

CornSorghumMungo

in Table 5 of the text.

Total grossIncome

15 9259 1456 8203 674

24 010

28 4223 850

45 080

23 9554 8182 4725 5722 4006 477

19 6001 9606 0008 890

23 7201 980

11 921680

3048

14 6351 9802 6887 5604 572

17 9107 3701 937

($)

21231219909490

3201

3790513

6011

3194642330743320864

2613261800

1185

3163264

158991

406

1951264358

1008610

2388983218

Total cost ofproduction

24003718131817591200

371813183600

371813181760185717602306

4257285817602306

37181318425717602306

37181318185728582306

371813181760

($)

320496176235160

496176480

496176235248235307

568381235307

496176568235307

496176248381307

496176235

Net income

13 5255 4275 5021 915

22 810

24 7042 532

41 480

20 2373 500

7123715

6404 171

15 343898

4 2406 584

20 002662

7 6541 0801 012

10 917662831

4 7022 266

14 1926 052

177

($)

1803724734255

3041

3294338

5531

2698467

95495

85556

2046120565878

266788

1020144135

145688

111627302

1892607

24

262

Append ix Table 2 . Recommended mu l t i p le cropping pat terns a f ter r ice fo r areas w i t h d i f fe ren tra in fa l l pat terns and soi l tex tures .

Locations Rainfall pattern*

Dry areas Low, Increasing(5 -6 or more

dry months)

Low, Decreasing

Wet-and-dry areas Medium, Increasing(2-4 dry months)

Soil texture**

SL-SiL

SiL-CLCL-CC

SL-SiL

SiL-CL

CL-CC

SL-SiLSiL-CL

CL-C

C

CL-C

C

Wet-and-dry areas Medium, Decreasing SL-SiL(2-4 dry months)

Wet areas Medium, Level(less than 2 dry months)

SiL-CL

CL-C

C

SL-SiL

SiL-CL

CL-C

C

Recommended crops***

Corn, mungo, peanut, sweetpotato, cowpea, soybean

Mungo, cowpea, corn, peanutMungo, cowpeaCowpea

Mungo, cowpea, sorghum,peanut, sweet potato

Sorghum, mungo, cowpea,sweet potato, corn, peanut

Mungo, cowpea, sweet potatoCowpea

Corn, soybean, cowpeaCowpea, corn, soybean,

intensive vegetablesSoybean, rice (direct seeded),

cowpea, intensive vegetablesRice (transplanted), cowpea,

intensive vegetablesSoybean, rice (direct seeded),

cowpea, intensive vegetablesRice (direct seeded), cowpea,

intensive vegetables

Corn, cowpea, soybean,sweet potato, peanut, sorghum,mungo

Sorghum, soybean, mungo,cowpea, sweet potato

Rice (transplanted), cowpea,mungo, soybean

Cowpea

Rice, cowpea (green),corn (green)

Rice, cowpea (green), corn(green), intensive vegetables,viny crops


Rice, cowpea, intensivevegetables, viny crops

Continued

263

264

Append ix Table 2. continued...

Locations Rainfall pattern*

High, Increasing

Soi l t ex tu re * * Recommended c r o p s * * *

SL-SiL

SiL-CL

CL-C

C

Wet areas Medium, Decreasing SL-SiL

SiL-CL

CL-C

C

Rice, cowpea (green), corn(green)



Rice, cowpea, intensivevegetables, viny crops

Corn, cowpea, soybean,sweet potato, peanut,sorghum, mungo

Sorghum, soybean, mungocowpea, sweet potato

Rice (transplanted),cowpea, mungo, soybean

Cowpea

* Dry months have 100 or less mm of rainfall per month and wet months, 200 or more mm of rainfall per month. Low - 0-100mm; Medium - 100-200 and High -200 or more. Amount of rainfallharvesting of the crops.

** SL - sandy loam, SiL - silt loam, CL - clay loam, C -

increases or decreases as reckoned from planting to

clay. This is related to the water retention capacity of these soil types.* * * Soybean, mungo, sorghum and peanut grow with difficulty in soils with high clay concentration.

Summary of Discussion - Session 6

Chairman Sauger commented that the papersfrom this session fell into two groups — extension and research — with an importantdistinction between them. The first group ex-pressed dissatisfaction at the existing state ofaffairs; the second group was fully or almostfully satisfied. Co-chairman Doggett summedup the afternoon's papers. He expressed con-cern that the papers contained few estimates oftechnologyactually transferred. In more than 30years' experience in the tropics, he said, he hadnot seen farmers near research stations takeany interest in the activities of the station. Howrapidly was technology being transferred? Didwe have effective techniques for transferringtechnology?

He said the paper by Drs. Randhawa andVenkateswarlu gave an encouraging view of theimpact made by the Indo-British and Indo-Canadian projects, with technology now begin-ning to be adopted in the project areas. TheNigerian paper gave the impression of slowadoption, citing the farmers' poverty as a majorreason for the slowness. This is indeed causefor concern, Dr. Doggett said. He wondered ifthe technology being developed is within thefarmers' reach. For example, he said, an ex-periment station recommendation for fertilizerin a cassava project was 100-100-100, whereasa 10-10-18 coconut fertilizer was the maximumactually, and effectively, used for 8 years.

The approach in Brazil appears very good andit sounds as though all aspects have beenconsidered. There is plenty of financial input,too, and — perhaps a key factor — farmers'profits are increasing.

In Senegal, Dr. Doggett said, where there hasbeen a series of efforts to find the best way ofgetting technology across to the farmer, Dr.Sene's paper implied that not a great deal ofprogress had in fact been made. This is a serious situation. At the lARCs, we are lookingat some fairly advanced technology, and the bigquestion in this: if we can't get even the simplestuff across to the farmer, what is the t ime scalefor the more complex agricultural procedures?

It would be very helpful, Dr. Doggett said, tohave some information on how much and how

successful the technology transferred is prov-ing to be. High-yielding varieties seem to bewell accepted. But are they adopted alone orwith a package of practices? Is this packagesubstantially different from the one originallyrecommended?

The cropping systems approach in Thailandseems very relevant. This is a vital area. In thePhilippines, the cropping system developed atIRRI, tested and modified on the farm with thefarmer actually doing the trials, does seem to bewell accepted.

Is the technology we are recommendingreally worth the farmer's while? The work ofthe international centers is worth nothing,Dr. Doggett concluded if we cannot get thetechnology over to the farmer.

Dr. Laxman Singh observed that techniquesfor transferring technology in rainfed areasmust be radically different from those followedin the "green revolution" irrigated areas. Thetechnique used successfully in irrigated areashas not resulted in adoption of new technologyto support the technology in rainfed areas, evenon adjoining fields after 10 years, he said. Wehave not created the infrastructure to supportthe technology we introduce. One solution is toorganize the farmers to create and maintain aninfrastructure to sustain the new technology.The farmer should be helped to process his cropso that he realizes greater benefits.

Dr. Govindaswamy described techniquesused: to test findings in the farmers' fields foreconomic viability. On an experimental basisresearchers were able to help farmers makespectacular gains — from40 quintals (400 kg) to4 tonnes. They also got feedback from thefarmers so that research findings could beevaluated.

Dr. Sy from Mali said that Dr. Sene's descrip-tion of Senegalese research as functioning inivory towers was not accurate, that the fault wasnot with the research but with the organiza-tional structure. It is not as if researchers inventtheir own problems and then try to find solu-tions for them — it is that the farmers don'tconstitute a strong enough pressure group anddo not have adequate means of conveying their

265

problems to researchers. Extension workers arenot able to take results from the lab to the smallfarmers. Perhaps, Dr. Sy said, there could betraining programs to enable extension workersto draw on the published results of researchwork, digest them, and pass them on to thefarmer.

Dr. Gill cited as a good example from Ghanathe transfer of technology using only simpleinnovations — local improved variety of cornand locally available fertilizer and insecticide.

Dr. Avadhani observed that in studies he hadbeen involved in, the 25- to 40-year old group offarmers and those who had a high school orhigher education were more receptive to inno-vations than others.

266

Session 7

Linkages

Moderator : A. B. Joshi

Panel members: W. K. AgbleA. B. JoshiN. O. KaneB. A. KrantzMichael U p t o nB. N. Webster

Rapporteurs: D. L. OswaltA. S. Murthy

Linkages for Transfer of Technology

B. N. Webster*

Abstract

The paper examines the more traditional concepts of technology transfer in agriculturaldevelopment and points up the multidimensional nature of the linkages required tosustain a dynamic applied knowledge system. Considerable emphasis is given to theinternal transfer of technologies and the greater relevance of those indigenouslygenerated. The importance of the human element at all levels is stressed, and thus thecardinal role to be played by proper linkages with education and training institutions inthe preparation of cadres of properly trained "human l inks" in the transfer chain.

Many papers on this subject during this last 10years or so have stressed what I have alwaysbelieved in. That is the importance of recogniz-ing the farmer's field as the end goal of researchand thus of the need for ensuring the strength ofall the links in the technology transfer chainleading thereto. In examining these linkageswe must also assume the existence of thestructures to be l inked—an institution, a ser-vice, and ultimately individuals, each of which isnecessary to ensure a smooth f low of know-ledge and its appropriate application.

We have heard during the last week frommany speakers about individual examples andspecific methods of technology transfer andabout ICRISATs own approach to its problemsand concepts. I shall attempt to point out somespecific problem areas in the process of transferof agricultural technology that are generallyconsidered to constitute "weak l inks/ ' and tooffer some solutions — not necessarily originalones — aimed at the shoring up of these weakspots.

The Network of Transfer

Traditional approaches to technology transfertended to regard it strictly as a vertical process:from the developed to the less developed, fromthe international to the regional and to thenational level, and thence through variousstages (always regarded as downwards!) to the

* Senior Agricultural Research Officer, FAO.

rural producer or entrepreneur. Also, such tech-nology was usually of developed country originand much of its transfer was prompted by thecall of the first United Nations Conference onScience and Technology in 1963 for the rapidtransfer of a vast bulk of "technology" from themore developed countries, in the erroneousbelief that this would provide a panacea for thesocial ills of hunger, malnutrition, and povertyin the less developed countries.

A more enlightened view now prevails. Thesecond UNCSTD meeting this last week hasheard from many sources — including the UNitself, the Pug wash Council, and COSTED — o fthe importance of Technical Cooperation be-tween Developing Countries (TCDC) as well aswith the more advanced countries (TCAC). Theimportance of regional dissemination and shar-ing, and the ensuring of proper internal distri-bution of knowledge within each country (lat-eral transfer) have also been stressed at theconference. Thus, some regard the various com-ponents in the technology transfer process ashaving a two-dimensional relationship in theform of a network. However, as many of thesecomponents have relationships both with eachother and with other correlated entities, a mul-tidimensional network or matrix may better beenvisaged. If, indeed, we were to regard thespatial distribution of components in a similarway to that of a complex chemical molecule,then the linkages that we are discussing — t ocontinue the metaphor — could be regarded asthe bonds. Inasmuch as a bond does not existindependently, so the linkages in our systemshould normally be an integral part of, or at

269

least provided by, one or another of the com-ponents to be linked. On occasion, however, it isnecessary to look to a third party to provide thedesired contacts, and when so necessary, thethird party could best be regarded in the form ofa catalyst.

Components of the Networkand Suggested Linkages

Major sources of agricultural technology ex-ternal to the less developed countries are thetransnational corporations, the internationalagricultural research centers, and internationaland bilateral aid agencies (which in turn haveaccess to, and draw their knowledge from,research stations, universities, industries,learned societies, etc., in the developed coun-tries and the more advanced less developedcountries). A growing source is now from otherdeveloping countries with similar problems andresources.

Whatever the source of funding—trans-nat ional , internat ional , foundat ions, orbilateral — one must distinguish the donor andthe recipient components if the concept oftechnology transfer is to stand up. I shall retainthe term and will examine some of the neces-sary linkages in the development of an agricul-tural knowledge system.

Each component has a diversity of linkages(indeed flexibility of linkages should be a keyfeature for consideration) and it would beinvidious to single out any particular type oflinkage for commendation. On the other hand,however, strong criticisms have been rightlyleveled at the "lock, stock, and barrel" type oftechnology transfer (i.e., provision of capital,full financing, facilities, equipment, personnel,and recurrent expenditures, to make an "instantindustry"), which is more typical of trans-national corporations and major industrialexercises than of agriculture. The grounds forsuch criticism are, of course, that it gives littleattention to the desirable creation of local con-ditions permitting technology absorption andgeneration.

More common in agriculture, however, isthe provision of part of these services, withstrong local counterpart contribution andconsiderable — and h ighly desirable — provision for the training of national staff

through fellowships. All too often, however,those fellowships are linked strongly to thedonor-country educational establishment andare not sufficiently often linked to thecircumstances, ecological and social, in whichthe fellowship holder is going to have to work.This is but one example of a number of less ap-propriate linkages that have developed in aidactivities. Some of the foundations, interna-tional agencies and centers, however, havelong recognized the value of linking training totasks to be performed, and have ensured the ap-propriateness of much of their training. Thatgiven at and by the lARCs is an instance, withthe FAO/UNDP/CIMMYT Near East Wheat andBarley Training Project and the FAO/IITA CropProduction Technology Workshop providinggood examples.

Each transfer system has a varying number ofessential components, usually starting with thepolitical will on the part of the government toacquire or to develop technologies for a specificpurpose, running through negotiations withpossible donors, program/project planning withor without donor/technical aid agency as-sistance; through technical/economic feasibil-ity studies, government and local level ap-proval, to final operations. This may again beconducted by the donor's own staff, by a con-tractor on behalf of the donor or the recipientcountry, or by the national institution utilizingits own staff. At all of these stages, specificlinkages and bonds have to be forged orstrengthened, and I propose we now examine a few of those necessary contacts and see howthey may be improved.

First, initial contacts are normally madethrough diplomatic or international channelsfor which well-established, albeit often im-personal, linkages points exist. Following this,however, the subsequent development of a transfer process tends to be handled more andmore at the personal level. Thus, the totalprocess of technology transfer becomes moreand more a person-to-person affair as we reachnearer and nearer to the "practitioner level."

The second level of involvement, especially inconsidering an " imported" technology, is likelyto be between the senior planning and technicalofficials of a ministry or technical departmenton the one hand, and of the aid agency, com-pany, or university, etc., on the other hand. Theimportance of sympathetic and understanding

270

ties at this level cannot be overestimated. Manyotherwise excellent technical assistance/technologytransferschemeshavefounderedatthis level, through inability on one side or theother (through language difficulties, lack oftechnical competence, etc.,) to fully achieveunderstanding. The selection of personnel atthis level therefore begins to be important.

The next stage is active transfer. Diverselinkages need to be established at the severallevels of implementation before a commodity,process, or technique reaches the farmer orsmall rural industrialist. Perhaps the most im-portant are the linkages with the educational/training system of the country. Without theappropriate personnel available in sufficientquantity, the absorptive/generative capacity ofany country for new technology is likely toremain low.

It is at this level of internal dissemination andimplementation that the human resource gap isgreatest, as, no matter how many personnel aretrained, the brain drain overseas, losses to otherpublic services, and to the private commercialsector, invariably decimate the trained "humanlinks" in the transfer chain. The working con-tacts between agricultural and educational in-stitutions, particularly where agricultural edu-cation is dependent on a Ministry of Educationrather than a Ministry of Agriculture, leavemuch to be desired. Thus, stronger linksthrough manpower planning boards, laborcommissions, and agricultural researchcouncils able to relate manpower supply to de-mand, are badly needed. We have alreadyheard comments on the desirability of a rural,rather than an urban, background for workers inagriculture and would like to expand this re-commendation to ensure inclusion of at least 1 year's farm level practice, or similar previousexperience, as an indispensable requisite for alldegree courses in agriculture. This used to be a sine qua non in most agricultural courses in themore developed countries; its reintroductionwould do no harm. But it should be borne inmind that the practical work needs to be in anenvironment appropriate for the trainee.

I would like to reiterate what I have hinted atearlier, that the selection of personnel for train-ing as the human links in the chain is just asimportant as the technology to be transferred.First, there must be a sense of vocation, at leastas strong as that of the "vocational farmer,"

bearing in mind that "agriculture for millions ofpoor and the landless people the world overcannot be regarded as a vocation but rather asan inescapable way of life. Second, a fair degreeof missionary fervor helps, provided it isrationalized into appropriate channels; third,understanding of, sensitivity to, and respect for,other peoples' ways of life are essential.

Our educational programs and curricula oftoday do not, I think, take sufficient account ofthese needs. Over the last 10 years, we havetended to create too wide a gap between thestudents training for research, and those for"other branches," including extension. Con-sequently, some of our research workers knowlittle (and sometimes care less) of extensionmethods, and many of our extension methods,and many of our extension workers are not eventaught how to lay out and run a simple field trial,let alone analyze its results! Thus, one of themost important linkages, that of research/extension, is in danger of being strained fromthe outset.

Linkages between technical and rural soci-ology and socioeconomic research institutionshave also been generally weak in the past andthis must have contributed to the widespreadtransfer of much inappropriate technology dueto lack of understanding of the farmers' realneeds and the circumstances that motivate a farmer to adopt a proffered new and improvedtechnology. All too often, for example, the basicmotivation of a functional marketing systemserving a recognized demand has been lacking.

This lack has been fully recognized by thelARCs, and now the system as a whole hasconsiderably strengthened its socioeconomicresearch, as an integral part of the Center'sfarming systems program. None has madebetter progress than the Village Level Studies pro-gram of ICRISAT, and we have heard what wasto us a most exciting account of work at what I consider the most important level at whichgenuine constraints impede the process oftransfer of both adapted and endogenouslydeveloped technologies.

Responsibility for ensuring appropriatelinkages at the various levels differs from coun-try to country and from system to system. Inmany, the linkages depend upon formal in-struments of protocol, memoranda of agree-ment, etc., which usually serve to limit anddefine responsibilities of the contracting par-

271

ties. In aid agreements, these are probablyessential. More informal associations, how-ever, are often as fruitful and the Royal Societyof London has stated, in material prepared forUNCSTD, that:

"dissemination of scientific and technologi-cal knowledge depends heavily on personalacquaintance and correspondence betweenexperts working in each particular specialistsubject. Therefore, it is important thatthe . . . technologists in the developing coun-tries are brought fully into the informationnetworks of the developed wor ld / 'It further stresses the need, within developing

countries, to establish the closest possible tieswith professional societies elsewhere, betweenthemselves, and between scientists, tech-nologists, and educators in agriculture and inindustry.

Arising from the strong bias towards theindividual follows a recommendation for build-ing up centers of excellence (i.e., internal lin-kage centers) around brilliant individuals andteams who have acquired an international repu-tation. This technique was used to great advan-tage in the UK in the buildup of the specialresearch units of the Agricultural ResearchCouncil and has already been emulatedelsewhere. Responsibility for this must bejointly government-professional societies.

Information and Communications

Internal communications and information ex-change between the various components of a technology transfer system, the governmentpolicy-makers, the scientific community, theacademic and training institutions, the farmercooperatives, credit and other institutions canonly be properly maintained if appropriate in-stitutional mechanisms such as agricultural re-search councils and technical committees areset up at all the necessary levels to ensure thatall key personnel are kept adequately in thepicture. An optimal arrangement at the fieldoperational level is suggested later.

More formal international information net-works are legion. The CARIS, AGRIS, andAGLINET projects of FAQ are just three thatserve the global needs of agricultural scientists,and numerous national abstracting and com-puter services have been established to in-crease the rate of dissemination of knowledge.

Modern postal communications being whatthey are, and abstracting, printing, and postingtaking even longer, it is encouraging that com-modity information programs are proving ofreal value, and are certainly hastening thattwo-way interchange of knowledge betweenscientists with like interests that has received somuch support. The newsletters supported byIDRC and the Centers are already proving to bemost valuable linkages in the transfer process.

The role of FAO and other international agen-cies (CARIS, AGRIS, AGLINET, etc.) as essentialsources of information on agricultural policies,the world food situation and its trends, andas disseminators of such information andtechnologies derived therefrom in its fieldprograms, is likely to continue being streng-thened. FAO's training activities havealready been stepped up considerably, andmention will be made later of an interestingdevelopment in Asia that is taking a new look atthe old process of "extension,' ' which is essen-tially the final step in technology transfer.Cooperation is being stepped up between FAOand the lARCs in their complementary activitiesconcerned with training research workers, andlinkages here could be further strengthened.First, however, we should await the outcome ofthe current review of the Centers' cooperativeactivities, which may resolve some of the pre-sent problems regarding total off-campus re-sponsibilities of the Centers.

At thesamet ime, it may be worth consideringwhether we are yet training in the right way foroptimum technology transfer and a furthersuggestion is made at the end of the paper.

L inkages Be tween Basic and A p p l i e dResearch

Some of the international centers are increasingtheir own basic research on the grounds thatcloser interaction with their own applied pro-grams can thus be assured. Furthermore, a fairamount of the more basic research needed islocale-specific. This approach, if extended toother international centers, as some believe itshould be, would extend the role of the lARCs inbasic research and, presumably, reduce theircapacity (assuming no real growth) for appliedresearch/technology generation and transfer.This also is surely commendable, providedagain that, through regional advisers/monitors,

272

the Centers maintain close links with all thevarious developments of their materials(technologies) in order to provide feedback asappropriate to their core programs. As nationalcapacities increase and national scientists takeover more of the work, this should prove feasi-ble.

Conclusions

E x t e n s i o n

One of the most promising solutions, if I may becautiously optimistic, to the problem of the finallinkages with the "voiceless majority," may beseen in the "field workshop technique" that hasbeen used during the past 3 or 4 years in severalAsian countries under the guidance of.CameronClark of FAO's Regional Office for Asia inBangkok. He recognizes one of the greatestchallenges to communication as the "promo-tion of constructive dialog between nationalplanners and administrators and representativefarmers from diverse socioeconomic levels, ona scale large enough to produce a 'critical mass'able to influence public opinion and thus bringabout institutional change." Clark's approach isbased therefore on a multidisciplinary appraisalof the problem situation, with problem iden-tification and solution involving representativesfrom all departments and levels of the bureauc-racy concerned with area planning, from senioradministrators to small-holder farmers, share-croppers, and landless laborers. Each workshoplasts for 5 days and, if successful, results in an"integrated plan of action to which both farmersand government are fully committed."

This type of extension should help to avoidthe many failures of the past in trying to trans-fer a sophisticated communication system thatattempts to pass an inappropriate messageto a community unwilling to accept it orsimply incapable — through lack of basicresources — of accepting it. This then, I believe,may help to take whatever technology may beavailable for transfer to the people who reallyneed it. I would therefore commend it fordiscussion to our panel, in the conviction thatlinkages for transfer of technology cannot beseparated from linkages for the implementationof programs; one is simply the end point of theprocess and surely the most important andultimate point.

E d u c a t i o n

A few years ago I gave the opinion that weneeded to develop a new type of agriculturalgraduate in tropical agriculture; or rather toresurrect an older breed-able to conduct andanalyze straightforward field experiments, notaloof but able to mix with, talk with, andunderstand the small farmer. This needs practi-cal experience in agriculture, a farm rather thanan urban background, and proper training insociological and communication skills.

So, if the panel that is to follow this addresshas a degree of agreement with me on thesupreme importance of the human linkages indeveloping an applied knowledge system, itmay also care to devote some time to theconsideration of how best to select and trainthose most important human links.

I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z i n g L i n k a g e s

All our speakers have agreed on the urgentneed to ensure linkages between research anddevelopment agencies. Many methods andtechniques have been pointed out, from theland-grant college system to the compre-hensive listing of rather more ad hoc associa-tions and contacts given by Dr. Cummings asavailable to and utilized by, the InternationalAgricultural Research Centers.

The "technology transfer centers" recentlyproposed at the UNCSTD for both developedand developing countries might also contributeto the solution if established. Probably noblueprint can be established. However, I wouldlike to hear the Panel's views on the best way toensure the close and harmonious working ofresearch and extension personnel. I believe a single campus is necessary, and a unified direc-tion. International agencies such as FAO and thenewer agencies are able and willing to assistcountries in establishing the institution of theirchoice.

Should we all be prepared to tailor eachindividual system according to circumstances?

273

Linkages for Implementation of ProgramsW. K. Agble*

A b s t r a c t

The most fruitful linkage for implementing programs would involve a triangularstructure connecting research, extension, and the farmer. The major goals of such a linkage would be to transfer technology rapidly for the benefit of the largest number offarmers; such technology should not only be economically viable and acceptable tofarmers but also meet the political, social, and economic needs of the country. Thisdemands strengthening of both national research and extension systems. Mostimportant, it requires farmers to group themselves into a strong force that can exertpressure on the country's political machinery to secure equitable pricing, funding, andtax policies, as well as other benefits for farmers.

Expected Goals for EstablishingLinkages

In establishing linkages it is necessary to con-ceptualize certain targets, the major goals be-ing:

a. That the processes (linkages) establishedwould aim at transferring technology rapidlyto benefit the greatest number of farmersand improve their earnings and standards ofliving.

b. That the new technology is proven to beeconomically viable, poses no serious risks,and is acceptable to farmers.

c. That the technology satisfies the political,economic, and social needs of the country.

Activity areas in the linkage structurecan be described as a triangular structureinvolving (a) research (b) communications, and(c) production, all joined one with another; thatis, research, extension, and the farmer.

Research

The transfer of technology is dependent on theexistence of a national research system that isable to generate and validate its results andparticipate in the processes of the transfermechanism. In the developing countries, par-

* Director, Crops Research Institute (CSIR), Kumasi,Ghana.

ticularly in Africa, the research capability of thenational research systems is in most casesinadequate to meet the tasks, especially in thedevelopment of food crops. In such countries,the major problems deserving serious attentionare:

1. Institution building to provide the struc-ture and capability to conduct competentresearch.

2. Generation of new technology or adap-tation of imported technology that can beintroduced to replace traditional pro-duction systems.

3. Personnel requirements such as recruit-ment and training to build an indigenoushigh-caliber manpower to overcome thecritical shortage of research personnel.

4. Adequate funding of national researchprograms by governments or other re-sponsible bodies, both with national fundsand sufficient foreign exchange to coverpurchase of equipment and other im-ported research facilities.

5. Technical assistance by donors in bilateraland multilateral projects.

In order to tackle these problems and toimprove the national research capability, thefollowing measures are needed to form effec-tive research linkages:

1. Effective coordination of the national ag-ricultural research and that undertaken onspecified projects or commodities in re-search institutes, universities, and otheragencies, including the private sector and

275

industry. Mixed farming is undertaken inthe SAT area in Africa, and agriculturalsystems should encourage husbandrypractices that are favorable to both cropand animal production.

2. Linkages between national researchsystems and the international researchinstitutions, especially those sponsoredby the Consultative Group lARCs such asICRISAT and IRRI,

3. Linkages wi th international donor agen-cies, both bilateral and multilaterial.

4. Strategies for generating support for ag-ricultural research and programs at thenational level. The programs need thesupport of bureaucrats and politicians toobtain adequate local funding.

5. Development of programs aimed attechnology transfer to farmers, which canbe accomplished through

• the conduct of on-farm trials and de-monstrations;

• participation in commodity productioncampaigns;

• Complementary activities with exten-sion institutions and farmers;

• engagement of liaison officers at re-search institutions to aid communica-t ions;

• communicat ions th rough informalchannels by use of the media and formalmethods by means of scientific literaturereporting.

6. Provision of research components (fundsand facilities) in defined-area develop-ment projects as well as rural and land-planning development schemes. Largetracts of the SAT in Africa are being re-claimed and freed from onchocerciasisand other endemic diseases and pests.Links should be established with the ap-propriate agencies to develop agriculturalsystems suited to these areas.

Communicat ion and Extension

The linkages discussed under research applyalso to the activities performed in communica-tions and extension. The success of programsdepends on the number of participant farmers.Linkages with farmers, adopter farmers, andfarmer groups are therefore important in the

processes of diffusion and transfer of technol-ogy. Such linkages should also establish a feedback system to benefit research. Training isan important component in the communicationprocess, and training at different levels shouldbe organized at appropriate institutions for thepersonnel engaged in these activities.

In most African countries, because of theabsence of agrobusiness, which is only nowdeveloping, it is necessary in implementingprograms to arrange directly for the delivery ofrequired inputs such as fertilizers, seedsupplies, breeding stocks, machinery, etc. Inmany cases, the personnel assigned to exten-sion or general agricultural duties are responsi-ble also for these assignments. Therefore, lin-kages with agencies engaged in supplies, andsometimes marketing and other support ser-vices, become important in extension activities.

The Farmer

The strongest linkage for farmers should bewith the country's political machinery, in orderto exert pressure for their needs to be satisfied.This assumes that farmers would develop lin-kages among themselves by forming variousgroupings and associations, such as coopera-tives, to pursue their objections. Regrettably,farmers not only in the SAT region but through-out Africa have not used this means for muchbenefit. They have generally relied on thegoodwill and good intentions of their govern-ments. The benefit of such linkages would bemanifest in government support policies, forexample, price policies; policies regulatingdemand/supply situations for commodities;priority assignment to commodity productioncampaigns and their funding, tax reliefs, etc.

Farmers also need to forge linkages withagencies that serve their needs, for example,credit institutions; markets and devliery sys-tems that would provide the required facilitiesfor marketing produce; and agencies dealing ininput supplies and offering direct services to aidtheir production.

Finally, farmers must link with institutionssuch as research and extension agencies; suchlinkages, as already discussed, are vital to theeffective transfer of technology.

Summary of Panel Discussion — Session 7

A 6-member panel, consisting of Drs. Joshi,Agble, Webster, Kane, Krantz, and Lipton, dis-cussed the subject of linkages for the smoothtransfer of technology.

Moderator A. B. Joshi, in opening the dis-cussion, stressed the importance of this ses-sion, which would tie together all the precedingsessions of the symposium.

It is not by technology alone, said Dr. Joshi,that the drylands can be lifted out of theirpresent bleakness — the problems are also onthe social, economic, and administrativeplanes. This does not mean, of course, thatscientific research or technological develop-ment are unimportant; far from it. Research isthe kingpin.

But it is necessary to be in the field with theSAT farmer to appreciate his plight. Where, forinstance, does he get a continuing supply of fuelin a land denuded of all vegetation? Where doeshe get credit to buy needed inputs? Even in a drought year, when he suffers crop losses, hemust still make payments on his loan. Is itpossible to provide the farmer with alternativesources of energy? To provide "sof t" creditbased on a 7-year or 10-year cycle, with repay-ment to be made according to crop produc-tivity? To set up some sort of crop insurance?Who should make the investment needed for allthis development?

Citing the example of Maharashtra State,where only 10 to 1 1 % of the farmland is irri-gated, Dr. Joshi said that in the drought of 1972,the government spent Rs. 250 crores (U.S. $310million) in a single year on famine relief. Is itpossible, he asked, instead of such stopgapmeasures, to find long-range solutions to thesesituations?

Dr. Joshi asked the panel to consider theseand related questions and invited all partici-pants to describe any experiments that havesuccessfully tackled these problems.

Dr. Agble noted that on the African continentthe transfer of technology is hindered by a lackof:

• institutions with the structure and capa-bility for doing competent research anddeveloping new technology,

• indigenous, trained, high-caliber researchpersonnel,

• adequate funding for national researchprograms, including foreign exchange forpurchase of imported facilities,

• technical assistance by donors, both bi-lateral and multilateral, and,

• effective coordination of the national re-search program with specific projects atresearch institutes and universities.

Dr. Agble emphasized that linkages withfarmers and farm groups are important in thetransfer of technology. Perhaps the greatestneed is for linkages among the farmers them-selves and with the political machinery of thecountry—that is, a farmers' lobby that couldexert pressure on government to meet farmers'needs in such areas as pricing policies, taxrelief, and credit.

Dr. Webster emphasized the need to close thegap between research and extension at thehighest level, recommending that both workfrom the same campus. He cited the Nigerianand Brazilian examples as encouraging. Earlyspecialization has wrecked the old agriculturalgeneralist training, he said, and what we need isnot a new breed of cat but a reversion to anolder type. Dr. Webster also described the workof an FAO representative in Southeast Asia, whobrings together in field workshops bureaucrats,administrators, farmers, sharecroppers, andlandless laborers to appraise problems andpresent solutions.

Dr. Krantz said that linkages should be consi-dered at all levels and involve international,national, state, and local agencies, and — mostimportant of all —the farmer Linkages acrossall these levels would solve many majorproblems in the transfer of technology; forexample, communication. Involving farmergroups in planning would automatically pro-vide a feedback that would benefit research aswell. It is not enough, Dr. Krantz said, to increasecrop yields; it is also necessary to improve theincome of the small farmer.

Dr. Krantz pointed out that improved seed isone of the best vehicles for the transfer oftechnology; a new seed may require new plant-

277

ing times, depth of planting, fertilizer, and otherinputs that would vary with the locale — inshort, it would encourage new managementpractices as well.

On the question of funding, Dr. Krantz saidthat a surplus of labor, such as there is in India,can be an asset rather than a problem, for thelaborers can, by improving the resource base,actually create capital.

Dr. Lipton spoke on two kinds of linkageproblems in the transfer of technology: linkagebetween countries and, within each country,linkages between the research organizationsand the local agencies that must delivertechnology to the poorest.

He gave four examples of linkages neededbetween countries: (1) Rural industry to man-ufacture simple farm implements to mill andprocess farm outputs should be developed insome countries of Africa where these are practi-cally unknown. (2) Technology clearing housesshould be set up so that technological know-how can be shared among the semi-arid coun-tries. This would prevent both the importing ofinappropriate equipment f rom developedcountries — such as heavy moldboard plowsfor sandy soils — and unnecessary efforts todevelop technology that already exists in othersemi-arid areas. Similarly, a regional center forscreening and breeding facilities could be set upto develop new varieties for a number of smallcountries, especially in central and southernAfrica. (3) In areas of Africa where land scarcityis just now becoming evident, techniques tointegrate crop and cattle production need to beimported from more densely populated areaswhere such intensive land use has long beenpracticed. (4) Training should be instituted,especially in recently decolonized countries, todispel the old myth that the small farmer is aninefficient farmer, with low growth potential,and that the research worker always knowsbest. A basic training linkage is required withcountries where this myth has been exploded.

The second issue, Dr. Lipton said, is to linkresearch activities to the local capacity to de-liver research outputs to the poorest farmer.ICRISAT's record is excellent in this directionbecause its research is aimed at improving"poor man's crops" and resists the temptationto cater to the "easy" big farmers or to stressmaximum yield at the cost of stability.

In cases where technology recommended by

institutes such as ICRISAT is labor-displacing,though efficient, it is necessary to involveeconomists and sociologists as well astechnologists in planning research projects sothat possible consequences can be consideredfrom the very start. Certain social decisionsmust be taken. It is within the purview of a research institute, Dr. Lipton said, to see howthese decisions work in practice. For instance, ifa new facility for mill ing or threshing is labor-displacing, could this facility be cooperativelyowned by the people it displaces? Otherwisethe cost of increased efficiency may be tofurther deprive a number of the very poorestpeople in the world.

In his concluding remarks, Dr. Joshi stressedthe need to have a strong will to do research andadopt technology at the local level. He cited theexample of an engineer in Poona who, workingon his own, developed a 45-acre farm enough toobtain yield increases of threefold or fourfold,within a period of 3 years. This resulted inannual support for 15 persons.

Dr. Dwarakinath stressed the need for dealingwith marketing problems of the farmers. Healso suggested that international institutionslike ICRISAT should bring together national andstate-level policy makers and top scientists forintensive study of technology available foradapting to local situations. Middle-level scien-tists should have the opportunity to study at theinternational centers so that they can developlocally applicable technology and transfer it tothe extension services.

Mr. Melville stressed that the weakest linkageof all in the transfer of technology is betweenthe extension worker and the farmer. One of thefactors contributing to this weakness is the lackof funds to pay extension staff and providesupport (and transport) for trials and face-to-face contact with farmers. He stressed the needto make the farm unit profitable, growing bothfood crops and cash crops; this wil l result inadditional employment, shops, trade, trans-port, and industry in rural areas. However,increased production of a crop must have anassured market facility with a profit to theproducer; otherwise, future suggestions forinnovation wil l not be readily accepted.

Dr. N. D. Patil discussed the success obtainedin the Integrated Development Project atSholapur, which involves working with farmersin the fields and identifying the farm problems

278

with them. Crops are now being grown in moreseasons of the year and increased livestockutilization for milk has greatly increased farmincome.

Dr. S. S. Khanna described the successfultransfer of technology in Haryana State, result-ing in a twofold increase in food grain pro-duction. Close linkages have been developedbetween farmers, extension staff, and univer-sity personnel who are deeply involved in therural development program.

Dr. Khanna stressed that rural women shouldalso be a main target group, as home develop-ment chiefly depends on them. He alsosuggested that rural youth and universitystudents should be actively involved in thetransfer of technology. Dr. Joshi pointed outthat women are major decision-makers in therural community.

Dr. N. D. Desai said that the training and visitssystems was an effective way to strengthen thepresently weak extension link in the transfer oftechnology.

Mr. Russell cited examples of appropriatetechnology to suit local conditions. Ox-power isappropriate for South Asia, he said, but tractorsmay be more practical for Africa. Land-lockedcountries such as Sudan, Malawi, and Zambia,have problems transporting imported fertilizer;hence, instead of using chemical fertilizers,these countries should emphasize work onnitrogen fixation and recycling organic wastes.In India, forestry to save animal waste for use onland is important. For developing linkages,on-farm trials, adaptive research, and the train-ing and visits extension system would be asappropriate for Africa as they are for India.

Dr. Blumenschein suggested that the functionof research, extension, and the farmer mustoverlap and interact. The economics of thepotential results should be obtained and pre-sented to the administrators as a package forresearch and development. In Brazil, thephilosophy is that research work should be 20%extension, extension work 20% research, andthe training of farmers 20% extension and 20%research.

Dr. Krishnamurthy made two observations:1. Women are often more involved in agricul-

ture than men and hence there is greatneed to train rural women in variousaspects of agricultural production, proces-sing, and storage, as well as in social

aspects of rural life.2. There is a need for agro-based industries

to be organized so that rural areas developthrough better marketing, utilization, andprocessing of farm produce. This would,encourage rural youth on the farm insteadof migrating to urban areas in search ofwork.

279

Plenary Session

Chairman: Wi l l iam T. Mashler Rapporteur: H. L. Thompson

Plenary Session

Dr. Bent/ey introduced the Chairman for the session, William T. Mashler, Senior Directorof the UNDP's Division for Global and Interregional Projects. Dr. Bentley recalled Mr.Mashler's support of ICRISA T from its very beginnings and praised him as a farsightedadministrator and friend of the international centers.

Mr. Mashler said that the lARCs represent one of the best international efforts evermade to improve agriculture around the globe. He said that one reason the centers havebeen able to accomplish so much is that they have steered clear of politics and kept inview their original purpose, giving the scientists the freedom to do their work.

Mr. Mashler then called on the rapporteurs to give their summaries of the sevenpreceding sessions. (These reports are incorporated in discussions in each section of thisbook).

The Chairman of the symposium, Dr. J. S. Kanwar, then thanked all the participantsand summarized the findings of the symposium.

Chairman's Summary

J . S . Kanwar

Rainfed agriculture in the semi-arid tropics isfraught with uncertainties and risks, and thedevelopment of technology suited specificallyto these conditions is relatively recent. In or-ganizing this symposium, we at ICRISAT attempted to focus attention on all importantaspects of this vital, but hitherto neglected, areaof agriculture.

The main objectives of this symposium were:• to appraise the efforts of ICRISAT and its

cooperators in developing technologyrelevant to small farmers of the SAT;

• to discuss philosophical, technical, andpractical aspects of transferring such tech-nology;

• to share experience in the transfer oftechnology;

• to explore the interphase between re-search and development and find ways tobridge this gap; and

• to study ways of forging and strengtheninglinkages for smooth transfer of technology.

The general theme was what is relevant andexcellent in technology and how it can betransferred. Although no formal recommen-dations were made by this symposium, several

important points have emerged clearly from thepapers and discussions. I will try to summarizethese.

Generation and Developmentof Technology

It is the sense of this symposium that, becauseof the great risk involved in rainfed SAT farm-ing, technology will be transferable only if it islow cost, high paying, and properly suited to thephysical and social environment. The ICRISATapproach towards increasing yields — by at-tacking yiefd reducers such as pests, patho-gens, and drought — appears sound strategythat will probably make a major contribution toreducing the risks of semi-arid farming. Thedevelopment of technological options ratherthan a single package of practices is also to berecommended. Technological advance cannotbe divorced from socioeconomic consider-ations. Thus, though the watershed manage-ment system developed at ICRISAT holds greatpromise for improving production while con-serving scarce resources, it will need to beadapted to widely varying social and economicconditions.

The Economics Program has already brokennew ground in studying the setting in which thetechnology is to be used. It would be valuable to

283

have further studies that provide data to guideplanners in formulating long-range investmentpolicies, for governments must consider notonly the cost-benefit relations of technology forindividuals but the cost of social justice. Forinstance, governments spend vast sums ofemergency drought and famine relief, but littleinformation is available on potential costs andbenefits of programs to avert or alleviate theeffects of such disasters. Strategies based onlong-term resource management-orientedplans for mitigating the effect of such calamitiesinstead of emergency plans for famine relief areadvocated.

Principles, Pract ice,and Problems in the Transferof Technology

An important distinction exists between trans-fer of technology (horizontally, from one ex-periment station to another or from interna-tional to national programs) and the diffusion ofinnovations (vertically, from research station tofarmers' fields). An international institute suchas ICRISAT can develop concepts andmethodologies for transfer and can facilitateexchange of materials and techniques. But onlynational and local agencies can adapt these tosuit particular needs and conditions.

A wide network of research should be estab-lished to cover the whole range of environ-ments in which research results must beapplied. Climatological and soil data should beused to select such benchmark locations, andareas should be defined for testing in real-worldsettings such promising technology asICRISAT's double cropping of deep versitols.

Seed-based technology — high-yielding vari-eties, for example — is far easier to transferthan site-specific farming systems or manage-ment practices. An important consideration intransferring complex technology is that farmersmay not be ready or able to take an entirepackage. However, they may adopt a singlecomponent, and payoffs from that might induceadoption of other components.

Experience w i t h Transferof Technology

A critical appraisal of the experience of various

SAT countries reveals that, despite promisingbeginnings in several countries, problems areoverwhelming and examples of practices actu-ally adopted are few. Transfer of technology inSAT areas is far more difficult than in irrigatedor assured rainfall areas. This difficulty is com-pounded by the inadequacy of infrastructuralsupport facilities such as credit, inputs, storage,and marketing, and by the weakness of exten-sion agencies.

Farmers are not interested in marginal yieldor profit increases. What is needed is a spec-tacular quantum jump in production, togetherwith vastly improved facilities to help turn thatproduction into profits.

Interphase Between Researchand Development

Eoth international and national agencies have a role to play in developing research programsrelevant to the needs of the small SAT farmer.To benefit from the work of the lARCs, nationalprograms must be capable of and will ing toreceive and adapt the research results. Thiscapability must be strengthened, and suchagencies as the IADS and ISNAR can provide a valuable service in doing so.

Attention should be focused on policy issues,which are as important as the agricultural re-search itself, and national programs shouldstrive to create government commitment to thecause of the small farmer. Most urgentlyneeded are special provisions to overcomeinstitutional bias against small farmers as wellas ensure timely supply of quality seed andfertilizer, manufacture of suitable tools, market-ing and credit-pricing structure for sale of pro-duce, and training of local scientists and agents.

Linkages

Even the most promising technology remainsmerely academic unless its results can be put touse by the farmer. Often research scientists,extension agents, and policy makers functionmore or less in isolation from one another andfrom the farmer. A coordinated, multidiscipli-nary effort is essential to link all of them into a smoothly functioning network. Although this isprimarily the task of the national programs, thelARCs, which have established excellent links

284

with their cooperators, may play a role inidentifying weak links and suggesting means ofstrengthening them. Within national programs,it is vital to enable research, extension, andfarmer to work together. It is also important toensure that mechanization for improved ef-ficiency does not displace labor but createsemployment. The lARCs could also help estab-lish linkages between SAT countries, whichcould benefit from one another's experienceand avoid duplication of effort in developingsuitable technology.

To sum up, ICRISAT and its cooperatingnational research organizations are fully com-mitted to developing appropriate technologyfor the SAT; its transfer to the farmers, how-ever, wil l be determined by the strength orweakness of the national research and exten-sion agencies and the links between them.Despite the difficulty of the task, it can beaccomplished if there is a cooperative effort andpolitical wi l l . We have a long way to go, but thissymposium has indicated the direction we musttake.

285

Appendix I

French Abstracts and Texts

Resumes des Commun ica t ions

Session d'Ouverture

U n A p e r q u s u r l a R e c h e r c h e a I ' l C R I S A T

J. S. Kanwar

Se rendant compte de I'urgence qu'il y avait a ameiiorer le bien-etre des paysans des zonestropicales semi-arides, et a combler Ie fosse entre la production et la demande alimentaires, IeGroupe Consultatif pour la Recherche Agricole Internationale (CGIAR) crea I'lCRISAT en 1972.L'lnstitut detient une responsabilite globale dans la recherche pour I'amelioration du sorgho, du mil ,du pois chiche, du pois d'Angole et de I'arachide. II detient egalement un mandat special pour larecherche de systemes de cultures, de freins socio-economiques, et du transfert de la technologiepour les zones tropicales semi-arides a saison seche, en vue de favoriser une percee dans laproduction agricole de la region.

L'ICRISAT a etabli une banque de genes de 48.000 accessions et echange plus de 250.000 paquetsde graines avec les chercheurs dans 67 pays. L'ICRISAT s'efforce d'ameliorer Ie potentiel et lastability du rendement des recoltes, tout en maintenant une bonne qualite nutritive, et de rnettre aupoint des concepts et des pratiques permettant d'optimiser la production et d'accroitre les revenusdes paysans. Nos chercheurs travaillent en cooperation avec les chercheurs nationaux en Asie,Afr iqueet Amerique du Sud afin de rnettre au point et diffuser une technologie plus efficace et plusremuneratrice destinee a changer sensiblement la production alimentaire des zones tropicalessemi-arides.

Session 2 : Les Recherches de I'lCRISAT pourla Mise au Point d'une Technologie pour

les Zones Tropicales Semi-arides

L a T e c h n o l o g i e d e R e c h e r c h e p o u r I ' A m e l i o r a t i o n d e s C u l t u r e sd a n s l es Z o n e s T r o p i c a l e s S e m i - a r i d e s : L e s C e r e a l e s

J. C. Davies

Les principales cereales qui interessent I'lCRISAT sont Ie sorgho et Ie mil , qui se placentrespectivement au quatrieme et cinquieme rang de la production mondiale des cereales. Elles sontcultiv6es sur de vastes etendues des zones tropicales semi-arides en tant que cultures vivrieres debase car elles sont assez tolerantes a la secheresse. Elles ont une faible valeur monetaire et sonthabituellement cultivees comme cultures de subsistance dans des situations ou I'agriculture estpauvre; elles ne peuvent donc rentabiliser des apports importants de produits chimiques ou destechnologies couteuses. Le Programme sur les Cereales d I'lCRISAT a ete etabli en gardant a I'espritces considerations. La recherche dans toutes les disciplines s'est concentree sur la production desemences possedant les caracteristiques necessaires pour aider a diminuer I'impact des facteursmajeurs de la baisse de rendement : secheresse, insectes nuisibles, maladies et herbes parasitaires.D'importants progres ont ete realises dans Ie domaine du criblage et de la selection pour laresistance a ces facteurs. Bon nombre de ces techniques sont deje largement u t i l i ses en Inde et enAfrique.

289

L a T e c h n o l o g i e d e R e c h e r c h e p o u r l ' A m e l i o r a t i o n d e s L e g u m i n e u s e sd a n s l es Z o n e s T r o p i c a l e s S e m i - a r i d e s

J . M. Green

Les legumineuses, avec leurs exigences nutritives plus importantes que les cereales, mais leursreponses peu marquees, aux apports d'engrais, presentent de serieuses difficultes aux chercheursqui tentent d'augmenter la production. On a obtenu des resultats prometteurs dans I'accroissementdu rendement des pois d'Angole en se servant d'hybrides, et dans celui des pois chiches enmodifiant le type de la plante, ainsi que dans la stabilite du rendement pour les deux plantes, enincorporant une resistance genetique aux maladies. Des innovations en agronomie font esperer unaccroissement de production en dehors des systemes traditionnels.

L a T e c h n o l o g i e d e R e c h e r c h e p o u r I ' A m e l i o r a t i o n d e I ' A r a c h i d ed a n s l e s Z o n e s T r o p i c a l e s S e m i - a r i d e s

R. W. G ibbons

Les arachides sont Tune des legumineuses les plus importantes des zones tropicales semi-arides etsont utilisees comme aliment, huile de cuisine, ou source de revenus en especes. Les rendements,cependant, sont faibles dans ces zones, a cause principalement des pertes dues aux parasites, auxmaladies et aux repartitions imprevisibles des pluies. L'objectif principal du programme est deproduire un materiel seiectionne de haut rendement avec une resistance stable aux principauxpathogenes qui comprennent, entre autres, la rouille, les taches foliaires, et VAspergillus flavus. Lesvirus et les parasites sont la cause d'importantes reductions dans le rendement et des sources deresistance sont en cours de recherche. Des programmes de selection a grande echelle sont en courset des populations en segregation a des stades precoces et avances sont distribuees auxselectionneurs nationaux cooperants. Des efforts sont fa its pour ameliorer la capacite de fixation deI'azote des arachides. La culture associee des arachides avec le mil procure des avantages derendement. Les especes Arachis sauvages sont exploitees en tant que sources de genes utiles.

L a R e c h e r c h e e t l a T e c h n o l o g i e s u r l e s S y s t e m e s d e C u l t u r ed a n s l es Z o n e s T r o p i c a l e s S e m i - a r i d e s

Jacob Kampen

La recherche sur les systemes de culture a I'ICRISAT contribue a ameiiorer la qualite de la vie dansles zones tropicales semi-arides par I'intermediaire d'efforts interdisciplinaires et cooperatifsdestines d ameiiorer I'utilisation des ressources naturelles, humaines et en capital. II a ete trouve quele semis en sec sur les Vertisols donne de bons resultats, la ou I'on peut compter sur les pluiesprecoces; que ('introduction de porte-outils se traduit par un meilleur respect du calendrier culturalet une efficacite accrue dans I'utilisation des animaux de trait; que le systeme de planches larges etde sillons permet de maltriser I'eau excedentaire et facilite les operations de culture; que la culturedouble sur les Vertisols semble prometteuse; que la culture intercalaire augmente globalement lesrendements de facon substantielle sur les Vertisols et les Alfisols; qu'une maitrise efficace des

290

mauvaises herbes peut etre atteinte grace a I'integration de moyens mecaniques, biologiques etchimiques. L'utilisation rationnelle des ressources et I'amenage'ment dans le cadre de bassinsversants contribuent d augmenter et a stabiliser les rendements; I'effet combine des differentsfacteurs de production appliques globalement, depasse de loin i'effet total de ces facteurs appliquesseparement; et les systemes de culture ameliores exper iments en bassins versants a une echelleoperationnelle, se traduisent regulierement par des augmentations de trois a cing fois desproductivites en saison des pluies. Des etudes realisees dans les exploitations agricoles ont debuteavec pour objectif de faire participer les paysans a la mise au point d'une technologie appropriee etde definir des formes efficaces d'action de groupe.

L e s C o n t r a i n t e s S o c i o - e c o n o m i q u e s d a n s l es Z o n e s T r o p i c a l e s S e m i - a r i d e s e tI ' A p p r o c h e P r o p o s e e p a r I ' l C R I S A T

James G. Ryan et Hans P. B inswanger

Cette communication traite de la fagon dont les freins socio-economiques au developpement deI'agriculture sont evalues a NCRISAT dans le but de mieux definir les priorites de la recherche dansun sens ex-ante et aussi de perfectionner I'efficacite avec laquelle de nouvelles technologies sont"vendues" aux paysans, apres !eur mise au point. Les contraintes etudiees comprennent lesvariations de densite de la population, I'heterogeneite des ressources naturelles dans les zonestropicales semi-arides, le role du risque dans la decision du paysan, les organismes de commerciali-sation, les besoins humains fondamentaux et enfin, les preoccupations d'efficacite et d'equite dansla repartition des moyens de recherche.

Sess ion 3 : Le T rans fe r t de la T e c h n o l o g i eA g r i c o l e

Les P r o b l e m e s e t l es C o n c e p t s d u T r a n s f e r t d e I ' A g r o t e c h n o l o g i e d a n s l es P a y sT r o p i c a u x

L. D. Sw inda le

Le transfert de I'agrotechnologie entre les pays ou entre les regions a I'interieur des pays, comportedes contraintes et des problemes qui s'ajoutent a ceux associes a la diffusion des innovations. Lescontraintes de la specificite locale, I'applicabilite de la technologie transferee, les contraintessociales, economiques et institutionnelles doivent toutes etre reconnues et conceptualisees.

La technologie centree sur les semences ameliorees comporte le moins de contraintes et a ete lemoyen principal pour le transfert de I'agrotechnologie. Les nouvelles techniques d'amenagementdu sol ou de systemes de cultures sont plus difficiles a transferer. L'element essentiel est la zonationdu milieu, par l'utilisation de classifications pedologique ou climatique.

Une recherche agricole competente au niveau national constitue un autre element essentiel, Lescentres internationaux de recherche agricole aident a la recherche necessaire au transfert, a la prisede conscience de I'existence de la technologie et a son acceptation.

291

L e s A n a l o g u e s A g r o c l i m a t i q u e s d a n s l e T r a n s f e r t d e l a T e c h n o l o g i e

Henry Nix

Les concepts et les methodes de base se rapportant a la classification agroclimatique et a I'analysedes zones climatiques homologues sont passes en revue et discutes. Les raisons de la lenteur dansla mise au point, ('experimentation et I'application des rnethodes d'analyse agroclimatiques sontexp lo res et d'autres approches possibles sont examinees. Cet examen porte sur les conceptsd'ensemble minimum de donnees, la definition de reseaux experimentaux optimaux, la mise enoeuvre de systemes dynamiques d'interactions pour I'analyse et la synthese des relationsculture-climat a differentes echelles de temps.

Les O r g a n i s a t i o n s d e R e c h e r c h e e t d e T r a n s f e r t d e l a T e c h n o l o g i e

Freder ick E. Hu tch inson

La recherche destinee a mettre au point des technologies qui puissent etre transferees de faconappropriee aux petites exploitations des pays en voie de developpement, est essentielle au succesdu developpement de I'agriculture. Le Congres des Etats-Unis a stipule que les futurs programmesde developpement de I'agriculture finances par ('assistance americaine a I'etranger, auraient a mettre I'accent sur le transfert de technologie appropriee aux petites exploitations. Dans le passe, lesorganisations americaines travaillant au developpement trouv6rent difficile de coordonner leursefforts afin de rendre maximum leur efficacite, mais elles sont maintenant tenues de le faire enfonction del 'Art icle XII de la loi d'assistancea I'etranger de 1975. Cette loi fait participer universitesagricoles, agences federates et organisations privees a des programmes de recherche lies auxstrategies de developpement de ('agriculture. II est discute des elements clef propres a creer et a maintenir cet effort de cooperation.

A p p r o c h e C l i m a t i q u e p o u r u n T r a n s f e r t d e l a T e c h n o l o g i ed e s S y s t e m e s d e C u l t u r e s d a n s l e s Z o n e s T r o p i c a l e s S e m i - a r i d e s

S. M. V i r m a n i

Les rendements des cultures en zones tropicales semi-arides sont faibles en raison des variations,temporelles et spatiales, de la pluviometrie. Ces regions sont caracterisees par un besoin climatiqueen eau eleve, et la pluviometrie n'excede I'evapotranspiration que pendant 2 a 4 mois et demi par an.En raison de la large repartition spatiale des ressources naturelles, il existe une forte specificite de('emplacement en termes de ressources en eau pendant la saison de culture. Quelques techniquesemployees pour la quantification de la repartition de la pluviosite et de la disponibilite de I'eau dusol en relation avec les besoins en eau des cultures, sont decrites. Des exemples de I'applicabilite desanalyses agroclimatologiques pour le transfert de technologie en matiere de systemes de culturessont discutes.

292

Etudes sur Sols Representatifs : un Moyen de Transfert de I 'Agrotechnologie

Tejpal S. Gi l l

Une etude sur sols representatifs constitue un effort de cooperation de personnes travaillant avecdes methodes uniformisees de recherche agronomique sur des sols bien definis qui appartiennent a la meme categorie. II s'agit, par definition, d'un reseau. La recherche effectuee sur sols represen-tatifs aboutit a des resultats a diffuser parmi les divers sites d'experimentation, et aux agri-culteurs exploitant les memes sols. Les resultats experimentaux obtenus dans un pays peuventetre appliques aux sols de la m6me famille dans un autre pays, A mesure que I'information s'accroit,il sera possible de perfectionner un modele de transfert de technologie base sur ('interpretation dessols, et leur classification. Un reseau international de sites representatifs est deja en operation a Hawaii, a Puerto Rico, au Bresil et aux Philippines; il peut etre elargi a I'echelle mondiale pouraccroltre la production de cultures vivrieres avec I'aide des centres de recherche internationaux et deleurs programmes de cooperation ainsi que des projets de recherche agronomique conduits par lesprogrammes nationaux a de nombreux emplacements dans chaque pays.

A m e n a g e m e n t d e B a s s i n s V e r s a n t s e t T r a n s f e r t d e T e c h n o l o g i ed a n s les Z o n e s T r o p i c a l e s S e m i - a r i d e s

Jacob Kampen

De frequentes chutes dans la production alimentaire et une deterioration dans la capacite productivedu milieu, sont devenues communes dans bon nombre des regions des zones tropicalessemi-arides. La mise en valeur des ressources naturelles dans le cadre de bassins versants, quiimplique une utilisation optimum de I'eau de pluie grace a une meilleure utilisation de I'eau, du sol etdes cultures, detient le potentiel necessaire pour contribuer de maniere significative a accroitre laproduction et conserver les ressources naturelles. La mise au point d'une technologie amelioreed'amenagement de bassins versants, qui soit adaptee aux besoins des paysans, est une tachetongue et complexe; toutes les utilisations de la terre, y compris les prairies et les forets, doivent etreprises en consideration. Dans la poursuite d'un developpement agricole reussi, la responsabilite deI'lCRISAT consiste en la mise au point de methodes ameliorees de recherche, en des investigationscooperatives centrees sur la recherche d'operation, en I'integration de nouvelles technologies, et endes programmes de formation.

E t u d e s a u N i v e a u d e s V i l l a g e s C o n s i d e r e e s c o m m e B a s e s p o u rI ' A d a p t a t i o n d e l a R e c h e r c h e e t d e l a T e c h n o l o g i e

Hans P. B inswanger et James G. Ryan

II est discute en premier lieu dans cet article, de plusieurs traditions d'enquetes socio-economiques enInde. II est demontre par la suite, comment I'etude au niveau des villages (VLS) de I'lCRISAT combined'une maniere nouvelle plusieurs des caracteristiques propres aux traditions anterieures. Les buts,la portee, et les resultats de cette phase d'observation socio-economique des VLS sont discutes par lasuite, suivis par une description des recherches en cours et de la phase d'adaptation des etudes, Les

293

VLS sont considerees comme bases pour de nombreux types differents d'enquetes socio-economiques, pour la mise au point d'une technologie adaptee et pour diverses recherches. Eliess'efforcent de fournir une approche allant du niveau des paysans a la mise au point de technologies a I'ICRISAT.

Session 4 : Les Programmes de Cooperat ion deI'ICRISAT pour le Transfert de la Technologie

V u e d ' E n s e m b l e s u r l e s P r o g r a m m e s C o o p e r a t i f s d e I ' I C R I S A T

R. C. McGinn is et C. Charreau

Un des buts principaux des programmes de cooperation de I'ICRISAT est de renforcer les effortsnationaux de recherches, sans pour autant faire double emploi avec eux ou les concurrencer.L'lnstitut echange du materiel vegetal avec plus de 40 pays cooperants; il aide a former le personnelde recherche; il organise des seminaires internationaux ainsi que des journees d'etude pourpromouvoir I''interaction scientifique; il fournit une assistance technique adaptee aux besoinsparticuliers de chaque pays. C'est en Afrique — 66% de la zone tropicale semi-aride du monde — que les programmes de cooperation ont beneficie d'une haute priorite; des progres satisfaisantsont 6X6 realises a la fois dans le domaine de la recherche et dans celui de la formation. En Inde, unexcellent systeme de transfert a double sens a ete etabli. Des programmes de cooperation ontegalement ete etablis dans d'autres pays d'Asie, de meme qu'en Amerique Centrale et du Sud, uneexpansion ulterieure est envisagee, en conformite avec la responsabilite internationale croissantede I'ICRISAT.

L e P r o g r a m m e d e C o o p e r a t i o n d e I ' I C R I S A T e n H a u t e - V o l t a

W. A. S t o o p et C. M. Pat tanayak

Au cours de ces dernieres annees, la secheresse a ete frequente en Haute-Volta, causant de faiblesrendements et un serieux deficit dans les productions de graines alimentaires. Les donnees de larecherche indiquent que, malgre cette secheresse, des rendements plus eleves devraient etrepossibles. Cet article tente d'analyser pourquoi de tels rendements n'ont pas ete realises, puisd'indiquer les moyens par lesquels le programme de I'ICRISAT en Haute-Volta pourra contribuer a ameliorer cette situation.

G e n e r a t i o n e t T r a n s f e r t d e T e c h n o l o g i e a u x A m e r i q u e s

Leland R. House

Les activites de I'ICRISAT aux Ameriques ont concerne d'abord le sorgho, et dans une moindremesure, le mil a chandelles, I'arachide, le pois chiche et le pois d'Angole. Les chercheurs travaillant a

294

ces differents programmes d'ameiioration des plantes ont suivi de prres I'evolution de cesprogrammes en Amerique Centrale et du Sud grace a des visites personnelles et des echangesd'information et de materiel vegetai avec les chercheurs locaux. L'ICRISAT a un selectionneursorgho en poste au CIMMYT, au Mexique, travaillant principalement sur I'amelioration du sorgho dehaute altitude. II y a eu un enorme accroissement de la production du sorgho au cours de cesdernieres annees en Amerique latine, principalement au Mexique, en Argentine et au Bresil. Lesorgho est utilise principalement comme nourriture pour les animaux dans ces pays, et a contribueindirectement a la production alimentaire en rendant disponible une plus grande quantite de lacereale de base, le mais, pour la consommation humaine. Mais le sorgho est aussi utilise commenourriture importante pour les humains au Honduras, au Guatemala, a El Salvador et au Nicaraguaainsi que dans bon nombre d'autres pays qui manifestent un interet croissant pour cette plante entant que culture vivriere. Les priorites pour I'amelioration du sorgho en Amerique Centrale et du Sudprennent en compte la necessite de selectionner les varietes en vue de leur utilisation commeculture intercalaire avec le ble et les haricots, telle qu'elle est pratiquee par les paysans plus pauvres;elles prennent aussi en compte la necessite de cribler les varietes pour la resistance aux importantsparasites et maladies que Ton trouve dans ces pays, et celle d'intensifier la formation des chercheursen Amerique latine ainsi que les echanges d'informations avec eux.

La F o r m a t i o n a I ' l C R I S A T

D. L. Oswa l t et A. S. M u r t h y

Bourses intemationales, programmes de formation universitaire et de chercheurs debutants,recyclage professionnel et contrats d'apprentissage constituent, au Centre ICRISAT, autant depossibilites offertes aux stagiaires pour developper leur competence professionnelle et leurexperience pratique. Ces programmes de formation permettent d'etablir des liens entre lesprog rammes nationaux, regionaux et internationaux de recherche et de developpement, d'une part,et les facilites de recherche et I'expertise scientifique disponibles a I'lCRISAT, d'autre part. Congusde fagon a convenir a des participants d'origines et d'experiences diverses, les programmespermettent a chaque individu de suivre un programme d'etudes personnalise, adapte d'aussi presque possible a ses capacites et aux besoins exprimes par I'organisation qui le commandite. La dureedes stages de formation est de quelques semaines a deux ans. Apres le depart des anciensstagiaires, un programme de suivi permet de maintenir le contact avec eux, de les informer desprogr6s de la recherche et d'etre tenu au courant de leurs activites et progres.

Session 5 : Phase In te rmed ia te entre laRecherche et le Developpement

L'Apt i tude d'un Programme de Recherche a Repondre aux Besoinsdes Petits Paysans dans les Zones Tropicales Semi-arides

Sir J o h n C r a w f o r d

Pour qu'un programme de recherche puisse pleinement repondre aux besoins des petits paysans, ildoit proposer une nouvelle technologie susceptible d'apporter une amelioration significative. Mais

295

cela ne suffit pas : il faut en outre une infrastructure fournissant des services dans des conditionstelles que les gains escompt6s puissent etre effectivement realises. La neutralite des techniquesmises en oeuvre par rapport e la taille des exploitations est peut-etre une condition necessaire; maiselle reste insuffisante sans la distribution impartiale des services a I'egard des grands comme despetits paysans.

Le Role des Inst i tuts Internationaux

Ralph W. C u m m i n g s

Le Groupe Consultatif pour la Recherche Agricole Internationale (CGIAR) fournit les moyens detravail a 13 instituts internationaux dont la fonction essentielle est la recherche en agriculture. Lamise en oeuvre pratique des resultats de cette recherche est normalement la tache des agencesnationales et locales; les instituts, toutefois, ont la responsabilite de detecter et amenager desinterfaces ou domaines d'echanges avec les agences nationales de fagon a garantir, dans de bonnesconditions, la miseel'epreuve,sur une vaste echelle, des innovations technologiquespotentielleset('observation d'effets retroactifs, positifs ou negatifs, fiables. Ceci a deja ete aborde dans bien descas. L'etablissement de I'lSNAR en 1978 est un pas important vers un renforcement desprogrammes de recherche nationaux, ce qui, en echange, rehaussera I'efficacite et l'utilite desinstituts internationaux et contribuera a garantir qu'il n'y ait aucune rupture dans la chaine allant dela decouverte de la connaissance jusqu'a son application finale sur le terrain.

L e R o l e d e s P r o g r a m m e s N a t i o n a u x p o u r L i e r l a R e c h e r c h e a u D e v e l o p p e m e n t

M. S. S w a m i n a t h a n

Une base dynamique de recherche nationale est essentielle au lancement et a I'entretien d'unprogramme de developpement agricole visant au triple objectif de I'alimentation, du revenu et desemplois accrus par une exploitation des ressources disponibles. Si les instituts internationauxpeuvent servir de catalyseurs au changement, seul un programme national solide pourrait assurerun progres soutenu. La recherche localisee a pour but de developper, pour chaque systeme deproduction, unetechnologie economiquement viable et son impact eventuel devrait etre evalue afind'eviter les problemes nouveaux et inattendus assoctes aux ravageurs, aux maladies et au sol. A I'heure actuelle en Inde, les rendements reels des paysans sont inferieurs a 25% du potentieldisponible malgre le present niveau de la technologie. La tache immediate est donc, pour lesagences de recherche, de vulgarisation et de developpement, de cooperer dans un effort pourcombler le fosse entre les rendements potentiels et reels.

L e R o l e d e I ' l S N A R d a n s l e T r a n s f e r * d e T e c h n o l o g i e

Klaus J . Lampe

L'ISNAR (Service International pour la Recherche Agricole Nationale) est le dernier n'e de la familledes organisations patronnees par le CGIAR dans ses efforts pour ameliorer la production agricole

296

dans les pays en developpement. A la difference des centres de recherche internationaux, I'lSIMARest une organisation de services; il completera les activites des autres programmes et instituts.Sa mission premiere est de renforcer les capacites de recherche agricole des pays en developpe-ment II servira de mecanisme de liaison entre les centres internationaux de recherche agricole et lesinstitutions nationales, d'intermediaire entre les partenaires interesses a promouvoir une coopera-tion bilaterale en recherche agricole et de lien pour garantir que la recherche, destinee a un groupede populations donne, atteindra — par I'intermediaire d'un service de vulgarisation efficace — lapopulation rurale des pays qui feront appel a I'assistance de I'ISNAR.

L e R o l e d e s P r o g r a m m e s d e I ' l A D S d a n s l e T r a n s f e r t d e T e c h n o l o g i e

D. S. A t h w a l

L'lADS (Service International de Developpement Agricole) fut etabli en 1975 pour fournir desservices demandes par les pays en developpement en vue de concevoir, organiser et renforcer lesinstitutions de recherche et de developpement en agriculture. L'lADS encourage la cooperationentre les agences d'assistance, et aide a integrer les ressources pour appuyer les efforts nationaux.Actuellement, les trois quarts des activites de I'lADS sont des services directs pour aider plus de 12pays en Asie, en Af rique et en Amerique latine, a planifier et real iser leurs programmes de recherche.D'autres activites concernent la formation de chefs et de gestionnaires, la preparation d'unel i terature orientee vers le developpement et la liaison avec les agences d'assistance et lesinstitutions des pays en developpement. Alors que I'accent, jusqu'a ce jour, a ete mis sur le travailavec des systemes de recherche nationaux, I'lADS est maintenant pret a participer a des projets plusorientes vers le developpement en accord avec son mandat initial.

L ' l n t d g r a t i o n A g r i c u l t u r e - E l e v a g e d a n s les Z o n e s T r o p i c a l e s S e m i - a r i d e s

D. J. Pra t t et C. De Haan

Dans cette communication, on a essaye d'isoler quelques-unes des interactions qui existent entreI'elevage et I'agriculture dans les zones semi-arides, et de discuter quelques-unes des tendances quiaffectent ces interactions. On peut s'attendre a ce que davantage de systemes de productionintegres voient le jour, grace a un ensemble de mesures politiques et administratives, ainsi qu'a desinnovations biologiques qui viseront essentiellement a accroitre, en qualite et en quantite, lanourriture du betail en saison seche. La recherche sur systemes, propre a I'lLCA, suggere que lamethode d'attaque des problemes de developpement aura besoin de combiner un bon nombre decomposantes pour etre couronnee de succes. De par la nature meme des systemes de production, ilse peut que I'element cle pour ameliorer la production de I'eievage consiste en actions destinees a accroitre le rendement des cultures de subsistance (meme quand ces cultures n'ont pas d'interetdirect pour le betail); de la meme maniere, une manipulation a I'interieur de la composante"elevage" peut fournir les moyens d'ameiiorer la production des cultures.

297

Session 6 : Les Experiences dans les ZonesTropicales Semi-arides

Les Experiences Indiennes dans les Zones Tropicales Semi-arides : Perspectives et Retrospectives

N. S. Randhawa e t J . Venka teswar l u

En Inde, environ 75% des terres cultivees — fournissant 42% de la production alimentaire totale — sont cultivees sous pluie. Merne apres une utilisation complete des ressources en eau, environ 50%des terres continueront a dependre des pluies. Les niveaux de rendement en culture sechecontinuent a se situer autour de 0,5 t/ha, malgre les efforts de recherche anterieurs sur les systemesde culture sous pluie dans les annees trente, puis a nouveau dans les annees cinquante. L'apparitionde nouveau materiel vegetal au milieu des annees soixante fit esperer une amelioration de laproduction agricole en culture seche. Le projet national sur I'agriculture sous pluie, avec ses 23centres regionaux, fut lance en 1970. Les centres de cooperation ont engendre un nouvel ensemblede techniques permettant d'augmenter de 250 a 400% les rendements potentiels dans les stationsexperimentales agricoles. La mise a I'epreuve de cette technologie dans les exploitations agricoles,sur de vastes zones pilotes a I'echelle operationnelle, a fourni regulierement des accroissements derendement allant de 100 a 200%. L'intensite de culture, en culture seche, peut etre augmentee pardes cultures associees et sequentielles dans les zones d'une pluviometrie de 650 mm et plus. Denouveaux systemes de culture, specialement adaptes aux diverses situations regionales, ont ete misau point, en y incorporant les oleagineux et les legumineuses. La mise en valeur de zones de culturefondee sur I'amenagement de bassins versants, ainsi que la collecte et le recyclage de I'eau deruissellement, constituent d'autres caracteristiques importantes de cette technologie.

L ' E l a b o r a t i o n e t T r a n s f e r t d e T e c h n o l o g i e p o u r I ' A g r i c u l t u r e s o u s P l u i e e t l eP a y s a n d e s Z o n e s T r o p i c a l e s S e m i - a r i d e s d a n s l e s R e g i o n s P r e d i s p o s e e s

a l a S e c h e r e s s e d u M a h a r a s h t r a

A. B. Josh i , N. D. Pat i l et N. K. Umran i

Le Maharashtra est le troisieme etat de I'lnde en etendue; un tiers de sa superficie cultivee estproverbialement predispose a la secheresse. La topographie est vallonnee; les sols sensibles a I'erosion; la pluviosite, de 500 a 750 mm, est extremement variable. Environ 30% des sols sont peuou moyennement profonds. La Station de Recherche Agricole de Sholapur, instauree en 1933, a effectue un travail de recherche considerable sur le "dry- farming": recherche dont les resultats sontmaintenant prets a etre diffuses. Cependant le salut pour I'agriculture sous pluie ne peut pas veniruniquement de la technologie; un effort concerte et pluridisciplinaire, impliquant des agencesmultiples, est necessaire. Cet effort doit se faire sur la base d'un amenagement integre de bassinsversants entiers plutot que sur la base d'exploitations individuelles.

L ' E x p e r i e n c e d u N i g e r i a

M. B. A jaka i ye

La technologie agricole, pour etre praticable et acceptable, doit prendre en consideration lesfacteurs socio-economiques qui influencent ses utilisateurs. Le programme du Nigeria, fonde sur ce

298

principe, tente de resoudre les problemes du paysan des zones tropicales semi-arides en creant desvarietes de cycle court adaptees a la saison de culture; en concevant des outils simples pour reduirele travail ingrat de I'exploitation agricole; en maitrisant les ravageurs et les maladies grace a desmesures preventives; et en s'assurant que les techniques de culture recemment mises au pointseront tout a la fois acceptables et rentables pour le paysan. Le Service Agricole de Vulgarisation etde Liaison avec la Recherche (AERLS), mis en place en 1975, joue un role clef en etablissant un lienentre la recherche et son utilisateur final, le paysan.

R e f l e x i o n s s u r l es P r o b l e m e s d e T r a n s f e r t d e T e c h n o l o g i e

Joseph Kabore

L'elaboration d'un code de conduite des transferts de technologie s'avere necessaire pour renforcerles capacites d'organisation et de reception des pays en developpement et pour ameliorer I'acces a la technologie a des prix abordables par tous. La mise en place et le developpement des structuresde formation techniques et professionnelles dans les pays en developpement sont une conditionprealable au transfert des technologies si ce transfert se veut efficient et durable. Les nouvellestechniques doivent etre assirnilees, modifiees et adaptees aux conditions particulteres de chaquepays. La recherche agronomique telle qu'elle est menee dans les pays developpes (Europe ouEtats-Unis) necessite des moyens de production n'ayant rien de comparable a ceux dont disposele petit paysan voltaTque. II faut des chercheurs qui soient a meme de s'impregner des problemesque vit quotidiennement la population afin d'etre capables de sortir un programme de recherche qui"col le" avec ces realites et eleve la technicite du paysan.

L ' E x p e r i e n c e S e n e g a l a i s e

D j ib r i l Sene

Le Senegal dispose depuis deja de nombreuses annees d'une infrastructure de rechercheagronomique et d'un nombre de chercheurs que Ton peut qualifier Tune et I'autre d'importants.Mais le monde paysan senegalais n'a pas beaucoup beneficie des resultats de recherche, etI'inaptitude qu'il y a a les faire passer au niveau du paysan constitue un des freins les plus importantsa revolution de ce monde rural. Cette recherche agronomique possede deux defauts importants : enpremier lieu, elle est trop intellectualisee et pas assez pragmatique; deuxtemement, beaucoup deces chercheurs ne se sont pas mis suffisamment a l'ecoute du monde rural pour sortir unprogramme de recherche. La creation des Unites Experimentales Regionales (UER) de naturepluridisciplinaire a constitue un element decisif de progres dans la conduite de la recherche, maiselles ont moins reussi a porter assistance aux societes d'encadrement technique du monde rural.L'objectif de la recherche doit etre, au Senegal, d'une part, la mise au point des innovations quipuissent etre acceptees par le monde rural et, d'autre part, de faciliter ['adoption de ces innovationsdans le cadre de la politique agricole nationale.

Transfert de Technologie en Agr icul ture Pluviale dans la Region Sahdlienne

Nalla O. Kane

L'Institut du Sahel a ete cree en 1977 a I'initiative du Comite Permanent Inter-Etats de Lutte contre laSecheresse dans le Sahel (CILSS). Ses fonctions comprennent la collecte, ('analyse et la diffusion

299

des resultats de la recherche scientifique et technique; le transfert et I'adaptation des technologies;et la formation des chercheurs et techniciens. L'lnstitut definit des paquets technologiques adaptesaux conditions socio-econorniques locales et etudie des programmes de radio rurale diffuses enlangues nationales (vernaculaires) des pays saheliens. Sur les exploitations agricoles, des paysans"mod6les" demontrent I'efficacite des nouvelles techniques a leurs voisins. L'auteur souligne qu'ilne faut pas cependant parler du paysan sahelien comme s'il n'etait appele qu'a recevoir lestechniques. II a fait preuve d'une adaptabilite etonnante et les techniques traditionnelles que lepaysan Iui-meme a produit — et qui sont d'ailleurs tres adaptees aux conditions locales — devraientetre etudiees et d i f fuses.

L ' E x p e r i e n c e B r e s i l i e n n e

A. B lumensche in

Le Br6sil a investi substantiellement dans la recherche agronomique dans la region Nord-Est ou estsituee une grande partie de la zone semi-aride du pays. Outre une pluviometrie irreguliere et des solspauvres, le veritable obstacle au developpement dans cette region est la distribution des terres, 8%des paysans possedant 67% des terres cultivees. Le programme de recherche a commence par uneanalyse des freins a une augmentation de la production et a entrepris quatre projets principaux : uninventaire des ressources naturelles, la mise au point de systemes de production, d'une part pourles regions sous pluie et d'autre part, pour les regions irriguees, et de systemes d'exploitationadaptes aux conditions particulteres de la region Nord-Est. Le programme est structure de sorte qu'ilfavorise un transfert rapide de technologie des centres de recherche agricole internationale (IARC)au Bresil.

L ' E l a b o r a t i o n e t l e T r a n s f e r t d e T e c h n o l o g i e p o u r l a P r o d u c t i o nd e s C u l t u r e s S o u s P l u i e e n T h a i l a n d e

A m p o l Senanarong

Des quatre regions geographiques de la ThaYlande, le Nord-Est est la zone ou I'agriculture sous pluierencontre le plus de problemes. Les rendements faibles et instables pour toutes les cultures — specialement le riz — de cette region, la sous-utilisation des terres et la faible fertilite du sol secombinent pour faire du revenu individuel des paysans le plus bas du pays. Jusqu'a ces dernierstemps, la recherche mit davantage I'accent sur l'amelioration vartetale que sur les techniques decultures ou de conservation et d'utilisation rationnelle du sol et de I'eau. II est necessaired'encourager la recherche pluridisciplinaire et d'elaborer a long terme des programmes afin demaintenir la continuite. Les chercheurs, les agents de vulgarisation et les paysans exploitants,devraient etre capables de travailler ensemble afin d'elaborer une technologie que I'exploitantpuisse adopter avec profit. Un premier pas sera it d'accepter les systemes de culture existants et d'yintroduire des innovations simples et peu couteuses dont le resultat serait un accroissement visibledes rendements.

300

L'Experience des Philippines dans les Cultures en Zones Seches

J. D. D r i l on , Jr. et Ed. B. Pantast ico

Les Philippines bien qu'etant un pays typiquement humide, avec une pluviosite moyenne annuellede 253 cm, component des zones seches de novembre a avril. La tendance de la production descultures dans les zones humides, humides et seches, et seches reflate I'influence des parametres dumilieu, par exemple, la pluviosite, la temperature,I'humidite relative, la fertilite et la texture du sol etla situation du marche. Pour introduire de nouveaux systemes de cultures dans ces zones ou lespratiques culturales sont etablies depuis fort longtemps, des essais de recherche appliquee furentconduits pour s'assurer que le nouvel ensemble de technologies soit adaptable aux conditionsactuelles. Les essais mettent I'accent sur le choix du site d'experimentation, sur e laborat ion et lamise a l'epreuve du systeme de culture dans les champs des paysans, et sur I'evaluation deI'ensemble des donnees. La technologie KABSAKA — c'est a dire deux cultures du riz et une culturepluviale pour les zones exondees — elaboree d'apres ces activites a donne d'excellents resultats, etavec les modifications approprtees, pourra etre adoptee dans d'autres regions.

S e s s i o n 7 : Les L i e n s

Les Liens pour le Transfert de Technologie

B. N. Webster

Cette communication examine les concepts traditionnels de transfert de technologie dans le cadredu d6veloppement agricole et elle fait ressortir le caractere pluridimensionnel des liens noues entreagents, caractere essentiel pour soutenir un systeme dynamique d'application des connaissancesacquises. L'accent est mis sur le transfert de technologie vers !'interieur de la region et sur('applicabilite d'une technologie produite au niveau indig6ne. L'importance de I'element humain a tous les niveaux est soulignee et par Id, le rdle majeur que joue un lien adequat avec les institusd'enseignement et deformation pour preparer les cadres bien formes servant de "liens humains"dans la chaine du transfert.

L e s L i e n s p o u r l a M i s e e n O e u v r e d e s P r o g r a m m e s

W. K. Agb le

Les liens les plus fructueux pour la mise en oeuvre des programmes supposeraient une structuretriangulaire liant la recherche, la vulgarisation et le paysan. Les principaux objectifs d'un tel systemede liens seraient le transfert rapide des technologies au benefice d'un plus grand nombre depaysans; de telles technologies sont non seulement economiquement viables et acceptables parles paysans mais repondent en outre aux besoins politiques, sociaux et economiques du pays. Celanecessite le renforcement des systemes nationaux de recherche et de vulgarisation. Mais surtout,les paysans doivent s'unir pour exercer une forte influence sur la machine politique du pays afind'assurer une fixation des prix, un financement et une politique fiscale equitables ainsi que d'autresbenefices aux paysans.

301

Reflexions sur les Problemesde Transfer t de Techno log ie

Joseph Kabore*

L'enorme fosse qui existe entre les pays "developpes" et les pays dits en developpement et plusparticulterement ceux d'Afrique, dont la Haute-Volta, impose a ces derniers de faire massivementappel a la technologie ou savoir-faire des premiers. Ceci ne va pas sans poser de delicats problemes,dont les plus aigus sont la dependance ainsi creee et les couts importants que cela impose auxeconomies encore fragiles des pays en developpement. II s'agit de trouver un cadre adequat quireglemente les transferts.

En la matiere, nous souscrivons, dans les grandes lignes, aux propositions, faites par le groupedes 77 de la CNUCED lors des sessions de 1975 et de 1976 a la conference de Nairobi.

La technologie est une part de ('heritage universel de l'numanite auquel tous les pays ont droitpour, si non glimmer, au moins attenuer les intol.erables inegalites economiques, dans le cadre d'unnouvel ordre economique international.

L'elaboration d'un "code de conduite des transferts de technologie" s'avere necessaire; sesprincipaux objectifs seraient :

• Le renforcement des capacites d'organisation et de reception des techniques nouvelles despays en developpement,

• L'amelioration de I'acces a la technologie et des couts et prix raisonnables et abordables pourtous,

• La promotion des transactions "non Iiees" quant au choix des differents elgments de latechnologie, I'evaluation des couts, ('organisation, les formes et canaux institutionnels.

Ce code qui interessera tous les types de technologie sera legarantde transactions prof itables auxpays en developpement et qui ne les rendent pas perpetuellement "esclaves."

Les Transferts de Technologie

La Fo rma t i on

Qui dit transfert de technologie dit presence de cadres en quantite et en qualite suffisantes dans tousles secteurs de l'economie, capables d'assimiler les techniques et les technologies des plus simplesaux plus complexes, afin que les economies des pays dits en developpement tirent le maximum deprofit des technologies importees.

Cela implique egalement que tous les artisans de l'economie jusqu'e l'echelle la plus basse aientune formation qui les rende e meme, chacun a son niveau, d'executer les taches techniquesobligatoires,

Cette formation qui doit a notre point de vue englober aussi bien I'adulte que I'enfant, les artisansd'aujourd'hui et les artisans de demain, doit pouvoir se faire avant tout, dans les pays endeveloppement. Cependant certains perfectionnements et certains recyclages dans les paysdeveloppes sont necessaires pour completer le savoir-faire.

Formation de I'Enfant

L'enfant est le futur artisan de l'economie. Une ouverture de son intelligence a I'esprit scientifiquedes le jeune age feradelui plus facilementun technician confirme de haut niveau. I lconvientquedesstructures adequates soient etudiees et mises en place pour donner cette ouverture d'esprit a l'enfant dans le meme age.

* Directeur, Services Agricoles, Haute-Volta

302

Formation Pratique des Masses Laborieuses

Le paysan, I'ouvrier agricole pour etre plus efficace a besoin d'un minimum de formation, deperfectionnement, de recyclage; toutes les manifestations, les actions qui peuvent ameliorer laformation pratique du travailleur doivent etre encouragees. Un mauvais paysan ne profite pas a I'economie.

Les fetes agricoles, les actions de demonstrations, les concours agricoles, les stages deperfectionnement des paysans e tc . . . sont autant de moyens qui peuvent augmenter leurtechnicite, et les rendre plus efficaces.

Les Structures de Format ion Techniques et Professionnel les

La mise en place et pour le developpement des structures de formation techniques et professionnel-les dans les pays en developpement sont une condition prealable au transfert des technologies si cetransfert se veut efficient et durable.

En effet le transfert doit se fa ire par des hommes competents qui non seulement ont assimile maispeuvent modifier et adapter les nouvelles techniques aux conditions particulieres de leur pays. Ceshommes valables doivent etre suffisamment nombreux et couvrir tous les secteurs de I'economie.Si I'importation d'un specialiste est necessaire et indispensable, cette importation devrait etretemporaire et couvrir simplement le temps necessaire a la formation des nationaux. Le specialistedevrait jouer le r6le de Conseiller Technique le temps que les Techniciens du pays acquierent unminimum d'experience.

Si des structures de formation techniques et professionnelles sont necessaires pour equiper leseconomies de cadres superieurs, il en est egalement de meme pour les techniciens des niveauxmoyen et subalterne qui sont des maillons indispensables a toute economie.

Ainsi donc que ce soit dans les domaines de ('agriculture, de I'industrie, du commerce e t c . . . desstructures adequates de formation sont, nous en sommes convaincus, des prealables et la mise enplace de ces structures ne peut se fa ire sans concours techniques et financiers des pays developpes.

Les Per fect ionnements et les Recyclages a I 'Exterieur

Le developpement de la science a permis d'atteindre dans la plupart des secteurs une technicite telleque les jeunes pays en voie de developpement ne peuvent se payer le luxe d'avoir des ecoles tresspecialisees dans tous les domaines de leur economie. lis doivent par consequent negocier avec lespays developpes le perfectionnement et le recyclage de leurs techniciens dans certains domainestr6s specialises. Cette collaboration est necessaire pour rendre efficient le transfert de certainestechnologies et doit etre prise serieusement en consideration.

La Recherche Sc ien t i f i que et Techn ique

Que ce soit dans le domaine de I'agriculture, des agro-industries ou de I'industrie, les pays en voie dedeveloppement connaissent souvent des situations et des conditions particulieres. Une recherchescientifique et technique permettra a ces pays de trouver des solutions a leurs problemesspecifiques.

C'est-a-dire que la formation des chercheurs est un autre probleme qui preoccupe beaucoup lespays en voie de developpement.

Nous pensons que de plus en plus les pays en voie de developpement doivent pouvoir former surplace des chercheurs qui soient impregnes d'abord des problemes qu'ils doivent resoudre et ensuitemettre en place ce qu'il faut pour la recherche des solutions.

On peut se permettre ici de citer un exemple : La recherche agronomique telle qu'elle est menee dans les pays developpes (Europe, Etats-Unis)

cherche a resoudre des probiemes du fermier ou de I'entreprise agricole, Les solutions qu'ellepreconise s'adresse a des fermiers bien cultives, lettres, souvent de niveau ing6nieurcommeaux

303

U.S.A. et qui disposent de moyens de production qui n'ont rien de comparable a cedont dispose lepetit paysan voltaYque, qui cultive en moyenne 5 ha manueliement. Les moyens financiers etmateriels ne constituent pas un facteur limitant chez les grands fermiers tandis que dans les pays endeveloppement c'est un des principaux facteurs limitants. II en decoule que la rechercheagronomique ne peut pas avoir les memes preoccupations et les rnemes objectifs. Dans les paysdeveloppes il suffit de trouver les techniques — meme sophistiquees — et les varietes, les moyensne manquent pas et tous les agriculteurs ont la meme formation qu'il faut.

Dans les pays en voie de developpement comme la Haute-Volta, il faut tenir compte du niveau outrouve la masse des petits fermiers souvent ancres dans des habitudes ancestrales, illettres, peuouverts, disposant de moyens infimes et n'ayant pas acc6s aux credits agricoles presqueinexistants. Ce sera difficile de luifairefaire unsautqualitati f en voulant I 'amenerdu Moyen AgeauXXe siecle.

II n'a ni les dispositions ni les moyens qu'il faut.Par contre, si Ton reflechit et Ton cherche comment par etape, et par palier on peut elever sa

technicite on aura plus de chance de reussir.Pour arriver a cela il faut des chercheurs qui soient a meme de s'impregner de ces problemes que

vit quotidiennement la population voltaYque afin d'etre capables de sortir un programme derecherche qui "col le" avec ces realties. Cette recherche-Id sera beaucoup plus efficace que celle quidonne des resultats bons mais inapplicables par manque de technicite et de moyens.

Les Transferts des Brevets et des Techniques

Les brevets, le savoir-faire, les procedes de fabrication constituent une des plus grandes richessesdes pays developpes et leur appartiennent pour 90%. Leurtransfert obeit a une legislation complexeet onereuse.

• Une des premieres mesures a prendre serait de lever partiellement I'exclusivite de la proprieteet de diminuer le cout d'exploitation .

• La deuxieme mesure serait la possibilite d'adaptation, mais cependant pour des besoinsstrictement interieurs.

• La troisteme mesure est la promotion tant dans les pays developpes que dans les pays endeveloppement, de la technologie intermediaire a mettre a la disposition des pays en voie dedeveloppement.

Dans tous les cas se pose la question de savoir quel type de technologie transferer, pour certainscas particuliers, dans quel contexte.

Les pays en developpement ne peuvent pas se contenter de la technologie du XVIIIe siecle danscertains domaines alors qu'ils ne peuvent pas non plus rentabiliser celle du XXe siecle dansd'autres — la technologie etant de plus en plus sophistiquee, on est oblige de suivre son temps.

• Nous pensons que pour la technologie de pointe necessitant des competences dont nedisposent pas encore les pays en developpement, la prudence est de rigueur et I'integrationregionale est souhaitable.

• Pour les autres types de technologie, la preference sera donnee a celle permettant d'utiliser aumaximum les ressources physiques et humaines locales; une industrialisation qui permetted'elever le niveau de vie de la majorite de la population, qui est ou sera entierement maltrisee a court terme par les nationaux.

• Former en grand nombre des techniciens et ingenieurs qui feront evoluer la technologie sanstropd'a-coups car I'experience montre que les populations, quand elles le peuvent, preferentles produits des technologies tres avancees.

304

L'Experience Senegalaise

Djibr i l Sene*

Je commencerai par feliciter I'lCRISAT, dont Taction est orientee vers le developpement detechnologies de progres pour I'agriculture, d'avoir organise un debat qui ne se limite pas au seulaspect du developpement de ces technologies^articulieres mais traite, aussi, du probleme dutransfert au monde rural des technologies misee au point par la recherche.

Le Senegal est un pays qui dispose depuis deja dehombreuses annees d'une infrastructure derecherche agronomique et d'un nombre de chercheurs que Ton peut qualifier Tune et I'autred'importants, surtout si on les compare a la situation qui est encore celle de la plupart des autresEtats de la zone sahelienne.

Ceci tient au fait que le Senegal a eu la chance d'heriter, au moment de son independance, d'unimportant dispositif de recherches agricoles, zootechniques et veterinaires, mis en place jadis par laFrance, non pour les seuls besoins du Senegal, mais pour ceux de I'ensemble de la partieoccidentale de la zonetropicale semi-aride de I'Afrique au nord de I'equateur: depuis la Presqu'iledu Cap Vert a I'Ouest jusqu'au Niger a I'Est. C'est ainsi que le Centre Senegalais des RecherchesAgricoles de Bambey, cree depuis maintenant plus de cinquante ans, eut a jouer de longues anneesdurant, avant I'accession des Etats francophones de I'Afrique de I'Ouest a I'lndependance, le role deCentre Federal des Recherches Agronomiques de I'ensemble des territoires de la partie saheiienneet soudanienne de I'Afrique de I'Ouest alors sous tutelle frangaise.

Si l 'on peut porter au credit de la recherche agronomique realiseeau Senegal de nombreux acquisscientifiques et techniques de valeur, il n'en reste pas moins vrai que le monde paysan senegalaiscontinue, quant a lui, a n'evoluer quetres lentement, trop lentement au gre des dirigeants de ce payssi on prend comme critere de jugement la fagon dont a varie le revenu des paysans au cours desdemises decennies.

L'experience des faits nous prouve chaque jour davantage que I'un des freins les plus importantsde Involution de ce monde rural provient de I'inaptitude qu'il a a faire passer au niveau du paysanune grande partie des produits de la recherche.

Est-ce a dire que le message ou les messages delivres par la recherche en direction du monde ruralsont pour la plupart des messages defectueux, non recevables par les paysans, et si oui, pourquoi?

Ou bien, est-ce a dire que les structures d'encadrement technique du monde paysan, chargees devehiculer les messages de la recherche et de les faire penetrer dans ce monde paysan n'ont pas su,jusqu'a present, jouer le role qu'on leur a confie et, dans ce cas, pourquoi?

Ces questions meritent sans aucun doute des reponses, et c'est en vue de les obtenir que nousavons commence a engager depuis quelques mois, au Senegal, une vaste reflexion sur les rapportsrecherche-developpement et sur le fonctionnement des societes d'encadrement technique dumonde rural.

Je me contenterai de vous faire part, ici, de quelques reflexions personnelles concernant lesmessages deiivres actuellement au Senegal par la recherche agronomique en direction du mondepaysan, laissant deiiberernent de cote le second aspect des choses : le fonctionnement des societesd'encadrement technique du monde paysan.

Mes reflexions porteront sur deux points : • La fagon dont les messag.es deiivres en direction du monde rural ont ete, jusqu'a present,

composes par la recherche.• La facon dont ces messages ont ete vehicules jusqu'a present, depuis le laboratoire ou le champ

situe au centre de recherche jusqu'au champ paysan.

* Ministre du Developpement Rural, Senegal

305

La Composi t ion du Message Delivre par la Recherche

Ayant appartenu pendant longtemps a la recherche mais ayant, aujourd'hui la responsabilite dudeveloppement rural dans son ensemble, il m'apparalt, aujourd'hui, que la recherche agronomiqueconduite au Senegal, bien qu'ayant la qualite d'etre une recherche serieuse et effectuee par deschercheurs (nationaux et etrangers) pour la plupart tres competents chacun dans sa specialite, estune recherche qui n'en possede pas moins deux defauts contre lesquels nous tentons, du reste, dereagir :

• II me semble que cette recherche est une recherche souvent beaucoup trop intellectualisee,sophistiquee, oserai-je dire, et pas assez pragmatique, ce qui donne souvent I'impression queles chercheurs sont davantage tentes de faire de la recherche pour le plaisir de la rechercheplutot que pour contribuer a la satisfaction des besoins les plus immediats du monde rural.Peut-etre, est-ce, en realite, parce que ces chercheurs se preoccupent davantage d'un futurlointain que du futur immediat.

• II me semble, par ailleurs, que beaucoup de ces chercheurs n'ont pas su ou pas voulu, jusqu'apresent, se mettre suffisamment a l'ecoute du monde rural pour batir leurs programmes derecherches.

II s'agit, tant en ce qui concerne Tun et I'autre de ces deux defauts, d'une question de mentaliteIiee, me semble-t-il, en grande partie, au mode actuel de formation de ces chercheurs :

• Formation, d'une part, trop universitaire, conduisant preferentiellement les chercheurs vers larecherche de diplomes de plus en. plus eleves ou a la publication de notes et memoiresscientifiques de portee theorique au detriment de la satisfaction des besoins pratiques les plusimmediats de notre agriculture.

• Formation congue, d'autre part, dans un cadre de pensee plus adaptee, me semble-t-il, aux paysindustrialises qu'aux pays en voie de developpement: dans le respect de I'idee que c'est a larecherche et a la recherche seule que revient le soin de dire quelles sont les voies par lesquellesdevra se faire le progres rural, donc de definir le contenu du message que les societes devulgarisation seront ensuite chargees de diffuser dans le monde paysan. Au Gouvernement etaux societes chargees de I'encadrement technique du monde paysan le soin de provoquer, parla suite les conditions sociales et economiques qui permettront d'accepter les innovationsproposes par la recherche quels qu'en soient la nature et le cout.

J'admets, a la rigueur, que telle puisse 6tre la demarche de pensee suivie pour le futur lointain. Jene saurais, par contre, y souscrire pour le court et moyen terme. Cela ne ferait qu'accentuer le fosseque nous sommes obliges de constater actuellement au Senegal entre les services de la recherche etles societes d'encadrement technique du monde rural, deja trop tentees d'entreprendre des etudesou des essais qui ne sont pas de leur ressort, sous pretexte qu'il s'agit d'etudes ou d'essais destines a apporter des reponses a des problemes que la recherche n'a pas voulu ou pas su prendre en comptejusqu'a present.

II me semble indispensable que les innovations techniques proposees par la recherche pour cecourt et ce moyen terme soient des innovations vraiment adaptees a I'etat devolut ion du monderural previsible durant cet intervalle de temps dans les domaines psychologique, sociologique(nature de I'exploitation, structure familiale, e t c . . ) et economique (credit, commercialisation,cooperatives, e tc . . . ) en fonction de la politique etablie par le Gouvernement dans ces differentsdomaines.

II n'ignore pas qu'il sera sans doute tres difficile d'obtenir dans I'immediat que les chercheurs dejaen place changent de mentalite, bien qu'un certain effort devolution puisse etre constate. Je suis, parcontre, plus confiant pour I'avenir, depuis que nous avons decide de cr6er au Senegal un InstitutNational de Developpement Rural charge d'assurer, sur place, la formation de la totalite des cadresde haut rang dont nous avons besoin, tant au niveau de ('Administration que des societesd'encadrement du monde rural ou de la recherche, ce qui n'excluera nullement pour nos chercheursla possibilite de stages complementaires a I'etranger, mais ce ne seront que des stages despecialisation. Ce nouveau systeme de formation devrait pouvoir entrer en vigueur au cours de laprochaine annee.

306

Le Transfert du Message depuis la Stat ion Centralede Recherche jusqu'au Champ du Paysan

Lorsqu'on se ref6re aux nombreuses discussions qui ont pu avoir lieu au Senegal au cours de cesderniers mois entre la recherche et les societes d'encadrement technique du monde rural, on se rendcompte que ce qui preoccupe essentiellement ces dernieres est de pouvoir disposer :

• d'une part, de resultats applicables a court ou moyen terme dont la quantification soit connuedans I'espace (delimitation precise des differentes zones d'application possible de cesresultats) et dont la quantification soit connue dans le temps (variation de ces resultats enfonction des conditions pluriannuelles caracteristiques d'une zone d'application determin6e etprobabilite de ces variations en vue d'une appreciation du risque).

• d'autre part, des informations qui permettront de juger des contraintes sociales eteconomiques a I'adoption des themes de developpement proposes.

Comment la recherche a-t-elle tente de repondre jusqu'a present a cette double preoccupation etdans quelle mesure y est-elle parvenue?

II faut reconnaitre que, quelle que soit la fagon dont les messages delivres par la rechercheagronomique au Senegal ont pu etre congus jusqu'a present, la recherche senegalaise s'esttoujours montree extremement soucieuse de juger quelle pouvait etre la valeur spatio-temporellede chacun des resultats techniques obtenus en station de recherche; ce qui repond a la premiere desdeux preoccupations exprimees par les societes d'encadrement technique du monde rural.

Ceci a ete fait, dans un premier temps, grace a la mise en place d'un reseau d'essais multilocauxcouvrant ('ensemble du territoire senegalais; puis, ulterieurement, par la creation de certainesstructures particulieres supplementaires dites "Points d'Appui de Prevulgarisation et d'Experimen-tation Multi locale" (PAPEM) qui associent a la caracteristique d'etre un des elements constitutifs dudispositif normal des essais multilocaux, la fonction de devoir jouer egalement un r6le demonstratifvis-a-vis du monde paysan en abritant d'autres essais synthetisant I'ensemble des differentesinnovations jugees par la recherche comme etant des innovations interessantes a introduire dans lemilieu rural.

Ces experimentations ne permettent toutefois pas de repondre a la seconde des preoccupationsexprimees par les societes d'encadrement technique du monde rural : fournir des informations quipermettent de juger des contraintes sociales et economiques a ('adoption des themes dedeveloppement proposes.

D'ou la mise en place par la recherche a partir de 1969 d'un troisieme type de structureintermediaire entre les stations centrales de rechercheet le monde rural : les Unites ExperimentalesRegionales (UER) qui ont fait I'objet depuis leur creation d'une abondante litterature accompagneede definitions plus ou moins ambitieuses sur leur role ;

"Unite de recherche prospective sur les systemes de production et modeles d'exploitations"selon ReneTOURTE, qui fut l 'un de ceux qui conduisirent letravail de reflexion qui devaitaboutira lacreation de ces unites; ou encore, selon le meme auteur, "exemple d'utilisation par la RechercheAgronomique de la demarche systeme."

"Entite socio-geographique limitee ou les resultats de la Recherche Agronomique sont testes envraie grandeur, en vue de mettre au point et de perfectionner constamment des systemestechniques, tenant compte des liens existant entre le milieu physique, le milieu humain et lesobjectifs du plan de developpement regional" selon J. KILLIAN.

"Unite correspondant a la mise en oeuvre d'un processus de developpement controle a I'initiativede la Recherche et concernant un ensemble socio-economique envisage dans sa totalite" selon L MALASSIS. Etc . . .

Ces definitions traduisent suffisamment bien I'esprit dans lequel ces Unites furent congues pourque nous n'ayons pas a insister davantage sur ce point. Je preciserai seulement que leur conceptionest le fruit d'un travail de reflexion entrepris principalement par des agronomes generalistes doneplus proches des realites du monde rural que la plupart des autres chercheurs : specialistes deI'amelioration des plantes, de la conservation et de I'amelioration de la fertilite des sols, de la lutte

307

contre les ravageurs e tc . . . plus facilement tentes de s'enfermer dans leurs specialites.A I'origine de cette reflexion est I'echec relatif de la plupart des projets de developpement rural

mis en oeuvre au Senegal depuis I'lndependance et les difficultes de diffusion de certainespropositions de la recherche agronomique, celles, en particulier, visant a la creation d'un milieuphysique plus favorable a I'expression des cultures traditionnelles ou nouvelles; parmi cespropositions, il faut citer en particulier le labour profond et I'enfouissement de la matiere organique.

Je ne vous decrirai pas, ici, la fagon dont fonctionnent ces Unites Experimentales; je mecontenterai de souligner le fait que I'observation porte sur I'ensemble du milieu, c'est-a-dire que Tons'efforce d'etudier toutes les consequences (techniques, economiques, sociologiques) de I'intro-duction d'une innovation dans ce milieu et qu'il s'agit, par consequent, d'une approche veritable-ment pluridisciplinaire.

Que penser de I'activite de ces Unites Experimentales dont la creation remonte maintenant a dixannees?

La reponse n'est pas facile a donner car, en fait, le bilan differe selon qu'on se place du point de vuede la recherche ou du point de vue des societes d'encadrement technique du monde rural.

Si je me place du cote recherche, je suis convaincu, compte tenu de la conception que j'ai du r6lede la recherche agronomique et de son fonctionnement, que la creation des Unites Experimentales a constitue un element decisif de progres dans le fonctionnement de la recherche agronomique auSenegal, en ce sens que les problemes rencontres par les chercheurs au sein de ces UnitesExperimentales les am6nent a prendre conscience, un peu plus chaque jour, qu'il est necessaire, sion veut donner a la recherche agronomique le sens utilitaire qui doit etre le sien au Senegal :

• d'une part, de definir les themes et priorites de recherche a partir des donnees du mil ieu;• d'autre part, de viser a la mise au point de techniques integrees et de systemes compatibles

avec les systemes existants, avant de les proposer a la vulgarisation, ainsi que de viser a identifier les contraintes.

Je deplore qu'en depit de I'evolution des mentalites qui a deja commence a se dessiner dans cesens chez certains chercheurs, il y en ait encore trop qui continuent a conduire leurs recherches endehors de ces principes, en particulier les selectionneurs, surtout affectes a I'amelioration desplantes allogames (les seiectionneurs mil, par exemple) plus preoccupes souvent, me semble-t-il, dechercher un heterosis maximum dans I'absolu qu'un heterosis maximum dans le cadre de('utilisation de ces especes a I'interieur d'un assolement et d'une rotation, voire d'un usagetechnologique des produits recoltes imposant a la plante differentes contraintes de resistance auxparasites, de cycle, d'architecture, de culture et de qualite de graine.

Si je me place du c6te du developpement, je suis oblige, par contre, de constater que les UnitesExperimentales ont fourni aux societes d'encadrement technique du monde paysan peu d'en-seignements jusqu'a present, en dehors de certaines donnees techniques dont il ne me semble pasevident qu'il y avait reellement besoin d'une structure du type Unite Experimentale pour mettre enevidence leur interet et leur possibilite d'emploi (dosage d'engrais, dates de semis, ecartements deplantes, developpement de la culture de mais, developpement de la culture attelee, etc . . . ) .

II est assez surprenant de constater qu'en depit d'etudes tres serieuses permettant uneconnaissance approfondie du milieu sur lequel operent ces "Unites" ( etudes sur la tenure fonciereet les disponibilites en terre, Ie travail ag ricole familial etsaisonnier, les rapports detravai l jes tempsde travaux, I'etablissement de comptes d'exploitation) les chercheurs n'aient pas ete capables,apres dix ans de fonctionnement de ces Unites Experimentales, d'indiquer aux societes d'encadre-ment du monde rural comment parvenir a une meilleure organisation de ce milieu. On retrouve a I'interieur des Unites Experimentales les memes probiemes qu'a I'exterieur concernant lefonctionnement du credit et les remboursements de dettes, ('organisation et la gestion descooperatives, I'utilisation des materiels agricoles au sein de I'unite sociale traditionnelle definie parla communaute de residence.

II est tout aussi surprenant de constater que malgre ces etudes et un encadrement du paysan tressuperieur a celui mis en place dans les societes d'intervention en milieu rural, il n'a pas ete possibled'obtenir, au sein de ces Unites Experimentales, une meilleure diffusion qu'ci I'exterieur de certainsthemes de la recherche consideres pourtant par les chercheurs comme essentiels pour la realisation

308

de la politique d'intensification des cultures qu'ils preconisent, et jug6e par tous comme etant,effectivement, la seule voie possible de progr6s reel du monde rural et de I'agriculture senegalaise.

Ceci dernontre bien que I'objectif de la recherche doit etre au Senegal la mise au pointd'innovations qui puissent etre d'abord, acceptables par le monde rura l I'evolution du milieu nedevant etre que le corollaire indispensable, orientee uniquement de maniere a faciliter I'adoptiondefinitive de ces innovations dans le cadre de la politique agricole nationale.

II me semble qu'il devrait y avoir peut-etre Ia une lecon a tirer par I'ICRISAT pour la definition desapolitique de travail en Afrique.

Je ne pense pas que ce soit depuis I'lnde que cet Institut puisse conduire un travail vraimentefficace pour I'Afrique, surtout en ce qui concerne le developpement de la production des especesallogames. Mais peut-etre fais-je erreur.

II me semble, par ailleurs, indispensable que le travail programme pour I'Afrique, le soit en tr6setroite collaboration avec les differents services nationaux des Etats africains, seuls capables, a monavis, d'indiquer a I'ICRISAT le sens dans lequel le travail conduit par I'ICRISAT pour I'Afrique doitetre realise si on veut qu'il ait une utilite reelle pour le monde paysan africain.

309

Transfer t de Techno log ie en Ag r i cu l t u rePluvia le dans la Region Sahel ienne

Nalla O. Kane*

Avant d'aborder ce probleme j'aimerais tout d'abord le situer dans le cadre des attributionsdevolues a I'lnstitut du Sahel. Cette Institution qui a connu le jour effectivement en decembre 1977 a la reunion des Chefs d'Etats a Banjul avait ete souhaitee par ceux-ci des le sommet constitutif duComite Permanent inter-Etats de Lutte Contre la Secheresse dans le Sahel (CILSS) en septembre1973 a Ouagadougou. Cet outil de cooperation sous-regionale, charge de recherches appliquees etde la Coordination des activites de recherche et de formation dans le Sahel, devait par la resolutionn°3253 attirer attention de I 'Assemblee Generale des Natio ns Unies qui recommanda au SecretaireGeneral de cette Institution d'en accelerer les travaux preparatoires.

C'est ainsi qu'en mai-juin 1975 une mission preparatoire du PNUD conjointement avec le PNUEdevait definir les grandes orientations du Futur Institut du Sahel. Celles-ci ont ete discutes en avril1976 a Bamako et devaient aboutir a la decision de creation immediate de I'lnstitut du Sahel endecembre 1976 a N'Djamena. En octobre 1977, une reunion elargie sur I'lnstitut du Sahel devaitetudier les Statuts de I'lnstitut ainsi que les programmes de demarrage et de Premiere Generation.Les programmes et Statuts ont ete adoptes a la Conference des Chefs d'Etats le 19 decembre 1977 a Banjul.

Les fonctions de I'lnstitut telles qu'adoptees par la Conference des Chefs d'Etats du CILSS a Banjulsont les suivantes :

1. La collecte, I'analyse et la diffusion des resultats de la Recherche Scientifique et Technique.2. Le transfert et I'adaptation des technologies.3. L'harmonisation et la coordination des recherches scientifiques et techniques.4. La formation des chercheurs et des techniciens de developpement.Le theme du present symposium s'inscrit dans le cadre du point 2 de ('attribution de I'lnstitut, a

savoir: le transfert et I'adaptation des technologies. Bien que letransfert des technologies au niveaupaysan soit plutot du ressort des Etats, I'lnstitut du Sahel par son role de promotion et decoordination des activites de recherche et de formation ainsi que par le role qui lui est devolu dans lacollecte, I'analyse et la diffusion des resultats de la recherche scientifique et technique, contribuesensiblement a I'amelioration des techniques au niveau paysan.

En effet I'lnstitut du Sahel doit participer indirectement au transfert de technologies au niveaupaysan par :

• La formation des agents de vulgarisation et de developpement.• La definition de paquets technologiques adequats a transferer aux paysans (par le biais

d'informations scientifiques et techniques obtenues de I'lnstitut du Sahel).• L'echange d'experiences entre les differents encadreurs des pays saheliens.• L'amelioration des conditions de diffusion et des programmes de radio rurale ainsi que des

autres media dans les Etats membres du CILSS.On peut resumer les conditions de succes du transfert de technologies en milieu paysan sahelien en

trois points principaux.1. La formation d'excellents encadreurs et I'alphabetisation fonctionnelle des paysans.2. La definition de paquets technologiques adaptes aux conditions socio-economiques du

paysan.•3. Pour la large masse un programme bien etudie de radio rurale se basant essentiellement sur le

point 2 ci-dessus. Ce programme est bien entendu diffuse en langues nationales du pays (ex.langues vernaculaires).

* Directeur General, Institut du Sahel, Bamako, Mali.

310

Dans chaque pays de la region du CILSS des organismes de vulgarisation sont crees soit dans lecadre des structures traditionnelles de I'agriculture, soit dans le cadre plus operationnel desorganismes de developpement. Ce sont, par exemple :

• La Societe de Developpement et Vulgarisation Agricole (SODEVA) dans le bassin arachidier duSenegal.

• Les Organismes Regionaux de Developpement (ORD), Haute-Volta.• Les Operations de Developpement (Operation Mil-Mopti par ex, au Mali).• Projet a I'echelle d'une zone d'un pays comme le projet 3M au Niger.Dans la majorite des cas le transfert se fait selon la technique de la diffusion en tache d'huile

utilisant principalement I'effet de demonstration. En effet dans la zone d'intervention sont choisis uncertain nombre de paysans "modeles" auxquels sont enseignees les techniques a transferer. Cespaysans servent soit d'instructeurs aux autres paysans, soit d'incitateurs pour leurs voisins tentesd'utiliser les marries techniques pour obtenir les memes rendements que le paysan modele.

On utilise souvent pour une information de masse les techniques audio-visuelles qui sans douteont leur importance mais ne peuvent pas remplacer l'experience directe que les paysans peuventtirer de la visite du champ des fermiers modeles. C'est plutot apr6s cette experience du terrain qu'ilstirent meilleur profit d'un fi lm relatif aux techniques d vulgariser.

Dans la definition des paquets technologiques a transferer, il y a un facteur important qu'il fauttoujours avoir a I'esprit : les conditions socio-economiques du paysan. En effet toute techniques'integrant difficilement a la culture du monde rural-cible ou depassant les capacites financieres dece dernier a tres peu de chance de succes.

II en est de meme d'un paquet technologique comportant des themes complexes et d'unetechnicite assez elaboree.

Cette remarque n'est cependant pas une panacee car on a souvent rencontre des paysans ayant uneextraordinaire capacite d'adaptation. C'est ainsi qu'au demarrage de programme de I'O.M.V.S., ilavait ete dit que les paysans du Fleuve Senegal n'arriveraient jamais a maitriser la technique de lariziculture avec controle total de I'eau. Celle-ci est en effet tres complexe, comme chacun sait. Cetteapprehension a ete dementie par les faits. Bien que les paysans du Bassin du Senegal ne soient pasriziculteurs traditionnels ils se sont averes aussi competents que les asiatiques grace a un dond'adaptation qui a etonne tout le monde.

Le transfert et I'adaptation des technologies est un domaine pour lequel il y a encore beaucoup a faire dans la region sahelienne. II est bien connu que les recherches nationales comme inter-nationales ont obtenu dans la region des resultats satisfaisants mais qui n'ont pas toujours eu lesapplications voulues faute, non seulement de moyens financiers suffisants, mais aussi de methodesreellement adequates pour I'application des resultats. C'est ainsi que dans le projet recent etudie parI'lnstitut du Sahel sur ('amelioration des mils, sorgho et niebe, I'accent a ete mis en priorite en dehorsde la formation et des echanges d'experience entre chercheurs, sur le transfert, par les essaismultilocaux, des varietes selectionnees et eprouvees dans certains Etats.

L'lnstitut du Sahel oeuvrera dans le cadre de ces essais a trouver des methodes adequates en vuede la maltrise des differentes techniques liees a la diffusion de ces varietes en milieu paysan.

Nous avons parte du transfert de technologic comme si le paysan n'etait appele qu'a recevoir etqu'en retour il n'etait pas createur de techniques. C'est Ia sans doute mal apprecier la capacite despaysans saheliens. Dans le milieu traditionnel des techniques nombreuses existent relatives auxmethodes culturales adaptees aux differents types de sol, a la selection des semences et leursconservations ainsi qu'a la lutte contre les parasites et les depredateurs. Ces techniquestraditionnelles bien que n'ayant qu'un caractere local sont tres adaptees aux conditionseconomiques et sociales du paysan.

Les autorites de recherches et de developpement devraient se pencher davantage sur cestechniques, les ameliorer en vue de leur diffusion qui sera sans doute plus rapide et moins onereuseparce que produites par le genie meme de ces populations.

Avant de terminer mon intervention, j'aimerais remercier I'lCRISAT pour I'invitation faite a l'lnstitut du Sahel a participer a ce colloque et remercie tout le personnel pourl'excellent accueil quinous a ete reserve.

311

Appendix II

Part icipants and Observers

Participants

A b e r g , Ewer tDepartment of Plant HusbandrySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesS-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden

A d i v i Reddy, A .Director of ExtensionAndhra Pradesh Agricultural UniversityRajendranagarHyderabad 500 030, India

Agb le , W. K.Director, Crops Research InstituteCouncil for Scientific and Industrial ResearchP.O. Box No. 3785Kumasi, Ghana

Ajaka iye , MichaelActing Director of the Agricultural Extension and Re-

search Liaison ServicesAhmadu Bello UniversityPMB 1044Zaria, Nigeria

Akad i r i -Soumai la , K. O.Coordinator, OAU-STRC/SAFGRAD ProjectB.P. 1783Ouagadougou, Upper Volta

A laga rswamy, G.Plant Physiologist, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Ande rson , D. T.1

Canadian Principal AdvisorAll India Coordinated Research Project for Dryland

Agriculture2-2-58/60 AmberpetHyderabad 500 013, India

Ange lo , S.J.Vice ChancellorC. S. Azad University of Agriculture and TechnologyKanpur 208 002, India

Annappan , R. S.Senior Scientist (Pulses)AICPIP, Department of Agricultural BotanyTamil Nadu Agricultural UniversityCoimbatore 641 003Tamil Nadu, India

1. Present address: Canada Agriculture Research Station,Lathbridge, Alberta, T1J YB1, Canada.

Appadura i , R.Professor (Millets) and Head,Department of Agricultural BotanyTamil Nadu Agricultural UniversityCoimbatore 641 003Tamil Nadu, India

A t h w a l , D. S.Program Officer, AsiaInternational Agricultural Development Service1133 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, N.Y. 10036, USA

A t w a l , A . S .Dean, Postgraduate StudiesPunjab Agricultural UniversityLudhiana 141 001Punjab, India

Badruddoza, K. M.Director, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute87, Pioneer Road, KakrailDacca-2, Bangladesh

Bakhet la , D. R. C.Entomologist (Oilseeds)Department of Plant BreedingPunjab Agricultural UniversityLudhiana 141 001Punjab, India

Balasubramanian, V.Associate Project Coordinator (Plant Physiology)All India Coordinated Research Project for Dryland


Bapat, D. R.Sorghum BreederMahatma Phule Krishi VidyapeethRahuri 413 722, India

Barah, B. C.2

Economist, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Bent ley, C. F.3

Department of Soil ScienceUniversity of AlbertaEdmonton, Alberta T6G 2E3, Canada

2. Present address: Department of Economics, School ofSocial Sciences, Central University of Hyderabad, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad 500 001, India.

3. Present address: 13103-66 Avenue, Edmonton, AlbertaT6H 1Y6, Canada.

315

Bid inger , F. R.Principal Plant Physiologist ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Binswanger , H. P.4

Principal Economist, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

B lumensche in , A l m i r oDirector, Centro Nacional de Pesquisas- Arroz e

FeijaoBR 153, Km 4-Goiania/AnapolisCaixa Postal 17974,000 -Goian ia, Goias, Brazil

B u n t i n g , A. H.Professor, University of ReadingPlant Science LaboratoriesWhiteknightsReading RG6 2AS, UK

Bur fo rd , J. R.Principal Soil Chemist, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Charreau, C.Project LeaderICRISAT West African Cooperative ProgramB.P. 3340Dakar, Senegal

Chhikara, C. B.Director of Farms, Haryana Agricultural UniversityHissar 125 004Haryana, India

Chowdhury , S. L.5

Project DirectorAll India Coordinated Research Project for Dryland

Agriculture2-2-58/60, AmberpetHyderabad 500 013, India

Chutikul, K.Dean, Faculty of AgricultureKhon Kaen UniversityKhon Kaen, Thailand

4. Present address: Employment and Rural DevelopmentDepartment, World Bank, 1818 H Street .N. W.,Washington, D.C. 20433, USA.

5. Present address: 8/4 Haryana Agricultural University,Old campus, Hissar 125 004, Haryana, India.

C r a w f o r d , Sir JohnChancellor, Australian National UniversityP.O. Box 4 Canberra ACT 2600Australia

Cummings , R. W.Chairman, Technical Advisory Committee, CGIAR812 Rosemont AvenueRaleigh, N.C. 27607, USA

Daulat S inghProfessor and Head,Department of Agricultural Extension and TrainingC. S. Azad University of Agriculture and TechnologyKanpur 208 002, India

Davies, J. C.Director for International Cooperation, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Desai , N. D.Research Scientist (Oilseeds)Gujarat Agricultural UniversityJunagadh 362 001, India

Dogge t t , H.Associate Director, International Development Re-

search CentrePrivate BagPeradeniya, Sri Lanka

Dwarakana th , R.Vice Chancellor, University of Agricultural SciencesHebbal 560 024Bangalore, India

Dyemkouma , D.Director, Kamboinse Research StationB.P. 476, Ouagadougou, Upper Volta

Forbes, J. O.6

Canadian AdvisorAll India Coordinated Research Project for Dryland


Garg, A. C.Director (Dry Farming)Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation(Department of Agriculture)Government of IndiaNew Delhi, India

6. Present address: 206 Balfour Avenue, Winnipeg, Man-itoba R3L IN5, Canada.

316

Gibbons, R. W.Leader, ICRISAT Groundnut Improvement ProgramPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

G i l l , K. S.Professor and Dean, College of AgriculturePunjab Agricultural UniversityLudhiana 141 001, India

G i l l , T. S.Sr. Program Manager-AgricultureDevelopment Support Bureau-AgricultureUS Agency for International DevelopmentDepartment of StateWashington, D.C. 20523, USA

Gowda , B. T. S.Plant Scientist (Sorghum)Regional Research StationUniversity of Agricultural SciencesKrishinagar, Dharwar 580 005Karnataka, India

Green, J . M.7

Leader, ICRISAT Pulse Improvement ProgramPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Grewa l , J . S.Senior Plant PathologistDivision of Mycology and Plant PathologyIndian Agricultural Research InstituteNew Delhi 110 012, India

Gupta , S. C.8

Plant Breeder, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Hagberg, A rneDirector, Swedish Seed AssociationS 26800 Svalov, Sweden

Har inarayana, G.Project Coordinator (Millets)All India Coordinated Millets Improvement ProjectCollege of AgriculturePune 411 005, India

7. Present address: Northrup King Seed Company, P.O.Box 1127, Laurinburg, N.C. 28352, USA.

8. Presently ICRISAT Millet Breeder, CNRA, B.P. 41, BambeySenegal.

House, L. R.9

Plant Breeder (Sorghum), ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Hutch inson, F. E.Chairman, Joint Research CommitteeBoard for International Food and

Agricultural DevelopmentUS Agency for International DevelopmentWashington, D.C. 20523, USA

Jackson , J. C. B.First Secretary (Development Assistance)Australian High Commission in India1/50 G. Shantipath, ChanakyapuriNew Delhi 110 021, India

Jambunathan, R.Principal Biochemist, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Josh i , A. B.Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Phule Krishi VidyapeethRahuri 413 722, District AhmednagarMaharashtra, India

Kal inga, A. A.Ministry of Agriculture and Natural ResourcesP.O. Box 30134Capital CityLilongwe-3, Malawi

Kampen, J .Principal Agricultural Engineer, Soil and Water

ManagementICRISAT, Patancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Kane, Nal la OmarDirecteur GeneralInstitut du SahelB.P. 1530Bamako, Mali

Kanwar , J . S .Director of Research, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Kanwar S inghDirector of Research, Haryana Agricultural UniversityHissar 125 004Haryana, India

9. Presently Leader, Sorghum Improvement Program, IC-RISAT

317

Khanna, S. S.Director, Project-cum-Plan FormulationHaryana Agricultural UniversityHissar 125 004Haryana, India

K idd , D. W.Canadian Advisor, TrainingAll India Coordinated Research Project

for Dryland Agricultrue2-2-58/60 AmberpetHyderabad 500 013, India

Ki rpa l S ingh , K.Director of Food Technology Processing and

MarketingPunjab Agricultural UniversityLudhiana 141 001Punjab, India

Kobo r i , IwaoDepartment of GeographyFaculty of ScienceUniversity of TokyoHongo 7 - 3 - 1 , Bunkyo-kuTokyo, Japan

K o r t w e g , Cors t iannAccelerated Crop Production OfficerOAU-STRC/SAFGRAD Project, USAID/American

EmbassyB.P. 35, Ouagadougou, Upper Volta

Krantz , B. A.Emeritus, Soil and Water SpecialistUniversity of California179 Hoagland HallDavis, California 95616, USA

Kr ishna M u r t h y , K.Director of Research, University of Agricultural

SciencesHebbal 560 024Bangalore, India

Kumazawa, K i k u oProfessor, Plant Nutrition and Fertilizers LaboratoryFaculty of AgricultureUniversity of TokyoBunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan

Lamba, P. S.Vice Chancellor, Haryana Agricultural UniversityHissar 125 004Haryana, India

Lampe, KlausDeutsche Gesellschaft far Technische

Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbHDag-Hammarskjd'ld-Weg 1 D-6236 Eschborn 1 Postfach 5180, Federal Republic of Germany

Lateef, S.S.Entomologist, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Laxman S inghProject DirectorAll India Coordinated Pulses Improvement ProjectIARI Regional StationKanpur 208 024, India

L i p t on , M .Institute of Development StudiesUniversity of SussexBrighton, Sussex BN1 9RE, UK

Madhava Menon , P.Director, Directorate of Millets DevelopmentGovernment of India, Ministry of Agriculture

and Irrigation4 Krishnamachari RoadMadras 600 034, India

Mahad ik , C. N.Millets SpecialistCollege of AgricultureGwalior 474 002, India.

M 'Bod j , MahawaDirecteur, CNRA de BambeyB.P. 51, Bambey, Senegal

Mal lanna, K. N.Ragi Specialist and Associate CoordinatorGKVK Farm, University of Agricultural SciencesBangalore 560 065, India

Mashler , W. T.

Director, Division for Global and InterregionalProjects

The United Nations Development ProgrammeOne United Nations PlazaNew York, N.Y. 10017, USA

M c S w a i n , A r l anUSAID Project OfficerOAU-STRC/SAFGRAD ProjectB.P. 35, Ouagadougou, Upper Volta

Me lv i l l e , A. R.Spearpoint CottageKenningtonAshford, KentTN24 9QP, UK

318

Mengesha, M. H.Leader, ICRISAT Genetic Resources UnitPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Moss , J . P.Principal Cytogeneticist, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

M u r t h y , A. S.Training Officer, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

M u r t h y , D. S.Plant Breeder (Sorghum), ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Na idu , N. A.Additional Director of AgricultureDirectorate of AgricultureFateh Maidan, Hyderabad 500 001, India

Natara jan, M.Agronomist, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Ndungu ru , B. J .Head, Crop Science DepartmentUniversity of Dar-es-SalaamMorogoro, Tanzania

None, Y. L.10

Plant Pathologist, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

N igam, S. N.Plant Breeder (Groundnut), ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Oswa l t , D. L.Principal Training Officer, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Panabokke , C. R.Director, Agricultural Research DivisionDepartment of AgricultureNo. 1 Sarasavi MawathaPeradeniya, Sri Lanka

10. Presently Leader, Pulse Improvement Program, ICRISAT.

Pantast ico , E. B.Director, CRD, PCARRLos Banos, LagunaThe Philippines

Parameswarappa, R.Sorghum Breeder, Dharwar CampusUniversity of Agricultural SciencesKrishinagar, Dharwar 580 005Karnataka, India

Paroda, R. S.Professor and Head, Department of Plant BreedingHaryana Agricultural UniversityHissar 125 004, Haryana, India

Parvatikar, S. R.Physiologist, AICSIPAgricultural Research StationUniversity of Agricultural SciencesP.B. 18, Bijapur 586 101, India

Pat tanayak, C. M.Plant Breeder (Sorghum), ICRISATB.P. 1165, Ouagadougou, Upper Volta

Pat i l , G. D.Oilseeds Specialist, Agricultural Research StationMahatma Phule Krishi VidyapeethJalgaon 425 001, Maharashtra, India

Pat i l , N.D.Chief Scientist, All India Coordinated Research

Project for Dryland Agriculture145 Railway Lines, Sholapur 413 001, India

Pat i l , S. V.Director of InstructionDharwar Campus, University of Agricultural SciencesKrishinagar, Dharwar 580 005Karnataka, India

Phi l l ips, R. W.Deputy Director GeneralFood and Agriculture Organization of the UNVia delle Terme di Caracalla00100 Rome, Italy

Prasad, M. N.Associate Professor (Breeding)AICSIP, Department of Agricultural BotanyTamil Nadu Agricultural UniversityCoimbatore 641 003, India

Prat t D. J.Director, ILCAP.O. Box 5689Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

319

Prihar, S. S.Professor of Soil PhysicsPunjab Agricultural UniversityLudhiana 141 004, India

Ramanu jam, S.Pulse Coordinator, Pulse Improvement ProjectDivision of GeneticsIndian Agricultural Research InstituteNew Delhi 110 012, India

Randhawa, N. S.Deputy Director GeneralIndian Council of Agricultural ResearchKrishi Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001, India

Rao, N. G. P.Professor of Eminence and HeadNational Research Centre for SorghumIARI, Regional Station, RajendranagarHyderabad 500 030, India

Reddy, M. V.Plant Pathologist, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Reddy, P. R.Professor and HeadDepartment of Plant PhysiologyAndhra Pradesh Agricultural UniversityRajendranagar, Hyderabad 500 030, India

Reed, W.Principal Entomologist, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Risopoulos, S.A.Deputy Executive SecretaryTechnical Advisory Committee, CGIARFood and Agriculture Organization of the UNVia delle Terme di Caracalla00100 Rome, Italy

Roy, R. N.Chief Agronomist and Head, Agricultural Sciences

DepartmentThe Fertilizer Association of IndiaNear Jawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew Delhi 110 067, India

Ryan, J. G.Leader, ICRISAT Economics ProgramPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Sahrawat , K. L.Soil Scientist, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Sauger, LouisDirecteur General, ISRAB.P. 3120, Dakar, Senegal

Saxena, H. P.Senior Entomologist and Principal Investigator

(Pulses)Indian Agricultural Research InstituteNew Delhi 110 012, India

Sekhon , G. S.Director, Potash Research Institute of IndiaVandhana, 8th Floor11 Tolstoy MargNew Delhi 110 001, India

Senanarong, A m p o lDirector of Field Crops DivisionDepartment of AgricultureBangkhen, Bangkok-9, Thailand

Seth i , Har ishDirector, Directorate of Oilseeds DevelopmentMinistry of Agriculture and IrrigationGovernment of IndiaTelhan Bhavan, HimayatnagarHyderabad 500 029, India

S bar ma , D.11

Plant Breeder (Pigeonpea), ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Shast ry , S. V. S.Director of Research, IITAOyo Road, PMB 5320Ibadan, Nigeria

Shet ty , S. V. R.Agronomist, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Subba Rao, N. S.Head, Division of MicrobiologyIndian Agricultural Research InstituteNew Delhi 110 012, India

11. Presently Plant Breeding Expert, German Agency forTechnical Cooperation, Agricultural Experiment Station,Nyankapala, P.O. Box 483, Tamale, Ghana.

320

Subbaraya lu , M.Associate Professor (Agronomy)AICSIP, Department of Agricultural BotanyTamil Nadu Agricultural UniversityCoimbatore 641 003, India

Subramanian , S.Chief Scientist, Agricultural Research StationTamil Nadu Agricultural UniversityCoimbatore 641 003, India

Swamina than , M. S.12

Secretary to Government of IndiaMinistry of Agriculture and IrrigationDepartment of Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentKrishi Bhavan, New Delhi 110 001, India

Swinda le , L. D.Director General, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Sy, BoubacarDirector of Cabinet for the Malian

Rural Development MinistryB.P. 61, Bamako, Mali

Tal ib, A. R.Agricultural ChemistGovernment of Jammu and KashmirSrinagar, India

Thomas, P. K.Head, Water Management (Agriculture) DivisionCentre for Water Resources Development and

Management"Renjit" Pattom,Trivandrum 695 004, India

Thakur , R. P.Plant Pathologist, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

T iwa r i , B. P.Dean, College of AgricultureJawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa VidyalayaGwalior 474 002, India

Thompson , H. L.Head, ICRISAT Information ServicesPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

12. Presently Member of the Planning Commission, Gov-ernment of India, New Delhi.

Traore, MoussaDirector, Sotuba Research StationB.P. 281, Bamako, Mali

Umal i , D. L.Assistant Director General, and Regional

Representative for Asia and the Far EastFood and Agriculture Organization of the UNMaliwan Mansion, Phra Atit RoadBangkok-2, Thailand

Val laeys, GuyDirecteur General Adjoint, IRAT110, rue de I'UniversiteParis 75340 Cedex 07, France

Venka teswar lu , J .Project Coordinator, All India Coordinated Project for

Dryland Agriculture2-2-58/60 AmberpetHyderabad 500 013, India

Vidya Bhushan, R. V.Project Coordinator, All India Coordinated Sorghum

Improvement ProjectRajendranagar, Hyderabad 500 030, India

V i k ram SinghProject Coordinator, All India Coordinated Research

Project for Improvement of OilseedsRajendranagar, Hyderabad 500 030, India

V i rman i , S MLPrincipal Agroclimatologist, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

von Oppen, M.Principal Economist, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Webster, B. N.Senior Research OfficerResearch Development CenterFood and Agriculture Organization of the UNVia delle Terme di Caracalla00100 Rome, Italy

Wi l ley, R. W.Principal Agronomist, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

321

Wi l l iams, R. J . 1 3

Principal Plant Pathologist, ICRISATPatancheru P.O. 502 324Andhra Pradesh, India

Observers

Arunacha lam, V.National FellowIARI Regional Station, RajendranagarHyderabad 500 030, India

Avadhan i , K. K.Regional Research StationP.B. 24, Raichur 584 101, India

Bhatnagar , R. K.Hindustan Fertilizer CorporationPlot No. 12, Malviya NagarBhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India

Bha t ta ra i , A. N.Department of AgricultureHarihar BhawanKathmandu, Nepal

B ier i , Fr i tzChief Project AdviserIndo-Swiss ProjectAndhra Pradesh Government Dairy FarmVisakhapatnam 530 010, India

Brammeier , He in r i chArbeitsgruppe, Tropische und Subtropische

AgrarforschungMesseweg 11/12, 3300 Braunschweig,Federal Republic of Germany

Chandrasekharan, D.Associate Professor (Soil and Water Conservation)College of Agricultural EngineeringTamil Nadu Agricultural UniversityCoimbatore 641 003, India

Dafoa l la , E. A.(Trainee from Sudan)All India Coordinated Sorghum Improvement ProjectRajendranagar, Hyderabad 500 030, India

13. Presently Acting Leader, Pearl Millet Improvement Prog-ram, ICRISAT.

Das, R. B.Senior Pasture Specialist (DPAP)All India Coordinated Research Project for Dryland


Ekladious, K. G.(Trainee from Egypt)All India Coordinated Sorghum Improvement ProjectRajendranagar, Hyderabad 500 030, India

Gerhard t , W.Economic Counsellor, Embassy of the Federal

Republic of GermanyChanakyapuri, New Delhi 110 021, India

Gov ind Rao, N. V.Additional Chief Technical Officer (Agriculture)Agricultural Banking DepartmentHead Office, State Bank of HyderabadGunfoundry, Hyderabad 500 177, India

Gov indaswami , S.Project Coordinator (Operational Research Project)All India Coordinated Research Project for Dryland


Gurmel S inghChief Scientist and HeadCentral Soil and Water Conservation Research

and Training InstituteDehra Dun 248 195, India

Hash im, M o h a m m a d Y.Acting Deputy Director General (Research)Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development

InstituteBag Berkunci No. 202Pejabat Pos Universiti PertanianSerdang, Selangor, Malaysia

lyer, A. Seshadr iInformation Specialist, University of Agricultural

SciencesHebbal, Bangalore 560 024, India

Ja iswa l , N. K.Director (Extension and Transfer of Technology)National Institute of Rural DevelopmentRajendranagar, Hyderabad 500 030, India

Josh i , N. C.Director, Central Plant Protection Training InstituteRajendranagar, Hyderabad 500 030, India

322

Khade, S. T.Senior Research Scientist (Sorghum) and Striga

PhysiologistPunjabrao Krishi VidyapeethAkola, Maharashtra, India

Khare, J . N.Hindustan Fertilizer CorporationPlot No. 12, MalviyanagarBhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India

K o o p m a n , G. J .Department of Agricultural ResearchRoyal Tropical Institute63 Mauritskade, 1092 AD, AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Koranne, K. D.Plant BreederCentral Soil and Water Conservation Research

and Training InstituteDehra Dun 248 195, India

Kunte , Anuradha (Mrs.) (Interpreter)School of Foreign LanguagesJawaharlal Nehru University, New Mehrauli RoadNew Delhi 110 067, India

L igh t f oo t , Cl iveEvaluation of Farming Systems and Agricultural

Implements ProjectAgricultural Research StationPrivate Bag 0033, GaboroneRepublic of Botswana

Mange, J. B.Sorghum Agronomist, Punjabrao Krishi VidyapeethAkola, Maharashtra, India

Mathu r , M. L.Deputy Director of AgricultureGovernment of RajasthanKrishi Bhavan, Bilwara, Rajasthan, India

Mehta , M. L. K.Regional Agronomist, Goverrment of RajasthanH.Q. Sumerpur (Pali), Rajasthan, India

M a t l o n , P. J.Principal Economist, ICRISAT/UNDPB.P. 575, Ouagadougou, Upper Volta

M u r t y , G. S.Chief AgronomistCoromandel Fertilizers Ltd.126 Sarojini Devi RoadP.O. Box 1689Secunderabad 500 003, India

Pathak, M. D.International Rice Research InstituteP.O. Box 933, Manila, Philippines

Pradhanang, A. M.Department of AgricultureHarihar BhawanKathmandu, Nepal

Radhakanth, P. K.Chief Engineer, Department of AgricultureChepauk, Madras 600 005, India

Rajendran, P.Assistant ProfessorDryland Agriculture Project(Kinathukadavu), Department of AgronomyTamil Nadu Agricultural UniversityCoimbatore 641 003, India

Rana, B. S.Scientist (S-2), National Research Centre for SorghumAll India Coordinated Sorghum Improvement ProjectIARI Regional StationRajendranagar, Hyderabad 500 030, India

Rao, I. V. SubbaAssociate Project CoordinatorAll India Coordinated Research Project for Dryland


Reddy, J . Rag ho thamVice-Chancellor, Andhra Pradesh Agricultural

UniversityRajendranagar, Hyderabad 500 030, India

Reddy, M. V.Professor and Head, Department of Plant BreedingAndhra Pradesh Agricultural UniversityRajendranagar, Hyderabad 500 030, India

Russel l , J. F. A.Agriculturist, The World Bank1818 H Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20433, USA

Samphantharak , KrisdaAgronomy Department, Kasetsart UniversityBangkok, Thailand

Sangi t rao, C. S.Sorghum Pathologist, Punjabrao Krishi VidyapeethAkola, Maharashtra, India

323

Sangave, R. A.Head, Department of BotanyMahatma Phule Krishi VidyapeethRahuri 413 722, District AhmednagarMaharashtra, India

Seraf in i , P. G.Principal Agronomist, ICRISATC/o. American EmbassyB.P. 34, Bamako, Mali

Sharma, J. C.Agronomist, Ajmer Division, Sobhag Club, Civil LinesAjmer, Rajasthan, India

Shekar , V. B.Sorghum Breeder, Punjabrao Krishi VidyapeethAkola, Maharashtra, India

S ingha l , Pushpa (Mrs.) (Interpreter)Asian African Legal Consultative Committee27 Ring Road, Rajput Nagar IVNew Delhi 110 024, India

Sinha, S. B.University Professor and HeadDepartment of Soil Science and Agricultural

ChemistryJawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa VidyalayaJabalpur 482 004, India

Subraman iam, C.Minister for Defence,Government of India, New Delhi, India

Swamina than , T.36 AnandlokNew Delhi 110 049, India

S w e e t m a n , L. T.C/o. Indo-U.K. ProjectCollege of AgricultureIndore 452 007, Madhya Pradesh, India

Tomar , R. S.AgronomistRARS, BhurP.O. Gaylegphug, Bhutan

Wahabudd in A h m e d , A . (Mrs.)Chairman, Bharatiya Grameen Mahila SanghManjli Begum Haveli, ShahalibandaHyderabad 500 002, India

Yadav, S. C.National Bureau of Plant Genetic ResourcesIARI Campus New Delhi 110 012, India

324

Published byInternational Crops Research Institute

for the Semi-Arid TropicsICRISAT Patancheru P.O.

Andhra Pradesh 502 324, India

I C R I S A T

Internat iona l Crops Research Institute for t h e Semi -Ar id Tropics

I C R I S A T Patancheru P.O.

Andhra Pradesh 5 0 2 3 2 4 , India

development and transfer of technologyoar.icrisat.org/658/1/ra_00022.pdftransfer of technology as...

Documents